[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Illusoriness of causation (cause-effect-relationship)

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji and Sudhanshuji,
Bhaskarji, I don't why but I have not received your last few emails.
Perhaps they are embedded within other postings in a thread and I've missed
them viewing just subject headings. Nothing personal, please.

Sudhanshuji,
//How have you arrived at the conclusion that Shruti is a pramANa? Isn't it
through logic? Is your conclusion "Shruti is pramANa" based on emotions,
feelings? Please answer. Are you in awe of some charismatic person and
merely follow his dictum that "Shruti is pramANa"? Please answer.//

-- Sir, I am sure you know my answer but rather be rhetorical.
We have strayed, The question was as to the place of logic with regard to
sruti. Originally you asked:
//Can advaita be known/experienced/realized only through VedAs, or can it
be known/experienced/realized through tarka (logic) also?//

--Sruti is pramana through an inquiry into its words and meaning. "You are
the tenth" is not a logical statement.
*"Sū.Bhā. 1-1-2: “Knowledge of Brahman arises from the determination of the
meaning of the Vedic statements, not from inference or *
*other means of knowledge.”*

*//*Clay is myAya-vishishTa-Brahman.//
-- I'd bet this is a post-Sankara term. It sounds like a kind of vishishTa
advaita! I know that is not your intention but it takes logical wrangling
to distinguish your bhAva abhAva vilakshaNa from an inhibition upon Brahman
even as a vyavaharika explanation. Brahman needs to be understood as not
different from what we now experience otherwise the Absolute is
compromised. Perception is Brahman misperceived just as dream is just
Consciousness misperceived. Nondual Absolute is here and now. It is not
after some condition is removed from Brahman or from Jiva.

//mAyA cannot be posited without Brahman.//
--clearly.

//However, in the context of adhyAsa, you are right, mAya i.e. avidyA is
the cause of adhyAsa.
Now, avidyA remains even when there is no kArya-adhyAsa.//
--I never mentioned cause. It is adhyasa itself to assume kArya & kArana
adhyAsa. That you demand an actual cause where there is only mistaken
identity is the crux of SSSS's determinations

//Sir, who perceives mind? Please answer. Give a clear-cut answer. //
--we've discussed this before where you make a distinction between mind and
its thoughts. I think you argued that thoughts cease in deep sleep but mind
is present therefore mind and thoughts are not the same.  I ask you to
prove mind continues in deep sleep. And please, "I had a good sleep' is not
evidence as it is a waking observation which could as easily be phrased as,
I had a good absence. What's not refutable is the experience per se of deep
sleep free of mind/thoughts

I said: "but Brahman is the ground of both perceiver and perceived. No
regress."
you replied: //Regress is present because you have to answer about the
entity which perceives mind. //
Wh
--Do you propose there is an entity other than Brahman that perceives
mind?! Surely not but you will say, it is a "condition" of brahman that
perceives mind. This condition needs clarification. If it is a wrong
thought, knowledge can be its remedy. But, you say it is something more
than a wrong thought, it is the power of illusion. How can right knowledge
resolve a powerful cause?

//Neither snake exists, nor avidyA exists. I agree that there is no third
ontological category. asat and mithyA are both non-existent. //
you distinguish between asat and mithya as between hare's horn and
rope/snake by virtue of non-perception and perception. That gives a status
to perception that is different from hare's horn asat. Thus a third
ontological category not found in PTB. Instead, Self and not-Self only.
Whether perceived or not-perceived, asat does not exist.

The 'third ontological category' accusation becomes decided when this
reasoning is extended to the three states. By proclaiming pratibhasika
dream to be distinct from vyavaharika satta entitles vyavaharika to possess
a relative or temporary reality in comparison to the unreality of
pratibhasika. PTB never made this distinction.

I said, "And then, you give a description and function to this which you
say does not exist and reply,"
you replied: //What is wrong in that?//

--I repeat, "If it cannot be defined, how can we even say what it is? To
say something cannot be categorized yet appears and is experienced is to
smuggle in a functional reality, while denying its ontological basis. It is
logically incoherent and needlessly complex."

and you responded,
//It is experientially demonstrated through the example of dream and
illusory snake. So, it is neither logically incoherent nor complex. It is
rather universally experienced.//

-- my reply: You make an assumption that dream and snake are effects
produced by some mithya ajnana. Bhasyakara tells aviveka is the only cause
for naisargarika, anadi adhyasa.

