A brief exposition of Hindu thought

This will (obviously) not be covering the full spectrum of Hindu thought, it will address only the three most popular schools of Hindu Vedantic thought. I just came across this on the blog of a moderator of the Hinduism community on Orkut (Krishna Prasad - he's brilliant), and thought it worth sharing, given that so many people have so little idea of what Hinduism and Hindu thought is.

Link

I won't use the quote function, for better readability. The material is reproduced below:






To understand the truth, let us examine the following step by step.

Vedanta : Vedanta claims its allegiance to the Vedas and as the term indicates, it means the last part of the Vedas. The Vedas are divided into four parts viz. Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka, and Upanisads. The last part called Upanisad is otherwise known as Vedanta or as the system which has the Upanisads as its authority. However, it is quite noterworthy. Upanisads are also found in the Aranyaka portion and the Brahmana portion.

Advaita : The word "Advaita" refers to a system of Vedantic thought which believes in a non-dualistic ultimate reality. Although the late 7th century AD Vedantin Shankaracarya is the chief exponent of this system, one must know that he is not the first to have propounded this thinking.

Hence it is quite clear that


Hinduism > Vedantism > Advaitism


Now we go on discuss the three schools of Vedanta Philosophy. But one must always keep in mind that Hinduism is much more than Vedantism

The Vedas can be divided into two parts :

1) Karmakanda

2) Jnanakanda.

It is the Jnanakanda that is traditionally named Vedanta, the source for Vedanta thinking.
There are several schools of Vedanta. Why should there be many Vedantic schools? The answer to this question lies in conceiving reality in multifarious ways by eminent teachers (acaryas), through textual exegesis.

All Vedantic schools agree that Brahman is the supreme reality. They also accept the Vedas as the source of Brahman-knowledge. Yet they disagree in their conception of the nature of the ultimate reality as portrayed in the Vedas. That is they agree that Brahman is the truth but disagree as to the nature of Brahman. Some call it personal while others impersonal. Some call it Free from dualities while others recognize the duality.

If the Vedas have a large number of statements about oneness or non-difference, they also contain a considerable number of statements that seem to assert the existence of duality. The former type of statements is known as abheda-sruti and the latter as bheda-sruti. Thus it is important to note that Vedas speak of both duality and non-duality

Among Vedantins, those who give more importance to abheda-sruti are Advaitins, and Shankara belongs to this group. Advaitins interpret bheda-sruti passages in a way that suits their concept of reality. For Advaitins, the chief import of the Vedas lies in abheda-sruti passages only.

The reverse is true for the dualist school of Madhva. The latter says that the chief import of the Vedic passages lie in portraying difference i.e. bheda.

In his view, abheda passages are secondary (gauna) and are meant to show the supreme quality and independent nature of God, Lord Vishnu. God alone is svatantra, independent, and all else, consisting of world and souls, are paratantra, that is, dependent, and it is only as such that their being becomes meaningful.

To illustrate consider the example of Gita, wherever Krsna calls himself the supreme truth the advaitists say that he has the right to say so. But they never think that if Krsna had the right, so did Arjuna. But Krsna never called Arjuna the supreme truth. Remember I am not saying that advaitists or wrong or something, I am only saying that the ways of the two schools.

Another influential interpreter of the Vedanta texts is Ramanuja. He distinguishes himself from both Shankara and Madhva in holding that both types of scriptural passages are equally meaningful. His interpretation is known as bheda-abheda for it tries to accomodate all types of Sruti passages.

For Ramanuja, the Karmakanda is as important as the Jnanakanda as they form a single text (aikyashastra). Hence, the Jnanakanda does not have any preeminence or superiority over karmakanda as Shankara and other Advaitins assert. Historically, Ramanuja's advent is prior to that of Madhva. The former’s exegetical position, which gives equal weight to both types of Scriptural passages became, understandably, unacceptable to Madhva who was a radical theist.
Ramanuja says that God is different from the souls and the world, even though they form his body, there is sarira sariri bhava between them. Madhva appreciates the idea of difference propounded by Ramanuja but says that the latter has compromised with the Advaitic school in propounding the idea of difference/non-difference.

To Madhva, difference must be total, and it is on this ground that he presents the idea of five-fold differences (pancabheda). While the tradition of Madhva never thrived, following the tradition of Nathamuni and Yamuna, Ramanuja s writings became the solid foundation for all theistic schools of Vaishnavism, which multiplied in later periods. Thus the modern schools of thoughts which are Vaishnavistic owe their basis to Madhva.

