Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Material Cause of the Universe

  1. #11
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Material Cause of the Universe

    Let me use this thread to explain a vAkyam which was unfortunately being used in the jalpa forums to bandy about a wrong understanding of shruti. It is highly relevant to the topic of the thread, so I prefer to explain it here.

    "ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti"

    Due to people like Vivekananda, the meaning is given as "Truth is One, but sages call it by various names" and such. This is a wrong interpretation by any framework of vedAntA.

    "Ekam Sath" refers to the sath vidyA of the chAndogya, ie, "SadEva soumyam idamagrAsIt, ekamEva advitIyam". Sath is described in the vidyA as the cause of the universe. "Ekam" establishes that this Sath alone is the efficient, material and instrumental cause of the universe, without a second.

    The rest of the vAkyA "vipra bahuda vadanti" refers to the fact that the universe composed of gross forms is actually the effect of the cause that is sath, ie, the sath has transformed into the variegated universe of names and forms.

    In the Vishishtadvaitic parlance, it means that the sath, which had the sukshma jagath and jivAs as its body, has transformed into sath, which had sthula jivAs and jagath as its body. It is referred to by many names and forms, which are the jivAs and jagath, and thus, "vipra bahuda vadanti" is nothing but "tat tvam asi", ie, the Brahman within sukshma forms is the same as the Brahman within sthula forms like Svetaketu.

    Whatever the case, Advaita or VA, material causality is the intended meaning of the vAkya.
    Last edited by Sri Vaishnava; 12 May 2013 at 08:48 AM.
    [CENTER][COLOR="Black"][COLOR="Red"][COLOR="DarkRed"]No holiness rules over my freedom
    No commands from above I obey
    I seek the ruin, I shake the worlds
    Behold! I am blackest ov the black

    Ov khaos I am, the disobediant one
    Depraved son who hath dwelt in nothingness
    Upon the ninth I fell, from grace up above
    To taste this life ov sin, to give birth to the "I"[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

    [B]~ "Blackest Ov the Black" - Behemoth.[/B]

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P-JdwtK1DY[/url] [/CENTER]

  2. #12

    Re: Material Cause of the Universe

    Brahman is the cause of the universe in that the infinite unchanging universal spirit underlies the finite changing universe. The infinite also transcends the finite, so a) and b) don't occur. Think of a graph of a logarithmic spiral and compare Brahman to the origin, theta=infinity, and the universe to the spiral -- the origin is the cause of the spiral in that it underlies it, and it also transcends it!
    Last edited by jmaf6556; 04 July 2013 at 12:22 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Material Cause of the Universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    Many Vedanta schools hold that Brahman is the Material Cause of the Universe. I am not sure how this is possible. Can anyone provide me the arguments in favour of this position? I am familiar with the scriptural verses that seem to support this position, what I am looking for are logical arguments. Because as I see it, if Brahman is the Material Cause, then either-

    a) Part of Brahman transforms into the universe, which is impossible because scripture says that Brahman is partless, and an entity with parts is destructible.

    b) Brahman as a whole transforms- This is again impossible. When milk transforms into curds, the milk is destroyed and only the curds remain. So the transformation of Brahman as a whole entails the destruction of Brahman.
    Note: Reply from Advaita POV. No intention to start frutile fight.

    Namaste,

    Sorry for chiming in late, I recently read an e.g. in the book Hindu Dharma.

    Paramacharya was explains different vAda-s.

    pariNAma vAda

    Adherents of Sankhya, as we know, do not believe in an Isvara. According to them Prakrti itself exfoliated into the universe. Such a belief is not to be mistaken for the contemporary athestic view. I say so because Sankhya also postulates a Purusa who is jnana, similar to the Nirguna-Brahman. According to it the inert Prakrti can function in such an orderly fashion only in the presence of Purusa. The presence of Purusa is the cause but he is not directly involved in creation. Crops grow on their own in the sunshine. Water dries up, clothes become dry and it is all because of the sun. Does the sun worry about which crop is to be grown or which pond is to be dried up? Your hand becomes numb when you hold a lump of ice in it. Is it right to reason that it is the intention of ice to benumb your hand? Similar is the case with Purusa for he is not attached to creation. But with the power received from him, Prakrti creates the world out of itself. There is no Isvara as a nimitta-karana. According to Sankhya, Prakrti has transformed itself as the created world. This is called "parinama-vada".


    Later on Paramacharya says:

    Note: Here our acharya means Adi Shankara


    Our acarya says: "There is neither arambha-vada nor parinama-vada here. It is the Brahman, with its power of Maya, that appears in the disguise of creation. For the potter who is the Paramatman there is no other entity other than himself called clay. So the arambha-vada is not right. To say that Paramatman transformed himself into the cosmos is like saying that the milk turns into curd. The curd is not the same as the milk. Would it not be wrong to state that the Paramatman became non-existent after becoming the cosmos? So the parinama-vada is also not valid. On the one hand, the Paramatman remains pure jnana, as nothing but awareness, and, on the other, he shows himself through the power of his Maya as all this universe with its living-beings and its inert objects. It is all the appearence of the same Reality, the Reality in various disguises. If a man dons a disguise he does not become another man. Similar is the case with all these disguises, all this jugglary of the universe. with all the apparent diversity, the one Reality remains unchanged. " This argument is known as "vivarta-vada".

    There is vivarta in the phenomenon of a rope appearing to be a snake. The upadana-karana(material cause) that is the rope does not change into a snake by nimitta-karana(efficient cause). So the arambha-vada does not apply here. The rope does not transform itself into a snake; but on account of our nescience (avidya) it seems to us to be a snake. Similarly, on account of our ajnana or avidya the Brahman too seems to us as this world and such a vast plurality of entities.

