Material Cause of the Universe

[devotee]

Namaste,

The Brahman is unchanging and indivisible. Mandukya Upanishad talks of Brahman being "Chatushpaad" ... that which has four parts. Now, that said, how can Brahman remain unchanging and indivisible ? Kathopanishad says that "The Self came from nothing and nothing comes from It. It is unborn, eternal and most ancient. It is not killed when the body is killed." (Kath. 2.18). Now, if nothing ever came from It (i.e the Brahman, the Self) then Brahman can't be the material cause of this universe. Moreover, as before and after creation Brahman remains unchanged, then also, Brahman being indivisible and unchanging can't be material cause of this universe.

If we read MAndukya Upanishad carefully, it talks of all the four parts of Brahman/Self. However, when it talks of Turiya i.e. the fourth state, it says, "This is Self and this has to be known". If that is so, what happens to the three parts described earlier in the Upanishad ? Do they exist or they don't ? If they exist, why does MAndukya Upanishad says that Turiya is Self ignoring the first three states ?

Here we go into the shelter of Vivarta vaad i.e. this universe actually is like illusory images and it has no real existence. But if that is truly so, then how does it act with so much consistency and intelligently ? How can an illusory image act with individuality and with intelligence of its own ?

Before going further, I would like to hear the views of our esteemed friends on this forum who have inclination towards Advaita discussion.

OM

[wundermonk]

Per Advaita and my understanding of it, the material cause of the universe is Prakriti/Maya/false cognition.

E.g. the material cause of a snake is the rope + our miscognition of rope as snake. In this example, rope is analogous to Brahman and snake, or more precisely our perception of the snake, is due to miscognition/maya/prakriti.

[Nirguna]

Namaste devotee,

I'm not sure about the four parts of Brahman, so I will not be answering to avoid misconceptions.

Kathopanishad says that "The Self came from nothing and nothing comes from It. It is unborn, eternal and most ancient. It is not killed when the body is killed." (Kath. 2.18). Now, if nothing ever came from It (i.e the Brahman, the Self) then Brahman can't be the material cause of this universe. Moreover, as before and after creation Brahman remains unchanged, then also, Brahman being indivisible and unchanging can't be material cause of this universe.

As I understand it, Brahman cannot be the cause nor the effect of the material world, seeing as Brahman is eternal, all-perfect, changeless, etc. So an eternal/all-perfect Brahman cannot be the cause of the temporary, imperfect material world. Instead the world is superimposed on Brahman, while Brahman remains unaffected, changeless, etc.

Here we go into the shelter of Vivarta vaad i.e. this universe actually is like illusory images and it has no real existence. But if that is truly so, then how does it act with so much consistency and intelligently ? How can an illusory image act with individuality and with intelligence of its own ?

I think you are forgetting that Ishvara is the controller of MAyA, and he is the intelligent cause of the material world.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Namaste,
The Brahman is unchanging and indivisible. Mandukya Upanishad talks of Brahman being "Chatushpaad" ... that which has four parts. Now, that said, how can Brahman remain unchanging and indivisible ?

Let me, if I may, offer the following for one's kind consideration.

This ~parts~ idea is a pickle... Parts suggest 4, and the beginning of part 1 ends and then part 2 begins, this is how most consider parts. This needs to be understood, as the īśāvāsyopaniṣad informs us within the 8th śloka that īśa (brahman) is all pervading. We find this to be true then whence comes the 'parts' ?


Within the māṇḍūkya upaniṣad (2nd śloka) it clearly states 'catuṣpāt' or 4 pāta. We know this pāta as ~feet~ or as quarters. Yet we have not considered the notion of pāt. This pāt is rooted in pat . This 'pat' is defined many ways :

• own , possess
• to be fit or serve for
• to light or fall upon
• to rush on , hasten
• falling, some say fall forward
• to set in motion

Hence within the māṇdūkya upaniṣad we are offered several catuṣpāt ideas, yet this notion of 'pat' seen in its highest value of lakṣaṇārtha� (indirect or suggested meaning) is offered in the 9th through 12th śloka-s. It reviews the highest value of a + u + ṃ + _ .
This last part _ is called amātra� which is boundless, without measure and considered most auspicious.


With this in mind now the value of 'pat' reveals itself. It is via knowing catuṣpāt in full ( including the depth and breath of a + u + ṃ + _ ) one then sets in motion, falls forward , alights upon brahman.



praṇām

words

• lakṣaṇārtha = lakṣaṇa + ārtha
  • lakṣaṇa - indicating , expressing indirectly ; a mark , sign , symbol , characteristic
  • artha - meaning; having to do with
• amātra - without measure , boundless

[devotee]

Namaste,

Per Advaita and my understanding of it, the material cause of the universe is Prakriti/Maya/false cognition.

E.g. the material cause of a snake is the rope + our miscognition of rope as snake. In this example, rope is analogous to Brahman and snake, or more precisely our perception of the snake, is due to miscognition/maya/prakriti.

Yes. However, if material cause is MAyA, and this world is completely (illusory) MAyic including its material cause , then I am illusory including the material from which I am made of i.e. the essence ... if that is so, how can an illusory thing can know Brahman and "become" Brahman. A Non-Brahman cannot become Brahman. But as I i.e. the Jeeva is capable of knowing Brahman and becoming That by knowing Brahman, it must be essentially Brahman. Therefore, we can't say that Brahman is not the material cause of Jeeva. ShankarachArya lays all doubts to rest by declaring that "Jeevo Brahmaiva nAparah" (Jeeva is Brahman itself and nothing else).

That makes a very difficult puzzle to solve. Now we start feeling the limitation of our mind and start remembering what the Upanishads say, " From where the words turn back" ! We must explore further to reconcile these two conflicting conclusions drawn with apparently valid arguments.

Let me make it clear that the efficient cause of Brahman is nothing but MAyA but here let's concentrate on the material cause of it.

*****************

As I understand it, Brahman cannot be the cause nor the effect of the material world, seeing as Brahman is eternal, all-perfect, changeless, etc. So an eternal/all-perfect Brahman cannot be the cause of the temporary, imperfect material world. Instead the world is superimposed on Brahman, while Brahman remains unaffected, changeless, etc.

Here we go into the shelter of Vivarta vaad i.e. this universe actually is like illusory images and it has no real existence. But if that is truly so, then how does it act with so much consistency and intelligently ? How can an illusory image act with individuality and with intelligence of its own ?

I think you are forgetting that Ishvara is the controller of MAyA, and he is the intelligent cause of the material world.

Yes, MAyA is the efficient cause i.e. which acts for making this universe manifest as Brahman without any effect of MAyA, doesn't act ... there can't be any creation, maintenance and destruction of the worlds without MAyA.

Regarding your confusion over "ChatuspAt", Yajvan has given a very beautiful explanation and we will see if we can add something more to it.

Hence within the māṇdūkya upaniṣad we are offered several catuṣpāt ideas, yet this notion of 'pat' seen in its highest value of lakṣaṇārtha� (indirect or suggested meaning) is offered in the 9th through 12th śloka-s. It reviews the highest value of a + u + ṃ + _ .
This last part _ is called amātra� which is boundless, without measure and considered most auspicious.
With this in mind now the value of 'pat' reveals itself. It is via knowing catuṣpāt in full ( including the depth and breath of a + u + ṃ + _ ) one then sets in motion, falls forward , alights upon brahman.

A very nice explanation indeed. However, I have a simple and yet effective model to explain the four "paat" of Brahman. A Rupee has four quarter within it and yet it is Rupee. The quarters in the Rupee don't divide the Rupee and yet they are perceived to be there. Carrying this idea a little further, let's remember that Fourth (amAtrA, Turiya) i.e. Nirguna Brahman is all. Then comes the third i.e. NirguNa Brahman ===> Nirguna Brahman + MAyA ===> SagunA Brahman (Ishvara) ===> This World (Waking state, Vishva, Gross world) + the world before birth and after after death (the Dreaming state, Subtle world, Taijasa).

So, Nirguna Brahman is without parts and yet under the influence of MAyA it acts as Saguna Brahman (Ishvara) and creates and maintains two worlds.

OM

[brahman]

.

Dear Devotee,


IMHO

Namaste,

The Brahman is unchanging and indivisible. Mandukya Upanishad talks of Brahman being "Chatushpaad" ... that which has four parts. Now, that said, how can Brahman remain unchanging and indivisible ? Kathopanishad says that "The Self came from nothing and nothing comes from It. It is unborn, eternal and most ancient. It is not killed when the body is killed." (Kath. 2.18). Now, if nothing ever came from It (i.e the Brahman, the Self) then Brahman can't be the material cause of this universe. Moreover, as before and after creation Brahman remains unchanged, then also, Brahman being indivisible and unchanging can't be material cause of this universe.


