No Cause-effect in a Continuous Process?

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

[This is a conversation between Shri J. Prasad, Professor of Sanskrit, Central University, Hyderabad, Dr. Nikhil and Swami. It contains advanced concepts meant for scholars only.]

[Shri J. Prasad (Professor of Sanskrit, Central University, Hyderabad) asked: There is a shloka in Gita (16.8) in which the second line is ‘Aparaspara-sambhuutaam, kimanyat kaamahaitukam’. A scholar is arguing for the past 3 months in a debate with other scholars that every commentator on this verse mentioned the concept of cause-effect, which is not necessary when there is a continuous process as per the grammarian Panini mentioning the word ‘aparaspara’ in a continuing process. Please clarify this.]

Swami Replied: Does this mean that all commentators like Shankara did not read Panini and only that scholar read the grammar of Panini? Panini was first and commentators like Shankara are second and that scholar is third. The knowledge of first is already with the second and the third is only after second. Panini mentioned this word aparaspara in a continuous process (avicchinna kriyaa saantatyam). You can’t say that the concept of cause and effect is absent in a continuous process. The movement of the front layer of water is the cause for the movement of the back layer of water (viichii Taranga nyaaya). In a continuous traffic, the movement of front vehicle is the cause for the movement of back vehicle. In this verse also, the cause of creation (creation is effect) is mentioned. The theists say that the awareness is the individual soul that entered the womb of mother through the sperm of father as explained in the Brahmasutras. This verse presents the argument of atheists, who say that the awareness is generated from the union of couple and there is no other type of awareness except this. As per theism, though an item generates other item, it is the will of God that works through first item to generate the second item. When space generated air (aakaashaat vaayuh), Shankara says that God only generated air through the space and not the space directly. Similarly, when awareness is generated from food (annaat purushah), it is the will of God that generated the awareness through the food. The atheists feel that food is the direct cause and awareness is the direct effect. In between food and awareness, the atheists do not like to give a place to God’s will or God.

The word aparaspara-sambhuuta has two possibilities of interpretation: 1. That which is not paraspara-sambhuuta (paraspara sambhuutam na iti). 2. That which is paraspara-sambhuuta (aparamcha paramcha aparasparam yat parasparameva). If you take the first possibility, it means that the awareness created by God, which is not paraspara-sambhuuta (means the awareness is created by the union of the couple), which is different (anyat) from the paraspara-sambhuuta does not exist (kim). By this, one sentence is closed. The second sentence is kaama-haitukam, which means that the paraspara-sambhuuta (awareness generated by couple) alone exists (asti = exists, this verb is to be borrowed, which is called adhyaahaara). If you take the word kaama-haitukam as the adjective of aparaspara-sambhuuta, a mistake called samaapta-punaraaptatva-dosha (connecting the first word in the closed sentence to an adjective mentioned later on) comes. The word aparaspara-sambhuuta in the sense that it is not paraspara-sambhuuta is already accepted by Jayatirtha, a scholar of dualism. Of course, in a poem, the above mistake can be neglected and the word paraspara-sambhuuta can be taken as aparaspara-sambhuuta. Here, the context is whether the awareness is generated by couple or by God. Atheists say the couple as the cause and theists say God as the cause. Here, the concept of cause and effect is discussed and that scholar can’t deny this concept saying that it is a continuous process. The continuous process is not mentioned by Shankara because the topic of discussion here is whether the awareness is created by God or by the couple. The discussion is not about an isolated cause-effect example or a continuous process in which cause and effect are continuously repeated. Since this is not in the present context, Shankara did not touch this concept, which is irrelevant to this verse. Everybody knows that the generation of a child by the couple is a continuous process, which need not be unnecessarily mentioned in this context.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★