Is monism thinkable?

[Samkhya]

Before I consider becoming hindu, I would like to ascertain that monism (vedantic monism) is thinkable, that is, an intelligible hypothesis.

 

According to Sankara, we don't know it, but we are the same thing as Brahman. But if Sankara is right, if there is any ignorance, it must not be attributed to us, as distinct entities, but to Brahman. But for Brahman to be ignorant is impossible.

 

According to Ramanuja, reality is like an organism, which is one, but has internal differentiations. But this is not possible, because every organism is related to his environment. If an organism grows, it is because it borrows matter from the environment. But there can't be an "environment" around reality, because reality is all. If we say that Brahman is the soul of the world, we could ask: how were this soul and the world united? By what?

 

All thinkers who make of Brahman the material cause or the substance of the universe are suspect, because a material cause or substance does not account for the existence of his modes, just as the stone out of which the statue is made does not account for the form of the statue. There must be, in addition, an efficient cause to produce the modes or to shape the statue.

[Guest guest]

But if Sankara is right, if there is any ignorance, it must not be attributed to us, as distinct entities, but to Brahman. But for Brahman to be ignorant is impossible.

-- you are right. Shankaracharya's teaching is for people who having nichilist tendency can have a huge benefit by learning that reality exists and it is transcendental. But it is not a conclusive philosophy.

 

We exist, and god exist... we are part of god and simultaneously separated by him..

 

this separation is necessary because being brahman everything at the stage of perfection, inside it there's also individuality, relationship (=love), supremacy and subordination..

 

so our individual existence and god's individual existence are eternal, and the illusion is an energy superimposed on us by god by our request.. to experiment the existence without spirituality

 

eternity (sat), consciousness (cit), bliss (ananda)... that in our condition turn in death, ignorance and pain..

[Guest guest]

According to Ramanuja, reality is like an organism, which is one, but has internal differentiations. But this is not possible, because every organism is related to his environment. If an organism grows, it is because it borrows matter from the environment. But there can't be an "environment" around reality, because reality is all. If we say that Brahman is the soul of the world, we could ask: how were this soul and the world united? By what?

 

Can you please clarify if your are referring to the Sankya theory of Satkaryavada i.e the effect is pre-existent in the cause ?

[Samkhya]

"We exist, and god exist... we are part of god and simultaneously separated by him.."

 

I can't figure it out. How can a part be separated from the whole? Are we distinct or not from God?

 

Do you think of reality as a kind of organism, being one, but having internal differentiations?

 

[Samkhya]

Can you remind me of what is satkaryavada and its opposite? Use examples, please.

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram

 

 

Can you remind me of what is satkaryavada and its opposite? Use examples, please.

 

 

 

There is no need as its obvious.

 

 

If we say that Brahman is the soul of the world, we could ask: how were this soul and the world united? By what?

 

 

The organic relation is described through the concepts of sariratma-sambandha and aprthak-siddhi.

 

 

All thinkers who make of Brahman the material cause or the substance of the universe are suspect, because a material cause or substance does not account for the existence of his modes, just as the stone out of which the statue is made does not account for the form of the statue. There must be, in addition, an efficient cause to produce the modes or to shape the statue.

 

 

According to sankhya - the effect is already pre-existent in the cause.

 

However, it is not necesasry that the effect should be pre-existent in the cause in order to produce.

 

Appropriate causal factors (material and isntrumental) bring into existence the particular effect even without the latter being present in the a latent form in the former.

 

It is not wrong to consider the stone as the cause of the statue, even if the statue is not present. There are certain factors whose presence is necessary for the production and in their absence the effect does not come into existence.

 

Only such factors constitute the cause and not so much the pre-existent of the effect in a latent form.

 

For the visistadvaitin, the effect is a passing state of the substance. The basic substance (stone) continues to be the same, even if it assumes the form of a statue. Prior to the state of statue, the stone exists; the statue when broken assumes the form of fragmented stones.

 

Thus, the effect is a modified state of the cause. The cause and effect are 2 different sates of the same substance, In this sense, the effect and cause are non-different.

 

hari om tat sat

 

YRD

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram

 

 

Can you remind me of what is satkaryavada and its opposite? Use examples, please.

 

 

No need, its obvious

 

According to Ramanuja, ... reality is like an organism, which is one, but has internal differentiations. ........ But there can't be an "environment" around reality, because reality is all. If we say that Brahman is the soul of the world, we could ask: how were this soul and the world united? By what?

 

 

Through aprthak-siddhi and sariratma-sambandha relationships.

 

 

All thinkers who make of Brahman the material cause or the substance of the universe are suspect, because a material cause or substance does not account for the existence of his modes, just as the stone out of which the statue is made does not account for the form of the statue. There must be, in addition, an efficient cause to produce the modes or to shape the statue.

 

 

Visistadvaita upholds 2 efficient causes - material (upadana karana) and instrumental ( nimitta karana)

 

To sankhya - effect is pre-existent (satkaryavada).

To visistadvaita - effect is a passing stage (agantuka- dharma)

 

The basic substance stone continues to be the same, even if it assumes the form of a statue.

 

Prior to the state of the statue, the stone exists in its form; the statue when broken assumes the form - stone (fragments).

 

Thus the effect is a modified state of the cause.

 

The cause and effect are are 2 different states of the same substance. In this sense, the effect and cause are non-different.

 

The same logic is adopted to account for the causal relationship between Brahman and Universe.

 

hari om tat sat

 

YRD

 

[Samkhya]

But for the thing to pass from a state to another one, there must be a cause distinct from the thing, a kind of mover. In other words, the thing cannnot by itself pass from a previous state to the next one. It requires the involvement of a "mover".

 

This is why monism seems to be false, unless you propose another version thereof.