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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

*Namaste Michael ji.*

--It is only such anumana that is supportive of sruti spoken about here.
> I'm sure that's clear. Sastrika tarka not lokyia tarka. It is interesting
> to reflect on the precise role of tarka versus Sruti. Here's a couple of
> pages from SSSS commenting on this issue. Though he agrees on the role of
> tarka but based only on sastrika adhyaropa apavada - different from PSA
> analysis.
>

How have you arrived at the conclusion that Shruti is a pramANa? Isn't it
through logic? Is your conclusion "Shruti is pramANa" based on emotions,
feelings? Please answer. Are you in awe of some charismatic person and
merely follow his dictum that "Shruti is pramANa"? Please answer.

Shruti is pramANa not because it is Shruti. It is a pramANa because what it
says is infallible truth. And that is why only that logic which conforms to
Shruti is acceptable. Not because logic is conforming to Shruti, but
because logic is conforming to truth.

If a logic concludes that "fire is cold", then it is wrong and unacceptable
because it is not conforming to truth. Similarly, a logic not conforming to
Shruti is not acceptable because it is not conforming to truth.

I will repeat - Shruti is a pramANa not because it is Shruti. But because
it contains infallible truth.

I will request you again to answer - how have you arrived at the conclusion
that Shruti is pramANa. Is it through logic, emotion or preponderance of
probabilities?

--The argument is that a bhavarupa avidya that precedes adhyasa must
> survive though adhyasa extinguished. You hold that a bhavarupa maya shakti
> is the cause of adhyasa. Destroy the pot, clay remains and your clay is
> maya not brahman!
>

Clay is myAya-vishishTa-Brahman. mAyA cannot be posited without Brahman.
However, in the context of adhyAsa, you are right, mAya i.e. avidyA is the
cause of adhyAsa.

Now, avidyA remains even when there is no kArya-adhyAsa. That is in the
case of sushupti and in our everyday experiecnce.

--Of course it is the mind that perceives
>

Sir, who perceives mind? Please answer. Give a clear-cut answer.

but Brahman is the ground of both perceiver and perceived. No regress.
>

Regress is present because you have to answer about the entity which
perceives mind.


> However, if you think mind and perception are positive mithya entities
> caused by maya rather than simply atma/anatma adhyasa, then logical
> complications will arise.
>

No logical complications are present as the cause thereof is not bhAva. It
is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.

--How can you say that the jivanmukta with avidya-lesha would not be
> affected by conditions in Gaza, for instance or a swift kick to the chin -
> will he not shout, ow!? . If there is perception, there is duality. I think
> that crystal clear
>

When you know that a magical illusory shown is thrown up, you don't get
affected by the women and children getting killed in that illusory show.


> --Then also, "avidya...does not exist'??? you mean snake does not exist?
> or that snake kinda exists but not really exists? There is no third
> ontological category for Bhasyakara - only two fact/illusion, sat/asat,
> atma/anatma. Rope/snake as you describe it is mithya or sadasat vilaksana
> anirvacaniya.  Other than existence or non-existence and that is a
> violation of the law of 'excluded middle' - there is no partial existence.
>

I think I am short of words in expressing my disappointment. I request you
to read what is written. Otherwise, what is the point in a discussion!!

Neither snake exists, nor avidyA exists. I agree that there is no third
ontological category. asat and mithyA are both non-existent. That has been
clarified many a times. Still, you are repeating something which has never
been stated by the other party.

Additionally,  you're endowing a description and function to mithya.
>

What is wrong in that?


> If it cannot be defined, how can we even say what it is? To say something
> cannot be categorized yet appears and is experienced is to smuggle in a
> functional reality, while denying its ontological basis. It is logically
> incoherent and needlessly complex.
>

It is experientially demonstrated through the example of dream and illusory
snake. So, it is neither logically incoherent nor complex. It is rather
universally experienced.

Dream-elephant was non-existent because it was always only changeless
> Brahman.
>

Changeless Brahman cannot appear as changeable-dream-elephant without
changeable ignorance superimposed therein.

  But you say dream-elephant is neither existing nor non-existing bhavarupa
> perception that is not changeless Brahman.
>

This is incorrect as I have never said this. You need to read again what
has been said.

Doesn't that seem awkward as nonduality?
>

Non-duality is safe because mithyA is non-existent.

*Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.*

*//*We must wonder how palatable these statements are to purely dry
logicians who prefer mere tarka over bhAshya and shruti??//

Prabhu ji. How have you arrived at the conclusion that bhAshya and Shruti
are correct and that you should follow them. Is it through fanatic faith,
emotional appeal or some other manner? Please elaborate.

//shrutyanugraheeta tarka / yukti does not mean anything to them!!  And for
them shruti is NOT the untya pramANa for the brahma jignAsa but tarka/logic
is the pramANa over shruti despite shruti itself saying that naishA tarkeNa
matirApaneya (its knowledge cannot be obtained through mere logic.//

As explained in response to Michael ji's post. Regarding "नैषा तर्केण
मतिरापनेया", please refer to "अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यम् ,
आहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह — शक्यते तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम् ;
तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणमारभ्यते ।". If you insert that tarka must reuire
Shruti, then you are contradicting kArikA because it says that advaita is
not only through Shruti.

So, it needs to be appreciated that truth can be described or found through
logic as well as through Shruti. Neither logic per se is important nor
Shruti *per se*. They both are important because they both lead to thruth.
Shruti is important not because it is Shruti but because it contains truth.

MantrAs glorifying Shruti is on account of Shruti containing truth.

//But even for these categorical statements also logicians have their own
excuses to replace logic over shruti verdict.//

Because in the garb of being vaidika, one should not be actually an
emotional fanatic.

//But being vaidika-s NOT mere dry logicians we have to completely rely on
the supremacy of the shruti pramANa and shruti anugraheeta tarka when doing
the mananaM.//

Again, how have you arrived at the conclusion that Shruti is pramANa?


   - Because Shruti says so? - then anyOnyAshraya.
   - Because Shankara says so? - then you are a fanatic.
   - Because logic says so? - Here is a welcome refreshing glass of
   lemon-mint-squash in my camp!! 😀


//I am really surprised statements like : why ONLY shankara bhAshya, why
ONLY shruti when logic itself is suffice !!  Etc. floating smoothly without
being questioned by socalled orthodox followers of shankara’s Advaita 😊//

Because logic-conforming-to-truth and Shruti go hand in hand. Not all logic
is being praised. Only that logic which conforms to truth is advocated. And
it happens to match with what Shruti says.

//It seems you have done an unpardonable sin by sharing Sri SSS’s take on
this!!  Because according to some his observations/logic etc. goes against
even to the logic of average student of 8th standard student 😊//

That is quite clear. To speak of some mrit-sAmAnya as nirvikAra is rejected
by an eight-grade student.. no, even a seventh class student. Sir, what is
mrit-sAmAnya? Explain. Without activity, how does this nirvikAra
mrit-sAmAnya transforms to pot. And how many nirvikAra entities do you have
in your book? mrit-sAmAnya, swarNa-sAmAnya?

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.