Material Cause of the Universe

[Omkara]

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.

[Sri Vaishnava]

I was about to leave home from work when I saw this. Will be my last post today.

I can explain the VA concept of upAdana kAranatvam. The other schools like Advaita, etc explain material causality differetly, and to be honest, I haven't studied all their views.

Firstly, what do you understand by material causality. The upanishad gives a few examples:

1) Clay becoming a clay pot.

2) Gold becoming gold ornaments.

So, what is the difference between clay and clay pot, gold and gold ornaments? Is it the svarUpa that has changed? The answer is no.

The change is merely a change of state and attribute. The gold, which was in its original form (let's call it plain), has changed into a gold ornament. So, the same gold has changed from 'plain' state to 'ornament state'. The ornament such as chain, which may be long, slender, tinkling, etc....these are attributes which have changed from being 'lumpy, one mass, solid' attributes of plain gold.

Same for clay pot.

Similarly, Brahman is the self of jivAs and prakrti, and jivAs and prakrti are the body of Brahman. Just as we say, 'I am a brahmin', and in reality, although brahmin-hood is not an attribute of the self, but is an attribute of the body, but still is applied to the self on account of its association with a brahmin body, the jivAtmA, being inseparable to, nourished and supported by brahman and being the body of brahman, is an inseparable attribute of brahman. So is prakrti.

So, before creation, jivas and prakrti existed in an undifferentiated form as the sharIra of Brahman. After creation, jivAs and prakrti existed in differentiated forms and names.

Compare this to the clay-clay pot, gold-gold ornament example. Here too, jivAs and prakrti, the attributes have changed. jivA's dharma bhUta jnAnam has changed and prakrti undergoes modification of both svarUpa and svabhAva. But the substance, ie, the svarUpa, is Brahman and he remains changeless.

Furthermore, just as gold ornament was stated to be a different 'state' of the same gold, we make this analysis - Brahman, before creation, was in the 'state' of being the 'controller of undifferentiated jivas and prakrti'. But after creation, Brahman has a changed state, ie, he is now the 'controller of differentiated jivAs and prakrti'.

Change of state and change of attributes = material causaity. Neither of these affect the svarUpa, which is changeless. So, Brahman is changed with respect to attributes, ie, his body of jivAs and prakrti, and hence a change of state, but remains changeless in his svarUpa.

This way, Bhagavad rAmanujar resolves the shruti vAkyas.

[wundermonk]

The Advaita view is that a material cause can be either transformative (for e.g. milk transforms itself into curd) or transfigurative. Example of a transfigurative material cause is that the rope is the transfigurative material cause of the snake. You see a snake, as a substance. Now, what is this snake made up of? It is actually "made up" of the rope alone.

Note that, a rope as rope, is completely immutable whether it is perceived correctly or misperceived as a snake. It is untouched and blemishfree. Thus, the immutability of Brahman as transfigurative material cause of the universe is upheld.

[Omkara]

So according to both of you, neither the advaitin nor the Vishishtadvaitin holds that Brahman literally transforms into the world. Then why call Brahman the material cause? Ultimately the world emanates out of prakriti alone.

Also, then why does the Vedantin have a problem with the Pashupata/Theistic Sankhya position that Brahman fashions the universe out of Prakriti?

[wundermonk]

So according to both of you, neither the advaitin nor the Vishishtadvaitin holds that Brahman literally transforms into the world.

Indeed. Per realist schools (VA/Dvaita) creation is an attribute/act of Brahman and Brahman engages in it cyclically. This cyclicity in itself is immutable. That is, this cyclical manifestation of Brahman's attributes itself is unchanging. The cycle has gone on for ever and will go on for ever. The essence of Brahman remains the same throughout unchanging.

Then why call Brahman the material cause? Ultimately the world emanates out of prakriti alone.

For Advaita, Brahman is the transfigurative material cause. Prakriti is the transformative material cause. Brahman + Prakriti/Maya together constitute the totality of all material causes. Prakriti/Maya cannot exist by itself. Hence, Brahman is called the material cause loosely. But you are right, it is Brahman + Maya that constitutes the totality of the material cause of the perceived universe.

Also, then why does the Vedantin have a problem with the Pashupata/Theistic Sankhya position that Brahman fashions the universe out of Prakriti?

All Vedantin schools accept Prakriti (VA calls it acit but acit is essentially Prakriti). The point of departure is the relationship between Brahman and Prakriti.

