V Subrahmanian, Friday, October 9, 2015 12:20 pm

The S?tasamhit? – Part 5

The S?tasamhit?
‘Ch?ndogya Upani?ad’

Part 5

Thus, on a very strong basis of ?ruti (verbal authority) and yukti (reasoning) it has been established that since in the ultimate analysis there is no way ‘bheda’, difference, can be established, the only way out for us is to turn to the ?ruti in matters of the absolute truth. And the teaching we get is that unlike what is witnessed in the world, there is no need for an efficient and a material cause distinct from each other in the case of the Ultimate Cause of the world.

The Upani?adic Brahman is devoid of any action, avikriyam, free of any connection/attachment, asa?gam, and of the nature of pure Existence, sadr?pam. How indeed such a Brahman can become the cause that has been described in the foregoing? If it is replied that it can happen due to M?y?, then the resultant duality, dvaitam, is inevitable. This is answered in the following:

Verse 33

????????? ????? ?????????????? ?????? ?
???????????????????????????????????? ?????? ? ???

????????? ????? for the mere perception ?????? power ????????? inert ?????? verily tamas ???????????? by all means ?????????? for knowers ????????? beyond proof ????? exists ?????? of ?ankara, ?iva

This power called M?y? is no way beyond merely being perceived. Its very ‘form’ is just being available for experience. It is called ‘tamomay?’ since it envelops Brahman that is pure Self-effulgent Consciousness. Even experts who are endowed with the capacity to determine things fail to define this power in terms of ‘it is existence’, ‘it is non-existence’, etc. There is this famous verse of the Vivekach???ma?i (109):

?????????????????????????? ??
???????????????????????????? ???
????????????????????????? ??
??????????????????????? ?????

It (M?y?) is neither existent nor non-existent, nor both; neither same as Brahman nor different nor both; neither made up of parts nor whole nor both. Most wonderful it is and beyond description in words.

Verse 34:

??? ?????????????? ????????????? ?????? ?
????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ? ???

??? by that ?????????????? who makes the impossible possible ??????????? by identification ?? alone ?????? associated ????? the Cause ?????????? is the creator of all ??????????? the destroyer of everything ? and ???????? O, gods.

M?y? is of the nature of making possible what is impossible. Brahman, Existence, the completely unattached entity, for the very reason that there is nothing other than Itself, is somehow made to associate Itself with m?y? by m?y? itself. Since M?y? is superimposed on Brahman, the three gu?as of the former appear to be present, associated, with the latter. Even though Brahman is Immutable, yet by the erroneous association with the three gu?as, sattva, etc. comes to be seen as the creator, (sustainer) and destroyer of the universe. It cannot be said that since m?y? is admitted, Brahman’s ‘one alone without a second of any kind’ will be violated. That which is superimposed can never be counted as a distinct second entity . A snake seen in error in the locus rope cannot be counted as a second to the rope.

Verse 35:

????? ? ??? ???? ??????????????????????? ?
?????????? ?? ???????? ???????????????? ??? ? ???

????? that which sustains ? too ??? always ??? Existence ? and ????????????? since it is Consciousness ?????????? O Gods ?????????? of Consciousness ?? however ???????? Reality ??????? ?? quite reasonable ???????? O Believers ??? always

Having established the Secondless nature of Brahman, the Existence nature of Brahman is also being established. On the strength of the Vedic passage ‘vijñ?nam ?nandam brahma’ (B?. Up. 3.9.28) [‘Brahman is Consciousness Bliss’], we understand that Brahman, the Universal Cause, is Pure Consciousness. The reasoning is: Brahman is Existence. Since It is of the nature of Consciousness. That which is distinct from Existence is not of the nature of Consciousness, just as the erroneous snake seen in a rope. Now, the eternally existent nature of Brahman is being established. When the right knowledge arises and the reality of the experience of the inert world is negated, the witness of this negation is Consciousness, Brahman. Hence, being ever existent, both before the rise of right knowledge and after that, Consciousness, Brahman the substratum of that unreal world is quite reasonably to be understood as eternally subsisting.

Why not we admit the unreality of the Consciousness too?

Verse 36:

?????????????????????????????? ????? ??? ?
???????????? ????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ???