    Further Paramacharya adds

    Nyaya lays the steps by which we may go further to realise the truth on which our Acarya has shed light.

    Nyaya and Vaisesika teach us how we may become aware of padarthas (categories) through reasoning and become detatched from them to realise "apavarga" in which there is neither sorrow nor joy. But they do not take us to a higher realm. Dualism also has it's limitations thus. To grasp the One Reality that is non-dual and realise inwardly that we too are that Reality is to experience absolute liberation.

    It must be said as one of the distinctive features of Nyaya that it inspires us to go in quest of apavarga by creating discontent in in our worldly existence. Another of its distinguishing features is that it employs all its resources of reasoning to contend against the doctrines of the Buddhists, the Sankhyas and Carvakas to establish the principle of Isvara as Karta(Creator).


    Online Source: Cause of Creation
    Offline Source: Hindu Dharma, Part 13, Chapter 7, Pages 424 - 426


    I hope this helps solve the the puzzle.

    From spiritual evolution

    Arambha vAda --> paraNAma vAda --> vivarta vAda --> ajAta vAda

    I think it covers the fact that

    1. Truth is one (Brahman)
    2. Brahman is unchanging, indivisible, immutable
    3. Brahman is eternal

    Note: According to Advaita, only Brahman is real and hence eternal. Jiva, Jagat and mAyA, though are considered as beginning-less, cease to exit in Jnana sthiti i.e. in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This is the uniqueness of Advaita [source: Significance of the name Advaita]

    The better word in Hindi / Sanskrit is बाध 'bAdha' i.e. negation and not नाश 'nASa' i.e. destruction.

    Brahman cannot do any work, and cannot transform, nor it can be divided. Hence to explain the process of creation, concepts of mAyA working under direction of SaguNa brahman is created. Again if jiva-s, mAyA and jagat are real and eternal, then it would mean that all three are eternal, hence it violates that 'truth is one'.

    A point to be noted that brahman can stay without mAyA in it's pure state of consciousness, while mAyA which rests upon Brahman for creation cannot exist without brahman just like a projector of film needs a screen (brahman). Whatever happens in a movie, like bloodshed, killing / chopping, etc, does not affect the screen. It stays white without a trace of blood. But when seeing a movie, we do not see the screen and get emotionally attached to it but when we see the screen, we cannot see the movie (projection).

    EDIT: Murugan / Skanda is shown without and with his spiritual consorts, but not without his veil. Veil represents Jnana.

    mAyA, mithyA and anitya

    mithYA means the one which is not satya and not a-satya.

    mithyA means it appears to be real but is not
    another meaning
    mithyA is true only in one state of consciousness but not all 4 - waking, dream, deep sleep, and turiya. In deep sleep and turiyA (pure consciousness), mAyA cease to exist.

    mAyA is often termed as mithyA which could mean

    1. illusion
    2. anityA - not eternal

    Adi Shankara in Tatva Bodh separately explains the concept of nitya and anitya

    nitya means SASvat meaning eternal, permanent

    anitya means one which is not SASvat, meaning one which is not eternal or permanent. Anitya means of destructive nature. It can also mean temporary existence.

    In Atma Bodh we find Question and answer in the beginning.

    Q: What is the difference between nitya and anitya? OR how to discriminate between nitya and anitya?

    A: nitya vastu atman is non dual brahman only. anything else is anitya. This is the difference between nitya and anitya.

    So what's the difference between anitya and mithyA?

    anitya means the one which is destroyed or transformed into something else. e.g. cloth when burned transforms into ash. In this case, the transformation is visible, irreversible and permanent. In other sense, the residue after destruction of an object (cloth) remains.

    In illusion, when snake, which was superimposed upon rope gets destroyed due to the throwing of light (Jnana), no trace of snake is left, as technically snake was not actually present. In other words snake was not real, else the traces of snakes should be left after the snake vanishes.


    Hope this helps

    Aum.
    Last edited by Amrut; 20 July 2013 at 04:31 AM.
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  4. #14

    Re: Material Cause of the Universe

    Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    Many Vedanta schools hold that Brahman is the Material Cause of the Universe. I am not sure how this is possible. Can anyone provide me the arguments in favour of this position? I am familiar with the scriptural verses that seem to support this position, what I am looking for are logical arguments. Because as I see it, if Brahman is the Material Cause, then either-

    a) Part of Brahman transforms into the universe, which is impossible because scripture says that Brahman is partless, and an entity with parts is destructible.

    b) Brahman as a whole transforms- This is again impossible. When milk transforms into curds, the milk is destroyed and only the curds remain. So the transformation of Brahman as a whole entails the destruction of Brahman.
    namaste,
    This problem is genuine. The only conclusion that can be seemingly drawn here is that Brahman isn't the Material Cause. That is, while it is true that from certain pov Brahman can be seen as the "highest" principle, at the same time Brahman is not the "all" principle.
    It means there are other principles, other dieties separate from Brahman, some of which/ whom are responsible for the creation of "material world" while still some others are responsible for the creation of many "non-material" worlds.
    This will mean the existence of many independent "dynamic" gods, in addition to the one "truly static" Brahman. Again, no need to see any hierarchy here, some gods being "space-like" while some being "time-like".
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Material Cause of the Universe
    By devotee in forum Advaita
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05 December 2012, 06:31 AM
  2. Shri Rudra - Sankarshana Moorti Swaroopo ??
    By giridhar in forum Shaiva
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10 July 2011, 06:27 AM
  3. Does Dvaita have a mental Model?
    By Tirisilex in forum Dvaita
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 14 February 2011, 12:14 AM
  4. Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma: Real or symbolic?
    By TatTvamAsi in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 24 January 2008, 08:52 AM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06 September 2006, 07:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •