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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

The fuss is simply to maintain sampradaya. However reasonable DSV may seem,
> if it's not in PTB, it's not Vedanta and Truth of the Self is not
> determined by anumana.
>

What is this Michael ji? Have you not deliberated upon the opening lines of
the third chapter of MANDUkya Upanishad? Here, I am reproducing the same

अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यम् , आहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह — शक्यते
तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम् ; तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणमारभ्यते ।

Can advaita be known/experienced/realized only through VedAs, or can it be
known/experienced/realized through tarka (logic) also?

Here it is answered - advaita can be known through logic also. How exactly
is that possible - will be shown by initiating advaita-prakaraNa (third
chapter).

How have you disregarded this clear and emphatic assertion of BhAshyakAra
Michael ji by saying "Truth of the Self is not determined by anumana".

--Sorry but I don't follow. What is 'extinction of perception of hitherto
> apparent ignorance'? and how does that phrase fit into the text, "being
> but Brahman he is merged in Brahman in this very life, not after the body
> falls."? That's jivanmukti, ever-established and thus no change of
> condition. If there was extinction of something, that would be a change of
> condition. Either it's apparent or it's bhavarupa, it seems to me. The same
> old argument - darkness is something opposed to light; ignorance is
> something perceived.
>

Extinction of perception is of ignorance, which is non-self. There is no
change in condition of self. The perceptible-ignorance has always been
non-existent. So, Self, being Brahman, is realised as Brahman. The cover of
ignorance falls apart.

--yes, apologies. It's natural, innate -- means we need not do anything for
> it to appear. It is also timeless and activity requires change and time.
> There is no cause to think 'misconception' is an activity. Adhyasa is wrong
> perception only - it is not an event that occurs in time and space.
>

Let us ask a pin-pointed question. What vastu this "wrong perception" is?
What is it?

   1. Is "wrong perception" a mental mode?
   2. Can "wrong perception" be without mind?
   3. Is mind also a "wrong perception"?
   4. How does it not lead to infinite regress?



> -- if the absolute truth is that we are ever free and never have been in
> bondage, then what can remain when this is realized? Is it part of the
> Absolute? "When, however, this soul makes in this one the smallest
> interval (difference), then, for him, there is fear' (Taitt. 2.7),
> ·        'Assuredly it is from a second (thing) that fear arises' (Brhad.
> 1.4.2)
>

These are quotations. These are not the answer to the question. avidyA is
not a second thing. It does not exist. So, there is non-duality. Fear
arises when there is attribution of existence to non-existent ignorance and
its products. That falls apart with knowledge. In SDV, even though
perception continues due to avidyA-lesha, there is no attribution of
existence thereto by the jIvanmukta. Hence, no fear and sorrow for him.


> //Obviously dream-perceptions are something other than nishkriya Brahman.
> So many activities appear in dream. How can it be nishkriya Brahman//
> Are they? What are they if not Consciousness? It is the waking intellect
> that thinks dreams are  'activities'.  Why wouldn't Gita 2.16 apply - That
> which changes, doesn't exist.
>

What are you saying Michael ji? That the dream-elephant running around in
the dream is changeless Brahman?

No, there is no need to refer to any text for answering this.
Dream-elephant was non-existent. It was not changeless Brahman.

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.