[Advaita-l] Is the non-difference between cause and effect?

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Raghava prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I raised the question because of the following flow of teaching  generally followed in the tradition.  kAryaM is not different from kAraNam as even pot is not different from clay. This is enough for jagan-mithyAtvaM with sad-brahma being kAraNam.  Yet the kAranopAdhi is not negated *at this point* although  jagan-mithyAtvam is established.

>  IMO, the flow of our understanding while discussing the kArya-kAraNa prakriya should be like this :  when we realize that the pot is NOT different from clay, the siddhAnta arises from it is that pot does not have its own existence (svatantrAstitva) apart from clay.  So, even when we realize that pot is nothing but clay, pot (kAryAkAra) continues to exist 'as clay' only, pot does not vanish in thin air as soon as you realize it is  the 'clay' nothing but clay.  But  this is something different from sarpa vanishes as soon as you realize the rope.  Because sarpa is kevala avidyA kalpita on the rajju, it will go as soon as we realize the rope.  So sarpa on the rajju is mithyAjnAna (buddhi parikalpita)  it will go after realizing there was / is / will only be rope.  So sarpa never ever existed hence it is avidyA parikalpita.  But jagat cannot be put in this category, that is the reason why bhAshyakAra categorically says :  jagat is NOT mithya like sarpa on the rope.  So what is jagat, jagat is pariNAmi nitya for which brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, jagat as mUla prakruti, as 'shakti' will always be there with brahman.  So, jagan mithyatvaM cannot be established if we are strictly stick to kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM.  

And so both kAraNa and kArya are both taken as existent at this point in the  flow.

>  Yes, and also we should remember that kArya (pot) does not exist 'as such' (pot as pot) apart from kAraNa (the clay).  

The next step therefore is to negate even kAraNopAdhi which then gives  rise to mahAvAkya understanding of nirvisheSham advitIyam brahma.

>  ItadAtmya idaM sarvaM tat satyaM sa AtmA tattvamasi, the word 'tat' described in the bhAshya as : jagatO mUlaM ItadAtmyaM etena sadAkhyena AtmanA Atmavat sarvamidaM jagat...See the tat pada is denoting the jagatO mUlaM, if we donot accept the existence of jagat how can brahman be its mUlaM?? The svarUpa brahman the kArya prapancha is ananyaM says bhAshyakAra in sUtra :  kAryaM AkAshAdikaM bahuprapanchaM jagat kAraNaM 'paraM brahma' tasmAt kAraNAt paramArthaH ananyatvaM vyatirekeNa abhAvaH kAryasya avagamyate...it is quite evident from this bhAshya vAkya that kAya prapancha and kAraNa 'para brahma' from the ultimate point of view 'ananyam' it is because we cannot assume a thing called 'pot' without clay as its upAdAna.  And it we think of the independent existence of 'pot' it is abhAva only.  

At this point we can make the stronger statement viz., jagataH svarupeNa niShedhaH.

>  as somebody said, if the svarUpa nishedha pertains to svarUpa of glittering silver in the nacre  then there is no qualms but if the svarUpa nishedha pertains to nacre itself then we are heading towards shUnyavAda.  And it is not advaita's cup of tea 😊  And Advaitins donot have any obligation to address this objection. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar