Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 106

Thread: The Material Cause...

  1. #11

    Re: The Material Cause...

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    Hari Om
    ~~~~~~


    Namaste suresh,
    And thank you for your post. I am in hopes you wish to poke around at this thought:
    What are your thoughts on this matter? How do you see prakriti and its differences to Brahman?

    pranams
    Namaste Yajvan,

    In Sankhya, prakriti refers to the 24 elements such as pancha bhutas, karmendriyas, mahat, tanmatras etc. These are inanimate matter, and therefore different from Brahman, which is a Sentient Being. Hence, a distinction is inevitable.

    But if one considers the prakriti to be a reflection and nothing more, we can conclude that the world is asat at all times, with Brahman alone being the sole reality. We can do away with neo-Vedanta type of obfuscation that revolves around inventing new ideas such as 'neither sat nor asat' etc. The world is always false, according to classical advaitins.

    Also, there will be no need to posit a material cause, because since Brahman is anadi, so is its reflection, prakriti. There cannot be a cause for an entity that has no beginning.

    Suresh

  2. #12
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: The Material Cause...

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~

    Quote Originally Posted by suresh View Post
    In Sankhya, prakriti refers to the 24 elements such as pancha bhutas, karmendriyas, mahat, tanmatras etc. These are inanimate matter, and therefore different from Brahman, which is a Sentient Being. Hence, a distinction is inevitable.
    Namaste suresh,
    thank you for your post...I can see your point of view from the sāṅkhya ( some write sākhya) school of thinking. As one looks to other schools ( ~ darśana ) this notion of sentient and insentient take on a new meaning.


    If this is of interest, we ( and others) can persue a conversation. Yet the conversation will bear little fruit if we talk from different schools (sa-darśana) as one has different reference points or 'optics' of viewing Reality.

    My teacher has has said over and over that the 6 systems of Indian Philiosphy are different views of the truth. Yet each one is so compelling, many take one school as paramont over the other, and then the polemics (jalpa, vitanda, and jati) begin. I choose not to do this as it bears little upliftment to all. The 6 schools are there to compliment ones knowledge - compare, contrast perhaps and move one closer to Reality.


    For me and my teaching, Brahman is samasta ( compounded, or pervading the whole). We perhaps see/experience sentient and insentient , yet the whole is Brahman, consciousness itself. That is why the question ( for me) came up on prakriti.

    More on this if you wish, and I am sure others will be happy to offer various POV's on this matter.

    pranams,
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #13

    Re: The Material Cause...

    Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------


    Some quotes:

    "God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth". by Siva Yogaswami

    "Simple words for a simple truth, but very, very difficult to practice". by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami reflecting on a teaching of his Guru above.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: The Material Cause...

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob G View Post
    Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Namaste BobG,

    In your opinion, or teaching, what allows the native or sadhu to see the world correctly? What brings 20-20 vision on this matter?

    pranams
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Question Re: The Material Cause...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob G View Post

    Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.
    Namaste Bob,

    What do you mean by “the world”, and what do you mean by “false” and “true”, and what do you mean by “correct understanding” and “incorrect understanding” ???

  6. #16
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: The Material Cause...

    Quote Originally Posted by suresh View Post
    Namaste Yajvan,
    -
    But if one considers the prakriti to be a reflection and nothing more, we can conclude that the world is asat at all times, with Brahman alone being the sole reality. We can do away with neo-Vedanta type of obfuscation that revolves around inventing new ideas such as 'neither sat nor asat' etc. The world is always false, according to classical advaitins.

    Suresh
    Namaste Suresh,

    Sorry to be intruding. My POV reflects, more or less, what Shri Yajvan has said.

    I had felt that you were pointing to a good knowledge, yet, with Brahman alone being the sole reality, there would be no need for a Guru, no student, no learning etc. But the Guru-Shishya is pratayksha truth.

