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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

//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.
>

I have asked a very precise question for which you have not advanced any
answer.


> 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.
>

Shruti tells me - "there is a heaven". There is no means to verify it. It
is neither a logical statement, nor an illogical statement. Question is -
"how have you arrived at the conclusion that there is a heaven".

You hold Shruti to be pramANa. How have you arrived at this conclusion? Let
us be more specific and consider the question of heaven propounded in
Shruti.

Please note - I am not saying that the prAMANya of Shruti is through logic.
I am merely trying to understand your thought process. How have you arrived
at this conclusion that Shruti is pramANa. Because Shankara said so,
because SSSS ji said so, because you "feel" so? Why Quran is not a pramANa
but Shruti is pramANa?


> *"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.”*
>

We will come to this. First appreciate the question - how have you accepted
this statement? What is the modus? Why is Qurana not a pramANa but Shruti a
pramANa. Why is jannat not acceptable but swarga is acceptable?

*//*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.
>

Digression, hence not responding.

//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.
>

You use terms without elaborating. What is "mistaken identity",
"misperceived"?


> //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
>

You have not given a clear-cut answer as to who perceives the mind.

Your comment does not state my position. I have never argued that the mind
is present in deep sleep. So, the comments are incorrect.

Mind merges in ignorance in deep sleep wherein avidyA sustains.

--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?
>

Sir, define thought. What is it?

I have not said that "condition of Brahman" perceives mind.


> //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.
>
Distinguishing from hare's horn does not imply ontological status.
Distinction is only on the ground of perception and not on the ground of
non-existence. Illusory snake is as non-existent as a hare's horn. The
distinction is only with respect to perception. That is borne from
experience and hence cannot be disputed.

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.
>

Please understand that vyAvahArika-sattA or prAtibhAsika-sattA spoken in
VedAnta does not imply sattA of nAma-rUpa as it is the sattA of supreme
Brahman which is superimposed on nAma-rUpa.

I am however a lover of eka-sattA-vAda. PTB contains everything. It
contains eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-dvaividhya-vAda and also
sattA-traividhya-vAda. You choose what you like. Just don't argue that
entire bhAshya is hard molded in one prakriyA. It contains SDV, it contains
DSV and it also contains ajAtivAda.

-- 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.
>

That aviveka, ajnAna, ignorance, mAyA are all one and same.


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


> -- Indeed, yet it does appear. "mithyeti bhavitum yuktam. tatha api..."
>

I again request you to discuss your theory with an eighth-class student of
a changeless singular inactive entity appearing as the changeable world,
without accepting a changeable non-existent illusory ignorance. I would be
interested in reading that conversation. If you won't, then I will do that
at leisure and post it here.

> Avidya is not pramana siddha but anubhava siddha. no one can deny.
>
>
This is true. That is why avidyA is sAkshi-bhAsya and not pramANa-gamya.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.