V Subrahmanian, Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:06 pm

The S?tasamhit? – Part 3

The Essence of the Ch?ndogya Upani?ad 6th Chapter

18. ?????????????????? ?????????????? ? ?????? ?
?????? ???? ?????????? ????????????? ? ????? ? ?? ?

?????????????????? ???? If it is the relationship with the existence ?????? difference ???? its ? not ??? that ??? strong ??? even ??? then ???? defect ?????????? aforementioned ?????????? occurs ?? certainly ? without ????? doubt

Owing to the defect stated already in the previous verse, the third alternative (suggested in verse16) does not hold good. The idea is: The effect, if it is asat, cannot have an existence of its own, nor can it claim to have any relationship with anything existent.

19. ??????? ? ????????? ????????? ? ?????? ?
???????????????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?
????????? ??????????????? ??????? ? ???

??? therefore ???? of the non-existent ? there is no ????????? effect-status ????????? existent-non-existent ? never ?????? admissible ?????????????????? owing to two stated defects ??? thus ?????? effect ?? indeed ??????? from cause ???????? non-different ?? alone ?????? of difference ???????? impossible ?? certainly ??????? in truth

From the foregoing it is established that there can never be a relationship between the effect and non-existence. Nor can the effect be a mix of sat and asat, existence-non-existence since it is an impossible proposition. Since an effect cannot be proved to be really different from its cause, it is to be admitted that the effect is non-different from its material cause. That alone is the Ved?ntic position. In order to explain an absolute difference It is essential to prove the locus of difference. Such an exercise will result in several logical defects as explained above.

20. ?????????????? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ?
?????????????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ???

?????????????? giving the name ‘difference-cum-non-difference’ ?? is however ?????? ? ?? by no means ????????? tenable ??????? from the cause ??????????? the class of effects ?????????? are since non-different ? too ??????? absolutely

Since it is impossible to have existence and non-existence as attributes in the same locus, the proposition of difference-cum-non-difference too is inadmissible. Objection: If the effect is non-different from its (material) cause, how do we account for the perception of difference between the effect and its cause? Reply: Even though there is no difference between the effect and its cause in absolute terms (when properly enquired), yet, owing to ignorance, such a difference becomes perceptible, in the uninquired state. These two states are also called ‘vich?rita d???i’ and ‘avich?rita d???i.’ This alone is stated in the following two verses:

21. ??????????????? ????????????????? ?
??????????? ???????? ????????????????? ? ? ???

????????????? cause-effect difference ? and ????????????? the role of other causal factors ??? as also ????????? origin ? and ?????? destruction ? and ??? ?? in the same way ?????????? practical utility ??? ? and

22. ?????????????? ????? ?????????? ??????????

???????????? ? difference between name and form ????? all these ?????????? owing to error, delusion ?????????? happens

The perception of difference between the cause and effect, the play of causal factors such as the instrumental cause (the potter, for instance and the potter’s wheel), the thinking that ‘the pot has now been produced’ and later ‘the pot is destroyed’, the concept of practical utility ‘the pot is useful for storing water, cooking, etc.’, the idea of ‘this object is called a pot’ and ‘the pot is rotund, wide-mouthed, of red color, with a smooth finish, etc.’ – are all products of delusion. These verses bring to the fore the way the world behaves, ‘vyavah?ra’. The aim of Ved?nta is to highlight the delusion involved in vyavah?ra and point to the corrected vision. When one opens his eyes to the state of delusion and the corrected vision, one is freed from sams?ra. Liberation is the fruit of such an enquiry. This is the crux of the sixth chapter of the Ch?ndogya Upani?ad.

23. ??? ????? ???????? ???? ????????????? ?
??????????????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ? ???

??? Hence ????? all ?????? ? transformation ???? by word ?????? merely ???????? O believers! ????? ??? ‘It exists’ thus ??????? commenced ???????????? merely name ?? indeed ??? Existence ??? alone ‘is’ always.

Having established the non-difference between the cause and the effect, the pertinent Vedic passage is being annotated.

The Ch?ndogya Upani?ad 6.1.4 statement ‘v?c?rambha?am vik?ro n?madheyam, m?ttiketyeva satyam’ [‘The effects (pots, etc.) are no more than mere words; what is real is the clay (material cause) alone.’] is to be correctly understood and remembered always. This is the vich?rita d???i.