At this juncture the differences between the various schools of thought need to be discussed.

** The main tenet of the system of Advaita Vedanta is that there is nothing but the nondual supreme reality that is without any qualities or characteristics. It is this basic conception of reality that caused inconvenience to Ramanuja. He objected to the proposition that one could contemplate a reality that is free from distinctions. According to him, there cannot be any content to what has no characteristics. Thus, to assert a contentless cognition is a contradiction in terms. All the schools of thoughts have their own arguments regarding this tenet. The Vaisnavas speak of dual reality which is the Jiva-atma and paratma. They also speak of the pancattva namely Isvara, jiva, Prakrithi, Kala, Karma and recognize the duality between Isvara and Jiva.

** Another important and distinct feature of Advaita Vedanta is the doctrine of maya, which is identical with avidya. Maya is responsible for the appearance of Brahman as God, the individual souls, and the world. The followers of Ramanuja do not admit to the existence of maya. For them, the concept of maya is a pseudo concept with no standing at all. In his Mahapurvapaksha, Ramanuja puts forth seven objections to the Advaitic concept of maya, and in post-Ramanuja Visishtadvaita, these objections multiply. For the followers of Madhavacarya, they speak of Prakrithi and the 3 modes of Prakrithi binding on every Jiva(sattva, tamas, Rajas). One of the fundamental objects is to transcend the three modes and become attached to the supreme reality.

** A third important feature of Advaita is that the state of God and the soul are illusory, while the essential nature of both are real!! Ramanuja and Vaishnava Vedantins do not accept that either of them could be illusory as is already clear from the previous tenets

** A fourth key tenet is that the world is superimposed on Brahman through maya and that it is neither real nor unreal but indeterminable (anirvacaniya). For Vaishnava thinkers, the world is
real. The 3 modes delude us in this inferior reality. Maya is delusive but it is not unreal.

** A fifth distinctive postulate of Advaita Vedanta is that the direct knowledge of the true nature of the individual soul as Brahman is the sole means to liberation. In contrast, Vaishnava thinkers argue that by knowledge alone one cannot obtain liberation; if Knowledge is necessary, it is not sufficient. Knowledge remains incomplete in the absence of karma and bhakti. However, Shankara holds that karmas and bhakti are subordinate means to liberation and that knowledge alone constitutes the direct means to liberation.

** A sixth main feature of Advaita Vedanta is that liberation can be had right here and right now. Advaitins believe in two forms of liberation, in this life (jivanmukti) and post-mortem (Videhamukti). In contrast, the Vaishnava schools accept Videhamukti alone.

So you see if you are thinking Vedantism = Advaita. Then you are totally wrong and mistaken. As I said in another post Advaita has become very popular in the online forums because of Zakir Naik’s concepts. One must not be of the opinion that Advaita is the supreme school of thought or something. The argument goes on and on as to who is superior. While Advaitins piss of Vaisnavas by calling Krsna as Yogiraj Krsna ; the Vaisnavas refer to Krsna as the Supreme God and continue to attack Advaita. None are trying to progress in their paths. Every one is busy criticizing others.

The study of God (Isvara), the souls (jivas) and the world (jagat), is common to all Vedantic schools.

Theistic schools consider these three categories to be distinct realities. Advaita posits that they are the manifestation of Brahman, which is pure or non-dual consciousness. Maya, Advaitins hold, conceals the true nature of Brahman and projects the world, the souls, and God. God and souls are complex entities consisting of a sentient element called consciousness and of an insentient element called maya-avidya.

The essential nature of God is the sentient element, consciousness, which is known as Brahman;
that of the jiva is known as Atman. The important point is that although the state of being God and a soul are illusory, their essential nature is real. In contrast, the world has no independent reality; it is a mere appearance of Brahman through maya like a rope-snake that appears due to ignorance. The Vaisnavas hold that Lord Krsna is the supreme personality of God head and that we do have invidualities and that we must try to attain (not merge with) the Godhead. According to Vaisnavas avidya is also Maya. But in the sense that Maya deludes us away from the supreme truth or Parabrahman or Krsna. So Maya is avidya according to Advaita because it illusions while according to Vaisnavas it deludes.

In Advaita, God is always aware of his essential quality as Brahman and thus is ever liberated. The jiva, who wrongly identifies with the mind, body and the sense organs, is ignorant of his essential nature and undergoes transmigration. Advaitins say that the jiva s wrong identification, a product of ignorance, can be removed by the correct knowledge that his true nature is Brahman alone. So the advaitins emphasize on Jnana and Jnana alone. Whereas the other schools of thought, emphasize on karma and Bhakti. Vaisnava school of thoughts emphasize on Bhakti alone.

The mere use of words like "eka" or "aikya" cannot suffice to indicate Vedantic non-dualism since a number of Vaishnavava schools speak of the supreme reality as eka, i.e., Vishnu being the only reality. And so one is definitely mistaken if he says eka means and just means advaita Vedanta.

In fact, both traditions of Advaita and Visishtadvaita operate in advaita and dvaita. They are non-dual and dual at the same time, with differences arising in the emphasis placed by the acaryas.

Even Shankara has to contend with the world of duality at least insofar as it is necessary to making the Vedantic teachings meaningful. It is obviously not for the jivanmuktas that Shankara wrote his commentaries, but for the benefit of the people who are in the world of duality and who desire liberation. It is for them alone that the entire tradition must be meaningful.
In some respect, the Visishtadvaita tradition is also non-dualistic since it accepts Vishnu as the supreme reality. The crux of the problem between the Advaita and Visishtadvaita traditions is whether or not to accept the doctrine of maya.

The famous Vaishnava teacher Caitanya does not want to concern himself with such deliberations and refuses to brand reality at all. To him, the supreme reality is beyond thinking (acintya).

Thus we observe that these two interpretive schools of vedanta include both dual and non-dual dimensions in their philosophical enterprises. Of course, it would be quite naïve to think that they both teach the same thing, for their final philosophical positions cannot easily coexist.
The word darshana, means seeing. In the Advaita tradition, it implies the direct realization of reality or Brahman (prameya), free from any obstruction (Darshanam nama ratibandharahitam pratyaksajnanam). Darshana is doubtless, free of error and not dependent on inference (samsaya rahitam, viparyayarahitam and anumanaanapeksam jnanam). Darshana also involves the direct knowledge that one's own self is Brahman.

The concept of darshana includes the system of philosophy through which such knowledge is imparted, i.e., pedagogical methods, principles of textual interpretation, applied reasoning, etc. Because of its emphasis on knowledge, epistemology is particularily important in Advaita Vedanta philosophy. Indeed, Advaitins, though it is also true for most Indian thinkers, reckon that the ascertainment of a prameya, an object of knowledge, is totally dependent on a valid means of knowledge.

For the Vaisnavas, the concept of realization is totally different. They believe in the personal form of God and hence strive to attain god, serve god and win his love (Krsna, Krsna Bhakti and Krsna Prema)

According to Advaita Vedanta, the most important prameya to know corresponds to man’s highest desirable object (purushartha), which is Brahman. In Indian thought, life, considered in all of its aspects, should tend towards the fulfillment of man s highest goal, which is liberation. Thus Advaita darshana is value oriented and has, since its inception, successfully established a relation between values and actions. Among the values, which it recognizes, i.e., dharma, artha, kama and moksha, the first three have an extrinsic value, being instrumental to moksha, which is alone of intrinsic value.

For the Vaisnavas the most important Prameya in life is to attain Krsna Prema and after-life is Krsna loka. Among the values, which it recognizes, i.e., dharma, artha, kama and moksha, it recognizes all of them as extrinsic and Krsna Prema alone as the motto.

Moksha or liberation is unsurpassably worth because it is identified with pure existence (sat), consciousness (cit), and bliss (ananda). Advaitins are adamant that it is the Upanisadic revelation (Sruti) that constitutes the sole means of knowing Brahman, which culminates in liberation. If Sruti is sacred because it leads to liberation, its authority is not inflexible in the sense that it binds all men at all times. Surely, Sruti does not bind whoever has reached the unexcelled state of Brahman. Once truth is known, the Upanisads tell us, the Vedas become non-Vedas!!!

Since, in Advaita Vedanta, the whole world is ultimately false (jagatmithya), Sruti as word (sabda) is also false. Still, Sruti has the capacity to denote what is true. Nobody argues that the word water cannot, indeed, indicate its referent, i.e., water. Sruti can very well fulfill a similar purpose, with the notable difference that its referent is supersensuous. Whether an object lies within or beyond the sphere of the senses, once it is known, the words that have brought about its knowledge are no longer useful. It is in that sense that the Sruti declares that with the dawn of knowledge, the Vedas become Avedas.

