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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

 Ø     It is through Aapta vAkya as the pramANa.  You know something called
> Apta vAkya as a valid pramANa, in your childhood you listen to your
> parents, teachers, elders etc.  without logically scrutinizing / doubting
> their instructions.  It is just like that, in the path of jnAna mArga you /
> we are still kids you should have conviction in the pramANa of the
> guru-Acharya vAkya without looking at it with your logically conditioned
> mind.
>

How have you arrived at the conclusion that Shruti is Apta-vAkya, SSSS ji's
is Apta vAkya but Quran is not Apta-vAkya and Prophet's is not Apta-vAkya?



>  Ø     So you are holding this kArika as pramANa and arguing that shruti
> is NOT the untya pramANa in brahma jignAsa any conditioned mind with
> ‘socalled’ logical backdrop can determine what that brahman is without the
> help of shAstra !!
>

Sir, I hold that truth can be known through both logic and Shruti. Shruti
is antya pramANa, because it is contains truth and not because it is Shruti.

A person with sufficient logical capacity can indeed come to the truth
revealed by Shruti.

Yes for brahma jignAsa shruti is not only the pramANa but anubhavAdi also
> bhAshyakAra too says but note that this anubhavAdi (experience etc.) not
> free from shrutyanugraheeta, pUrNAnubhava and anubhava sammata tarka to
> erroneously argue OK I can deduce brahma jnAna with mere dry logic I don’t
> need bhAshya nor shruti.  Are you really a saMpradAyavAdi or mere tArkika
> ??  Please let me know which vyAkhyAnakAra floating these type of
> asampradAyik statements in his works!!
>

You will have to do research on your own to find out that, if you are
interested. I have given statement from BhAshyakAra - अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण
प्रतिपत्तव्यम् , आहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह — शक्यते तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम् ;
तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणमारभ्यते । If you wish to know how advaita is known
through tarka, you can consider reading advaita prakaraNa.

 Again you are making blunder here.  There are no two alternatives here one
> in conditioned mind’s dry logic and another one is shruti.  Tarka mananaM
> should be endorsed by shruti and pUrNAnubhava and not the other way round
> i.e. dry logic should put clearance / acceptance label on shruti verdict.
> There is no end to the logical conclusions which has been originated
> through the conditioned / qualified mind…where human logic ends and accepts
> its limitations from there shruti starts.
>

Sir, why not Quran? The words of Shruti are contradicted by Quran, which is
directly the words of Allah. Not only my dry logic, but your wet logic also
is superseded by the direct words of Allah. Where logic and Shruti both
end, the realm of words of God start. I propose you explore that. You will
get to hear direct words. Come on!!

 Ø     How do you know that shruti contains truth!!??  Through your
> conditioned mind’s logic??
>

Sir, all tools at my disposal point to the non-sublatable truth enunciated
in Shruti. The logic by which I am convinced concludes the same truth which
is enunciated in Shruti. And the anubhava too at my disposal is in harmony
with statements of Shruti.

The illogical explanation of Shruti by you therefore stands negated.


> or through Apta vAkya and shraddha in sampradaya Acharya’s words??
>

If Apta vAkya or sampradAya AchArya's vAkya are accepted without a logical
enquiry, and blindly believed, it is another name of fanaticism.


> If you are holding 1-1-2 sutra bhAshya to say something nonsense like
> above then please note there also bhAshyakAra not talking about dry logic
> which has limited boundary as it is restricted to individual mind’s
> intellect.
>

Since Shruti contains truth, any logical adventure contradicting Shruti is
obviously liable to be rejected. Where is the objection in that?

I don't know what is your definition of dry logic and wet logic. I am not
interested in knowing that either. To me, "logic not conforming to thruth"
is dry logic. That is rejected. Since the logic with which I am convinced
leads to the same truth which shines in Upanishads, BSB 1.1.2 or whatever
is not contradicted.

 Ø     And for the shruti and its truth, brahman is the source which cannot
> be ascertained by any conditioned dry logic to declare shruti per se not
> important and and ‘my’ logic also can serve this purpose!!
>

There is nothing like "my logic" vs Shruti. My statement is that logic
which conforms to truth is on equal footing with Shruti. Shruti is
important because it contains truth. The logic which leads to truth is
hence equally important.