OM

�having created that entered into that� - tat srishtva tadevanu pravisat (Taiterya 2:6)

�then the self has entered into the body(up to the tip of the nail)- sa esha iha pravishtah (Brihadaranyaka 1:4:7)

�having made an opening in the sutur of the skull itself, he entered through this door- sa ethameva seemanam vidaryiathaya dwara prapadyatha (Aitareya1:3:12)

... as expounds Shruti.

What should be the material cause for these noble creations?

Namaste,



If we read MAndukya Upanishad carefully, it talks of all the four parts of Brahman/Self. However, when it talks of Turiya i.e. the fourth state, it says, "This is Self and this has to be known". If that is so, what happens to the three parts described earlier in the Upanishad ? Do they exist or they don't ? If they exist, why does MAndukya Upanishad says that Turiya is Self ignoring the first three states ?



OM

We treat Mandukya Upanishad more methodologically, sectioning it into three distinct refer-ences.

Mantra 1 to 2 is equated with, �Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma� (all indeed is Brahman).

Rest of the Upanishad depicts how this �Sarvam� or everything is to be assimilated and how it is to be equated with the syllable Aum. That is from 3- 7 we analyze what does the syllable aum denotes and connotes or the abhidheya side of it and then, 8-12 we analyze aum as a word or name or abhidhana.

Finally the seeker transcends both abhdhana-abhidheya duality and realizing the inseperable oneness of the two as Brahman itself by dialectical reasoning, which is in full agreement with that of the �a priori� , Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma�.

It�s too early for me to answer it in detail as I am still learning the structural methodology of this Upanishad.

Namaste,



Here we go into the shelter of Vivarta vaad i.e. this universe actually is like illusory images and it has no real existence. But if that is truly so, then how does it act with so much consistency and intelligently ? How can an illusory image act with individuality and with intelligence of its own ?



OM

Even if all these are illusory appearances like water seen in a mirage as Vedanta sees it, there should be reality, a substratum, that makes these appearances possible, like the requirement of a 'mother-of-pearl' for the silver to appear.

Because it is Vivarta in Vedanta( the theory that the effect is merely an apparent transformation of its cause, like illusion), so there should be a cause underlying the appearance .

The cause here is nothing other than Brahman itself, so much consistent and intelligent as you put it.

MHO
Love

[charitra]

Aitareya upanishad offers insights into creation of material universe (as well as humans). As above said, after creating the human body with panchendriyas etc., Brhaman wonders as to how s/he/it can be present in and be part of the human body. IT makes a decision,and enters the human body through the ‘front end of parting of the hair (on the forehead). An indestructible Atman is thus created now. Aitareya also talks about creation of embryo from participation of both man and woman and again the entry of Atman into the embryo was described there as well (in the progeny).

On a sidenote, the sanskrutam word maya is inadequately and imperfectly translated as illusion in English language. This is a gross injustice to the concept of maya, IMO a new word ought to be coined in English or best simply quote it as maya as is, just like we left Sanskrit word mantra as is in English. Whereas Illusion denotes something perceived which is completely imaginary and non existent, maya is NOT nonexistent. It is coupled with lila or play. They both go hand in hand. Namaste.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�


devotee writes,

So, Nirguna Brahman is without parts and yet under the influence of MAyA it acts as Saguna Brahman (Ishvara) and creates and maintains two worlds.

This always causes a bump in the road...If the īśāvāsyopaniṣad informs us within the 8th śloka that īśa (brahman) is all pervading, then this māyā cannot be outside of it. We always end up chasing this idea down the rabbit hole, and various members' temper flare.

My views however remain anchored in the non-dual view of Reality offered through the window of kaśmir śaivism. In this view māyā is not outside of the Supreme. Why so ? Because the Supreme (anuttara�) is without break or pause �; the word that defines this is satatoditam.


This māyā then is not outside of the Supreme acting on it as a independent agent, but a ~tool~ the Supreme chooses to meter itSelf out from infinite to finite. When in ignornace this māyā is conflicting, yet when the dawn of fullness arises within an individual, this māyā is none-other then its play.


you mention,

I have a simple and yet effective model to explain the four "paat" of Brahman. A Rupee has four quarter within it and yet it is Rupee. The quarters in the Rupee don't divide the Rupee and yet they are perceived to be there.

