Cause of Creation

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

Forwarded message from Shrisha Rao

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Shrisha Rao

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

> Ravi - there are several conceptual problems as well as
> Inconsistencies with scriptural statements that arise.  Shree Madhava
>        uses several rare puraaNaas to justify his analysis. Nobody
> can find
> those references nor available anywhere. Validity of a pramaaNa is
>       based on one ability to cross check that independently.

Just wondering -- when Sri Sankara cites the unavailable bAshhkala text
`avachanenaiva provAcha', etc. (see his BSB 3.3.17-18), would you reject
his notion that the Brahman is beyond words, because his authority on the
subject cannot be found?

As a follow-up to this, would you clarify what efforts you have made to
find such critical references, or else on whose authority you are saying
that they cannot be found?

> 3. Tat tvam asi swetaketo - which will not make sense in the
>      separateness - hence - Madhava  splits into atat tvam asi - you
> are
> not that and he justifies that the other two pramaNa-s - pratyaksha
> and anumaana confirms that we are not Iswara-s as everyone=92s daily
> experience.  The problem is why should scripture has to repeat nine
> times what we already know through day to day experience.  That
> actually violates the shaastra as pramaaNa - If it has to be
> justified as an independent pramaaNa it has to tell me something that

Actually, both readings are granted to be valid, and there are several
dualistic meanings given with `tat' as well.  The issue here is also both
the number of times that instruction is given in the CU, as well as the
accompanying illustrations -- `yathA pakShI sutreNa prabaddho dishaM
dishaM patitvA anyatra AyatanaM alabdhvA bandhamevopAshrayate, sanmUlAH
somya imAH sarvAH prajAH sadAyatanAH satpratishhThAH', etc. (just as a
bird, bound by a cord, having tried in vain to flee in various directions,
ultimately seeks refuge in that to which it is bound, so also, my dear,
all these beings are based in `sat', are supported by `sat', and are
situated in `sat').

Not one of the nine illustrations meant to explain the critical text
conveys Advaita, as accepted explicitly by Vachaspati Mishra, and not
disputed by Madhusudana Saraswati (whose solution to the problem is to
say that the illustrations have no correlation with the text).

> 4. Finally, if the upaadana kaarana is different from the nimitta
>          kaarana, we already have a problem - one limits the other.
> When
>        there are two real, neither one can be infinite or limitless.

But then again, if the Brahman is the upAdAna-kAraNa (as the clay is to
the pot) of the world as well, the world as a whole would become real as
well, destroying the concept that the Brahman alone is real while the
perceived world is not.

> 7. Dwaita has a big problem if there are distinctions and gradations
> in the jiiva-s  even in mukti. The cause of suffering is the very
> gradations and if that persists as intrinsic, one may claim that your
> pot is full but other fellow=92s pot is bigger than mine and that very
> bigger and better than mine is beginning of samsaara as we experience
> everyday.  They use the TU that says - manushya ananda is smaller
>       than deva-s etc.  But that is in the state of samsaara.  Once
> one
>        realizes that one is pure unqualified anannda - there are not
>     gradations in the ananda itself.

The TU is not describing the state of samsAra, based on your own (quite
correct) perspective that the merely obvious is not the subject of Shruti.

>         9. Shree Madhva ascertains that dvaitic statements are more
> in number
> than advaitic statements in Vedanta - hence by shear number that is
> more correct - hence primary emphasis is dviata and secondary only to
> advaita. and advaitic statements have to interpreted taking the
> primary teaching as the primary fact.

It is not that; rather, the Vedas are stated to be of unified purport
(vide `sarve vedA yatpadaM Amananti', `vedaishcha sarvairahameva vedyo',
etc.).  There is no "primary emphasis" or "secondary emphasis" as you
suggest (which is in fact the view of the Advaitic tradition).

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

>        Sadananda