Hacker on bija and creation

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

• Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

• 
  

• Please sir, how do your arguments hold up against Hacker’s study? I have abstracted below a few of Hacker’s relevant conclusions on bija and creation. 

• Attached also is Hacker’s 44 page pdf on avidya, maya, namarupa and eshwara that should be required reading for any defense of mulavidya. You have already taken issue with Hacker but only on one or two instances - insufficient imho. 

• 
  

• Hacker study has influenced a generation of Western scholarship. I suspect Hacker drew inspiration from SSSS though he only offers scant recognition,

• ."the Unmanifest" (bija-saktir avyakta-sabda-nirdesya) .is av-atmaka (1,4,3

• Awakening from deep sleep (SU$uptad utthana) . ..is av-atmaka-bija-sadbhava-karita (II ou,3,31,

• 
  

• “If one wished to assign the causal operation of avidya to one of the two categories of causal relation which the Vedanta distinguishes material causation and efficient causations-then one might, because of the numerous occurrences of avidya-nimitta and mithyajnana nimitta, be tempted to see here a relationship of efficient causation. Thus, a marked difference between S. and all other Advaitins, with the possible exception of Totaka, would be established: whereas they consider avidya as causa materialis, it is causa efficiens for S. However, we are not justified in making such a sharp contrast; for the occasionally occurring expressions avidya-bija and avidyatmaka suggest, strictly speaking, a relationship of material causation. (The second expression, avidyatmaka, is employed with the satkAryavada in mind: where the upadhis are formed from avidya as their prime matter, they are "of the nature of avidya" (avidyAtmaka), since for the satkaryavadin the effect or product is identical with the material cause.) Nevertheless, in view of the frequency of avidya-nimitta we cannot draw the conclusion that S. sees . . . . a causa materialis relationship here either. We must keep in mind that the causal connections between a avidya and its effects are, preponderately, indicated with unique expressions that are used only for these relations (pratyupasthiipita, adhyasta, adhyc'iropita, vijrmbhita, kalpita), or else with the very general and indefinite word krta, or with phrases which denote merely coexistence or succession. The preference for such expres. sions indicates that, as S. conceives it, one has to do here with a causal relationship of a very special kind. Nevertheless, this much can be affirmed with regard to the differentiation of the interpretation of S. from that of all other Advaitins-that in his case avidya is never designated as material cause of the physical world. It is never referred to as upadana• karana or prakrti, whereas even Suresvara, who is closer to S. than anyone else in his understanding of avidya, uses the expression upadana to refer to avidya.

• The frequent descriptions of causal chains, beginning with avidyJ in SBh, also suggest that, as S. conceives it, the causality of avidya is unique. This matter will be dealt with in the section on nilmanlpa (l[,5). In that connection S.'s avidya interpretation also will have to be further clarified.p64

“Also in these contexts namarupe are presented as a kind of prime matter. They are that which is avidya or maya is for other Advaitins before and after Sankara. “P68

From an overwhelming maiority of these passages it is clear that avidya and the world seed (jagad� bija) are conceived by S. to be two different, though closely related, thmgs. And that distinguishes S. again from the other teachers of his school, according to whose interpretation the prime matter of the cosmos falls together with the magical potency of illusion, avidya, and with maya, so that the term nilmarupa becomes disensable as a designation of the seed of the cosmos.p76

In all four texts sakti is conceived as something material. God cannot create if he does not have the corresponding power (text 2). But this power is not just a capacity. It is also a substance out of which God forms the world: the sakti of lsvara is a bfja-s akti. And the prime matter is also the primary state of that which is to be created (text 2). Creative power, the material of creation, and the original state of the world thus coincide -- a consequence of the substantialist way of thinking as well as the satkaryavada.
S.'s preferred expression for the prime matter of creation is (avyalqte) namarrlpe

//..The account of creation in his system has only the propaedeuhc function of drawmg attention to the unity of being.p84-85

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pCvQ-Y36h3xqii-JlcMtJxiAdO1FOMIV/view?usp=sharing

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Sri Michael,

I hope you do not mind me intruding into your illuminating conversation with Sri Sudhanshu. A few points on Hacker's article you kindly posted before.

1) Hacker says "according to S's only definition, avidyA is the same as adhyAsa" and quotes the sentence from the adhyAsa bhAshya "tametam lakshaNam adhyAsam paNDitAh avidyeti manyante". However, that is not true. 

As we have shown through multiple quotations provided by Sri Sudhanshu - wherever avidyA is used in connection with vyAkRta nAmarUpa (manifest names and forms) in the bhAShya - Shankara has referred to such nAmarUpa as avidyAkRta, avidyApratupasthApita etc - creations or projections of avidyA - consistently. 

Names and forms are superimpositions (adhyAsAh) on Brahman. Therefore, it follows to reason that according to Shankara, the adhyAsa that is name and form, is avidyAkRta, avidyApratupasthApita, a product of avidyA. In the sentence from the adhyAsa bhAShya quoted by Hacker (tametam lakshaNam adhyAsam...), Shankara says that wise men consider adhyAsa, the product, to be identical with avidyA, the cause. 

If as according to Hacker, avidyA is the same as adhyAsa, the multiple references to nAma rUpa being products or creations of avidyA (avidyA-kRta, avidyA-pratyupasthApita) would be incorrect in every form of causation - except material causation.

To explain - Normally, it would be inappropriate to refer to a product (adhyAsa) as its cause (avidyA), if the cause were to be anything other than a material cause - No one will consider a pot to be a potter, let alone, wise ones - for example. However, if the cause were to be a material cause, then it is quite appropriate to refer to a pot made of clay as clay. Therefore, Shankara must necessarily hold avidyA to be the material cause of adhyAsa, for the two statements "wise ones consider adhyAsa to be avidyA", and "names and forms are creations of avidyA" to both hold true simultaneously.

This is the basis of satkAryavAda In Advaita. It is in this sense of satkAryavAda, where the effect is identical with its material cause, that Shankara employs the sentence - "wise men refer to this kind of adhyAsa as avidyA".

Hacker himself half acknowledges the material causation of avidyA elsewhere -  "The second expression, avidyAtmaka, is employed with satkAryavAda in mind: where the upAdhis are formed from avidyA as their prime amatter, they are "of the nature of avidyA" (avidyAtmaka), since for the satykAryavAdin the effect or product is identical with the material cause."

Therefore, Shankaracharya is not defining avidyA as adhyAsa, rather he is referring to adhyAsa as avidyA.

2) Hacker also says " For S. avidyA is the same as mithyAjnAna, for other Advaitins it is the cause for it". 

This is not true for all advaitins. In the Panchapadika, a commentary on the Brahma Sutra, Padmapada too equates mithyAjnAna with avidyA, the material cause of adhyAsa (a).  So too do the authors of the Ratnaprabha (b), Prakatartha Vivaranam (c), Bhashyabhavaprakashika (d) and the Nyaya Nirnaya (e).  It is only the bhAmati where the bhAShya reference to mithyAjnAna, occurring in the phrase mithyAjnAna-nimittah found in the adhyAsa-bhAShya, is interpreted to mean adhyAsa, which is caused by ajnAna (f).

Hence, it is not a universal truth that all Advaitins consider avidyA as the cause of mithyAjnAna - as shown, at least 5 commentators of the Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Shankara consider avidyA and mithyAjnAna as the same, like Shankara himself. Therefore, the charge that Shankara's followers differ from Shankara in considering avidyA and mithyAjnAna to be different, does not hold.

3) Despite half-acknowledging the material causation of avidyA, Hacker goes on to say "Nevertheless, in view of the frequency of avidyA-nimitta we cannot draw the conclusion that S sees a causa materialis relationship here either". 

This is a flawed analysis. In the ancient works of Vedanta - ie around the time of Shankara and previous to his time, the term "nimitta" did not come to exclusively refer to efficient causation. The clear and exclusive differentiation in the usage of the terms "nimitta-kAraNa" to mean efficient causation and "upAdAna-kAraNa" to mean material causation, is a post Shankara development. Please note - I am referring to a development in the way the terms are used. I am not rejecting the idea of avidyA's material causation in Shankara's works (as Hacker and Sri SSS do), or claiming (again as Hacker and Sri SSS do) an introduction of avidyA's material causation as an act of post Shankara commentators.

Why? The bhAShyakAra himself uses the term nimitta without strictly meaning efficient causation in a plethora of places. Just as a very small sample, see BSB 1.1.2 "प्रतिनियतदेशकालनिमित्तक्रियाफलाश्रयस्य", "विशिष्टदेशकालनिमित्तानामिहोपादानात्",  BSB 1.1.4 "धर्माधर्मतारतम्यनिमित्तं" , BSB 1.1.5 "चेतनत्वात्सत्त्वोत्कर्षनिमित्तं सर्वज्ञत्वमुपपन्नमित्यनुदाहरणम्", BSB 1.1.23 "सतस्तत्त्वानवबोधनिमित्तो" -  this is a very small selection of the vast number of results that show up for the word "nimitta" in just the BSB. There are many more references where the term nimitta does not mean efficient causation. Therefore, the mere use of the term does not necessarily imply that efficient causation is meant or material causation is denied. 

Therefore, a word frequency based analysis is not something that we can rely on to conclude that Shankara rejected material causation when he used the term "avidyA-nimitta".

4) Hacker says "in his (Shankara's) case, avidyA is never designated as material cause of the physical world". However this is an incorrect conclusion.

In BSB 1.4.3, Shankara says "अविद्यात्मिका हि बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या", meaning, the causal power, referred to by the word avyakta, is of the nature of avidyA. In KathopaniShad Bhashya 1.3.11, he says "अव्यक्तं सर्वस्य जगतो बीजभूतमव्याकृतनामरूपं", meaning, avyakta, being unmanifest name and form, is the causal seed of the world,. 

Hacker himself acknowledges that "In any case, there are several places in the SBh where namarupe are quite clearly understood as a kind of prime matter or primal state of the world. They are called in this reading "the undeveloped namarupe".

 

Hacker is referring to BSB 1.1.5 "तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये नामरूपे अव्याकृते व्याचिकीर्षिते इति ब्रूमः". Shankara here is using the term avyAkRte nAmarUpe, which Hacker translates as "the undeveloped namarupe", which in Hacker's words is a "kind of prime matter", i.e. a material cause. 

Putting BSB 1.4.3, KaTha 1.3.11 and BSB 1.1.5 together, the conclusion that we are invariably drawn to is that according to Shankara - avyakta, whose nature is avidyA (BSB1.4.3), which cannot be said to either be identical to Brahman or different from it, which is "undeveloped namarupe" (BSB 1.15), is the causal seed of the world's names and forms (Katha 1.3.11) - ie avidyA, as unmanifest names and forms, is the material cause of the world, which is manifest names and forms.

This is half acknowledged by Hacker when he says "the occassionally occurring expressions avidyA-bIja and avidyAtmaka suggest, strictly speaking,  a relationship of material causation". However, in light of the "occassional occurrence" of the former two expressions in contrast to the frequency of "avidyA nimittah", Hacker erroneously concludes that the "strict interpretation" of the terms avidyAtmaka and avidyA-bIja as material causation, has to be set aside.

But as we have shown, the frequency of the usage of a term "nimitta" is no basis to conclude that material causation is denied - nimitta has been used even more frequently by Shankara to mean "cause" in a general sense, and not to mean efficient causation, or deny material causation, at all. The meaning and the context of each usage is to be separately analysed, and one cannot apply a general rule that "nimitta" can never mean material causation, according to Shankara - especially when there is contrary evidence of Shankara referring to avidyAtma-bIja-shakti to mean a material cause.

5) Interestingly Shankara refers to this avyAkRta nAma rUpa as "tattva-anyatvAbhyAm-anirvachanIye" in the BSB 1.1.5 quote referenced above. Hacker says "he (Shankara) never calls it (avidyA) anirvachanIya...In the SBh the word occurs only as an adjective of nAmarUpa". 

However, as shown in point 4 above, the anirvachanIya avyAkRta nAma rUpa of BSB 1.1.5 is the anirvachanIya avidyA that we are referring to - precisely because the avyAkRta nAma rUpa, which is avyakta (per the statement of the identity - avyaktam...avyAkRtanAmarUpam in KaTha 1.3.11), is avidyAtmikA (per the statement of the bIja shakti referred to as avyakta being avidyAtmikA in BSB 1.4.3).

Clearly, there are several points raised by Hacker, as well as by Sri SSS - whose scholarship, monumental efforts and devotion to the bhAShyakAra are unquestionable - that are valid. However, the central themes of our discussion, namely whether the identity between avidyA and mAyA, as a consequence of which avidyA being the material cause of creation, necessarily requiring avidyA to not be of the nature of absence, are all well founded on a closer analysis of the prasthAna-traya-bhAShya of Shankaracharya. 

I think I will stop here in the interests of time - I do not feel the need to criticise Hacker, or heavens forbid, Sri SSS, for criticism's sake. The purpose of this exercise is to merely prove the points above. Therefore, I do not feel the need to quote Hacker's entire paper verbatim and disprove every aspect of that work that I disagree with - just enough to accomplish my purpose. 

Non-Shankara-bhAShya references to mithyAjnAna occurring in the adhyAsa bhAShya

(a) PadmapAdAchArya - Panchapadika "मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः इति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानम् । मिथ्येति अनिर्वचनीयता उच्यते । अज्ञानमिति च जडात्मिका अविद्याशक्तिः ज्ञानपर्युदासेन उच्यते । तन्निमित्तः तदुपादानः इत्यर्थः ॥"

(b) Ramananda Yati - Ratnaprabha, "अध्यासस्योपादानमाह - मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्त इति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानं तन्निमित्तमुपादानं यस्य स तन्निमित्तः । तदुपादानक इत्यर्थः ।"

(c) AnubhUtisvarUpAchArya, Praktartha Vivaranam, Page 12, Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani Dravid Shastrigal

(d) ChitsukhAchArya, Bhashya-Bhava-Prakashika, Page 12, Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani Dravid Shastrigal 

(e) Anandagiri AchArya, Nyaya Nirnaya, Page 12, Sharirakamimamsabhashyam with three commentaries, Part 1, edited by Mani Dravid Shastrigal  

(f) Vachaspati Mishra, Bhamati, "पूर्वकालत्वसूचितमध्यासस्य व्यवहारकारणत्वं स्फुटयति - मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः व्यवहारः । मिथ्याज्ञानमध्यासस्तन्निमित्तः । तद्भावाभावानुविधानाद्व्यवहारभावाभावयोरित्यर्थः ।"

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, 21:59 Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
I replied personally without noticing your public response. So I'm
repeating.

Namaste Sudhanshuji, Hacker mentions namarupa bijashakty-avastham from
BSbh1.4.2-3 (text 2) in the abstract in my previous message.

and here's another quote of particular reference on Namarupa and Avidya
p74ff, "
The renderingol avidyii into a material thing, the prime matter of the
cosmos, was already widespread prior to S. in Vedantic and Vai�cyava
cirdes. 33 He rejected it, to be sure, not with an explicit refutation but
by means of his linguistic usage. That is to say, S. clearly always strove
to follow the Upaniiads closely in his method of thought and terminology.
But one simply cannot extricate the theory of avidyil as prime matter from
those texts. On the other hand, one can base the theory of namarripa as the
world seed on Upani�adic passages if, as shown above, one interprets them
from the standpoint of the satkaryavada. Moreover, in pural)ic thought
avidya is only another name for pralq-ti and does not connote an illusion.
S. thus could have feared that the word would have been misunderstood in a
dualistic-realistic sense had he employed it in the sense of "prime matter.'
"
Only proving Hacker's observations are FUNDAMENTALLY mistaken and not
merely topically in error can you claim a superior understanding of bhasya.
Hacker makes SSSS easy with an accounting of evidence and a technician's
exegesis.

Have you read Hacker? Maybe a point by point analysis - point you on the
map :)

regards, michael

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Very nicely presented Venkatraghavan ji. Thanks for the references from texts such as PrakaTArtha VivaraNam.

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/CAL34aEn9w6H3_Ccc6rTSX21_SpOM_Y_M%3D%3Dk5DWFsNtWyR03ZFw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste  Venkatraghavan, Indeed, a very nice reply. I am not the one to respond and any response would require a greater effort

, I believe, than most are able or willing to devote, however, I will share. 

Regards, Michael

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDHhy9VOFr5KD3mqSaM_Gu75xwRzQibHO0R0Er3CA02vw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan, 

A response to your comments on Hacker.  Another respondent argued from parsimony, avidya as adhyasa and adhyaropa/apavada as fundamental are simple and clear 

regards, Michael 

Shriram Bhandari

Moderator

Top contributor

See the 1st quotation

प्रतिनियतदेशकालनिमित्तक्रियाफलाश्रयस्य ,

B.S.B 1.1.5 , it merely describes Brahman as the cause with respect to the Adhyaropa and Apavada framework. If the person arguing is so focussed on the word निमित्त which means cause, then he forgets that this compound contains the word प्रतिनियत, which means pre determined. Now if repetition of Nimitta in the Bhashya proves his own point on Avidya he must answer as to how Maya or Avidya are pre determined. If the arguer insists that I don't know Samkrutam then he may himself break up the compound and tell me it's meaning. This is obviously a baseless argument by the opponent.

Now one more good quotation given by the person arguing for this is the following quote

"अविद्यात्मिका हि सा बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी महासुषुप्तिः "

B.S.B 1.4.3

Rough translation: That Avidya being seed like potential is being called Unmanifest or Avyakta. It is being based on Parameshwara or the highest Lord, it is full of Maya also known as Mahasushupti or great deep sleep.

This is being told by the arguer, however he forgets that in the same section Adi Shankara says the following

1.4.14 B.S.B

"उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां तत्र तत्र ब्रह्मविषयैर्वाक्यैः साकमेकवाक्यताया गम्यमानत्वात्"

Rough translation: In the beginning and the end it is only told that Brahman will itself into the world.

Then quotes Gaudapada as follows

"तथा च संप्रदायविदो वदन्ति मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा। उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः"

In the sense these whole examples of just as from one fire come various sparks or descriptions of Brahman being the cause are merely methods there is no duality as such is being told.

If this is merely a method to show Nondual reality, then Adi Shankara stating that Avidya is Maya is only from this particular stand point, but not really a material cause as such.

Also in Brahma Sutra 2.1.15 Adi Shankara hammers the point that Ishwara having power is within Avidya, therefore equating Avidya with material cause has no meaning

तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च न परमार्थतो

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Also in Brahma Sutra 2.1.15 Adi Shankara hammers the point that Ishwara having power is within Avidya, therefore equating Avidya with material cause has no meaning

तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च न परमार्थतो

I think this is from 2.1.14 in Sw. Gambhirananda's translation.

"Name and form which constitute the seeds of the entire expanse of phenomenal exist- ence, and which are conjured up by nescience, are, as it were, non-different from the omniscient God, and they are non- determinable either as real or unreal, and are mentioned in the Vedas and the Smrtis as the power, called Maya, of omniscient God, or as prakrti (primordial Nature). But omniscient God is different from them, as is known from the text, "That which is Space (Brahman) is the accomplisher of name and form. That in which they subsist is Brahman" (Ch. VIII. xiv. 1). And there are also in evidence texts like, "Let me manifest name and form" (Ch. VI. iii. 2), "The omniscient Being who creates all forms, gives them names, (and entering into them) goes on uttering these" etc. (TaL A. III. xii. 7), "He who diversifies the single seed" (Sv. VI. 12). Thus like space conforming to the conditioning factors like pot, jar, etc., God conforms to the limiting adjuncts-name and form--created by nescience. And within the domain of empirical existence, He rules it over the selves which identify themselves with the (indi- vidual) intellects and are called creatures, and which though identical with Himself, conform, like the spaces in pots etc., to the assemblages of bodies and senses created by name and form that are called up by nescience. Thus God's rulership, omniscience, and omnipotence are contingent on the limiting adjuncts conjured up by nescience; but not so in reality can such terms as "the ruler", "the ruled", "omniscience", etc., be used with regard to the Self shining in Its own nature after the removal of all limiting adjuncts through illumination."

Maybe there will be conflict over right translation. Others can confirm the Swami's version or give alternate ones.

I see above:

1. namarupa is conjured by Avidya

2. as it were, non-different from Ishvara

3. non-determinable as sat or asat (i.e. is mithya)

4. Ishvara is different from namarupa (this suggests Ishvara is prior to namarupa) - 

a) because He "the accomplisher of name and form", "creates all forms, gives them names...", 

b) because He "conforms to the limiting adjuncts - name and form - created by avidya."

5. Within empirical standpoint, He rules over the selves which though identical with Himself, conform to body etc. called up by avidya.

This indicates to me: Brahman is referred to as Ishvara from different standpoints. One can note that namarupa is said to be conjured by avidya in one place and also created by Ishvara in another.

 thollmelukaalkizhu

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Michael,

Thanks for sharing, but I am not interested in having a debate by proxy with a third person I have not engaged with in a forum that I am not involved in.

More importantly however, it is clear the gentleman has not understood the arguments made - either by Hacker or me - or in fact who is arguing for what, so a debate would be futile. 

For example, he seems to think I am arguing that the repetition of nimitta proves my point, when I am arguing the very opposite - that Hacker should not be using word frequency, because it can cut both ways. 

Then he is quoting BSB 2.1.14 तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च न परमार्थतो, thinking it proves his point, when it is the exact opposite - pray tell, what is this avidyAtmaka upAdhi on whose basis Brahman's omniscience and omnipotence rests, other than mAyA, which is avidyAtmaka, in Shankara 's own words?

The nature of mAyA is being discussed here and in BSB 1.4.3. The question is, are you willing to agree that mAyA is the pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa, the changing material cause, or not?

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvE9EypwgeAFWWbak0JLfc6HuH83ZvR7_-GDTzjpoSxNmw%40mail.gmail.com.