Re: [Advaita-l] (no subject)
H S Chandramouli
My post just presents my understanding of the issue. As I had mentioned therein, I am aware of other views also on the topic. Just to mention a few. During earlier discussions on the meaning and scope of the CU declaration
// वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् //
CU 6-1-4.
// vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM
mRRittiketyeva satyam // CU 6-1-4
Translation // All transformation has speech as
its basis, and it is name
only. Clay as such is the reality //
Sri Sadananda Ji had a very different view from what I have presented in my post.
During a discussion on kArya-kAraNa relationship, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः (SrimallalitAlAlitah) disagreed with my views and promised to post a separate writeup in Sanskrit on the topic. He has posted the same under the heading मृद्घटादिदृष्टान्तः (mRRidghaTAdidRRiShTAntaH) which can be viewed at the following link
The text is in Sanskrit. From what I could make out, it presents an entirely different understanding.
So there are so many different understandings of the same topic apArt from what Sri Bhaskar Ji has pointed out.
Just for information.
Regards
Namaste.
There have been a number of threads recently discussing aspects of the
above topic. Such discussions have taken place earlier also on several
occasions in which I had also participated. In most of those discussions,
there was no agreement on several aspects. I am prsenting below my
understanding of the topic in a conolidated manner. I have confined myself
to cite references only from the Bhashya. It may be useful for new
participants who may like to join the discussions. I am aware that there
may not be agreement on many of the issues.
I have split it into two parts in view of size limitation.
Regards
मृद्घट (mRRidghaTa) (Clay-pot) and रज्जुसर्प (rajjusarpa) (Rope-serpent)
illustrations in Chandogya Upanishad.
In CU chapter 6-1, Sage Udhalaka asks his son the following question
// श्वेतकेतो यन्नु सोम्येदं महामना अनूचानमानी स्तब्धोऽस्युत
तमादेशमप्राक्ष्यः येनाश्रुतꣳ श्रुतं भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातमिति कथं नु
भगवः स आदेशो भवतीति ॥ ३ ॥ // CU 6-1-3.
// shvetaketo yannu somyedaM mahAmanA anUchAnamAnI stabdho.asyuta
tamAdeshamaprAkShyaH yenAshrutaꣳ shrutaM bhavatyamataM matamavij~nAtaM
vij~nAtamiti kathaM nu bhagavaH sa Adesho bhavatIti || 3 | // CU 6-1-3
Translation // "Through which the unheard of becomes heard, the unthought
of becomes the thought of, the unknown becomes the known?". (Svetaketu
asked), "O venerable sir, in what way is that instruction imparted?" //.
This has practically the same purport as the question raised by one of the
disciples in Mu Up, but worded differently
// कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति ॥ ३ ॥ // Mu Up 1-1-3
// kasminnu bhagavo vij~nAte sarvamidaM vij~nAtaM bhavatIti || 3 || // Mu
Up 1-1-3
Svetaketu did not know the answer, so he reqests his father to clarify. In
this context Sage Udhalaka presents the सृष्टि (sRRiShTi, Creation)
process in a unique way starting all the way from the state of praLaya.
Sage Udhalaka addresses Svetaketu in the following manner.
// सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । // CU 6-2-2
// sadeva somyedamagra AsIdekamevAdvitIyam | // CU 6-2-2
Translation // O good looking one, in the beginning all this was
Existence, One only, without a second //.
// तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति // CU 6-2-3
// tadaikShata bahu syAM prajAyeyeti // CU 6-2-3
Translation // That (Existence) saw, ' I shall become many. I shall be
born' //.
The सत् (sat) willed to diversify or modify itself into a multitudinous
variety leading to सृष्टि (sRRiShTi), Jagat
or Creation. The word सत् (sat) here represents the combination of Brahman
and avyAkruta. Individually, neither Brahman (Chaitanya SvarUpa) nor
avyAkruta (inert or jada) can Create. Brahman though Chaitanya svarUpa is
कूटस्थ (kUtastha), changeless and cannot undergo any vikAra or
modification. AvyAkruta, though endowed with unthinkable powers to modify
itself in any number of ways is jada or inert and cannot activate its
power on its own. Its association with Brahman (Chaitanya) however enables
activation of this power. This association is अनादि (anAdi) beginningless
as per Advaita SidhAnta. It is thus this combination which undergoes the
required modification. In what manner does this combination, addressed as
सत् (sat) here, perform this diversification? Ch Up elaborates this
process with the use of two illustrations ; मृद्घट (mRRidghaTa) and
रज्जुसर्प (rajjusarpa) दृष्टांत (dRRiShTAMta).The Clay-pot and
Rope-serpent illustrations.
