[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Hacker on bija and creation

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste  Venkatraghavan, Indeed, a very nice reply. I am not the one to
respond and any response would require a greater effort
, I believe, than most are able or willing to devote, however, I will
share.

Regards, Michael

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 1:21 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Very nicely presented Venkatraghavan ji. Thanks for the references from
> texts such as PrakaTArtha VivaraNam.
>
> Regards.
>
> On Fri, 23 Aug, 2024, 08:10 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sri Michael,
>> I hope you do not mind me intruding into your illuminating conversation
>> with Sri Sudhanshu. A few points on Hacker's article you kindly posted
>> before.
>>
>> 1) Hacker says "according to S's only definition, avidyA is the same as
>> adhyAsa" and quotes the sentence from the adhyAsa bhAshya "tametam
>> lakshaNam adhyAsam paNDitAh avidyeti manyante". However, that is not true.
>>
>> As we have shown through multiple quotations provided by Sri Sudhanshu -
>> wherever avidyA is used in connection with vyAkRta nAmarUpa (manifest names
>> and forms) in the bhAShya - Shankara has referred to such nAmarUpa as
>> avidyAkRta, avidyApratupasthApita etc - creations or projections of avidyA
>> - consistently.
>>
>> Names and forms are superimpositions (adhyAsAh) on Brahman. Therefore, it
>> follows to reason that according to Shankara, the adhyAsa that is name and
>> form, is avidyAkRta, avidyApratupasthApita, a product of avidyA. In the
>> sentence from the adhyAsa bhAShya quoted by Hacker (tametam lakshaNam
>> adhyAsam...), Shankara says that wise men consider adhyAsa, the product, to
>> be identical with avidyA, the cause.
>>
>> If as according to Hacker, avidyA is the same as adhyAsa, the multiple
>> references to nAma rUpa being products or creations of avidyA (avidyA-kRta,
>> avidyA-pratyupasthApita) would be incorrect in every form of causation -
>> except material causation.
>>
>> To explain - Normally, it would be inappropriate to refer to a product
>> (adhyAsa) as its cause (avidyA), if the cause were to be anything other
>> than a material cause - No one will consider a pot to be a potter, let
>> alone, wise ones - for example. However, if the cause were to be a material
>> cause, then it is quite appropriate to refer to a pot made of clay as clay.
>> Therefore, Shankara must necessarily hold avidyA to be the material cause
>> of adhyAsa, for the two statements "wise ones consider adhyAsa to be
>> avidyA", and "names and forms are creations of avidyA" to both hold true
>> simultaneously.
>>
>> This is the basis of satkAryavAda In Advaita. It is in this sense of
>> satkAryavAda, where the effect is identical with its material cause, that
>> Shankara employs the sentence - "wise men refer to this kind of adhyAsa as
>> avidyA".
>>
>> Hacker himself half acknowledges the material causation of avidyA
>> elsewhere -  "The second expression, avidyAtmaka, is employed with
>> satkAryavAda in mind: where the upAdhis are formed from avidyA as their
>> prime amatter, they are "of the nature of avidyA" (avidyAtmaka), since for
>> the satykAryavAdin the effect or product is identical with the material
>> cause."
>>
>> Therefore, Shankaracharya is not *defining* avidyA as adhyAsa, rather he
>> is *referring* to adhyAsa as avidyA.
>>
>> 2) Hacker also says " For S. avidyA is the same as mithyAjnAna, for other
>> Advaitins it is the cause for it".
>>
>> This is not true for all advaitins. In the Panchapadika, a commentary on
>> the Brahma Sutra, Padmapada too equates mithyAjnAna with avidyA, the
>> material cause of adhyAsa (a).  So too do the authors of the Ratnaprabha
>> (b), Prakatartha Vivaranam (c), Bhashyabhavaprakashika (d) and the Nyaya
>> Nirnaya (e).  It is only the bhAmati where the bhAShya reference to
>> mithyAjnAna, occurring in the phrase mithyAjnAna-nimittah found in the
>> adhyAsa-bhAShya, is interpreted to mean adhyAsa, which is caused by ajnAna
>> (f).
>>
>> Hence, it is not a universal truth that all Advaitins consider avidyA as
>> the cause of mithyAjnAna - as shown, at least 5 commentators of the Brahma
>> Sutra Bhashya of Shankara consider avidyA and mithyAjnAna as the same, like
>> Shankara himself. Therefore, the charge that Shankara's followers differ
>> from Shankara in considering avidyA and mithyAjnAna to be different, does
>> not hold.
>>
>> 3) Despite half-acknowledging the material causation of avidyA, Hacker
>> goes on to say "Nevertheless, in view of the frequency of avidyA-nimitta we
>> cannot draw the conclusion that S sees a *causa materialis* relationship
>> here either".