> Again I am really surprised asaMpradAyik statements like this sneaking in
> without being questioned by socalled official flag bearers of shAstra/
> sampradaya 😊
>

You are incorrect about your understanding of sampradAya.

 Ø     The other name of this fanaticism is shraddha and bhakti in shAstra,
> sampradaya, guru and Acharya, and I know in the atheist/tArkika conditioned
> mind these terms mean nothing.
>

You are incorrect in equating fanaticism with shraddhA/sampradAya/guru etc.

 Ø     I am sorry for asking this question, how do you know that you are
> the son of your own parents??  Just because they said so or have you used
> any / some logical device to determine that ??
>

Blast from the past? ISKCON days? Srila Prabhupada's argument!!

Sir, just as I decided in my dream that I am a son of so and so, similarly
I have decided here. As much truth value my that "belief" in swapna had,
exactly the same truth value my "this belief" has. It means nothing. It is
a mere belief.

If you insist that it is a pramA that "I am son of so and so", then sir,
please know that it is through anumAna or arthApatti.

If you say that it is through Apta vAkya, then you are in for a trouble
because being a paurusheya-Apta-vAkya, it is fraught with danger.

In SDV model, Veda is considered pramANa not because it is Apta-vAkya, not
because it is apaurusheya, not because of anything. Veda has
swatah-prAmANya.

The aprAmANya is absent because of dOsha-abhAva. dOsha-abhAva is because of
apaurusheyatva.

So, flow is as under:

apaurusheyatva => dOsha-abhAva => aprAmANya-abhAva.

prAmANya is swatah.

And please note that apaurusheyatva is not a blind belief. It comes from
anumAna as under:

   1. सृष्टिकालीनं वेदाध्ययनं पूर्ववेदाध्ययनानुस्मृतिनिबन्धनम्,
   वेदाध्ययनत्वाद्, इदानीन्तनवेदाध्ययनवत्.
   2. कल्पादिषु शब्दार्थसम्बन्धव्यवहार: पूर्वपूर्वव्यवहारपरम्पराधीन:,
   अभिधान-अभिधेय-व्यवहारत्वाद्, इदानीन्तनव्यवहारवत्.

You will have to apply mind to understand what is said above.

So, sum and substance is this:

1. I am a man, son of so and so, -- is a belief. A rebuttable belief having
as much truth value as my belief of being son of so and so in my dream
yesterday.
2. Through tushyatu-durjana-nyAya, if it is accepted to be a pramA - then
it is known through anumAna or arthApatti.



>    - Over dose of mere speculations born out of dry logic making you to
>    pass these type of dreadful statements.  For those who follow shankara and
>    shruti are doing so as it is for them AptavAkya, only tArkika-s who do not
>    have any respect to shAstra-saMpradAya, guru-Acharya can make some
>    statements like this…
>
>
I am afraid that your statements are liable to be rejected on account of
absence of application of mind.


>    - You can live in your delusional  logical world,no issues 😊 But
>    those who know sampradaya, those who respect their Acharya, Acharya vAkya
>    know that only shruti, shrutyanugraheeta tarka based on pUrNAnubhava
>    permitted in brahma jignAsa.  And they know very well kevala tarka,
>    nirAgama tarka, shushka tarka etc. which you are passionately promoting
>    here in this list are simply shruti viruddha, nishpramANakavAdaM and goes
>    against anubhava as well.  We the fanatic followers of shankara knows what
>    verdict our Acharya given on kevala tArkika-s..By the way since you are not
>    the fanatic I don’t have to quote what my Acharya says on ‘kevala tarka’.
>
>
Sir, how many AchAryAs are there is your sampradAya after 10th century AD.
Let us talk on that!! I want a list of AchAryAs of your sampradAya.
Something akin to Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradAya??


>
>    - I can understand your frustration here resulting in bAlisha
>    (childish) conclusions about these examples in shruti.
>
>
Sir, sorry to disappoint you as I have no frustration in understanding
Shruti. You have however an uphill task to explain your concept to even an
eight-year old boy!! Try it. Post your conversation with an eight year old
boy as to how a changeless singular inactive entity appears as changeable
world. Good luck.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.