Yes a good view on this matter.

praṇām

• anuttara - chief, principle, that which cannot be surpassed.
  • an - a privative for 'a' = not.
  • uttara - the chief or prevalent result or characteristic ; superior
  • hence not + surpassable and therefore Supreme
• 'without break or pause' is some times called avicchinnātaparamārthaṁ, uninterrupted, yet the word I often use is satatoditam (satata + udita)
  • turyātīte bheda ekaḥ
    satatodita ityam || tantrāloka 10.283

[devotee]

Namaste,

.
‘having created that entered into that’ - tat srishtva tadevanu pravisat (Taiterya 2:6)
‘then the self has entered into the body(up to the tip of the nail)- sa esha iha pravishtah (Brihadaranyaka 1:4:7)
‘having made an opening in the sutur of the skull itself, he entered through this door- sa ethameva seemanam vidaryiathaya dwara prapadyatha (Aitareya1:3:12)
... as expounds Shruti.
What should be the material cause for these noble creations?

Very aptly quoted. However, some questions arise here :

a) "Creating something and then entering into it" makes us believe that the universe was created out of something which was not-Brahman as there was duality at the time of creation and while entering into It.

In my humble opinion, these sentences have been used figuratively by the Rishis to indicate that Brahman is the cause of creation and there is no duality between the universe and Brahman. This is because the NirguNa Brahman is avyavahArya and doesn't act. But I agree, here, that different schools of VedAnta see it differently.

b) Again "entering into human body through a skull", imho, has been used figuratively in poetic mood. In my opinion, it talks of SahsrAr as the suture which the gateway to attaining God.

Even if all these are illusory appearances like water seen in a mirage as Vedanta sees it, there should be reality, a substratum, that makes these appearances possible, like the requirement of a 'mother-of-pearl' for the silver to appear.

Because it is Vivarta in Vedanta( the theory that the effect is merely an apparent transformation of its cause, like illusion), so there should be a cause underlying the appearance .

The cause here is nothing other than Brahman itself, so much consistent and intelligent as you put it.

You are right. The MAyic appearance has substratum as the Brahman (as you want to indicate). The substratum is the Cause which is responsible for providing the material cause and also efficient cause of this universe. It is settled that both the causes must come from Brahman otherwise, non-duality of Brahman is violated.

The sanskrutam word maya is inadequately and imperfectly translated as illusion in English language. This is a gross injustice to the concept of maya, IMO a new word ought to be coined in English or best simply quote it as maya as is, just like we left Sanskrit word mantra as is in English. Whereas Illusion denotes something perceived which is completely imaginary and non existent, maya is NOT nonexistent. It is coupled with lila or play. They both go hand in hand.

I fully agree with you. MAyA is not exactly illusion and non-existent. So, it is better to refer to MAyA as MAyA and the effect of MAyA as MAyic.

This always causes a bump in the road...If the īśāvāsyopaniṣad informs us within the 8th śloka that īśa (brahman) is all pervading, then this māyā cannot be outside of it. We always end up chasing this idea down the rabbit hole, and various members' temper flare.

Oh, no ! My idea is not to show anyone's views supremacy here in this thread but to understand the delicate points on this subject from various angles with contributions from knowledgeable members here.

I agree and Advaita VedAnta Gurus also agree that MAyA has its root in Brahman. This has to be accepted otherwise the non-dual nature of Brahman gets violated. My observation should be seen keeping in Advaita VedAnta's view that Nirguna Brahman doesn't act to cause this creation. So, IsA Upanishad is well explained from Advaita VedAnta's perspective too. Isa means God which is non-different from Brahman except that Brahman acts as God only with its power of MAyA and Brahman exists even without any trace of MAyA. So, there is nothing incongruent in saying that All this is pervaded by Isa or God. Actually, MAndukya Upanishad makes it clear by the term used for God, "Undifferentiated Mass of Consciousness", "Origin and end of the entire creation" etc.

This māyā then is not outside of the Supreme acting on it as a independent agent, but a ~tool~ the Supreme chooses to meter itSelf out from infinite to finite. When in ignornace this māyā is conflicting, yet when the dawn of fullness arises within an individual, this māyā is none-other then its play.

Yes. This appears to be a better expression.

I would give my views in the next post.

OM

[brahman]

.


Dear Devotee,

Namaste,


a) "Creating something and then entering into it" makes us believe that the universe was created out of something which was not-Brahman as there was duality at the time of creation and while entering into It.


OM

This argument does not hold good as the Shruti sees �Brahman is one without a second� and �all this is Brahman�.

Namaste,



Moreover, as before and after creation Brahman remains unchanged, then also, Brahman being indivisible and unchanging can't be material cause of this universe.



The substratum is the Cause which is responsible for providing the material cause and also efficient cause of this universe. It is settled that both the causes must come from Brahman otherwise, non-duality of Brahman is violated.


OM

As a profound self seeker, how do you easily reconcile these two different statements implicit in the same thread?

Love