Everything must have a cause, and causation hunting for an 'attributeful' cause leads to an infinite regress.
Causation hunting for a single cause leads us down the atomic route, where again its a play of dimensions and infinite regress.
Even if we look at trigunAtmika mAya, as the cause, and look at the sankya definition, that pradhana which is matter independent of chaitanyam is the cause, that is also not acceptable. Reasons being manifold, as highlighted in upanisad.
What is not available in the means of knowledge has to come from veda, so first of all that matter is independent and it is a cause is not the vedik purport.
Secondly it is even not acceptable to general logic. Since if matter were the cause, then how does subtle matter show consciousness of some form or other? So just matter independently existing cannot be a cause. It cannot have its own existence, even if we say both exist independently, then two say both we need to cognize two things. Anything that is cognized can be counted. If we count two causes, one is me consciousness and other is anatma, then is anatma satyam or mithya?
If anatma exist independently we have to agree to a definition for independent existence. Now that which is self revealing alone can be self existent. We see that anything in nature in object world is not self existent. Also not self revealing, or self evident, it needs consciousness to reveal it.
To see this exist, consciousness is needed. But even then if we argue that it has its own existence and its just revealed, even then we need to understand that any revealed object is essentially knowledge.
Why? When we look at a tree, isn't it knowledge?
A tree entails knowledge, when tree is revealed to the eyes, some knowledge is also revealed about the tree.Can knowledge exist independently? What is knowledge? Knowledge entails there has to be a knowledgeable being. Can knowledge exist independent of a knowledgable being?
It is against ones general understanding. It is not in general understanding, neither does shruti say so.
Hence is it is not possible.
Now if the matter is indeed knowledge of a knowledgable being, then how about existence of that matter, is its existence independent, obviously not.
Reason being lets look at existence, B cannot exist without A, means B has no existence of its own.
For example the snake cannot exist without rope, which means snakes existence or being is on the rope alone.
We need to understand existence clearly, existence or sat has no gunas and neither is it an object . Existence is the subject, not subject to objectification.
Now the object world takes existence from sat, and has the duality of knower, known , knowledge.
This is the knowledgeable being, who is in the form of knower, known and knowledge all 3.
Brahman itself is pure chit, not subject to being knower, known or knowledge. So brahman that is limitless has to be all 3, all 3 being mithya, there is no other brahman.
Causation hunting for a single cause leads us down the atomic route, where again its a play of dimensions and infinite regress.
Even if we look at trigunAtmika mAya, as the cause, and look at the sankya definition, that pradhana which is matter independent of chaitanyam is the cause, that is also not acceptable. Reasons being manifold, as highlighted in upanisad.
What is not available in the means of knowledge has to come from veda, so first of all that matter is independent and it is a cause is not the vedik purport.
Secondly it is even not acceptable to general logic. Since if matter were the cause, then how does subtle matter show consciousness of some form or other? So just matter independently existing cannot be a cause. It cannot have its own existence, even if we say both exist independently, then two say both we need to cognize two things. Anything that is cognized can be counted. If we count two causes, one is me consciousness and other is anatma, then is anatma satyam or mithya?
If anatma exist independently we have to agree to a definition for independent existence. Now that which is self revealing alone can be self existent. We see that anything in nature in object world is not self existent. Also not self revealing, or self evident, it needs consciousness to reveal it.
To see this exist, consciousness is needed. But even then if we argue that it has its own existence and its just revealed, even then we need to understand that any revealed object is essentially knowledge.
Why? When we look at a tree, isn't it knowledge?
A tree entails knowledge, when tree is revealed to the eyes, some knowledge is also revealed about the tree.Can knowledge exist independently? What is knowledge? Knowledge entails there has to be a knowledgeable being. Can knowledge exist independent of a knowledgable being?
It is against ones general understanding. It is not in general understanding, neither does shruti say so.
Hence is it is not possible.
Now if the matter is indeed knowledge of a knowledgable being, then how about existence of that matter, is its existence independent, obviously not.
Reason being lets look at existence, B cannot exist without A, means B has no existence of its own.
For example the snake cannot exist without rope, which means snakes existence or being is on the rope alone.
We need to understand existence clearly, existence or sat has no gunas and neither is it an object . Existence is the subject, not subject to objectification.
Now the object world takes existence from sat, and has the duality of knower, known , knowledge.
This is the knowledgeable being, who is in the form of knower, known and knowledge all 3.
Brahman itself is pure chit, not subject to being knower, known or knowledge. So brahman that is limitless has to be all 3, all 3 being mithya, there is no other brahman.
No comments:
Post a Comment