Principally it is avyAkruta which undergoes परिणाम (pariNAma),
transformation, without changing its svarUpa (nature) resulting in Creation
or Jagat . This is illustrated by the मृद्घट दृष्टांत (mRRidghaTa
dRRiShTAMta), the Clay-pot illustration. While the association between
Brahman (Chaitanya) and avyAkruta is one of विवर्त (vivarta),
transfiguration, illustrated by the रज्जुसर्प दृष्टांत (rajjusarpa
dRRiShTAMta), the Rope-serpent illustration.
परिणाम (pariNAma), Transforamation, is of two types as exemplified by the
मृद्घट दृष्टांत (mRRidghaTa dRRiShTAMta), Clay-pot illustration and
दधिक्षीर दृष्टांत (dadhikShIra dRRiShTAMta), milk-curd illustration. In the
former case, the substance does not undergo any transformation or change
in its svarUpa (nature) but only certain attributes like form undergo
change. While in the latter, there is a transformation or change in the
very svarUpa (nature) itself of the substance.
The मृद्घट दृष्टांत (mRRidghaTa dRRiShTAMta), Clay-pot illustration, in
the current context is explained by the CU mantra
// वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् // CU 6-1-4.
// vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mRRittiketyeva satyam // CU 6-1-4
Translation // All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name
only. Clay as such is the reality //.
The pot-clay illustrartion has been utilized in a variety of contexts in
advaitic texts. Here, in Ch Up, the context is assumption of different
forms by a subsatnace without changing its svarUpa (nature). The different
forms (rUpa) are considered as different visheshaNas of the substance. Clay
is the substance while the form (rUpa) *pot* is its visheshaNa. The object
or product, having clay as substance endowed with this pot form as
visheshaNa, acquaires a unique name (nAma) *Pot*. Clay can have any number
of forms (rUpa) as visheshaNa, and with each such form (visheshaNa) the
substance clay acquaires a different name (nAma). Since there is no change
in the svarUpa (nature) of the substance in any of these objects, they can
be addressed by either of the two names, one associated with the substance
without visheshaNa and the other the substance as associated with its
unique visheshaNa.
Another illustration for the same type of pariNAma (transformation) cited
in CU is सुवर्णकुण्डल (suvarNakuNDala), gold-ring. Gold is the substance
while the form * ring * is its visheshaNa. Gold can take on any number of
forms (visheshaNAs), each one of which acquaires a unique नाम (nAma), name,
without changing its basic svarUpa (nature) of substance gold. The object
or product can addressed by either of the two names, one associated with
the substance without visheshaNa and the other the substance as associated
with its unique visheshaNa. Either as simply * gold * or as
ring,chain,bracelet etc as the case may be.
The other type of परिणाम (pariNAma), Transforamation, is best illustrated
by the दधिक्षीर दृष्टांत (dadhikShIra dRRiShTAMta), Milk-curd illustration.
In this case, the transformation of milk into curd is not only in its रूप
(rUpa),form, but is also associated with a change in the very svarUpa
(nature) itself of the substance milk undergoing the transformation.
The transformation of avyAkruta into Creation or Jagat is of the मृद्घट
दृष्टांत (mRRidghaTa dRRiShTAMta), Clay-pot illustration, type. Mantra CU
6-2-3 states
// तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति..... // CU 6-2-3
// tadaikShata bahu syAM prajAyeyeti..... // CU 6-2-3
Translation // That (Existence) saw, ' I shall become many. I shall be
born' //.