//Changeless Brahman cannot appear as changeable-dream-elephant without
changeable ignorance superimposed therein.//

-- Indeed, yet it does appear. "mithyeti bhavitum yuktam. tatha api..."
Avidya is not pramana siddha but anubhava siddha. no one can deny.


Regards & 🙏🙏🙏



On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:26 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> *Namaste Michael ji.*
>
> --It is only such anumana that is supportive of sruti spoken about here.
>> I'm sure that's clear. Sastrika tarka not lokyia tarka. It is interesting
>> to reflect on the precise role of tarka versus Sruti. Here's a couple of
>> pages from SSSS commenting on this issue. Though he agrees on the role of
>> tarka but based only on sastrika adhyaropa apavada - different from PSA
>> analysis.
>>
>
> How have you arrived at the conclusion that Shruti is a pramANa? Isn't it
> through logic? Is your conclusion "Shruti is pramANa" based on emotions,
> feelings? Please answer. Are you in awe of some charismatic person and
> merely follow his dictum that "Shruti is pramANa"? Please answer.
>
> Shruti is pramANa not because it is Shruti. It is a pramANa because what
> it says is infallible truth. And that is why only that logic which conforms
> to Shruti is acceptable. Not because logic is conforming to Shruti, but
> because logic is conforming to truth.
>
> If a logic concludes that "fire is cold", then it is wrong and
> unacceptable because it is not conforming to truth. Similarly, a logic not
> conforming to Shruti is not acceptable because it is not conforming to
> truth.
>
> I will repeat - Shruti is a pramANa not because it is Shruti. But because
> it contains infallible truth.
>
> I will request you again to answer - how have you arrived at the
> conclusion that Shruti is pramANa. Is it through logic, emotion or
> preponderance of probabilities?
>
> --The argument is that a bhavarupa avidya that precedes adhyasa must
>> survive though adhyasa extinguished. You hold that a bhavarupa maya shakti
>> is the cause of adhyasa. Destroy the pot, clay remains and your clay is
>> maya not brahman!
>>
>
> Clay is myAya-vishishTa-Brahman. mAyA cannot be posited without Brahman.
> However, in the context of adhyAsa, you are right, mAya i.e. avidyA is the
> cause of adhyAsa.
>
> Now, avidyA remains even when there is no kArya-adhyAsa. That is in the
> case of sushupti and in our everyday experiecnce.
>
> --Of course it is the mind that perceives
>>
>
> Sir, who perceives mind? Please answer. Give a clear-cut answer.
>
> but Brahman is the ground of both perceiver and perceived. No regress.
>>
>
> Regress is present because you have to answer about the entity which
> perceives mind.
>
>
>> However, if you think mind and perception are positive mithya entities
>> caused by maya rather than simply atma/anatma adhyasa, then logical
>> complications will arise.
>>
>
> No logical complications are present as the cause thereof is not bhAva. It
> is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.
>
> --How can you say that the jivanmukta with avidya-lesha would not be
>> affected by conditions in Gaza, for instance or a swift kick to the chin -
>> will he not shout, ow!? . If there is perception, there is duality. I think
>> that crystal clear
>>
>
> When you know that a magical illusory shown is thrown up, you don't get
> affected by the women and children getting killed in that illusory show.
>
>
>> --Then also, "avidya...does not exist'??? you mean snake does not exist?
>> or that snake kinda exists but not really exists? There is no third
>> ontological category for Bhasyakara - only two fact/illusion, sat/asat,
>> atma/anatma. Rope/snake as you describe it is mithya or sadasat vilaksana
>> anirvacaniya.  Other than existence or non-existence and that is a
>> violation of the law of 'excluded middle' - there is no partial existence.
>>
>
> I think I am short of words in expressing my disappointment. I request you
> to read what is written. Otherwise, what is the point in a discussion!!
>
> Neither snake exists, nor avidyA exists. I agree that there is no third
> ontological category. asat and mithyA are both non-existent. That has been
> clarified many a times. Still, you are repeating something which has never
> been stated by the other party.
>
> Additionally,  you're endowing a description and function to mithya.