????????????????????? of the inert rope-snake, etc. ???????? unreality ????? admitted ??? indeed ??? hence ???????? that Cause ?????O, Gods ???? Existence alone ??? One ? too ???????? eternal

Unreality is always a characteristic of the inert. That unreality distinguished from the Consciousness that is the Univerrsal Cause distinguishes and negates unreality that is pervaded by, witnessed by, Consciousness, as well. That which is unreal has been shown in the preceding verse to be witnessed by Consciousness. Since unreality is a witnessed (and not the Witnessing Consciousness), the status of being unreal is always a characteristic of the inert. It (unreality, mithy?tvam) can never touch Consciousness that is ever the witness of the inert unreality. Thus, the Universal Cause, Brahman, Sat, Existence, One only without any second, alone exists prior to creation. The experienced world, prior to manifesting, was none other than Sat alone. Sat, Brahman, alone is eternal; the unreal, non-existent, inert world is never existent. Even while it is perceived it has no existence of its own. The perceived world has for its being the reality of the existence and consciousness of the perceiver. The sentient perceiver alone forever perceives the world, both prior to its being negated due to right knowledge and after such negation too.

Verse 37:

??? ????? ?????????? ??????????????????? ?
?????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ? ???

??? this ????? entire ???? universe ?????? before ??? existence ?? alone ????? was ????????? O foremost of gods ???? non-existence ????? was ??? thus ????????? deluded ?????? say ?????????? excellent gods!

It is established in the foregoing that the Universal Cause Brahman is secondless and Pure Existence. Hence this universe that is experienced characterized by names and forms, which is an effect, before creation, was Sat, Existence alone. The world is available to us as endowed with the existence that is its cause and not as name-form. In this manner, having initiated the ‘satk?ra?av?da’ the doctrine of ‘the cause is Existence’, with a view to establish it firmly, the Veda alludes to the ‘asatk?ra?av?da’, the doctrine of ‘non-existence as the cause (of the world)’ which is admissible to and propounded by the ?unyav?din, the nihilist and refutes it. The relevant passages are covered in the Ch?ndogya Upani?ad:
From ?????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ????????? ??????? [‘Some say that in the beginning this was non-existence (asat) alone, one only without a second; and from that non-existence, existence was born.” (6.2.1) up to ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ‘”But how, indeed, could it be thus, my dear? How could Being be born from non-existence?’ (6.2.2)]. They base their stand on the logic that without destroying the cause the effect does not arise. We do encounter in the world that only from the destroyed seed, etc. the sprout, etc. emerge. Therefore non-existence alone is the cause. Extending this to the world scenario, the fundamental cause of the universe is such a non-existence alone. So say the nihilists, deluded as they are. What is the delusion in their stand? A person who is dead is incapable of siring an offspring. In the same way the cause that is destroyed cannot bring forth an effect. In the case of the emergence of effects such as a sprout, the constituents of the seed, in a particular combination and their parts do continue to exist and hence it is illogical that non-existence is the cause (of the effects). This is the delusion in their stand.

This alone is explained further:

Verse 38:

????? ????? ?????? ?????????????????? ?
???????????????? ???????? ????? ??????????? ??? ? ???

???? non-existence ? not ????? cause ?????? reasonable ?????????????????? in determining the nature of things ????????????? son-of-barren-woman ??? too ???????? of all ????? cause ?????? could become ????? himself ??? is it not?

Asat, non-existence, cannot be admitted to be the cause. By no means can asat be explained in the manner ‘it is such and such.’ The necessary characteristic of a cause is that it is an existent entity. Such a feature is absent in ‘asat.’ In case one admits that the asat does become a cause then even a barren-woman’s son, being non-different from the ‘asat’, can himself become the cause of everything. A woman who is incapable of producing an offspring is called ‘vandhy?’. Surely a reference to a vandhy?’s son is nothing but a statement of non-existence. Just as such a non-existent entity cannot be the cause of anything, asat, too, cannot be admitted to be the cause of the world.

Verse 39:

??????????????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ?
???????????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ? ???

?????????? by its inherent power ???? non-existent ? also ???????? of all ????? cause ???? becomes ??? thus ???? if said ?????? power ??? too ???? of non-existent ? not ????? exist ??? existent ?????? seed ???????? being observed

If one were to retort ‘even non-existence can be the cause of everything by virtue of its inherent power’, it is to be known that even that power is non-existent in non-existence. We observe power only in the existent seed and not in anything non-existent.

Part 1, Part 4, Part 6 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