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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

//Yes, of course through logic but very much also due to apta pramana ...
in my case the guru (Sivananda) for native Hindus, Advaita is part and
parcel of the culture.  This needn't establish logic as a superior pramana.
The eyes see a rope until the ears hear the hiss. Logic is supportive
only.//

You have not answered as to why you hold Veda as a pramANa? Nor you have
answered why Quran is not a pramANa for you.

If you hold Veda as a pramANa because Swami Sivananda said so, then it is
fanaticism. A statement is true because Shankara said so, then it is
fanaticism.

What Shruti said, is logically incontrovertible. Why? Because Shruti is
pramANa. Why? Because the prAmANya of Shruti is swatah. On its own. It does
not have non-prAmANya. Why? Because it has dOsha-abhAva. Why? Because it is
apaurusheya. How? Through logic it is proved.


That should be our approach. If a statement of Shruti is logically
contradicted, then it is inferred that Shruti means something else here.
Because Shruti cannot be illogical. This is not fanaticism. This is based
on logic.

A logic conforming to truth and Shruti are both on equal footing Michael
ji. They both are depicting truth. In the name of Shruti or Shankara, we
should not statement illogical stuff.

//Now you digress - what about causation?
tattva anyatAgrahana = mistaken identity, misperceived.//

Let us keep digressions aside.
//perceiver and perception are co-terminus dualities. That there is seeing
and seen is dependent upon sAkshi as svarupa. So then is not sAkshi also a
thought? Yes but from paramarthika drsti only otherwise sastra formulates
sAkshi as a notion to dispel indivdual seer/knower.//

SAkshI is not a thought. It is Brahman described from the frame of
reference of ignorance. From pAramArthika drishTi, there is no sAkshi-tva.
Only pure Brahman remains.

//I know DSV ultimately dismisses sAkshi as a product of thought but how
does DSV account for the existence of mind and individuality? Are they
products of avidya and if so, then when the effect, mind, is negated won't
avidya, as the material cause of mind necessarily remain?//

DSV does not dismiss sAkshI aa product of thought. SAkshI is Brahman,
described from the frame of reference of ignorance. Like sun, which is
prakAsha-mAtra, appears as prakAshaka with respect to earth, similarly,
Brahman, which is pure light, appears as illuminator sAkshI with respect to
ignorance.

In DSV,  a mind distinct from ignorance as a product thereof is not
required.
//But you did make a distinction between mind and its thoughts, yes?  I
forget the context and reasoning//

In SDV,  a particular modification of mind is called thought. In DSV,
ignorance itself is enough to account for thought

// your term, avidyā-upahita-caitanya. Perhaps my sanskrit is mistaken but
upahita means conditioned by. Is this a term used by Bhasyakara? It implies
an actual presence of avidya that is not Caitanya.//

Upahita is derived from upAdhi. It is a technical term which needs to be
understood.
//Theories of perception abound - how can you say perception cannot be
disputed? Just ask Chatgpt about science and perception as illusion.
Gaudapada argues perception itself does not exist, ajati vada. Perception
itself indicates avidya. Why hold perception per se as sacrosanct when all
Vedanta is intended to instruct the nondual absence of all distinction?//

I did not treat perception as sacrosanct. I just explained the subtlety of
hare's horn vis a vis illusory snake.
//SDV interprets sattA and hierarchy of states; DSV and PTB distinguish
tri-avastha as drsti-s only.  What then is the difference between DSV & PTB
that SSSS points out? I believe it is that DSV regards drsti as avidya
whereas SSSS points out what appears as drsti is Brahman only - avidya
itself is a sastrika superimposition.//

I am not interested in investigating what SSSS ji says. DrishTi in DSV
refers to vritti-upahita-chaitanya and not chaitnya itself.
//I don't follow the sequence here but generally, these are not pick and
choose methodologies. They apply to categories of adhicaritvam. The hard
and fast, sine qua non method however is adhyaropa/apavada. It is pervasive
if you know to look for it. Sruti cannot operate as pramana without A/A -
what can right knowledge destroy except wrong suppositions and without a
thorough apavada of word, sentence and method, nonduality can never be
established.//

adhyArOpa requires avidya.
//PTB does not agree that avidya and maya etc are one and the same. SSSS,
Hacker et. al. have all pointed out this distinction between Post-Sankara
and PTB.

You would have to disprove all these guys to maintain allegiance to strict
Sankara Advaita it seems to me.//

I have disproved them a number of times.
//We have discussed before - a pet objection of yours. Vedanta assumes
avidya as experiential in teaching the method to be rid of avidya - thus
avidya is anubhava siddha.//

avidyA is anubhava siddha because I say - I am ignorant. No need to bring
in Advaita Vedanta here.



//As such, Sruti's goal is not to account for creation but only to relieve
ourselves of creation. It is 8th grade lokya tarka that demands an
explanation for the inexplicable Subject appearing as other than the
subject. There is no end to the why and how of Creation. Gaudapada bundles
all Creation theories together and dismisses them as maya for the average
(8th grade like) student but ultimately negates them altogether as ajati
vada. //

You did not respond to my pet objection.

//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).//

These elaborate concepts of pramANa are well accepted in SDV. In DSV,
however, no difference from dream is admitted. Now, in dream, you dreamt of
Shruti. Were they pramANa? Were they apaurusheya? Were they not illusory?

Similarly waking Shruti.

So, Shruti, logic, pratyaksha, whatever we are employing are all illusory.
They are held to be pramANa because they are concluding a non-sublatable
truth. That is all. No superiority of one vis-a-vis another.

So other statements of BhAshyakara should be read in that context.

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.