>>
>
> What is wrong in that?
>
>
>> If it cannot be defined, how can we even say what it is? To say something
>> cannot be categorized yet appears and is experienced is to smuggle in a
>> functional reality, while denying its ontological basis. It is logically
>> incoherent and needlessly complex.
>>
>
> It is experientially demonstrated through the example of dream and
> illusory snake. So, it is neither logically incoherent nor complex. It is
> rather universally experienced.
>
> Dream-elephant was non-existent because it was always only changeless
>> Brahman.
>>
>
> Changeless Brahman cannot appear as changeable-dream-elephant without
> changeable ignorance superimposed therein.
>
>   But you say dream-elephant is neither existing nor non-existing
>> bhavarupa perception that is not changeless Brahman.
>>
>
> This is incorrect as I have never said this. You need to read again what
> has been said.
>
> Doesn't that seem awkward as nonduality?
>>
>
> Non-duality is safe because mithyA is non-existent.
>
> *Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.*
>
> *//*We must wonder how palatable these statements are to purely dry
> logicians who prefer mere tarka over bhAshya and shruti??//
>
> Prabhu ji. How have you arrived at the conclusion that bhAshya and Shruti
> are correct and that you should follow them. Is it through fanatic faith,
> emotional appeal or some other manner? Please elaborate.
>
> //shrutyanugraheeta tarka / yukti does not mean anything to them!!  And
> for them shruti is NOT the untya pramANa for the brahma jignAsa but
> tarka/logic is the pramANa over shruti despite shruti itself saying that
> naishA tarkeNa matirApaneya (its knowledge cannot be obtained through mere
> logic.//
>
> As explained in response to Michael ji's post. Regarding "नैषा तर्केण
> मतिरापनेया", please refer to "अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यम् ,
> आहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह — शक्यते तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम् ;
> तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणमारभ्यते ।". If you insert that tarka must reuire
> Shruti, then you are contradicting kArikA because it says that advaita is
> not only through Shruti.
>
> So, it needs to be appreciated that truth can be described or found
> through logic as well as through Shruti. Neither logic per se is important
> nor Shruti *per se*. They both are important because they both lead to
> thruth. Shruti is important not because it is Shruti but because it
> contains truth.
>
> MantrAs glorifying Shruti is on account of Shruti containing truth.
>
> //But even for these categorical statements also logicians have their own
> excuses to replace logic over shruti verdict.//
>
> Because in the garb of being vaidika, one should not be actually an
> emotional fanatic.
>
> //But being vaidika-s NOT mere dry logicians we have to completely rely on
> the supremacy of the shruti pramANa and shruti anugraheeta tarka when doing
> the mananaM.//
>
> Again, how have you arrived at the conclusion that Shruti is pramANa?
>
>
>    - Because Shruti says so? - then anyOnyAshraya.
>    - Because Shankara says so? - then you are a fanatic.
>    - Because logic says so? - Here is a welcome refreshing glass of
>    lemon-mint-squash in my camp!! 😀
>
>
> //I am really surprised statements like : why ONLY shankara bhAshya, why
> ONLY shruti when logic itself is suffice !!  Etc. floating smoothly without
> being questioned by socalled orthodox followers of shankara’s Advaita 😊//
>
> Because logic-conforming-to-truth and Shruti go hand in hand. Not all
> logic is being praised. Only that logic which conforms to truth is
> advocated. And it happens to match with what Shruti says.
>
> //It seems you have done an unpardonable sin by sharing Sri SSS’s take on
> this!!  Because according to some his observations/logic etc. goes against
> even to the logic of average student of 8th standard student 😊//
>
> That is quite clear. To speak of some mrit-sAmAnya as nirvikAra is
> rejected by an eight-grade student.. no, even a seventh class student. Sir,
> what is mrit-sAmAnya? Explain. Without activity, how does this nirvikAra
> mrit-sAmAnya transforms to pot. And how many nirvikAra entities do you have
> in your book? mrit-sAmAnya, swarNa-sAmAnya?
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
>
>
>