V Subrahmanian, Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:06 pm

The Sūtasamhitā – Part 3

The Essence of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6th Chapter

18. सत्तासंबन्धवत्त्वं चेद्विशेषोऽस्य न तत्पटु ।
तदाऽपि दोषः पूर्वोक्तः प्राप्नोत्येव न संशयः ॥ १८ ॥

सत्तासंबन्धवत्त्वं चेत् If it is the relationship with the existence विशेषः difference अस्य its न not तत् that पटु strong तदा even अपि then दोषः defect पूर्वोक्तः aforementioned प्राप्नोति occurs एव certainly न without संशयः doubt

Owing to the defect stated already in the previous verse, the third alternative (suggested in verse16) does not hold good. The idea is: The effect, if it is asat, cannot have an existence of its own, nor can it claim to have any relationship with anything existent.

19. अतोऽसतो न कार्यत्वं सदसत्त्वं न संगतम् ।
उक्तदोषद्वयापत्तेरतः कार्यं तु कारणात् ।
अभिन्नमेव भेदस्यासंभवादेव वस्तुतः ॥ १९॥

अतः therefore असतः of the non-existent न there is no कार्यत्वं effect-status सदसत्त्वं existent-non-existent न never संगतम् admissible उक्तदोषद्वयापत्तेः owing to two stated defects अतः thus कार्यं effect तु indeed कारणात् from cause अभिन्नम् non-different एव alone भेदस्य of difference असंभवात् impossible एव certainly वस्तुतः in truth

From the foregoing it is established that there can never be a relationship between the effect and non-existence. Nor can the effect be a mix of sat and asat, existence-non-existence since it is an impossible proposition. Since an effect cannot be proved to be really different from its cause, it is to be admitted that the effect is non-different from its material cause. That alone is the Vedāntic position. In order to explain an absolute difference It is essential to prove the locus of difference. Such an exercise will result in several logical defects as explained above.

20. भेदाभेदसमाख्या तु सुतरां नैव सिद्ध्यति ।
कारणात्कार्यजातस्य भेदाभावाच्च वस्तुतः ॥ २०॥

भेदाभेदसमाख्या giving the name ‘difference-cum-non-difference’ तु is however सुतरां न एव by no means सिद्ध्यति tenable कारणात् from the cause कार्यजातस्य the class of effects भेदाभावात् are since non-different च too वस्तुतः absolutely

Since it is impossible to have existence and non-existence as attributes in the same locus, the proposition of difference-cum-non-difference too is inadmissible. Objection: If the effect is non-different from its (material) cause, how do we account for the perception of difference between the effect and its cause? Reply: Even though there is no difference between the effect and its cause in absolute terms (when properly enquired), yet, owing to ignorance, such a difference becomes perceptible, in the uninquired state. These two states are also called ‘vichārita dṛṣṭi’ and ‘avichārita dṛṣṭi.’ This alone is stated in the following two verses:

21. कार्यकारणभेदश्च कारकव्यापृतिस्तथा ।
उत्पत्तिश्च विनाशश्च तथैवार्थक्रियाऽपि च ॥ २१॥

कार्यकारणभेदः cause-effect difference च and कारकव्यापृतिः the role of other causal factors तथा as also उत्पत्तिः origin च and विनाशः destruction च and तथा एव in the same way अर्थक्रिया practical utility अपि च and

22. नामरूपविशेषश्च सर्वं भ्रान्त्या प्रसिध्यति

नामरूपविशेषः च difference between name and form सर्वं all these भ्रान्त्या owing to error, delusion प्रसिध्यति happens

The perception of difference between the cause and effect, the play of causal factors such as the instrumental cause (the potter, for instance and the potter’s wheel), the thinking that ‘the pot has now been produced’ and later ‘the pot is destroyed’, the concept of practical utility ‘the pot is useful for storing water, cooking, etc.’, the idea of ‘this object is called a pot’ and ‘the pot is rotund, wide-mouthed, of red color, with a smooth finish, etc.’ – are all products of delusion. These verses bring to the fore the way the world behaves, ‘vyavahāra’. The aim of Vedānta is to highlight the delusion involved in vyavahāra and point to the corrected vision. When one opens his eyes to the state of delusion and the corrected vision, one is freed from samsāra. Liberation is the fruit of such an enquiry. This is the crux of the sixth chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad.

23. अतः सर्वो विकारश्च वाचा केवलमास्तिकाः ।
अस्तीत्यारभ्यते नामधेयमात्रं हि सत्सदा ॥ २३॥

अतः Hence सर्वः all विकारः च transformation वाचा by word केवलम् merely आस्तिकाः O believers! अस्ति इति ‘It exists’ thus आरभ्यते commenced नामधेयमात्रं merely name हि indeed सत् Existence सदा alone ‘is’ always.

Having established the non-difference between the cause and the effect, the pertinent Vedic passage is being annotated.

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.4 statement ‘vācārambhaṇam vikāro nāmadheyam, mṛttiketyeva satyam’ [‘The effects (pots, etc.) are no more than mere words; what is real is the clay (material cause) alone.’] is to be correctly understood and remembered always. This is the vichārita dṛṣṭi.

The effect is nothing but the cause alone that is made to appear differently as the effect. Since the effect is perceived to be ‘different’ owing to delusion, the entire category of effect, being a transformation, is mere word. That is, when we say ‘the effect is’, what we are doing is only attributing names and forms to the cause alone; there is no such thing as an effect that is other than, different from, the cause. Thus ‘pot, jar, saucer, etc.’ are mere names alone without any substance other than the clay, the material cause. At all states, stages, just as in the case of post-destruction, even during the pendency of the effect, what exists really is the cause alone. The states of ‘origin’, ‘sustenance’ and ‘destruction’ of a pot is, upon enquiry, known to be marked by the continued existence of the cause, clay, alone. The ideas of origin, etc, various names, forms, etc. are mere verbal transactions. When the real substance behind, beneath, these words/transactions is searched for, one will find nothing other than the cause alone subsisting.

24. प्रातीतिकेन रूपेण विकारोऽसत्य एव हि ।
कारणाकार एवास्य सत्यः साक्षात्सदा सुराः ॥ २४॥

प्रातीतिकेन रूपेण as perceptions विकारः transformation असत्यः एव हि is unreal indeed कारणाकारः एव अस्य its causal form alone is सत्यः real साक्षात् as it is सदा always सुराः O! gods

Objection: By declaring that the effect is mere words, it is implied that they are non-existent. Thus, how indeed can such a non-existent entity be identified with the Primal Cause, Brahman, as non-different thereof? [The idea is: how can something that is non-existent be equated with Brahman which is admitted to be verily Existence? Existence and non-existence are patently mutually contradictory.]

In reply to such a doubt it is clarified: There are two dimensions to an effect: The first is its being attributed with (in the case of a jar) a wide neck, rotund middle portion, etc. The second is: the inhering clay that is the cause. Between the two dimensions the first one as pertaining to the perception of the attributes is unreal and the second one as pertaining to the determining of the cause is (alone) real.

25. कारणाभिन्नरूपेण कार्यं कारणमेव हि ।
सद्रूपेण सदा सत्यं भेदेनोक्तिर्मृषा खलु ॥ २५॥

कारणाभिन्नरूपेण as non-different from the cause कार्यं the effect कारणम् is cause एव alone हि indeed सद्रूपेण as Existence सदा always सत्यं real भेदेन as different उक्तिः talk मृषा unreal खलु indeed

Objection: There is one entity that is the cause which is invariably related to the effect. There is another entity that is the cause that is different. This results in contradiction of the advaitic cause. This verse is in reply to such an objection.

Reply: That entity which is existence-cause that is related to the effect and non-different from it (the effect) is none other than the cause itself; there is no difference between the two. The objector thinks that there are two entities: 1. that cause which is inherent in the effect and 2. that cause which exists as a cause prior to the coming into being of the effect. The reply clarifies that that which is experienced as the cause prior to its taking the form of an effect is not any different than that which is available in the effect as the cause. The cited Chāndogya passage ‘clay alone is real’ teaches that the cause alone is established as the real entity (by the Veda) while negating any reality attached to the effect. The Veda emphatically says ‘the clay alone is real’ and this is being brought out: To think and transact that the effect is an entity that is completely different from the entity that is the cause is based on ignorance.

26. अतः कारणविज्ञानात्सर्वविज्ञानमास्तिकाः ।
सुतरामुपपन्नं हि न सन्देहोऽस्ति कश्चन ॥ २६॥

अतः therefore कारणविज्ञानात् by understanding the cause सर्वविज्ञानम् all-knowledge आस्तिकाः Believers! सुतराम् by all means उपपन्नं reasonable हि indeed न no सन्देहः doubt अस्ति exists कश्चन whatsoever

The truth that has been established in the foregoing is now conclusively restated. In the worldly parlance when the material cause such as the clay is known, the effects such as the pot and saucer, too, become known as non-different from the cause, as the cause itself. Hence, by knowing Existence-Brahman to be the cause of the entire creation, the entire effect (creation), too, is indeed known as non-different from the very essential cause. This is the reasoning that helps firm up the knowledge taught by the Veda.

27. तच्च कारणमेकं हि न भिन्नं नोभयात्मकम् ।
भेदः सर्वत्र मिथ्यैव धर्म्यादेरनिरूपणात् ॥ २७॥

तत् च and that कारणम् cause एकं is one हि indeed न not भिन्नं different न nor उभयात्मकम् different and non-different भेदः diference सर्वत्र everywhere मिथ्या is unreal एव alone धर्म्यादेः the locus, etc. अनिरूपणात् since not demonstrated.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 4 Coming Soon…

Share on Facebook0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on Twitter0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent articles