[Advaita-l] space, time, causality, error and duality versus mUlavidyA vAda

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Copy/Pasted from elsewhere - not my own words. Most of the debates on here
about Moolavidya and what it means seem to get stuck in textual citations -
Shankara said this, no meant that, Padmapada said this, Prakashatman
refined that, etc and usually do not pProgress further.
I want to take a different approach, so do try this one for size. There
might be tightening needed here and there, but hopefully the intent comes
across clear.
Let us start with basic primitives and define them, basically - space,
time, causality, error and duality and follow the reasoning to its
conclusion, wherever it leads us. To me, this analysis shows that
moolavidya is not merely textually questionable, but also logically
untenable. Not because the wrong acharya is being followed, but because the
concept defeats itself.
Primitive 1 - Space & Time are ONE package
-------------------------------------------------
Space requires extent. Without extent - without separation between points -
space has no content/meaning. And for two points to be meaningfully
separate, time MUST enter necessarily. To traverse separation requires
elapsed moments. To *perceive* two points as distinct requires light
traveling paths - and path length is already time. To *cognize* two things
as two rather than one requires sequential attention - first this, then
that. Therefore space requires time, and vice versa. You cannot talk of one
without the other and the two are mutually entailing. Rejecting one,
rejects both.
This isn't modern physics. This is derivable by anyone willing to sit
carefully with what these words actually mean.
Primitive 2 - What Anadi actually means
--------------------------------------------
Shankara characterizes adhyasa - the fundamental superimposition - as
*anadi*. Beginingless.
The standard reading treats this temporally. Infinitely old. Time runs back
without finding a beginning.
But that reading is too shallow. Infinitely old is *still a temporal*
concept - time is still running, adhyasa just has no starting point within
it.
The deeper and more precise reading is this _ *anadi means beyond the
temporal framework ENTIRELY*. Not that time runs back forever without
finding a begninng. But that time itself has no foothold here.
And since space and time are a package deal, beyond time actually means
beyond space-time. This means acausal. Because causality requires both - a
cause must precede its effect (time) and act on something (space). Remove
the fabric and causlity becomes not weak but categorically inapplicable.
And acausal IMPLES non-duality. Because multiplicity is held together
entirely by causal relationships. Remove causality and there is nothing to
individuate this from that, nothing separating one thing from another.
So the logical chain is:
Anadi => beyond time => beyond space => acausal => non-dual
The interesting bit is, saying any one of these 5 things automatically mean
the remaining four as well. No escaping this. These are logical
entailments; not assertions.
Now let is see what this does to Moolavidya.
Moolavidya is introduced as the causal basis of adhyasa. The root ignorance
that produces superimposition. The beginningless power that conceals
Brahman and projects multiplicity. Note that if it is just an explanatory
device within vyavahara, then it doesnt say much. Any *real* explanation of
adhyasa within the vyavaharika framework must necessarily have a causal
basis. Every version of this doctrine, however carefully qualified requires
it to function as some kind of prior principle from which adhyasa follows.
Else, it has no place anyway.
The primitives just destroyed that possibility completely. Here is how - in
as many ways as the doctrine presents itself.
Failure 1 - The Anadi Contradiction
---------------------------------------
Shankara says adhyasa is anadi - beginningless. Moolavidya says it is the
cause of adhyasa.
But the moment you introduce a cause, you introduce a sequence, moolavidya
first, then adhyasa. This implies a temporal order, and so it implies a
beginning - it began when moolavidya produced it. Implying Adhyasa can no
longer be anadi.
The only escape is to say Moolavidyua is also anadi. Both are
beginningless. But then what does causal priority mean between two equally
beginningless things?? Causation without temporal priority is not causation
in any sense. Only the word cause has been retained while its entire
content has been evacuated.
Moolavdiya fails at the first word of Shankara's own characterization of
what it is supposed to explain.
Failure 2 - The Acausality Problem
-------------------------------------
Anadi properly understood means acausal. Moolavidya is a causal principle.
You cannot give a causal account of something that is by its own
characterization beyond causality. That is not a gap in theory. That is a
category error - applying a concept in a domain where it has NO foothold.
It is like asking for the spatial location of a number. The question is not
hard to answer. It is malformed. Location does not apply to numbers.
Causality does not apply to what is anadi.
Failure 3 - The self-undermining Retreat
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/100077276180166/?__cft__[0]=AZYfRhimH7kDmEmcjgPSIAemqRWd7el_Y-t8oZKyh3r-RsZ6NM3VrO_p34rFZUCW0mLbH2g2p4lwCAQuzKfW6ztgMKYNqSlfSLsPg7J6lW6Jyhgzg_yvBJPKHzWLDKhRx0ruSK2LgCeHxZDdZGSTVYcz&__tn__=-]K-R>
--------------------------------------------
When pressed on moolavidyas ontological status, its defenders consistently
retreat:
It is not really a causal principle - it is vyavahara only
It is not ontologically robust - it is mithya
It is not a second reality - it has no paramarthika status
Each retreat is designed to save the doctrine from the reification charge.