    Prakriti cannot be disconnected from Brahman , since if it was so, then the Sentient Brahman would not know the Prakriti. There has to be a knowledge principle that connects these two. Prakriti is of the Sentient Beling alone. One cannot say that Prakriti of 'NOTHING' exists independently. Prakriti (nature or property or characteristics) by its very definition has to be of something.

    Prakriti is of two stages: essential nature (Sat-Chit-Ananda), and guna nature (white, red, and black). Effect of the Prakriti of the second stage is the Universe, which if the infinite sentience (Sat-Chit-Ananda) were absent, would not exist and would not be known.

    In truth (in my POV), Self-Brahman with its essential nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda is Anadimat.


    And I do not think that your statement "The world is always false, according to classical advaitins", is correct understanding.

    Regards

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  7. #17

    Re: The Material Cause...

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    Hari Om
    ~~~~~



    Namaste suresh,
    thank you for your post...I can see your point of view from the sāṅkhya ( some write sākhya) school of thinking. As one looks to other schools ( ~ darśana ) this notion of sentient and insentient take on a new meaning.


    If this is of interest, we ( and others) can persue a conversation. Yet the conversation will bear little fruit if we talk from different schools (sa-darśana) as one has different reference points or 'optics' of viewing Reality.

    My teacher has has said over and over that the 6 systems of Indian Philiosphy are different views of the truth. Yet each one is so compelling, many take one school as paramont over the other, and then the polemics (jalpa, vitanda, and jati) begin. I choose not to do this as it bears little upliftment to all. The 6 schools are there to compliment ones knowledge - compare, contrast perhaps and move one closer to Reality.


    For me and my teaching, Brahman is samasta ( compounded, or pervading the whole). We perhaps see/experience sentient and insentient , yet the whole is Brahman, consciousness itself. That is why the question ( for me) came up on prakriti.

    More on this if you wish, and I am sure others will be happy to offer various POV's on this matter.

    pranams,
    Namaste Yajvan,

    The Sankhya system of classification is common to most schools, including dvaita, advaita etc. So I wasn't referring to the Sankhya philosophy, only to this particular classification that's accepted by most schools of thought within Hinduism. Besides, Sankhya accepts the world's reality, which I haven't done. Neither does classical advaita.

    All I wanted to convey was that classical advaita holds prakriti to be false. It doesn't say prakriti and Brahman are one, as do most neo-vedantins. I am not accusing anyone, so please don't misunderstand me. Just putting forth my view that nowhere does the classical advaitin say that Brahman has become the world.

    Let's consider this example. If clay becomes clay pot, one can say that clay is the material cause. But if clay is reflected in the mirror, do we refer to the clay as the material cause of its reflected image? Advaita or mayavada subscribes to the latter, whereas Brahmavada (Vallabha's school of Vaishnavism) believes in the former.

    From the above, we can only conclude that the world isn't made out of Brahman, rather it's projected from Brahman. So Brahman isn't the material cause. Nor is the world real, because its so-called existence is similar to that of the snake superimposed on the rope. The snake is asat at all times, even though it's perceived. Likewise, even if the world is perceived, it's asat at all times.

    So there's no question of suggesting a state which is neither sat nor asat, when there's no evidence for this. Either a thing is sat or asat, and according to advaita, world is asat and Brahman alone is sat. And it's my belief that neo-Vedantins have changed the meaning of the word 'mithya' to mean 'neither sat nor asat', when in reality, it's just another word for asat.

    Hope to read your PoV on this.

    Suresh

  8. #18

    Re: The Material Cause...

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Namaste Suresh,

    I had felt that you were pointing to a good knowledge, yet, with Brahman alone being the sole reality, there would be no need for a Guru, no student, no learning etc. But the Guru-Shishya is pratayksha truth.
    Namaste Atanu,

    Didn't Madhusudhana Saraswati say that the gita is like a lion's roar, meaning even if the dream is false, the lion's roar does help one in waking up? Maybe, we should understand the utility of guru, books etc. in this context.