The effect is nothing but the cause alone that is made to appear differently as the effect. Since the effect is perceived to be ‘different’ owing to delusion, the entire category of effect, being a transformation, is mere word. That is, when we say ‘the effect is’, what we are doing is only attributing names and forms to the cause alone; there is no such thing as an effect that is other than, different from, the cause. Thus ‘pot, jar, saucer, etc.’ are mere names alone without any substance other than the clay, the material cause. At all states, stages, just as in the case of post-destruction, even during the pendency of the effect, what exists really is the cause alone. The states of ‘origin’, ‘sustenance’ and ‘destruction’ of a pot is, upon enquiry, known to be marked by the continued existence of the cause, clay, alone. The ideas of origin, etc, various names, forms, etc. are mere verbal transactions. When the real substance behind, beneath, these words/transactions is searched for, one will find nothing other than the cause alone subsisting.

24. ??????????? ????? ??????????? ?? ?? ?
???????? ?????? ????? ??????????? ????? ? ???

??????????? ????? as perceptions ?????? transformation ?????? ?? ?? is unreal indeed ????????? ?? ???? its causal form alone is ????? real ???????? as it is ??? always ????? O! gods

Objection: By declaring that the effect is mere words, it is implied that they are non-existent. Thus, how indeed can such a non-existent entity be identified with the Primal Cause, Brahman, as non-different thereof? [The idea is: how can something that is non-existent be equated with Brahman which is admitted to be verily Existence? Existence and non-existence are patently mutually contradictory.]

In reply to such a doubt it is clarified: There are two dimensions to an effect: The first is its being attributed with (in the case of a jar) a wide neck, rotund middle portion, etc. The second is: the inhering clay that is the cause. Between the two dimensions the first one as pertaining to the perception of the attributes is unreal and the second one as pertaining to the determining of the cause is (alone) real.

25. ??????????????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?
???????? ??? ????? ???????????????? ??? ? ???

??????????????? as non-different from the cause ?????? the effect ?????? is cause ?? alone ?? indeed ???????? as Existence ??? always ????? real ????? as different ?????? talk ???? unreal ??? indeed

Objection: There is one entity that is the cause which is invariably related to the effect. There is another entity that is the cause that is different. This results in contradiction of the advaitic cause. This verse is in reply to such an objection.

Reply: That entity which is existence-cause that is related to the effect and non-different from it (the effect) is none other than the cause itself; there is no difference between the two. The objector thinks that there are two entities: 1. that cause which is inherent in the effect and 2. that cause which exists as a cause prior to the coming into being of the effect. The reply clarifies that that which is experienced as the cause prior to its taking the form of an effect is not any different than that which is available in the effect as the cause. The cited Ch?ndogya passage ‘clay alone is real’ teaches that the cause alone is established as the real entity (by the Veda) while negating any reality attached to the effect. The Veda emphatically says ‘the clay alone is real’ and this is being brought out: To think and transact that the effect is an entity that is completely different from the entity that is the cause is based on ignorance.

26. ??? ?????????????????????????????????? ?
????????????? ?? ? ???????????? ????? ? ???

??? therefore ?????????????? by understanding the cause ????????????? all-knowledge ???????? Believers! ??????? by all means ??????? reasonable ?? indeed ? no ??????? doubt ????? exists ????? whatsoever

The truth that has been established in the foregoing is now conclusively restated. In the worldly parlance when the material cause such as the clay is known, the effects such as the pot and saucer, too, become known as non-different from the cause, as the cause itself. Hence, by knowing Existence-Brahman to be the cause of the entire creation, the entire effect (creation), too, is indeed known as non-different from the very essential cause. This is the reasoning that helps firm up the knowledge taught by the Veda.

27. ???? ???????? ?? ? ?????? ??????????? ?
???? ??????? ??????? ??????????????????? ? ???

??? ? and that ?????? cause ??? is one ?? indeed ? not ?????? different ? nor ?????????? different and non-different ???? diference ??????? everywhere ?????? is unreal ?? alone ?????????? the locus, etc. ?????????? since not demonstrated.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 4 Coming Soon…

Warning: Use of undefined constant php - assumed 'php' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /homepages/26/d757526286/htdocs/ADVAITAACADEMY/wp-content/themes/advaita/single.php on line 102

Recent articles