[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: clay as the substratum of the pot
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: clay as the substratum of the pot
-
From: nparker@crl.com (Nathan Parker)
-
Date: 24 Mar 1995 09:47:08 -0800
-
From nparker@crl.com Fri Mar 24 12: 34:31 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
-
References: <3ktcib$rku@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Manish Tandon (manish@cadence.com) wrote:
: In article <3ka9hh$637@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) writes:
: |> A similie that was often cited by Poojya Swami Chinamyananda is the
: |> concept of the clay pot or gold ornament. His talks are summarized below
: |> (subject to the limitations of my understanding):
: |>
: |> Consider a clay pot, with moderate volume and rounded shape....
I find it very interesting that he will use an example as this. This is
more or less one of the main examples given by the sAn`kyaites, and
s'an`karAcArya directly defeated their statements by analysing the cause
and effect between a string and a cloth. Give someone a bundle of string
and let them wear it as cloth! They can not. So the idea that the clay
pot and the mud are both the same, and cause and effect are both solely
one is false. The string is definitely part of the cause, but Lord
Krishna defines the five aspects of cause in the Bhagavad-gita 18th
chapter. Then He concludes by saying one who does not consider all five
aspects is a fool. So to say that the cause of a clay pot is mud is
ridiculous, and it is not taking into account the five factors of cause.
If you know math, you can conclude what is Krishna's opinion of such a
philosophy. Furthermore, to say that the clay pot is caused by the mud is
further wrong due to the fact that never has there ever been a clay pot
form on its own. There is always a _person_ who forms the clay pot out of
mud. So to use such an analogy to maintain non-duality is wrong. And, as
has been mentioned earlier, to even compare the conscious jIva to a dead
inert pot is wrong. If I see a beautiful baby, and say, "She looks like a
moon," there is some meaning to the analogy. But if I see the ugliest
baby in the world, who looks just like a dog, and I say, "She looks like
a moon," there is no meaning to my analogy. So to use an analogy of two
things that have no similarity is wrong. Furthermore, the very
constitutional characteristics of matter and of jIva are opposite, so you
can not expect to draw similarities between them. And neither can the
jIva be cut or broken into peices, as the clay pot can be. So this
analogy is useless, and it is not taking into account of what are the
five aspects of cause according to Vedanta.
