Why Does Vedanta Teach Cause and Effect
Paul: I realized recently that I do not really understand the cause and effect teaching, or why it is even necessary since Vedanta clearly teaches that the world is not real and the Self is not capable of creating? I think I understand most of it, but this is one topic I find rather complicated: the whole theory about creation, Panchikarana Prakriya. I’ve read it again and again, but it’s still hard to understand. I’ve also read (or tried to) ‘Inquiry into Existence. The Lamp of Self-Knowledge’), but I think this is James’ most difficult book.
In ‘The Yoga of the Three Energies’, James writes that ‘the creation teaching is not meant to cement clever concepts… but to point out the fact that the creation is a set-up’. So, I’m wondering to what degree we really must understand and know (by heart?) the whole creation teaching in detail, or is it just enough to read about it and – indeed – realize that it is a set-up?
Sundari: Yes, indeed, the creation teaching is confusing and extremely subtle, and James’ book Inquiry into Existence is for advanced inquirers; f you are not ready to hear it, it will be a challenge. Therefore, we encourage inquirers to start at the beginning with the methodology of Vedanta and make sure they have not skipped any of the foundational teachings. The teaching the book covers is not James’ though, important to remember that. None of what we teach belongs to us or anyone else as the teachings of Vedanta stand independent and alone.
The main purpose of the cause and effect teaching (as all other prakriyas adopted by the Upanishads) is not to make you believe in causation or the creation. It is more like a mechanism to eliminate all the non-essential variables (which are anything other than you, the Self) and to reveal the truth of the Self being attribute-free, limitless, part-less, beginningless, and endless Consciousness. Therefore, the creation is neither real nor unreal but has a dependent reality on you, Consciousness.
Thus, since the Self does not undergo any change ever, the karana karya prakriya (cause and effect proof) is meant to unfold the fact that not only is the Self limitless, but that you are non-separate from it. Why James says that the prakriya is a set-up is that once you understand the cause and effect teaching, the next step, the non-origination teaching in the Mandukya Karika, makes sense. The Mandukya Karika is the most advanced and subtle of all Vedanta teachings as it explains why the cause and effect teaching is not the whole truth.
It answers the logical question: How can Sat, Consciousness, be the basis of the material creation if it is non-dual Consciousness? The material creation is not material. It is a projection caused by Maya, which is not the same OR not different from Sat, Existence/Awareness. You can’t get something out of something that is incapable of modification. Sat is not the cause of anything. How could it be? If it was, it would not be non-dual. Based on this, how could the Self be a creator if there is no cause possible in Satya, for whom there is no mithya?
The Mandukya points out that the Self implies not-Self. When you know you are the Self, there is no satya and mithya for you anymore, they are just concepts/principles used to teach you that you are the Self and can be discarded. Mithya ‘becomes’ satya because it was satya all along. You see everything as just ISNESS, a direct experience of Existence as your identity, the Self.
So, no you do not have to understand the whole cause and effect prakriya by heart, as long as you understand the common identity between Consciousness, Isvara, and Jiva to be Sat, the Self. You. Knowing all the details verbatim is not necessary, especially if you understand the non-origination teaching. And if this understanding allows you to discriminate that the Existence of all objects belongs to Consciousness, that all objects have a dependent existence on you. Then Maya is no problem, you understand the principles that run mithya and live free of it.
I hope this answers your question, feel free to write back if it does not. If that is the case, then there is still a doership issue, an assimilation problem or there are some gaps in your understanding, most likely the result of steps missed in the methodology of the teachings as set out by James in his book How to Attain Enlightenment.
Much love
Sundari
