V Subrahmanian, Monday, November 9, 2015 5:39 am

The S?tasamhit? – Part 6

Ch?ndogya Upani?at
Part 6

Verse 40

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

?????????????? sprouting ?????? power ????????? of an existent ?? alone ??????? seen ??? indeed ?????? of the seed ??????? everywhere ? not ???? of non-existent (seed) ??? that ????????? hence not seen

From observing the cause-effect, that is, concordance and discordance rule, we conclude that only when a seed is existent does the sprouting power have a locus. In other words, an existent object alone can be held to possess any power to bring about any effect. Therefore, since the proposition made by the objector that a non-existent object can bring forth an effect contradicts what is seen in the world. Any attribute or power can be spoken of only in an object that exists. Non-existence does not qualify for any vyavah?ra.

Verse 41

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

?? that ??? too ?????? power ??? is existent ??? whether ?? or ???? non-existent ????? ?? ?? or both ??? ???? if existent ?? that ??? existent ?????? power ??? how ???????????????? dependent on the barren-woman’s son? ????????? dependence ??? of existence ?????? seen ??? indeed ???? in the world ? not ? indeed ???? of non-existence

Is the ?akti, power, of any object such as a seed, to bring forth any effect such as the sprout, of the nature of (1) sat, existent, or (2) asat, non-existent, or (3) both existent and non-existent?

(1) If it is existent, how can it be in the locus that is non-existent, asat, such as a vandhy?-putra (barren woman’s son)? A vandhy?-putra, verily non-existent, cannot be said to be endowed with any power, much less the power to procreate. Any power existent in a non-existent thing is neither seen anywhere in the world nor it is reasonable. A power such as this is seen in an existent object such as a seed and never in a non-existent thing like the human-horn. An object ‘A’, if it is a locus of something else, ‘B’, has to be an existent one only and never an asat. Therefore it is impossible to propose that asat possesses a power.

Verse 42

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

?? that ???? non-existent ???? if ??? how ?????? power ??????????????? efficient ???? non-existent

The alternative (2) above is now considered and rejected. If the power of an asat object is said to be asat, non-existent, too, then even this power (which is asat) is impossible to generate anything since it is itself non-existent, akin to a vandhy?-putra (barren woman’s son). In the previous case (1) the power was proposed to be of an existent nature. The defect, in such a case, was pointed out that an asat object cannot possess any power. Now, in (2), it is shown that a power, if admitted to be of a non-existent nature, it goes without saying that such a non-existent power cannot bring forth anything as effect.

Verse 43

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

????????????? barren-woman’s son ????? himself ? not ?? ever ?????????????? efficient ??? indeed ???????????????? ability to be efficient ? too ??? of existent ?? alone ?? indeed ??????? seen

The case (2) stated earlier is further explained. The power, if non-existent, is akin to a vandhy? putra. Such a one is never an initiator of any action. The ability to bring about anything exists only in an existent object and never in an asat. Thus, even if the ?akti, power, is admitted to be asat, it cannot bring about any change in the locus of that (non-existent) power. Such a locus will continue to remain incapable of producing any effect. This is stated over and above the earlier refutation that such a locus cannot indeed exist.

The rule that emerges from the above study is: (A) If a cause is non-existent, there will be no power in it that can produce something. (B) If the power is admitted to be existent, the locus of such power has to be existent too. There can be no existent power in a non-existent locus. (C) The power cannot be non-existent and yet be admitted to be able to produce something. The final conclusion is: an existent object alone can be the cause.

Verse 44

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

?????? power ????? existent-non-existent ?? that ???? if (admitted) ????????????? fraught with two defects ??? hence ?????????? by its own power ? too ???? non-existence ?? however ???????? of all ? ?? never ?????? cause

The third alternative (c) stated above under verse 41 – the creative power is both existent and non-existent – is now rejected, with reasons: the defects shown under both the alternatives (1) and (2) under verses 42, 43 and 44 will apply to this as well. That is, if the cause is held to be non-existent, asat, then the cases of its having the power to be sat, existent as well as asat, non-existent, will apply to this case (3) too. In (1) the defect is: an existent power cannot inhere in a non-existent locus and in (2) the defect is: a non-existent power cannot inhere in a non-existent locus; it (such a non-existent power) cannot produce anything. A locus that is non-existent is simply impossible. Such an entity can never be the cause of anything. No one will admit such an entity to be the cause of the world. Therefore it must, per force, be admitted that Brahman, the Sat, by its own power, is the cause of the world.

Verse 45

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

??????? therefore ?? that ???? this ???????? non-existence doctrine ?????????? is mere prattle ? not ?????????? reasonable ??? hence ??? Existence ?? alone ???????? of all ????? cause ? not ???? non-existence ???????? O, Believers!!

The ?ruti teaching alone is now being upheld, after the discussion involving the refutation of the doctrine of non-existence: ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????????? (“But how, indeed, could it be thus, my dear? How could Being be born from non-existence?’) (Ch?.up.6.2.2). The word ‘tu’ in the passage is the one that refutes the wrong doctrine. The doctrine of satk?r??a, ‘existence alone is the cause’ is emphatically stated so that the aspirants do not get deluded by the wrong doctrines and correctly understand the true vedic teaching: ???? ????????? ??????????????????? ? (‘All this before manifestation, was Sat, Existence, One only without a second, alone ’) (Ch?.up.6.2.1). Since the doctrine of ‘non-existence is the cause’ has no grounding on reason, it is rejected. By refuting that doctrine in the foregoing, the satk?ra?av?da has been established on strong reason. Sat, Existence, alone can be the cause of the creation. It is this Sat alone that is experienced by all as the existence in all worldly objects and events. Perceptions such as ‘the house is, the cow is, etc.’ have the ‘is’-ness representing the Ultimate Existence, the IS.

Verse 46

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

??????? ?? ?????? prior to creation, however, ??? ????? all this ??? existence ?? alone ????? was ?? indeed ?????? cause ??? that ? however ?????? cause ??????????????????? devoid of beginning and end ??? Sat, Existence ??????? non-dual

Having affirmed that ‘by knowing the One, everything stands known’, the Ch?ndogyya ?ruti advanced three analogies – clay and clay-products, gold and gold-products and iron and iron-products to demonstrate the claim: ekavijñ?nena sarvavijñ?nam’. Thereby the ?ruti established the non-difference of the effect from the cause. To the question ‘which is that entity the knowledge of which results in the knowing of all?’ the ?ruti replied ‘It is that alone, the Sat, Existence, before creation that all this (now manifest and perceived world) was before manifestation.’ This is none else than the Existence, Non-dual, Brahman. There is no second of any kind for It. There is no ‘another’ Brahman, there is nothing other than Brahman and there are no internal divisions in Brahman. Only if the world is admitted to be the effect, k?ryam, of Brahman, will the claim that ‘by knowing which everything is known’ be valid. Only if Brahman, the cause, is known, the effect, the world, becomes completely, truly, known. It is this knowledge that is the liberating one. One realizes that there is nothing apart from Brahman, the fundamental cause. In order to show that the world has emanated from Brahman, the Ch?ndogya ?ruti 6.2.3 says: ??????? ??? ????? ??????????? (‘It deliberated: Let me become many, be born excessively’).

The essential nature of that Cause, Brahman, is that It is free of beginning and end. In other words, Brahman has no cause that has brought It forth. It does not really have any effect. If the effect were to be admitted to be real, then the defect of the cause undergoing transformation and thereby being subject to destruction cannot be avoided.

Part 1, Part 5, Part 8 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