>>
>> This is a flawed analysis. In the ancient works of Vedanta - ie around
>> the time of Shankara and previous to his time, the term "nimitta" did not
>> come to exclusively refer to efficient causation. The clear and exclusive
>> differentiation in the usage of the terms "nimitta-kAraNa" to mean
>> efficient causation and "upAdAna-kAraNa" to mean material causation, is a
>> post Shankara development. Please note - I am referring to a development in *the
>> way the terms are used*. I am not rejecting the idea of avidyA's
>> material causation in Shankara's works (as Hacker and Sri SSS do), or
>> claiming (again as Hacker and Sri SSS do) an introduction of avidyA's
>> material causation as an act of post Shankara commentators.
>>
>> Why? The bhAShyakAra himself uses the term nimitta without strictly
>> meaning efficient causation in a plethora of places. Just as a very small
>> sample, see BSB 1.1.2 "प्रतिनियतदेशकाल*निमित्त*क्रियाफलाश्रयस्य",
>> "विशिष्टदेशकाल*निमित्ताना*मिहोपादानात्",  BSB 1.1.4 "धर्माधर्मतारतम्य
>> *निमित्तं*" , BSB 1.1.5 "चेतनत्वात्सत्त्वोत्कर्ष*निमित्तं*
>> सर्वज्ञत्वमुपपन्नमित्यनुदाहरणम्", BSB 1.1.23 "सतस्तत्त्वानवबोध*निमित्तो*"
>> -  this is a very small selection of the vast number of results that show
>> up for the word "nimitta" in just the BSB. There are many more references
>> where the term nimitta does not mean efficient causation. Therefore, the
>> mere use of the term does not necessarily imply that efficient causation is
>> meant or material causation is denied.
>>
>> Therefore, a word frequency based analysis is not something that we can
>> rely on to conclude that Shankara rejected material causation when he used
>> the term "avidyA-nimitta".
>>
>> 4) Hacker says "in his (Shankara's) case, avidyA is never designated as
>> material cause of the physical world". However this is an incorrect
>> conclusion.
>>
>> In BSB 1.4.3, Shankara says "अविद्यात्मिका हि
>> बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या", meaning, the causal power, referred to by
>> the word avyakta, is of the nature of avidyA. In KathopaniShad Bhashya
>> 1.3.11, he says "अव्यक्तं सर्वस्य जगतो बीजभूतमव्याकृतनामरूपं", meaning,
>> avyakta, being unmanifest name and form, is the causal seed of the world,.
>>
>> Hacker himself acknowledges that "In any case, there are several places
>> in the SBh where namarupe are quite clearly understood as a kind of prime
>> matter or primal state of the world. They are called in this reading "the
>> undeveloped namarupe".
>>
>> Hacker is referring to BSB 1.1.5 "तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये नामरूपे
>> अव्याकृते व्याचिकीर्षिते इति ब्रूमः". Shankara here is using the term
>> avyAkRte nAmarUpe, which Hacker translates as "the undeveloped namarupe",
>> which in Hacker's words is a "kind of prime matter", i.e. a material cause.
>>
>> Putting BSB 1.4.3, KaTha 1.3.11 and BSB 1.1.5 together, the conclusion
>> that we are invariably drawn to is that according to Shankara - avyakta, *whose
>> nature is avidyA *(BSB1.4.3), which cannot be said to either be
>> identical to Brahman or different from it, which is "undeveloped namarupe"
>> (BSB 1.15), is the causal seed of the world's names and forms (Katha
>> 1.3.11) - *ie avidyA, as unmanifest names and forms, is the material
>> cause of the world, which is manifest names and forms.*
>>
>> This is half acknowledged by Hacker when he says "the occassionally
>> occurring expressions avidyA-bIja and avidyAtmaka suggest, strictly
>> speaking,  a relationship of material causation". However, in light of the
>> "occassional occurrence" of the former two expressions in contrast to the
>> frequency of "avidyA nimittah", Hacker erroneously concludes that the
>> "strict interpretation" of the terms avidyAtmaka and avidyA-bIja as
>> material causation, has to be set aside.
>>
>> But as we have shown, the frequency of the usage of a term "nimitta" is
>> no basis to conclude that material causation is denied - nimitta has been
>> used even more frequently by Shankara to mean "cause" in a general sense,
>> and not to mean efficient causation, or deny material causation, at all.
>> The meaning and the context of each usage is to be separately analysed, and
>> one cannot apply a general rule that "nimitta" can never mean material
>> causation, according to Shankara - especially when there is contrary
>> evidence of Shankara referring to avidyAtma-bIja-shakti to mean a material
>> cause.
>>
>> 5) Interestingly Shankara refers to this avyAkRta nAma rUpa as
>> "tattva-anyatvAbhyAm-anirvachanIye" in the BSB 1.1.5 quote referenced
>> above. Hacker says "he (Shankara) never calls it (avidyA)
>> anirvachanIya...In the SBh the word occurs only as an adjective of
>> nAmarUpa".