The Bhashya thereon CUB 6-2-3 states, inter alia, as below
// बहु प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय, यथा
मृद्घटाद्याकारेण........ // CUB 6-2-3
// bahu prabhUtaM syAM bhaveyaM prajAyeya prakarSheNotpadyeya, yathA
mRRidghaTAdyAkAreNa........ //. CUB 6-2-3
Translation // I shall be born excellently. Like clay taking the shape of
pots etc ..... //
CU mantra 6-3-2 states
// सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य
नामरूपे व्याकरवाणीति ॥ तासां त्रिवृतं त्रिवृतमेकैकां करवाणीति सेयं
देवतेमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेनैव जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरोत् ॥ //
CU 6-3-2 and 6-3-3.
// seyaM devataikShata hantAhamimAstisro devatA anena
jIvenAtmanAnupravishya nAmarUpe vyAkaravANIti || tAsAM trivRRitaM
trivRRitamekaikAM karavANIti seyaM devatemAstisro devatA anenaiva
jIvenAtmanAnupravishya nAmarUpe vyAkarot || // CU 6-3-2 and 6-3-3.
Translation // That Deity which is such saw : Let it be that now, by
entering into these three gods, in the form of the soul of each individual
being, I shall clearly manifest name and form. With the idea, " I shall
make each one of these three-fold and three-fold, that Deity who was such
entered into these three gods, as this individual soul, and manifested name
and form //.
Continued in part 2.
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
At the outset my clarification to Sri Chandramouli prabhuji that it is only my understanding of the vAchArambhaNam shruti and it is not a reply to any mail nor intended to argue this stand with any other prabhuji-s.
I would like to understand this shruti vAkya with the bhAshya 2-1-14 where shankara uses this shruti vAkya to clarify its being not other than that (has to be deducted from) the word ‘Arambhana’ ( used in a text) etc. In the bhAshyakAra clarifies the effect is the universe and the cause is the supreme brahman. That the effect is not really other than the cause that it (effect) does not exist apart from the cause. Here again shankara uses the shruti example mrutpinda and clarifies ‘just as my dear boy by the knowledge of lump of clay all that made up of clay is known, since a modification (transformation) is a name mere play of words and that clay alone is real. Showing that the jagat is ‘AS EFFECT’ is only a name its essential nature is brahman alone. So vAchAraMbhana vikAra is just there not to convey brahman was all alone at the beginning as cause and later on he himself become effect as jagat etc. this vikAra (transformation) is not there in brahman and this vAkya is there to drive home the point that all this universe has this pure being for its essence that alone is real that is atman. etadAtmyamidaM ‘sarvaM’ tat satyaM sa Atma tattvamasi. And bhAshyakAra concludes after quoting pot space, ether space, mrugatrushNa etc. this phenomenal jagat consisting of katru-bhOktru, bhOgya vastu etc. has no being OTHER THAN THAT OF BRAHMAN.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
PS : If the originator of this mail thread wants to have only related discussions to his observations I shall change the subject line and share it as my thoughts.
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65818DD35BDAD22A4E0CF53484D3A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Raghav Ji,
Reg // Thank you for presenting a consolidated
summary of your earlier posts on
the mRdghata dRShTAnta //,
No. it is not a consolidated summary of my earlier posts. I had occasion to undertake a complete review of my understanding of the Ch Up Bhashya Chapter 6. The post reflects this understanding.
Reg // Is this one instance of the different
focus or presentation of the
dRShTAnta? //,
Not exactly. My understanding of Sanskrit is limited and I tried to understand Swamiji’s writeup to the best of my ability. Apart from the details, what struck me was the conclusion he appeared to have arrived at as cited below.
// तथा च इदं प्रकरणं यथा मायोपहितचैतन्यरूपपरिणामिकारणज्ञानेन तत्कार्य्यज्ञानोपपत्तयेलं तथैव शुद्धचैतन्यात्मकविवर्त्तकारणज्ञानेन सर्व्वज्ञानोपपत्तयेपि । //.
I do hope my understanding of Sanskrit is wrong !!! But as I understand this is not consistent with Advaita Siddhanta itself as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada. You may like to clarify on this. I left off at this stage just noting that it is different from my understanding.
RegardsNamaste Chandramouli ji
Thank you for presenting a consolidated summary of your earlier posts on
the mRdghata dRShTAnta.
You said that Shri LalitaalaalitaH presented an entirely different
perspective.