    Prakriti cannot be disconnected from Brahman , since if it was so, then the Sentient Brahman would not know the Prakriti. There has to be a knowledge principle that connects these two. Prakriti is of the Sentient Beling alone. One cannot say that Prakriti of 'NOTHING' exists independently. Prakriti (nature or property or characteristics) by its very definition has to be of something.
    If prakriti is treated as a reflection, then it's evident that prakriti exists as a dependent entity; it's got no independence. Nor is there a disconnect between Brahman and prakriti, as you seem to fear. So where's the problem in accepting that the prakriti has as much reality (or unreality) as the snake superimposed on the rope?

    Prakriti is of two stages: essential nature (Sat-Chit-Ananda), and guna nature (white, red, and black). Effect of the Prakriti of the second stage is the Universe, which if the infinite sentience (Sat-Chit-Ananda) were absent, would not exist and would not be known.

    In truth (in my POV), Self-Brahman with its essential nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda is Anadimat.
    Brahman is nirguna, so I don't think this is true. These descriptions help us in communicating, and shouldn't be considered as qualities of Brahman.

    And I do not think that your statement "The world is always false, according to classical advaitins", is correct understanding.
    Madhusudhana Saraswati in his "Advaita Siddhi" is pretty emphatic about this. He gives different 'levels' of unreality to show why objects appear to exist, even though they're essentially non-existent. So it's my view that classical advaita differs from modern advaita, in that the former believes in the unreality of the world without making compromises.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: The Material Cause...

    Namaste Suresh and Atanu,

    brahma is saccidAnandam ~ singular “existence-thought-joy”.
    brahmA is saccidAnanda ~ “existence, thought, and joy” together.
    brAhmI is saccidAnandA ~ “existence and thought and joy” severally.

    brahmA is saccidAnandamaya (“consisting of saccidAnanda”) and saccidAnandamAya (“measuring or defining saccidAnanda”) and brAhmI is saccidAnandamAyA (“the art or illusion of saccidAnanda”).

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: The Material Cause...

    Quote Originally Posted by suresh View Post
    Namaste Atanu,
    Didn't Madhusudhana Saraswati say that the gita is like a lion's roar, meaning even if the dream is false, the lion's roar does help one in waking up? Maybe, we should understand the utility of guru, books etc. in this context.
    ---
    If prakriti is treated as a reflection, then it's evident that prakriti exists as a dependent entity; it's got no independence. Nor is there a disconnect between Brahman and prakriti, as you seem to fear. So where's the problem in accepting that the prakriti has as much reality (or unreality) as the snake superimposed on the rope?
    ---
    Brahman is nirguna, so I don't think this is true. These descriptions help us in communicating, and shouldn't be considered as qualities of Brahman.
    ----
    Madhusudhana Saraswati in his "Advaita Siddhi" is pretty emphatic about this. He gives different 'levels' of unreality to show why objects appear to exist, even though they're essentially non-existent. So it's my view that classical advaita differs from modern advaita, in that the former believes in the unreality of the world without making compromises.
    Namaste Suresh,

    I do not deny all that you say. I will go through them and offer my POV, if necessary.

    Just one thing I wish to point out. The pratayaksha is for the Thinker/Seer, whose Guna compositions influence the observation. When the knower Ego is removed, the Seer's pratyaksha is of a different level. Further, when Seer, Seen, and the Seeing become "Not Two", the indescribable Self alone remains.

    Till then Pratyaksha is not devoid of superimpositions. Thus I am basically, reflecting what Shri Yajvan says. And I am not denying what you have said.

    So where's the problem in accepting that the prakriti has as much reality (or unreality) as the snake superimposed on the rope?
    I had indicated that my nature does not exist independent of me. "me" here is not the body, but the atma. The anadimat nature is Sat-Chit-Ananda and the Guna (mind) nature are again three: Red, White, and Black.

    Regards

    Om
    Last edited by atanu; 14 February 2008 at 02:08 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •