Notes-ChB

Aug 22, 2025

Completion of 6.2 section:

- This section is present in brahma sutra in the eekshana adhikaranam. The point is this: Saankhya takes sat as pradhanam. If that is the case:

(1) With sat gnaanam, we cannot know everything...since for saankhya also, purusha is separate from pradhanam. Hence, sat cannot refer to pradhanam.

(2) Saankhya says...it is only "gauna moksha" here, known through "sat" i.e. pradhaana gnaanam. That also does not hold...because Upanishad ends with this...It talks about no "alternate moksha" apart from sat gnaanam.

(3) Saankhya then says....I do not believe in vedanta shastra completely. I go only by logic (tarka)! But then...if he does so...Veda loses its pramaanam status. And Saankhya happens to be a veda-believer!

For these reasons, sat has to refer to brahman...which is consciousness. Advaita is unique. It talks about consciousness as the "cause" for the entire universe...and yes, by cause, we mean "vivarta kaaranam"...a cause with no change in brahman...when it becomes this world! And yes, jivas are not created. A question may be raised...how is brahman then...the kaaranam. That's correct. Jivas are not created. They happen to be brahman essentially! 

6-3-1:

Till now, we have had sukshma bhutas created. The sthula bhutas are yet to be created. But here itself, the upanishad is talking about jiva creation. That's because the 14 lokas are there..."for the jivas". In Aitereya, we had 4 types of creatures. Here also, in 6-3-1, we have these jivas- but only 3- jaraayujam, andajam,udbhidjam. In pancha bhutas also, we had only 3 in Chandogya! It truncates everything. We need to add svedajam (moisture born).  (Sita is called ayonijaa....since she was found in the field...and not born...from the womb).

Shankara sees a problem. In the previous section, the word bhuta refers to "elements". But...we cannot have jaraayujam...from elements! In BG, bhuta means living-bodies. Here also, bhutas should be taken as bodies, not elements!

Tesham...those...esham...these...both are seen here. "These" cannot be used for the elements in the previous section...which were all sukshmam. Hence, these should refer to pratyaksha shariraani...since we have "esham"-  physical bodies. 

Why can we not take "gross elements" for bhuta...since these elements are visible? That's because...trvtkaranam has not happened. It is going to come in a future section.

One more argument- Before grossification, the next section is going to say...ishvara visualized...let me enter the 3 subtle elements and grossify them. It uses the word "devata" for the subtle-elements there. Devatas are paroksham...unseen. That being the case, "these" cannot be used for "subtle elements" here! For this reason too, "esham" cannot be subtle elements or gross elements. 

But the living beings are mentioned here...because the whole thing is for the jivas!

Aug 18, 2025

Saankhya's arguments here- He takes "sat" as pradhanam. Hence, the material cause of all this...is matter (pradhanam). 

Shankara says...Upanishad has promised moksha in Chp 6 end...if one knows "sat" as "brahman" which is the same as "atma". Hence, all of this has to be "consciousness" alone! Shankara brings the argument in the Chandoga...end of 6th chapter...where the truth of "aham brahmasmi" is shown to be like the "hot iron grasped by the prisoner who claims he is innocent!"

Saankhya now says...what if moksha is also "figurative" and hence sat is not consciousness...but matter only!  

Also, if we take "sat" as "pradhanam", eka vignaanena...sarva vignaanam bhavati....cannot hold! Because...even as per saankhya, purusha will not be known! 

For us, jagat is known because jagat is brahman's vivarta kaaryam. All jivas are brahman! Hence, this pratignya...that eka vignaanena...holds! 

One more thing about saankhya- there are many purushas (jiva). There is no ishvara in saankhya. Hence, knowing pradhanam....you cannot know many purushas! Hence, eka vignaanena...does not hold for saankhya.

July 23, 2025

parinama vaada...first

But brahman does not change...

Hence, rope-snake...we have to leave the clay, gold, iron examples...

vivarta vaada.

brahman assisted by mulaa avidya...seemingly transforms into world.

can give importance either to brahman or maya....to say...it transforms into world. (2 prakriyas)

BG- maya pradhana prakriya (like Sh Up)

In Tait Up- brahma pradhana prakriya.

In Ait Up, Shankara mentions both prakriyas.

Shankara says...I like brahma pradhana prakriya...(assisted by maya, brahman evolves into the world)

From maya, parinama....

clay example- maya pradhana (like saankhya)

rope-snake- vivarta

ekam eva - implies...world is mithya

vacharambhanam- implies world is mithya

Hence, we have advaitam all the time. No samadhi avastha is needed.

mantra 2 is over.

which is upadana kaaranam? brahman or maya?

Only brahman because it is chetana

Hence- brahma pradhana prakriya is better.

July 16, 2025

why srishti prakaranam?

- brahman as kaaranam...so that we can see brahman inherent in the world

- apavada is not total- only the changing part is removed. Sat and chit are retained.

Using the above, brahman can be revealed. That is the main thing.

Negate sanghaata vaada (bouddha (asat vaada)), negate aarambha vaada (nyaaya vaishesika), negate even parinaama vaada (saankhya), and reveal "vivarta vaada" eventually.

Arambha vaada of nyaaya vaisheshika: clay and pot are different things...kaaranam dravyam and kaarya dravyam. There is vastu bheda like cow and horse! Shankara says...in this cow and horse case, the thoughts are mutually exclusive. But when you talk about gold and ornament, in the product, the gold thought cannot be displaced. It is golden ring, golden chain etc. Hence, not the same as horse and cow example. 

Akasha is, vaayu is...etc. Akasha and vaayu may be displaceable...but "is" cannot be displaced. World is not a separate substance from brahman....it is brahman alone...experienced in the form/shape of the world. Earlier, only sat. Now, sat shaped "samsthanam" as the world. Hence, no new substance.

Purva pakshi...to get to vivarta vaada. Ok. parinama vaada is there. Only when there is "avayava" is there, we can get different shapes...like dough. But vedanta says, brahman is nir-avayam (Shvetashvatara). No kalaa. Nityah...amuurtah (Mu Up). That being the case, how can shape come (brahman shaped as world)? 

Answer: "Vivarta vaada" and "ajaati vaada". First, vivarta vaada. We understand world is mithya. And hence, as good as not there (vivarta vaada). Hence, "ajaati vaada".

For vivarta vaada, we use dream example and rajju-sarpa. No change! No parinama! Seeming transformation into jiva and jagat. Hence, wake-up is possible. World problems are mithya. World problems are as good as non existent.

July 8, 2025

- Bottom line is: world is "transformation" alone: Sat was there in a pure form. Sat is there as this world. Hence, it is "parinaaama vaada" alone (as accepted by saankhya and vedanta).

Before this, Sautraantika and Vaibhishika were refuted who said...."from asat", sat world came. These two schools stand along with nyaaya-vaisheshika who also believes...a "new world" has come (aarambha vaada).

In Yogachara, he does not accept an outside world at all, he says, it is all thoughts. And clay-thought is there, pot-thought is there. But no kaarana-kaarya sambandha. But Shankara says...it cannot be random, since....clay to pot is a general experience. Due to the consistency of clay to pot, there must be kaarana-kaarya even if you say...the world is our thoughts alone.

Next, purvapakshi says...ok...it is sat to sat. But why does upanishad say "sat was there". Does that mean...sat is not there now. Shankara answers, the point is not whether sat was there....etc. The "eva" shabda has to be noted. "Sat ALONE" was there- that's the intent of the upanishad in using "was". Hence, "sat was there without nama rupa". "Sat is now there as the world with naama-rupa".

Then, purva-pakshi says...ok...that means "naama rupa" was NOT there...and now it is there! Isn't it again some form of "asat to sat" ? Shankara says no....even in common parlance, we say "clay transformed into pot". There is no utpatti...only parinaama.

Note: we will refine parinaama later and say vivarta..."seeming transformation". That will come later.

Sanghaata vaada, Aarambha vaada.....(refuted)

Next, we agree with parinaama vaada (along with saankhya)

Next, we say "vivarta" and stand separate from saankhya too.

This is the journey!

=========================================================

 June 20, 2025

Section-2

Creation is mithya. It will be ultimately negated. However, even in advaita, theories of origin of this creation is analysed. This part may come under "scholarship" and for an utter mumukshu, it is irrelevant. Still, creation theories are analyzed and refuted. 

The Upanishad itself talks about a purva-pakshi- how asat can never be the cause of this sat-universe. In that context, other systems are analysed. Now, the Soutraantika and Vaibhashika Buddhist systems are taken up. For them, the universe is existent (as opposed to maadhyamika/shunyavaada). 

Now, as per the Soutraantika/Vaibhaashika (i.e. Hinayana systems), "avayavi naashah" is the cause. The seed was there. It is destroyed to become the plant. Since destruction precedes the plant, they say, "from asat seed (destroyed), this sat plant came" Hence, creation is from "asat to sat". Shankara says....for you....there is no avayavi at all....apart from avayava. (Note, as per these 2 Budhistic systems, there is no "fresh avayavi" at all. Many avayavas join together...like fruits in a fruit-salad! There is no separate thing called fruit-salad! This is called "sanghaata vaada" or "samudaaya vaada"). Hence, you cannot say "avayavi naashah" since you do not accept an avayavi at all! (Note: Nyaaya vaishesika is very close to this...as per him...there is a new thing called avayavi...different from avayava assemblage).

Buddhist answers....we accept "temporary avayavi". Shankara asks...what is the status of this? He says..."non existent" (abhava). But then, as per him, world is bhaava. Again the same problem- from abhava, we cannot get bhava.

Also, logically....we do find the "effect" with the "ingredients of the cause" (plant is nothing but the seed's constituents). 

Now, he says..."it is not avayavi naasha"...it is "avayava naasha". But Shankara says....every avayava is an avayavi from finer perspective. That being the case, it will also follow the same case as before.

Now, he says..."paramaanu avayava being ultimate" is the "avayava" from which this universe came. That is fine...but since he says..."naashah"...that means...paramanu will be destroyed to get this universe. But as per him, the ultimate cause is eternal. 

Hence, from all this....."naasha cannot be the cause". Asat cannot be the cause for sat. That is the bottom line.

Ok...what about advaitin. What does he accept? In advaita...there is a "third category- sat-asat vilakshanam". That being the case, advaitin does not get into any tangle...since his creation is neither sat nor asat and falls in a different category altogether. This is vivarta vaada.