A Dialogue on Kāraṇatvam in Advaita Vedānta

"The snake does not exist, but only the rope exists — it merely appears as the snake."

Questioner:

I have a question as a student of Vedānta.
Why do we need nimitta-kāraṇam or upādāna-kāraṇam when vivarta-kāraṇam seems like the most logical explanation in support of Bhagavatpāda’s teachings?

The creator of the pot or the clay does not in reality exist.
The snake does not exist, but only the rope exists; but it appears to be a snake.
What am I missing?

Responder:

Anna — I
I've taken time to prepare a pramāṇika exposition. Hence the time to respond.
(Something I'm sure you will enjoy, as one āstika enjoys tīrtha-snānam).

Good point — very valid as well. Yet, there is a nuance here.

The problem in communicating Advaita epistemology (i.e., pramā, pramāṇa-tattvam) lies in straddling two horses at the same time — the language of pāramārthika (where non-duality alone is) and the language of vyāvahārika (the relative plane of duality).

All discussions on Advaita unfold within the vyāvahārika realm, the plane where duality is provisionally accepted, only to ultimately dissolve it into Brahman, which is advitīya.
If we dismiss the vyāvahārika realm as unreal, then the teaching tradition itself vanishes 😀.

So what’s done is, from a temporal standpoint, a pedagogical process (or teaching about that which is beyond words, through the words of śruti) is considered provisionally real—or more precisely, apparently real.

This apparent reality of not just the teaching, but also the world of appearance in which we discover this teaching is well established in Vivarta-vāda: the vāda that explains everything other than Brahman as vivarta (an appearance) on Brahman, which alone is Real.

The vivarta is nothing but Brahman appearing as some "thing" or "other".

As part of this teaching or pedagogical process, śruti-mātā compassionately elaborates on how sṛṣṭi (creation) arises by presenting Brahman as both the upādāna-kāraṇa (material cause) and nimitta-kāraṇa (efficient cause).

Now let’s take a dip in the relevant śruti mantras (that came to mind):

1. sad eva somya idam agra āsīt, ekam eva advitīyam — Chāndogya 6.2.1
   “In the beginning, this was Being alone — one only, without a second.”

2. yathā somyaikena mṛtpiṇḍena sarvaṃ mṛnmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syāt
   vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyam — Chāndogya 6.1.4
   यथा सोम्यैकेन मृद्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं विज्ञातं स्यात्।
   वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्॥
   “Just as, my dear, by knowing one lump of clay, all things made of clay are known…
   Modification is but a name arising from speech; the clay alone is real.”

3. tatsṛṣṭvā tadevānuprāviśat — Taittirīya 2.1.1
   तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्।
   “Having created it, That (Brahman) indeed entered into it.”

4. yathorṇanābhiḥ sṛjate gṛhṇate ca
   yathā pṛthivyām oṣadhayaḥ saṃbhavanti
   yathā sataḥ puruṣāt keśalomāni
   tathā akṣarāt saṃbhavatīha viśvam — Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.7
   यथोर्णनाभिः सृजते गृह्णते च।
   यथा पृथिव्यामोषधयः सम्भवन्ति।
   यथा सतः पुरुषात् केशलोमानि।
   तथा अक्षरात् सम्भवतीह विश्वम्॥
   “As a spider spins out and withdraws its web, as herbs spring forth from the earth,
   as hair grows from a living person, so too does the universe emerge from the imperishable (Brahman).”

5. Brahmasūtra 1.1.2 — janmādyasya yataḥ

6. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.1.1 —
   janmādyasya yato ’nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ
   “That from whom the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of this world emanates;
   who is fully cognizant directly and indirectly…”

In this śruti and smṛti, we clearly see Brahman as both upādāna (material) and nimitta (intelligent) kāraṇa.

---

But in and through this process, the discourse, we are instilled with pramāṇika buddhi with the aid of śruti-anugṛhīta tarka (reasoning guided and sanctified by śruti).

Thus, the mind of the śrotā (listener) dissolves through śravaṇam, mananam, and nididhyāsanam — into its very source: Brahman, ever shining as the Ātman (even when one previously considered oneself an ajñānī).

So ultimately, all discourse on upādāna-kāraṇa, nimitta-kāraṇa is but taṭastha-lakṣaṇa, a functional pointer.

And it leads to the final recognition of svarūpa-lakṣaṇa, one’s own svarūpam as Brahman:

yaḥ sākṣād aparokṣād brahma

With this and this alone, the following mahāvākyas can be fully understood, not just intellectually, but existentially:

• "idaṃ sarvaṃ yadayam ātmā" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.4.6)

• "brahmaiva idaṃ sarvam" (Muṇḍaka 2.2.11)

• "ātmaiva idaṃ sarvam" (Chāndogya 7.25.2)

• "neha nānāsti kiñcana" (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 4.4.19)

Or in your apt words (reverentially borrowed from tradition):

"The snake does not exist, but only the rope exists — it merely appears as the snake."

---

To summarize:

Discussions of upādāna and nimitta kāraṇas are indeed upheld by śruti, to lead the sādhaka from the apparent many to the nondual One.

All discussion is sampradāya-upāya, a traditional means, to enable this recognition.