But each retreat simultaneously ECAVUATES the doctrine of EXPLANATORY
content.
If moolavidya has no ontological weight, it explains *nothing*
If it is not a genuine cause - it does *no* causal work.
If it is indistinguishable from adhyasa itself, it adds *nothing* to what
adhyasa already covers.
THe doctrine survives each challenge by becoming progressively emptier -
until nothing remains but the word.
This is precisely the trajectory of the luminiferous ether in physics.
Every time experiments failed to detect it, its properties were adjusted -
more transparent, zero viscosity, perfectly entrained. Each adjustment
saved the theory temporarily while quietly removing its content. Eventually
there was nothing left but the name. ANother thing that it was disproved by
the Michelson Morley experiment.
Moolavidya is the "philosophical ether".
Failure 4 - the circularity problem
-------------------------------------
The demand for a causal account of adhyasa already presupposes a causal
framework. But the causal framework is iteself a product of adhyasa - it
belongs to the dual, space-time bound order that adhyasa generates.
So the argument is - Adhyasa generates the causal framework - we use the
causal framework to explain adhyasa.
This is not a subtle circularity that philosophy can dissolve. It is a
foundational loop - using the product to explain the producer, using the
dream to explain the dreaming.
Moolavidya isnt just an unnecessary explanatory layer. It is an explanatory
layer that pressupposes the very thing it is trying to explain.
Failure 5 - The location Paradox
-----------------------------------
Where does moolavidya reside? If in Brahman, non-duality is compromised.
If in jiva - the jiva itself is a product of avidya. So avida produces jiva
and jiva is the locus of avidya. The effect containing its own cause, pure
circularity again.
If neither - the principle has no locus. A causally active principle with
no locus is not a principle. It is a placeholder for an unanswered question.
Every available option leads to either contradiction, circularity or
emptiness.
Failure 6 - the taxonomy of Errors
____________________________________
A careful analysis of what error actually is reveals something decisive.
Errors fall in to distinct categories - perceptual, inferential,
assumption-based, superimposition, absence. All of them share a critical
feature - they work *within* the framework of space, time,
causality/duality. They are framework-internal. They can be corrected by
tools operating within the same framework.
But, there is exactly ONE kind of error that is different in kind - the
*constitutive* error that generates the *framework itself*. Thus error is
acausal, as anadi implies. It cannot be corrected by any causal mechanism
because causality operates "downstream" of it. Moolavidya is itntroduced as
a causal account of this constitutive error. But a causal account of an
acausal error is not just unsatisfing, it is a *category mistake of the
most fundamental kind*.
Failure 7 - The Entanglement Problem
________________________________________
The entity that supposedly harbors or is affected by moolavidya - the jiva,
the cognizing subject - does not exist independently of the fundamental
error. The separate self co-arises with the error. They are entangled -
each requiring the other to exist.
This means there is no neutral subject who has moolavidya the way one has a
mistaken belief. The subject IS the error. They are ONE movement appearing
as TWO.
Moolavidya treats the error as something a subject *has* - a positive
obscuring substance that covers what the subject would otherise "see". But
if the subject and the error co-arise, there is no prior subject to be
covered. The covering and the covered and the one who is covered are all
one single movement.
Moolavidya requires a subject-error separation that the logic of the
situation denies.
What SHankara Actually Did
______________________________
He did not ask for the cause of adhyasa. He pointed it out, characterized
it, and moved immediately to sublation.
This was not a gap in his analysis. It was THE analysis.
Calling adhyasa anadi was not a lazy hand-wave. It was a precise and
deliberate philosophical move - a stop sign placed exactly where the causal
question seases to be coherent. It was Shankara saying - the causal
framework does not apply here. There is no before to find. Stop looking for
one.
Moolavidya is what happens when that STOP sign is ignored. When the demand
for causal explanation is pressed past the point it has any validity. The
result is a doctribe that
- contradicts anadi
- commits a category error
- empties itself through its own defensive retreats
- circles back on itself
- has nowhere coherent to locate itself
- misunderstands the nature of the one error that stands apart
- requires a subject-error separation that just does not exist
Centuries of sophisticated philosophical defense have kept it alive - not
because the logic is sound but because the defences were always subtle
enough to survive the immediate challenge without ever actually resolving
anything.
But the primitives - space, time, causality, error, duality - examined
carefully and followed honestly, leave no room for it. The coffin was
already closed. Moolavidya, the philosophical ether, just couldnt find the
lid.