I hope to slowly read his Sanskrit post and hesitate to trouble you with
asking for all the detailed explanations of the differences between his
Sanskrit post and your English post. So I thought of taking just one
passage as illustrative -
Here Swamiji mentioned tAdAtmya sambandha and later goes on to mention the
anirvacanIyatvaM of kAryakAraNa sambandha.
कार्य्यं न सर्व्वथा कारणाभिन्नं ; तथात्वे मृदैव जलाहरणादिव्यवहारापत्तेः ।
नापि सर्व्वथा तद्भिन्नं ; तद्विनापि सत्त्वापत्तेः ।
अत एव कार्य्यं कारणाद्भिन्नाभिन्नमेव । अयमेव सम्बन्धः तादात्म्यम्
इत्युच्यते ।
इति ।
Is this one instance of the different focus or presentation of the
dRShTAnta?
Om
Raghav
V Subrahmanian
यो मामेवमसंमूढो जानाति पुरुषोत्तमम् ।
स सर्वविद्भजति मां सर्वभावेन भारत ॥ १९ ॥
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Subrahmanian Ji,
In my understanding, मायाविशिष्टचैतन्यरूपपरिणामिकारणज्ञानेन (mAyAvishiShTachaitanyarUpapariNAmikAraNaj~nAnena) and मायाउपहितचैतन्यात्मकविवर्त्तकारणज्ञानेन (mAyAupahitachaitanyAtmakavivarttakAraNaj~nAnena) would have been in order.
Regards--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2c6cHUKQBnyHBDq2NERu9xP%2BX8NW7GKH8X8qh5LTP6eQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
The overall Upanishadic teaching of knowing the Cause makes one the all-knower is present allover the Gita and Upanishad and the Sutra prasthanas.
praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I am really enjoying your songs and tune today (rarest occasion though 😊 )as it is soothing to my ears since it is my favorite song!! Yes one who realizes the ‘common’ cause behind ‘all’ effects would become all-knower ( sarvajna) here all (sarvaM) is not avidyA but it is the ‘vishesha darshana’ of that ‘common’ cause only. Hence sarvaM bhavati attributed to jnAni is in the sense for the sarvaM brahman is the ONLY cause. And by realizing this cause he would become brahman itself or realizes that there is ONLY brahman and nothing else apart from brahman.
Ram Chandran
Namaskar:
Advaitin List is open to all participants to express their view points based on their beliefs and knowledge. No one is imposing anyone to accept their view points and all participants do have their right if the posting has logical or conceptual errors. Also what may look error need not necessarily be an error. In advaita we often say that “Brahman alone knows the Brahman!”
I want to express my sincere thanks to Sri Chandramouli for his scholarly postings using verses from CU illustrating the Clay and Pot and also Snake and Rope. As he pointed out that there are many ways of interpreting the messages in the major works of Sankara, the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutra and the Bhagavad Gita.
Most texts and authors use the above above examples to explain what is Satyam (TRUTH) and what is Mithya (Neither True or False). It is an accepted fact that Avidya (Ignorance) is the main cause for misconception such as the visualization of a Snake for a Rope.. The Gold-Ring or Clay-Pot examples are often used to explain the presence of the Brahman in the world around us. Without the presence of Gold there will not be any gold ring. There can be no Golden ring without Gold but Gold will remain even there is no gold ring! The existence of the world (Jagat) depends on the existence of the Brahman. But for the existence of the Brahman does not depend on the presence of the world. The entire teachings of Advaita Philosophy is summarized in one sentence by: “Brahma Satyam and Jagat Mithya”. The world is deceptive because its apparent reality is superimposed on Brahman.
The Snake and Rope example illustrates the role of Avidya (ignorance) in the creation of Mithya. Due to incomplete knowledge (Avidya) the rope appears as a snake in the dark and with the use of a light, we recognize that the rope appeared like a snake! As long as ignorance prevails, we are blinded by Mithya which caused the misjudgment rope as a snake. The dream analogy also explains how Mithya caused the dream to be real until we wake up from the dream! The Mithya gets dispelled with the disappearance of ignorance with the emergence of knowledge.
With my warm regards,
Ram Chandran