[Sri Vaishnava]

So according to both of you, neither the advaitin nor the Vishishtadvaitin holds that Brahman literally transforms into the world. Then why call Brahman the material cause? Ultimately the world emanates out of prakriti alone.

Also, then why does the Vedantin have a problem with the Pashupata/Theistic Sankhya position that Brahman fashions the universe out of Prakriti?

(Note - This write-up is based on Sri PBA Swami's notes of pAshupata system in his tikA to the Tattva Traya bhAshya of Sri Varavaramuni)

Because, there is a transformation of Brahman's body, and hence his attributes which are the jivAs/prakrti. There is also a transformation of the jivAs' dharma bhUta jnAnA. It is brahma svarUpa which remains changeless.

Indeed, there is a modification of Brahman. But since 'Brahman' is a term that denotes the chit and achit attached inseparably to Isvara, such a modification of "attributes-by-association" does not change the essential nature of Brahman and does not violate the upanishadic statement declaring changelessness.

It should be noted that although jivAs and prakrti are different from Brahman, they are inseparable attributes of Brahman. And because of this, one cannot deny that there is a change of state with respect to Brahman, ie, being the niyantA (antaryAmin) of chit and achit in sukshma dasa to sthula dasa. This is clearly equated to the gold becoming gold ornament and clay becoming clay pot - change of attributes and change of state.

The pAshupata system which accepts Ishvara as the nimitta kAranam and prakrti as the upAdana kAranam. Is it possible to equate this to the gold-gold ornament and the clay-clay pot example? Not unless you accept sharIrAtma bhAva, which the pAshupatas do not. There is no change of attribute or state for Isvara.

But here, a pUrvapaksha arises - Why can't the Isvara of the pAshupata system be like the potter, who fashions the pot out of clay? That would reconcile the system, right? To that, we reply - this can only be proven by anumana. In other words, it is now incumbent on the pAshupata to prove that his deity is the controller of prakrti in the same way as the potter is the controller of the pot. But anumana itself shows that this potter uses his hands to shape the pot, thus declaring that he needs a body to do such work. So, the pAshupata must now prove that his deity also has a body, through anumAna. This is impossible since BadarAyana says, 'shAstra yOnitvAt' - the nature of Brahman can only be known through shAstra. It cannot be proven through anumAna that Brahman has a body, and whether it is homogenous, as being heterogenous goes against shruti. Furthermore, the potter uses tools and has various limitations; this example cannot prove the omniscience, omnipotence, etc of Isavara. And it also seems to indicate that Isvara is dependant on his body, as well as many other difficulties. Since the pAshupatas have used anumAna to conclude that their deity is nimitta kAranam, they must be able to conclude that he has a body through anumAna. As they cannot do this, it is rejected.

Now, the pAshupata may bring up a second pUrvapaksha - Yes, Isvara does not have a body. Yet, he controls prakrti in the same way as the jivAtmA does inside a body. Ie, the jivAtmA is 'arUpam', yet it is able to control the body. In the same way, Isvara in the pAshupata system can control the prakrti without a body. But this is untenable. Because the jivA is using that body as a result of its karma and this usage is a sAdhana. This cannot be applied to Isvara, can it?

This is just a bit of what I learned. Detailed explanations can be found in Sri Vedanta Desika's Para Mata Bhangam, Nadadur Ammal's Tattva Sara and of course, Sri BhAshya itself.

[jignyAsu]

But here, a pUrvapaksha arises - Why can't the Isvara of the pAshupata system be like the potter, who fashions the pot out of clay? That would reconcile the system, right?

Can this also be objected this way in VA? If Ishvara is like a potter, then He is absolutely different from the clay. That clay-pot analogy and the statement that in the beginning all this was one, means that clay alone was there in the beginning. But here we have two - potter and the clay in the beginning.

Moreover in the statement - "You are that", if "that" is clay/prakriti then it would mean that "You" are prakriti and if "that" is the potter then clay->pot analogy is not applicable. This is resolved only if the Brahman is ultimately denoted by clay. If Brahman is the clay then He has to be the material cause.

[Shivbhakta]

Namaste.

I am just musing here, but I'd like to share my recent thoughts on this. Please forgive if my references to scripture aren't exact, as I'm working from memory.

I think we have three important ideas to reconcile in this discussion. The Upanishads frequently invoke Brahman as "he who is without parts," but they also tell us that Brahman thought, "Let me be many," and that "all of this universe is filled with objects which are parts of his being."

