Notion of Origination Meaningless

- Inevitability of Ajātivāda

संभवनाभावः एष नैष्कर्म्यं -
अजातिवादस्य अनिवार्यता च
 Mangalacharanam
त्रिभुवनगुरुमागमैकप्रमाणं त्रिजगत्कारणसूत्रयोगमायम् ।
रविशतभास्वरमीहितप्रधानं सततमहं दक्षिणामूर्तिमीडे ॥
I constantly adore Dakshinamurthy, the sole authority of
the Scriputres for the three worlds, the embodiment of the
sublime yoga of the causal aphorisms pervading the three
worlds, The supreme Lord whose brilliance equals that of a
hundred suns.
It is evident therefore that every attempt at putting
forth and establishing the principles of causation,
which are so firmly adhered to and vehemently
employed and insisted upon in philosophical and
everyday discourse, ultimately amounts to nothing
other than a futile, endless, and fruitless pursuit - a
wild goose chase. Discernment, through
penetrating inquiry and analysis, has conclusively
shown that this so-called principle of causation,
which underpins our conventional understanding
of the world, has no real substance, content or
validity whatsoever. It can never be placed on a
secure metaphysical or philosophical foundation, as
it is an arbitrary notion that crumbles under
scrutiny.
Again, the fundamental question of srsti, the supposed
creation or origination - the coming into being of the
universe, the entire cosmos (viśvam) - or for that
matter, the coming into being of anything at all, is
replete with insoluble problems and paradoxes that
defy resolution. Although this inquiry is ostensibly
undertaken with the specific objective of gaining
knowledge about the basic, primordial entities or
phenomena from which the universe is believed to have
emerged, it is invariably and inextricably intertwined
with the thoroughly flawed and pseudo-principle of
causation referred to above. In this erroneous
framework, the prior state or condition is fallaciously
regarded as the material cause, while the subsequent
state is viewed as the effect - a causal relationship that
is inherently contradictory and untenable.
Equally perplexing, baffling, and unanswerable is
the question of the supposed origin or primordial
source of time itself - how and from what did the
concept of time first arise? The very notion of
change, transformation, or 'becoming' - the
underlying process that seems to underpin all
phenomena - is also shrouded in impenetrable
mystery. Whether an entity that is regarded as
having been 'born' or come into existence truly
had a prior state of being, or whether its
origination was an absolute beginning ex nihilo,
is a conundrum that can never be adequately or
satisfactorily resolved, as has been clearly
demonstrated.
Thus, the very concept of jāti of 'birth,' origination, or
'coming into being' itself is riddled with profound,
insuperable problems and contradictions that defy all
attempts at resolution. All the discussions, arguments
and views put forth by the various opposing
philosophical schools on these fundamental questions
have only served to aggravate the confusion and
obfuscation surrounding these topics, rather than
provide any clarity. Got it, here's an attempt to
incorporate all the additional context into a single slide:
So declares the Māndūkyakārikā- ख्याप्यमानामजार्ति
तैरनुमोदामहे वयम् । विवदामो न तैः सार्धमविवादं निबोधत ॥ (IV-5)
[We approve the ajati or non-creation declared by them;
we do not dispute them. Now learn from us that which is
free from disputation]एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यन्त्र किश्चिन्न जायते ॥
(IV-71) [This is indeed the supreme truth that nothing
whatsoever is born.]
The Māndūkyakārikā clearly proclaims the supreme
truth of ajāti - that nothing is ever truly created or born.
However, it acknowledges that all expositions inevitably
involve the use of words and concepts relating to time,
change, creation etc., for the simple reason that all verbal
transactions even teachings from a guru to a student
must be conducted in the conventional language of
ordinary parlance. As the Pañcadaśī (II-39) states: चोद्य
वा परिहारो वा क्रियतां द्वैतभाषया ।Also the prakriya that is
offered is devised depending upon the ability of the
recipient, seemingly accepting what he cannot readily
shake-off. That is why Śrı Sureśvarācāryapāda
emphasizes this aspect by saying (Br. U. Bhā. Vā. 1-4-
402)—यया यया भवेत्पुसां व्युत्पत्तिः प्रत्यगात्मनि । सा सैव प्रक्रियेह
स्यात् साध्वी सा चानवस्थिता ॥[By whatever means the
knowledge of the inner Self arises in seekers, that
construct itself is appropriate here; it is not absolutely
unique.]
The Mandukyakārıkā (IV-42) also points out that for
those who cannot comprehend the situation in the light
of the ajātivāda, wise men speak in terms of creation,
etc. जातिस्तु देशिता बुद्वैरजातेस्त्रसतां सदा । Thus this is a
self-stultifying concept like several others. However, it
may be used in parlance for the sake of those who
cannot remain as firm adherents of ajātivāda, other
devices being brought in, to drive home the truth to
them. However, it is claimed, as seen already, that
well-known thinkers have proceeded on sound lines
since they always support their prakriyā on findings
based on true experience as comes to be known by the
use of the appropriate instruments of knowledge - the
pramānāni It is easy to see that this also belongs to the
class of the false claims that are made.
Then the question arises, What is the position of the so-called
pramānāni in the scheme of things, if, as it should be, they also
are the ingredients of the world-the viśvam? How are they
known? Reference to other pramāņāni would involve reciprocal
dependence, anyonyāśraya, argument in a circle, cakrıkāpattı, or
infinite regress, anavasthā. Further, complications arise when
relations are sought to be established between the pramānāni and
the prameyapadārthāḥ believed to be revealed by them. Also, how
to ensure that the experience that is supposed to be obtained is
pramā true knowledge and not bhrānti-illusion? No doubt,
attempts are made by each school to answer these questions
depending on their viewpoints But these tend to be more
doctrinaire in character than providing an appropriate final
solution. Again, as to how far the enquirer is able to employ the
means of knowledge success- fully, without being obsessed by his
inhibitions and predilections, always stands up as a moot
question. Also the conflict of the involvement of the observer in
the observed and at the same time effecting an observation
without interaction with the observed is to be resolved
satisfactorily.
If the universe is considered as a totality of diverse
elements, where from does the notion of unity pertaining
to it viz., that it is one universe, arise? This has to be
answered Also, whether we take the diverse elements or
the entire universe as such, we have the experiences
घटस्सन् पटस्सन् (the pot is, the cloth is) as also प्रपञ्चस्सन्
(the world is) relating to the satta, the existence, of every
object of the universe as also its entirety, which have to be
accounted for satisfactorily. This wide range of experience
should not somehow be explained away Sımılarıly we do
have the experiences घटो भाति, पटो भाति, प्रपञ्चो भाति (the
pot appears, the cloth appears, the world appears) relating
to the bhāna, the shine, of every object of the universe as
also of the entirety Again the questions of the dream
experience, svapnāvasthānubhava, and that of the
dreamless sleep, susuptyavasthānubhava, should be based
on a proper footing, in addition to that of the waking state,
the jāgradavasthānubhava.
Thank you!