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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
Further on GKbh3.1 reference to tarka not just sruti 'establishing
advaita'.  What does this mean? Surely, it does not contradict so many
declaration that sruti alone is pramana for Atma/Brahma,  “I ask you of
that Being who is to be known only from the Upanishads BrU3.9.26,”   “Of
that purusa which is to be comprehended from the Upanishads
only…BS1.1.4,” "That
Being who is to be known only from the Upanisads' (BrUIII. ix.
26).'(Vedanuvacana).

SSSS reflects on Bhasyakara's statement that is intended to logically prove
only Nonduality but that no pramana is intended "to establish'
svatahsiddha atma. from Essential Gaudapada:

THE PLACE OF TARKA
Because it is stated that - "Advaita can be signified by ,
means of Sruti and it can be establislled by Tarka (reasoning,
logic)" - it should not be concluded that Tarka also, along with
Sruti (Sastra PramaI.1a) , , is an independent PramaIJ.8 (valid means
of knowledge). In the Sruti, which is the authoritative source for
the Agama PrakaraI.1a, since Advitlyatman is self-establislled tlle
special features of A vasthatraya which are superimposed upon
Him (i.e. Advitlyatman or non-dual Self) are sublated (falsified,
negated, rescinded) and the trutll that - "Atman is of Advaita
Swarupa (of the very essence of non-duality, i.e. having nothing
second to Himself)" - has been clearly explained. Therefore, to ,
some extent, the Sruti also has followed Tarka (reasoning) alone
and llas, for the sake of the superior class of seekers, instructed
the self-established " Tattwa . (Absolute, Transcendental Reality).
Tllat very truth was explained fully in tIle Agama Prakarat:la
Karikas. Since here in the present Chapter (Advaita Prakara~a)
too - having followed or ad, opted that kind of Tarka whicll is
adopted with felicity in the Sruti but in consonance with universal
Intuitive Experience (Anubhavariga Tarka) so that it does not
contradict It, tile impediments like Samshaya (doubt), Viparita
GrahaJ)a (misconception, wrong knowledge) are rescinded, ne- ,
gated and the real purport of the Sruti alone has been signified
- it has been affirmed that - "By means of Tarka also Advaita
can be established. " That is all. This explanation should be
suitably made applicable to the second Vaitathya PrakaraIJ.8 also.

Because Atmatattwa is not a PrameY8 (object of perceptual
knowledge), It cannot possibly be established by any PramaQa
wllatsoever ; because It is Swatahsiddha (self-established), there
is no need wllatsoever for establishing It by means of any
PramaQa. Even so, for tIle sake or benefit of those seekers WllO
are endowed with limited or low-grade intelligence (discriminative
faculty) and are having predominantly an extroverted view- ,
point, tIle Sruti, adopting tile ancient time-tested traditional methodology
of 'Adhyaropa Apavada Nyaya' (axiom of Superimposition
and Rescission), deliberately superimposes on It certain
Advaita Prakaran. a 213
Dharmas (special features or attributes) which do not really
exist in It and relatively rescinds certain other Dharmas,
showing that they do not exist in It. Those preceptors who are
well-versed in this traditional methodology of teaching are utilizing
as an aid to this teaching the empirical logical arguments
(Loukika Tarka) in consonance with that methodology. Therefore,
in the Vaitathya Prakarat:la, in order to clarify the truth that
- 'Atman is Advaita', first Dvaitamithyatwa (the truth that
duality is false) was indicated and then the Karyarupa (the
form or category of effect) was rescinded by means of Tarka
; but here in the present context the Kara~arupa (the category
of cause - as a superimposed special feature) is rescinded,
refuted. Thus, because Advaita Tattwa is self-established
alone, It reveals Itself to the properly qualified seekers
without any hindrance or hurdles whatsoever indeed.
- - "",-


On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 8:50 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>