What if we imagined Brahman as an infinite ocean, from which any amount of water could be taken without reducing his perfection? Indeed, imagining Brahman as anything less than infinite degrades his perfection, as does any idea that limits the ability of Brahman to manifest from within himself what is finite though he remains as infinite. From this imagined ocean could arise a cloud that has, obviously, a "part" of the ocean within itself. The cloud, though now in a different state, shares the ocean's nature as water. Now, the ocean from which the cloud has formed remains unchanged. It does not affect this infinite ocean that a cloud has formed from it; from the perspective of the ocean, whether before, during, or after the existence of the cloud, the ocean remains as one and perfect.

Of course, such an example fails to grasp the Reality to a sufficient degree, but all examples dependent upon what is finite fall short of describing the Infinite. Our world can only express a thousandth part of a hair of what the Reality actually is. So please forgive the limitation of this example.

I think this idea resolves the question, though I could be wrong.

1) There is no change of nature. Water remains as water, whether as a liquid or a vapor, or a condensed vapor. The difference between the cloud and the ocean is one of the state of being, just as ours is from God.

2) The ocean as "a whole" does not change state, as the ocean is infinite and cannot be "a whole." "A whole" implies a composite of parts, something able to be contained within the idea of that wholeness. That the Lord forms from himself what is finite does not mean that he too must become finite in an actual sense. He appears as finite within manifestation, though he exists beyond it as well. "Though he is undivided, he exists as if divided within beings."

3) A part of the ocean does not change state, as the ocean is infinite and cannot be divided into actual parts. From that which is infinite, the manifestation of the finite is simply the transformation into finite actuality of what exists as infinite potentiality. As said in the previous point, I see no fundamental reason to conclude that simply because we are finite in number, our source must be divisible. This would require that God has only finite potentiality. Brahman, as per my view, is beyond such limitations.

As for prakriti-tattva, it is simply another manifestation of Brahman from which are formed the elements below it. It is non-different from Brahman in an absolute sense, though different in a relative sense as manifestation comes by way of limiting conditions. Thus, I see no problem is saying, "Brahman manifests the world of objects from prakriti." It is simply a more precise description of the same: "Brahman manifests the world of objects from himself."

Aum Namah Shivaya!

[Sri Vaishnava]

Can this also be objected this way in VA? If Ishvara is like a potter, then He is absolutely different from the clay. That clay-pot analogy and the statement that in the beginning all this was one, means that clay alone was there in the beginning. But here we have two - potter and the clay in the beginning.

No, we say that the potter, clay and the tools to make the pot are all Isvara. The example only shows that Isvara is the nimitta, upAdana and sahakAri kAranam. He does the role of the potter, the tools and the pot.

In any case, the strength of VA is not applicable here. Because VA uses shruti pramAna to prove its theories. The systems under discussion such as pAshupata use anumAna to establish their ideas that Isvara is *only* nimitta kAranam and prakrti is upAdana kAranam - that is what is being refuted. We have shAstra vAkyas that establish him as the nimitta, upAdana and sahakAri.

Among the Vedanta schools, it is only Madhvacharya who does not accept upAdana kAranatvam. But he uses the Bimba-Pratibimba vAda and other such theories to ingeniously reconcile dvaita within the vedAntic fold and interprets the sutras referring to pAshupata as only indicating the erroneous nature of their devata and anushtAna (according to srI rAmAnuja, the first sutra refers to this and the second refers to nimitta kAranatvam). Note, 'reconciliation' is not the same as 'acceptable' - Advaita and VA do not accept Madhva's theory of kevala nimitta kAranatva, though we hold that he is simply avoiding the terminology of 'upAdana kAranam' and 'sharIrAtma bhAva', while explaining Isvara in a manner similar to VA .

Moreover in the statement - "You are that", if "that" is clay/prakriti then it would mean that "You" are prakriti and if "that" is the potter then clay->pot analogy is not applicable. This is resolved only if the Brahman is ultimately denoted by clay. If Brahman is the clay then He has to be the material cause.

"That" refers to the Brahman who is the antaryAmin of sukshma chit and achit. "You" refers to the Brahman who is the antaryAmn of sthula chit and achit.

"Tat Tvam Asi", as per VA, simply establishes the identity of kArana brahman wth kArya brahman and proves that material causality does not change the essential nature of Brahman.

[jthomasnaz]

The universe is inside of Brahma. Quantum physics shows that everything in the universe acts like thought. This explains why Brahma is everything and everything is Brahma.