According to advaita, the doctrine of the identity between the self and Brahman necessitates faith in Sruti, reasoning in accord with Sruti, as well as personal experience. Shankara makes use of a variety of hermeneutical processes to interpret Sruti as well as to do away with the aspirant’s instinctive and philosophical prejudices, so as to render personal experience of Brahman possible. The analysis of the phenomenon of self-awareness is perhaps the most important of all processes used throughout his writings.

In this regard, he appeals to two basic principles, a) that the subject can never become the object and b)that the real can never be negated. It is on these axiomatic principles that he speaks of empirical consciousness and existence as false or illusory, the unsublatable and pure consciousness present in all beings, being the only reality that ever was, is, and will be.
The other schools of thought have a different philosophy altogether. They emphasize on Bhakti mainly. Some of the other schools also emphasize on Karma yoga. But always keep one thing in mind. Shankara was successful at bringing together jnana, karma, and bhakti, which were burning issues in his time. His writings allow the coexistence of faith with reason and spiritual experience. Shankara never intended people to mock the other faiths and think less of one’s path and more of other’s path. By path I mean the three paths which were discussed in my post.
Another thing to be born in mind is that Sankara is the author of the poem Bhaja Govindam. So he is not against bhakti towards Bhagvan. So whether one believes in the neti-neti of advaita or the Om namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya of Dvaita one need not criticize the other man’s path.
And Brahman is not the highest truth. Advaitists think that Brahman is the Highest truth while the dvaitists feel that the Bhagvan is the highest truth. Greatest of the scholars like Sanakaracarya, Madavacarya, Ramanujacarya fight and dispute on this. So what to speak of us.
Walk on your path without criticizing the other man's path. I conclude by quoting the words from Gita :

"Only the ignorant speak of the result of devotional service[Bhakti] as being different from the analytical study of the material world [Sankhya]. Those who are wise know that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both."

Continuing the quote:




Dvaita: The Dvaita school, inaugurated by Madhvacharya (Ananda Tirtha), argues that there is an inherent and absolute five-fold difference in Reality -- between one soul and another, between the soul and God, between God and matter, between the soul and matter, and between matter and matter. These differences are not only individuations, but also inherent qualitative differences, i.e., in its essentially pure state, one individual self is not equal to another in status, but only in genus.

Consequently, any sort of unity, whether it be mystical or ontological, between the individual self and God is impossible in Dvaita. Hence the term Dvaita or dualism. Liberation consists of experiencing one's essential nature in parama padam as a reflection of God's glory. Such liberation is achieved through bhakti or loving devotion.

Advaita The Advaita school, represented in its classical and most powerful form by Sankaracharya, argues that only the Absolute Self exists, and all else is false. The universe and our existence as individuals is not unreal, mind you, but a false imposition on a real substrate, the non-dual, undifferentiated principle of consciousness. This is a very important distinction. Liberation in Advaita Vedanta consists of the realization that individuality is false, and that one's very essence is the Absolute Self, pure undifferentiated consciousness, one without a second. Such a realization, which according to Advaita can happen long before death, is achieved after a long period of introspection on Vedic teachings. At some point, the unity of the non-dual Self reveals itself, upon which all doubts are shattered and liberation is achieved.
In this system, since there is only one, and ultimately nothing else, the system is called Advaita, or non-dualism. To distinguish it from other forms of Advaita, it is also called nirvisesha Advaita, or non-duality of the Absolute without qualities.

Visishtadvaita Visishtadvaita is bhedha-abheda.Only God the Absolute, omnipresent Self exists. However, the concept of God refers to that Supreme Entity which contains all within itself; the entire universe, including all living beings, are fundamentally real and internally distinguishable from one another. However, there is only one total reality, as God includes all existence within Its very being. The individual selfs and the universe exist as God's attributes, since God pervades absolutely everything and gifts these substances with their reality.
In other words, God is the indwelling Self of all, and this all is real as they are included in His body. Therefore, Visishtadvaita literally means non-duality of the qualified, since God is qualified by innumerable glorious attributes, including individual selves and matter.
Liberation is eternal communion and service of God, the supreme, infinite, blissful Absolute. Ramanuja writes that such liberation is achieved by constant meditation on God's supreme perfections -- His omnipresence, His splendorous forms, His actions in His various manifestations, His existence in the hearts of all creatures, His nature as the First Cause of All. Such meditation, when practiced with a pure heart and mind and filled with extreme love, will yield a better and better conception of God in the mind of devotee over time, eventually leading to recollection of God so vivid it is like sight itself.As per visishtadvaita Such a vision, when practiced to the point of being unbroken, is the liberating knoweldge spoken of in the Vedas, a result of God's love of His beloved devotee. The difference between Advaita and Visishtadvaita
Notice the difference in approach of Advaita and Visishtadvaita. The former's conception of the Absolute has no attributes -- hence the discipline of meditation there does not in the end rely on bhakti. The latter has as its centerpiece a supreme being full of perfections and attributes, so the aspirant has no choice but to revel in these kalyana-gunas. From this basic difference in approach we can derive all the other differences between these schools of Vedanta
If there is only one conciousness, then how come there is a teacher who knows better and a student ? There is a giver and a receiver. How can one at the same time be knowledgeable and the seeker or ignorant?

The answer depends again on the school of thought. The adavatin Guru may be more knowledgable and self-realised. The Dvaitin Guru might be more devoted and self realised. The Visishtadvaitin Guru might be more knowledgable, more devoted and self-realised. To get a more precise answer apply yourself to the various schools of thoughts and figure out the answer yourself!! Yes this is Hinduism!! It does not believe in spoon-feeding, it believes in self-realisation!!

Continuing the quote (The following are the "levels of truth of theories of creation", in Advaita, each succeeding "lower" than the last.)








Ajata Vada

This is an ancient advaita philosphy which states that the world we see and perceive and we think we live was never created. This doctrine completely refutes all causality. The Ajata Vadis claim that only a Jnani(Man who is Self-realised) can experience that nothing ever comes into existence or ceases to be because the Self alone exists as the sole unchanging reality!!

Nothing exists except the one reality. There is no birth or death, no projection or drawing in, no seeker, no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists!!

It is a corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and effect, essential components of all creation theories,exist only in the minds of ajnanis (ignorant) and that the experience of the Self reveals their non-existence!! According to the Ajata Vadis everything but the self, the monistic substrate is an illusion.

This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only of the creative process which brought it into existence. An exponent of Ajata Vada claims that the world is real,but not as an assemblage of interacting matter and energy, but as an uncaused appearance in the Self. The real nature or substratum of this appearance is identical with the beingness of the Self, it necessarily partakes of its reality. That is to say, the world is not real to the jnani simply because it appears, but only because the real nature of the appearance is inseparable from the Self. In other words a Jnani does not allow his sense objects to delude him to the conclusion of the so-called reality.

Ajata Vadis claim that the ajnani on the other hand, is totally unaware of the unitary nature and source of the world and, as a consequence, his mind constructs an illusory world of separate interacting objects by persistently misinterpreting the sense-impressions it receives.This view of the world has no more reality than a dream since it superimposes a creation of the mind on the reality of the Self.

Dhrishti-Shrishti Vada

If the advaitin finds the idea of ajata or non-causality impossible to assimilate (anyone can read and understand! It is difficult to assimilate), then the next level of truth is that the world comes into existence simultaneously with the appearance of the ‘I’ –thought and that it ceases to exist when the ‘I’ –thought is absent (Neti-Neti alone leads to the liberation from Maya)
This theory is known as drishti-srishti, or simultaneous creation, and it says, in effect, that the world which appears to an ajnani is a product of the mind that perceives it, and that in the absence of that mind it ceases to exist.

The theory is true in so far as the mind does create an imaginary world for itself, but from the standpoint of the Self, an imaginary ‘I’ creating an imaginary world is no creation at all, and so the doctrine of ajata is not subverted. The Dhrishti-Shrishti is not accepted as the ultimate truth about creation by the advaitins but it is accepted as a working hypothesis.

This approach is justified by the advaitins on the pretext that if one can consistently regard the world as an unreal creation of the mind then it loses its attraction and it becomes easier to maintain an undistracted awareness of the ‘I’-thought.

Shristi-Dhrishti An even more deluded student of advaitin takes an even lesser level of truth which holds that the world is an objective reality governed by laws of cause and effect which can be traced back to a single act of creation. It includes virtually all western ideas on the subject from ‘big bang’ theory to the biblical account in Genesis.

These theories come into the limelight only for those who are unwilling to accept the implications of the ajata and Dhrishti-Shrishti theories. Even then, such theories should not be taken too seriously as they were only promulgated to satisfy intellectual curiosity, say the advaitins.

Essence of Shrishti as per advaita

Advaita says that the world as we see comes into existance as we see it and that there is no detailed process of creation. This is said to be yugapat-shrishti (instantaneous creation).
It is quite similar to the creations in dream where the experiencer springs up simultaneously with the objects of experience (Does this not remind you of a Bogart?).

Not all advaitins are satisfied with this explanation for they are deeply rooted in objective knowledge. They seek to find out how there can be sudden creation. They argue that an effect must be preceded by a cause. In short, they desire an explanation for the existence of the world which they see around them.

Thus they cant concieve a world without causality.(Reminds me of the french-man in the movie Matrix.. Cause and Effect)

Then the srutis (scriptures) try to satisfy their curiosity by theories of creation.

This method of dealing with the subject of creation is called krama-shrishti (gradual creation). But the true seeker must content with yugapat-shrishti, instantaneous creation. There may be any number of theories of creation. All of them extend outwardly. There will be no limit to them because time and space are unlimited. They are however only in the mind. If you see the mind, time and space are transcended and the Self is realised. Then and only then can you say "Aham Brahmah Asmi". So say the advaitins (I have to add this statement everytime to avoid unwarranted controversies)

Creation is explained scientifically or logically to one’s own satisfaction. But is there any finality about it? Such explanations are called krama-shrishti (gradual creation). On the other hand, drishti-shrishti (simultaneous creation) is yugapat-shrishti. Without the seer there are no objects seen.Advaita asks you to Find the seer and the creation is comprised in him. Why look outward and go on explaining the phenomena which are endless?

I must apologise for the size of the material, but it has to be this big, because this explanation is directed towards people who have next to no knowledge at all!

Imagine trying to explain Christianity to someone who has never heard of it, or to an alien being from another planet.

An even better analogy would be like trying to explain the rules of cricket to someone who knows nothing of the game.

thank you for the explanation

The Dvaitin perspective

Everything was unmanifest in the beginning and the end and is manifest only temporarily.
During this period of temporal manifestation, one is seperated from the service to god-head. God-head can only be attained by pure and self-less devotional service.

According to the Vaisnava theory, the truth is acintya. It is inconcievable but it is personal(not the impersonal form of Brahman).

So one must stop bothering oneself with impractical speculations of the 3 vadas and attain the supreme bliss by sincere and complete devotion, so say the dvaitins.

One must keep in mind that the ultimate aim of Advaitins is Jnana and that of Dvaitins is Bhakti. An advaitin may use the path of devotion to attain knowledge and a Dvaitin can use knowledge to develop love.


As is said in Gita :

Only the ignorant feel that the outcome devotion is different from the Sankhya(Theoritical study of Jnanis). The learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both ....(5.04)

So, I am of the personal opinion that both are right in their own ways

The Dvaitin illustrations of creation

For the Dvaitins, the process of creation is explained with three beautiful illustrations.

▪An spider creating its web threads and taking them back, plants growing from earth, and hairs growing on the body are the three examples of creation of all things by Akshara. The illustrations make the the nature of creation very clear. A spider does not convert itself into thread, but functions as an efficient cause for the material taken in by it to be so converted. Similarly, God takes Prakrti into His womb during laya (universal dissolution) and creates mahat and other constituents of the world during shrishti. This illustration clearly rules out both the parinama tranformation of God Himself into the world) or vivarta (projection of an unreal world) theories of creation. It is clear that God is described as the Efficient and Prakrti, the material cause of creation.

▪The second example of plants being born out of different seeds on the earth shows that things and beings are born with a variety of natures and different capacities, based on their intrinsic natures and past karmas. The differences cannot be attributed to God, who is thus free of the blemishes of vaishamya(discrimination) and nairghrnya (cruelty).

▪The third example of hairs growing out of a body, indicates that for Akshara, creation is spontaneous and without exertion.

The three illustrations thus show that:

▪▪God is the efficient cause of creation and not its material cause.

▪▪No discrimination or cruelty can be attributed to God, based on the endless variety in creation.
▪▪His creation is spontaneous and effortless.

Dvaitin doctrine of Causality

Unlike Sankara, Madhva advocated the causal theory(Parima) for creation. Parinama is the doctrine of Nyaya and Atomism, also shared by the Dvaita Vedanta of Madhva.

The ancient Nyaya school has a common-sense approach to questions of what exists and to questions of the nature of cognition and knowledge. Nyaya theory takes for granted that the world is more or less as we perceive it. While accepting that defects in the sense organs, merely partial perception of something and the influence of fear, anticipation and other mental conditions can lead to misapprehension as to what is actually being perceived, Nyaya regards perception as in general a sound means of cognition, which discloses things to us as they really are.

A reasonable interpretation of the world we perceive, shows it organised in causal chains. We experience ourselves as agents capable of acting on objects to bring about change. We can move a stone, build a wall, paint a pot, smash a vase, cook an aubergine, grate a potato, irritate a colleague, comfort a friend. We can act on the world about us so as to produce specific effects. We can exercise causal agency, behaving as the nimitta cause, one of the three modes of causality Nyaya recognises. The nimitta cause is known to Western philosophy as the efficient cause, the "who-done-it" cause.

Nyaya philosophers analysed the efficient cause further. Take the example of a potter. The potter throws the clay on his wheel to shape a vase. If the vase is tall, he may use a stick to keep it stable while he works on the detail of its shape. Being a modern potter he powers his wheel by electricity, which he switches on to make the wheel turn. To see what he is doing the potter needs light – perhaps it is a bright day and his studio is lit by the sun. Now, where do we locate the true efficient cause here?

Causality... The primary efficient cause, the specific cause whose action brings the effect about, here is the potter; it is his action that results in the coming-to-be of the vase. As the primary efficient cause, the potter is called the karana. The Sanskrit word karana has a very wide variety of meanings, here it designates the specific agency that brings about a specific effect. For convenience we can translate it as Agent. A specific individual effect has only one Agent. This is often misleadingly expressed by saying a single effect has only a single cause: this is careless and imprecise talk.

What of the wheel and the stick? These the Nyaya school came to see as sharing something of the causal function of the true efficient cause, but only as means, instruments, accessories, enabling devices. True enough, if the wheel is not working, the potter may be unable to throw the vase, but the wheel itself can never throw the vase. The potter might find another way to accomplish the effect: he might, for example, learn from an African potter the age-old technique of dancing a pot, making long snakes of clay, then moving in rhythmic circles about the pot base, winding the clay-snakes into the vase shape and patting them smooth. The wheel is used in the making, but it is not the Agent, it is a co-operant or accessory factor, it shares something of the character of a true efficient cause, but only something. There are other co-operant factors, the electricity supply, the switch, the sunlight, the sun. Indeed, the order of the cosmos, the structure and properties of the elements, the patterns of behaviour of energy and matter are in a more remote sense all co-operant factors.

The potter himself is an effect. He was born from his mother after her conceiving by means of his father’s seed. The potter is an effect of their sexual union. Is the potter’s father, then also the efficient cause of the pot? Is efficient causality a transitive relation?

The Nyaya answer to this is a clear negative. If Y is the efficient cause of Z and X is the efficient cause of Y it does not follow that X is the efficient cause of Z. Clearly Z is dependent on Y and Y on X, so that Z is dependent on X, but this mode of causal dependence does not make X the efficient cause of Z. It would be absurd to accuse the father of Jack the Ripper of the gory murder’s his son committed: his son’s existence is causally dependent on his paents, but they are not thereby co-Agents in the acts he performs.

The potter shapes and forms the vase, he is the Agent who brings the vase into being as a vase. But before the potter began his shaping, there already existed the lump of clay from which the vase was to be formed. Nyaya philosophy recognises the clay as the upadana cause of the vase, the material cause, in the language of Western philosophy. The material cause is literally the material or stuff the effect consists of or is made from.

The material cause may relate to the effect in many different ways that the Nyaya tradition tends not to distinguish clearly. It may, for example, become the effect by relocation, as in the case of a slab of stone used as part of a floor; by disintegration, as when bones are crushed to make bone-meal for fertilizer; by aggregation, as when stones are put together to form a dry-stone wall; by mixture, as when saltpetre, nitre and charcoal are combined to make gunpowder, or almonds and sugar are pounded together to make marzipan; by shaping, as when a sculptor carves a chunk of marble or casts a quantity of bronze to make a statue; by transformation, as when bread, water, yeast and salt are baked to make bread. There are many other possibilities.

Causality.. Nyaya Philosophy..contd.

Consider now the final stages of the potter’s making of the vase. He has shaped the body of the vase on the wheel. He now shapes two elaborate, decorative handles and fixes them to the sides of the vase. The shape of the handles has a causal relation to the nature of the vase. But the shape of the handles is neither stuff from which the case is formed, nor does the shape exercise any mode of agency or efficient causality. The Nyaya viewpoint recognises her a third kind of causality, which, confusingly and unhelpfully, it names the asamavayi, the non-material cause. (The name is unhelpful since the non-material cause is precisely one that inheres in the material cause, the material cause is sometimes called the samavayi cause, and yet the obvious meaning of asamavayi is "non-inherent".) The asamavayi cause is characterized by two attributes:

1)It inheres in the material cause

2)Its causal efficacy is evident.

Consider a different example. An artist is making a mosaic of a peacock. The bird is in a luxurious garden, full of greenery and flowers. The bird is drinking from a fountain whose water sparkles and glints as it cascades down. Now, the artist is clearly the Agent-cause, the inplements he used, the light of his studio and so forth the co-operant accessory causes, the cement and the small cubic glass tesserae of which the picture is formed are the material cause. Now consider the colour of the individual tesserae. Each contributes something to the overall picture The causal efficacy of the tesserae in relation to the overall pictorial effect of the mosaic is evident. But what of the specific colour of an individual tessera? Clearly the colour of the individual glass cube does not bring the picture of a peacock into being: it is not the efficient cause of the picture. Nor is the colour of the tessera the material cause of the picture. Nonetheless the colour of that individual tessera contributes its own limited something to the picture.

It is, says the Nyaya, exercising non-material or non-inherent causality. It is neither an agent of any kind in bringing the picture into being, nor is the colour a material cause, it is not, unlike the tessera as such, stuff from which the picture is made.

Nyaya asserts that the effect is non-existent before the cause brings it about. This may seem no more than common sense, but it has proved the most controversial aspect of the Nyaya theory of causality.

If there exists an eternal cause with an eternal effect, then the cause would not be temporally prior to the effect and the effect would not come into being. The question as to whether or not such a cause and such an effect actually exists seems to be foreclosed by the assertion that the cause precedes the effect and that the effect is non-existent until the cause brings it into being. Examples surely exist where the Agent exercises his causal agency my merely relocating an object: for example in laying a slab stone beneath the chimney to form a hearth, or the placing of a marble slab on supports to provide a table-top. In such cases it seems quite implausible to claim the effect did not exist until the Agent exercised his causality.

Other examples exist where the effect is brought about by quite minor modification of the material cause: the piece of cloth that is cut and seamed to make a sheet or blanket, for instance The Nyaya philosopher can, of course, point out that the effect is conceptualised and named differently from the cause, even in the case of the relocated stone slab which is now called and thought of as a hearth-stone.

Dualist creation.. The conclusion

The Modern Dualist Vedanta holds a view closely similar to the Nyaya, but differs on this point, pointing to the co-existence of continuity and discontinuity in the causal process. Something continues to exist through the process of becoming; the effect is not produced out of nothing, there is, as the Nyaya freely admits, a material cause as well as an Agent involved in causal process. The effect, then, is not something which emerges from nothing, it is the result of change happening to the material cause by the action of the Agent.

Dualist Vedanta agrees with the Nyaya in asserting the reality of causal process, but differs in emphasising the continuity of cause and effect. At the same time, the Dualist philosophers refuse to accept the visishta doctrine that cause and effect are identical.

Aneeshm, thanks for posting that Im going to bookmark it for reading at a more lucid moment.

I have been curious of Hinduism for some time now and would earnestly like to learn more. But that article didn't help me as one who knows nothing of it. It was written for people with far more knowledge than I. Nearly every sentance used terms that were unkown to me. Do you have other links even more basic than that one?

White Elk said:

I have been curious of Hinduism for some time now and would earnestly like to learn more. But that article didn't help me as one who knows nothing of it. It was written for people with far more knowledge than I. Nearly every sentance used terms that were unkown to me. Do you have other links even more basic than that one?

Click to expand...

As you wish.

Thank you! I'm off to expand my horizon....

That helped a little and I explored that blog a bit... but I seek far far more. I've googled around the net but haven't yet found anything that would serve as a foundation upon which I can learn something of substance. From the little I know, I can see many more parallels between my own thought process and Hinduism, than I can with various western religions. I would very much like to learn more. And at this point I'm thinking that I first need a good Hindu dictionary which I can refer to. Perhaps with that along with an abridged Hindu history lesson, then I will have a real foundation with which to build upon.

Posting to subscribe. Will read this at some other time.