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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

//In srishTi-drishTi-vAda, avidyA-lesha is admitted. In
drishTi-srishTi-vAda, no avidyA-lesha is admitted.//
--Didn't Madhusudhana structure Videhamukti as 'superior' to jivanmukti and
he was a DSV, no? Videha mukti admits avidyA-lesha.

Also, we find this perspective on Videhamukti in BUbh4.4.6,
"How does such a man attain liberation? This is being stated: He who sees
the Self, as in the state of profound sleep, as undifferentiated, one
without a second, and as the constant light of Pure Intelligence" ...
"Rather this man of realisation is Brahman in this very life, although he
seems to have a body. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman. Because
he has no desires that cause the limitation of non-Brahmanhood, therefore
'being but Brahman he is merged in Brahman'* in this very life, not after
the body falls*. A man of realisation, *after his death, has no change of
condition*-something different from what he was in life, but he is only not
connected with another body. This is what is meant by his becoming 'merged
in Brahman'; for if liberation was a change of condition, it would
contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upani~ds seek to teach."

and these objections to avidya-lesha need to be considered:
BSB 1.1.4: Śaṅkara affirms that embodiment is purely misconceived; the self
has never been embodied.
(misconceived, not apparent Bhavarupa Avidya creation )
BSB 3.3.32: Liberation is immediate with right knowledge and does not
require death.
"For the sentence, "That thou art", cannot be construed to mean that you
will become That (Brahman) after death, because the text
"The sage Vamadeva, while realizing this (Self) as That (Brahman), knew, 'I
was Manu, and the sun'" (Br. I. iv. 10), shows that the result of
knowledge, consisting in becoming identified with all, occurs
simultaneously with the rise of complete illumination. Hence liberation
comes inevitably to a man of knowledge."

//It is not a contradiction because all--  aspects of avidyA are not
contradictory to jnAna. That aspect of avidyA which gives rise to
perception of world is not contradictory to Brahma-jnAna. Hence, that
aspect can survive Brahma-jnAna. Brahma-jnAna requires certain portion of
avidyA which has given rise to this body, prArabdha, perception of world.
Hence, accepting avidyA-lesha is not contradictory.//
--please say more about these 'aspects of avidyA'

//Certainly there has never been any snake. Yet, there was a perception of
snake. That is how anirvachanIya mithyA is defined. That which is neither
sat nor asat.//
--'anirvacaniya mithya' is never a term used by S. in PTB. Instead, it is
referenced to avyakta namarupe. S. uses the term, tattvanyatvabhyam
anirvacaniya while all PSA, sadasatbhyyam anirvacaniya.
Hacker points out the difference between Śaṅkara using anirvacanīya to
describe the status of the world as it appears, not to explain how it came
into being while  Later Advaitins reify anirvacanīya as the source of
creation, turning it into a theory of how the universe arises (cosmogony),
not just how it is experienced (cosmology).
Here's further notes on Hacker and Alston on the term:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DBfZh_swP4eTvIMIEgDIMK8KGI8GQDdp/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115262902008900337610&rtpof=true&sd=true


//The difference is not in non-existence. Both are equally non-existent.
The difference is in the  eligibility to appear.//
--how can non-existence appear? What appears is Brahman only! That it looks
like something other than Brahman is the mistake of avidya. There's no
evidence of anything other than Brahman. Perception is not proved by
anything other than perception so seeing a snake does  not indicate a third
category apart from sat and asat.

//What do you mean that it is a logical entity? It is pretty much perceived
and experienced. It is as much tangible and perceptible as other objects.
It is not hare's horns.//
-- an anirvacaniya mithya bhavarupa avidya explaining perception is a
logical entity. What is perceived is Rope not snake. Snake is a wrong idea.
It becomes a logical entity when you suggest snake is the *bhavarupa* *thing
*perceived.

// You have left the concept of error unexplored. Go deep into it and you
will have no way but to accept bhAvarUpatva of avidyA. //
Please, adhyasa is error. It is not a substantive error but only wrong
cognition, a lack of discrimination says Bhasyakara. How deep must it be to
conclude an error is an actual thing?

//We have to think for ourselves.//
a condescending remark especially when you recognize that it is standing up
to 1200 years of entrenched tradition.

Respectfully, Michael







On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:22 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.
>
> It is really a quite irony that those who are trying to bring the adhyAsa
>> itself within the ambit of kArya-kAraNa prakriya by claiming that there is
>> solid kAraNa for the kArya adhyAsa etc. now trying to talk about the
>> illusoriness of kArya-kAraNa prakriya
>
>
> That avidyA-adhyAsa causal connection is only that much admissible as is
> clay-pot causal connection.
>
> It is an answer to those who hold on to kArya-kAraNa-bhAva. It is an
> answer to those who are wedded to F = ma. Those who appreciate illusoriness
> of causation don't search for any cause. They neither search cause for
> their bondage, their sorrow, their happiness, nor of the adhyAsa. They
> dismiss entire seen in one go. Whether it is avidyA, or adhyAsa, or clay,
> or pot or whatever, if it is seen, it is dismissed as illusory mirage.
>
> Therefore, there is no irony. Depending on the adhikAritvam of mumukshu,
> different gradation of teaching is imparted.
>
> Know for sure -- as long as cause-effect-relationship sustains, samsAra
> sustains.
>
>
> 😊 Anyway, those who are trying to say kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM ultimately
>> saying that it is meant for realizing the ultimate siddhAnta of shruti-s
>> i.e. AtmaikatvaM.
>
>
> Keval bolne se kuch nahi hota. KAraNa appearing as kArya entails activity.
> That is impermissible for nishkriya shuddha chaitanya. So, positing world
> as effect and shuddha chaitanya as cause is impossible without bringing in
> transformational ignorance. Otherwise, it is वदतो व्याघात: and liable to be
> dismissed even by a eight year young boy. Repeating BhAshyakAra's words
> without understanding will not serve any purpose.
>
>  bhAshyakAra clarifies this : ananyatvepi kArya-kAraNayOH kAryasya
>> kAraNAtmatvaM 'na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM'.  We say jagat as kArya
>> entirely dependent on brahman and not different from its kAraNa brahman but
>> brahman does not undergo any modification (vikAra) and in his svarUpa he is
>> always nirvikAri and nirvishesha.
>
>
> That is why BhAshyakAra explains elsewhere - तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव
> सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः । Without ignorance,
> you cannot talk of Brahman as cause.
>
>
> In the chAndOgya shruti bhAshyakAra clarifies : All the names and forms
>> are real only
>> with reference to their cause, but independently by themselves, they are
>> unreal.  With this thinking in mind, bhAshyakAra elsewhere clarifies in
>> sUtra bhAshya :  just as  brahman the 'cause' never deviates from existence
>> in all the three periods of time, so also the effect, the world, never
>> deviates from existence in all the three periods (srushti, sthiti & laya).
>> And existence again is ONLY ONE.  So for this reason also THE EFFECT IS
>> NONE OTHER THAN THE CAUSE.
>
>
> Without ignorance, one can have Brahman neither as cause nor as sAkshI.
> Anandagiri Swami explains - कारणत्ववत्साक्षित्वमपि स्वाज्ञानकृतमित्युक्तमेव
> प्रसङ्गात्प्रकटयति. This is actually common sense. Ignoring this vital
> aspect and repeating BhAshyakAra is a waste of time.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB4tpsg2AQhMW%2Bv0dGq%3DgfqJWFxnr96H4iNgXL8Lm4pxA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB4tpsg2AQhMW%2Bv0dGq%3DgfqJWFxnr96H4iNgXL8Lm4pxA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>