>>
>> However, as shown in point 4 above, the anirvachanIya avyAkRta nAma rUpa
>> of BSB 1.1.5 *is* the anirvachanIya avidyA that we are referring to -
>> precisely because the avyAkRta nAma rUpa, which is avyakta (per the
>> statement of the identity - avyaktam...avyAkRtanAmarUpam in KaTha 1.3.11),
>> is avidyAtmikA (per the statement of the bIja shakti referred to as avyakta
>> being avidyAtmikA in BSB 1.4.3).
>>
>>
>> Clearly, there are several points raised by Hacker, as well as by Sri SSS
>> - whose scholarship, monumental efforts and devotion to the bhAShyakAra are
>> unquestionable - that are valid. However, the central themes of our
>> discussion, namely whether the identity between avidyA and mAyA, as a
>> consequence of which avidyA being the material cause of creation,
>> necessarily requiring avidyA to not be of the nature of absence, are all
>> well founded on a closer analysis of the prasthAna-traya-bhAShya of
>> Shankaracharya.
>>
>> I think I will stop here in the interests of time - I do not feel the
>> need to criticise Hacker, or heavens forbid, Sri SSS, for criticism's sake.
>> The purpose of this exercise is to merely prove the points above.
>> Therefore, I do not feel the need to quote Hacker's entire paper verbatim
>> and disprove every aspect of that work that I disagree with - just enough
>> to accomplish my purpose.
>>
>> *Non-Shankara-bhAShya references to mithyAjnAna occurring in the adhyAsa
>> bhAShya*
>> (a) PadmapAdAchArya - Panchapadika "मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः इति । मिथ्या च
>> तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानम् । मिथ्येति अनिर्वचनीयता उच्यते । अज्ञानमिति च
>> जडात्मिका अविद्याशक्तिः ज्ञानपर्युदासेन उच्यते । तन्निमित्तः तदुपादानः
>> इत्यर्थः ॥"
>> (b) Ramananda Yati - Ratnaprabha, "अध्यासस्योपादानमाह -
>> मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्त इति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानं
>> तन्निमित्तमुपादानं यस्य स तन्निमित्तः । तदुपादानक इत्यर्थः ।"
>> (c) AnubhUtisvarUpAchArya, Praktartha Vivaranam, Page 12,
>> Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani
>> Dravid Shastrigal
>> (d) ChitsukhAchArya, Bhashya-Bhava-Prakashika, Page 12,
>> Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani
>> Dravid Shastrigal
>> (e) Anandagiri AchArya, Nyaya Nirnaya, Page 12, Sharirakamimamsabhashyam
>> with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani Dravid Shastrigal
>> (f) Vachaspati Mishra, Bhamati, "पूर्वकालत्वसूचितमध्यासस्य
>> व्यवहारकारणत्वं स्फुटयति - मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः व्यवहारः ।
>> मिथ्याज्ञानमध्यासस्तन्निमित्तः ।
>> तद्भावाभावानुविधानाद्व्यवहारभावाभावयोरित्यर्थः ।"
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, 21:59 Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>>> I replied personally without noticing your public response. So I'm
>>> repeating.
>>>
>>> Namaste Sudhanshuji, Hacker mentions namarupa bijashakty-avastham from
>>> BSbh1.4.2-3 (text 2) in the abstract in my previous message.
>>>
>>> and here's another quote of particular reference on Namarupa and Avidya
>>> p74ff, "
>>> The renderingol avidyii into a material thing, the prime matter of the
>>> cosmos, was already widespread prior to S. in Vedantic and Vai�cyava
>>> cirdes. 33 He rejected it, to be sure, not with an explicit refutation
>>> but
>>> by means of his linguistic usage. That is to say, S. clearly always
>>> strove
>>> to follow the Upaniiads closely in his method of thought and terminology.
>>> But one simply cannot extricate the theory of avidyil as prime matter
>>> from
>>> those texts. On the other hand, one can base the theory of namarripa as
>>> the
>>> world seed on Upani�adic passages if, as shown above, one interprets them
>>> from the standpoint of the satkaryavada. Moreover, in pural)ic thought
>>> avidya is only another name for pralq-ti and does not connote an
>>> illusion.
>>> S. thus could have feared that the word would have been misunderstood in
>>> a
>>> dualistic-realistic sense had he employed it in the sense of "prime
>>> matter.'
>>> "
>>> Only proving Hacker's observations are FUNDAMENTALLY mistaken and not
>>> merely topically in error can you claim a superior understanding of
>>> bhasya.
>>> Hacker makes SSSS easy with an accounting of evidence and a technician's
>>> exegesis.
>>>
>>> Have you read Hacker? Maybe a point by point analysis - point you on the
>>> map :)
>>>
>>> regards, michael
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEn9w6H3_Ccc6rTSX21_SpOM_Y_M%3D%3Dk5DWFsNtWyR03ZFw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEn9w6H3_Ccc6rTSX21_SpOM_Y_M%3D%3Dk5DWFsNtWyR03ZFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDHhy9VOFr5KD3mqSaM_Gu75xwRzQibHO0R0Er3CA02vw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDHhy9VOFr5KD3mqSaM_Gu75xwRzQibHO0R0Er3CA02vw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>