Illusoriness of causation (cause-effect-relationship)

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste,

1. The hallmark of advaita vedAnta is illusoriness of seen, दृश्यस्य मिथ्यात्वम्, दृश्यत्वात्.

2. Causation, i.e. cause-effect-relationship is seen. And is hence, as per 1 above, mithyA.

3. A is mithyA - if and only if - A is non-existent in B and A appears to exist in B. प्रतिपन्नोपाधौ त्रैकालिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वम्.

4. Cause-effect-relationship is therefore non-existent. It just appears to exist.

Implications of the above

1. avidyA, which is seen, is illusory. World, which is seen, is illusory. The causal connection between avidyA and table is also illusory. avidyA just appears to be the cause of table, while it is not.

2. The causal connection between desire and sorrow is illusory. Desire appears to be the cause of sorrow, while it is not.

3. dvaita cannot be stated as a cause of sorrow (द्वैतमूलम् अहो दुखम्...).

4. Metformin cannot be stated as a cause of lowering blood glucose levels.

Takeouts from the above

1. The seen is illusory. It does not exist, it just appears to exist.

2. Don't search for a cause of seen. It does not exist, it just appears to exist.

3. You are happy. Don't search for cause of your happiness. Don't attribute A as a cause of your happiness. 

4. You fee sad. Don't search for cause of your sorrow. Don't attribute B as a cause of your sadness.

5. Whatever is seen, is illusory, momentary and disjoint. It has no cause. For it does not exist, it merely appears to exist. 

6. avidyA is seen. World is seen. avidyA-world-relationship is seen. All are illusory. Do not pay attention.

7. Do not pay attention to seen. 

8. What remains by not paying attention to the seen is what is real, non-illusory. The truth.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

P.S.

Not paying attention is not an action. Eating is an action. "Not eating" is not an action. 

"Not paying attention to seen" is basically "being what one is".

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Now I realized why some dualists would call us (advaitins) as pracchanna bauddha-s (buddhists in disguise)😊 OTOH, if we see what bhAshyakAra would offer with regard to nAma rUpa and his clarification to the doubts like :  are these names and forms perceived in the world illusionary or not? Etc.  is, even the nAma – rUpa (kArya) are indeed of the nature of the kAraNaM, why, because there cannot be a kArya coming into existence, if it all it is not of the nature of the kAraNam. And for those who think that world would disappear in thin air after realizing that they are brahman, like snake disappears after realizing rope!! Or atleast at the time of mahApraLaya this world would vanish etc.to maintain the nirvisheshatva of brahman,  bhAshyakAra again clarifies that even brahman as cause does exist in the past, present, and future, even the world of effects does exist in the past, present and future and there is no existence that can be called as anAtma since there exists nothing apart from brahman. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste,

 Now I realized why some dualists would call us (advaitins) as pracchanna bauddha-s (buddhists in disguise)😊

There are similarities between VijnAnavAda Buddhism and Advaita. AchArya says clearly in MANDUkya - विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरम् आचार्येणानुमोदितम् । 

There is coherence between Advaita and Buddhism in so far rejection of external objects is concerned. BAhya-artha-pratishedha.

OTOH, if we see what bhAshyakAra would offer with regard to nAma rUpa and his clarification to the doubts like :  are these names and forms perceived in the world illusionary or not? Etc.  is, even the nAma – rUpa (kArya) are indeed of the nature of the kAraNaM, why, because there cannot be a kArya coming into existence, if it all it is not of the nature of the kAraNam.

Sir, kArya-kAraNa-bhAva i.e. causality is itself illusory. Please refer to MANDUkya - यावद्धेतुफलावेशः संसारस्तावदायतः ।

क्षीणे हेतुफलावेशे संसारं न प्रपद्यते ॥ 

Please note that it is not pAramArthika drishTi. The statement is made in vyAvahArika/prAtibhAsika framework only.

And for those who think that world would disappear in thin air after realizing that they are brahman, like snake disappears after realizing rope!Or atleast at the time of mahApraLaya this world would vanish etc.to maintain the nirvisheshatva of brahman,  bhAshyakAra again clarifies that even brahman as cause does exist in the past, present, and future, even the world of effects does exist in the past, present and future and there is no existence that can be called as anAtma since there exists nothing apart from brahman. 

So, Brahman as cause exists in three periods of time and world as kArya exists in three periods of time.

So, kArya-kAraNa-bhAva is as real as Brahman. Nice!!

Sir, kArya-kAraNa-bhAva of Brahman-world is stated not to attribute reality to world or to kArya-kAraNa-bhAva. It is for explaining the advitIyatva of Brahman.

How?

World is stated to be born from B. And world is stated to be absent in B. This implies mithyAtva of world and hence its non-existence. Thus, advitIyatva of B is established.

See what Acharya says - नन्वजातिवादिनः सृष्टिप्रतिपादिका श्रुतिर्न सङ्गच्छते । बाढम् ; विद्यते सृष्टिप्रतिपादिका श्रुतिः ; सा त्वन्यपरा, ‘उपायः सोऽवतारय’ (मा. का. ३ । १५) इत्यवोचाम ।

Appreciate that creation Shruti does not harmonize with ajAtivAda i.e. non-creation. The explanation is through mithyAtva of world. 

Explanation:

Question: How exactly do creation-sentences establish advitIya-Brahman?

Answer: When it is said – there is no rUpa in vAyu, it does not ipso facto imply that rUpa does not exist elsewhere. Despite the absence of rUpa in vAyu, it may pretty well be present elsewhere, say in fire, water, earth etc.

Similarly, when it is said — नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन — it negates the existence of world in Brahman. However, ipso facto, this sentence does not prohibit the existence of world anywhere else, just as in the example of rUpa-vAyu. And hence advitIyatva of Brahman is not established.

However, when creation-sentences are propounded, which establish Brahman as the upAdAna kAraNa, it implies that the effect-world cannot exist anywhere else without its material cause, Brahman. And then, Shruti through नेति नेति, नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन etc speaks of non-existence of world in Brahman also.

Thus, what results is the tuchchhatva of world and advitIyatva of Brahman is established faultlessly. Because world cannot exist apart from its material cause, Brahman — and in the very same Brahman, it is non-existent. Thus, world is utterly non-existent.

Thus, creation-sentences have their import in advitIya-Brahman through paramparA.

So, please don't limit yourself to kArya-kAraNa-bhAva. That is the adhyAropa. Go to the apavAda to know that world is utterly non-existent.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

A note is written in Sanskrit on illusoriness of causation. The ideas are the same which have been presented in this forum before. I request learned members to share their views thereupon. Grammatical errors can also be pointed out. [The English translation is not being provided as the ideas have already been explained in the original post of this thread.]

The note can be downloaded from https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/karya-karana-bhava-mithyatvam.pdf

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

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 😊 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. 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. 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.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Thank you for this nice write up deconstructing cause and effect. I've attached a Chatgpt translation. You clearly show that cause/effect is the mind's illusion but not stated is the cause of mind itself. Isn't mind and its perceptions taken to be a bhavarupa creation of mAyA? Is that not cause/effect?

And please a tangent issue, if bhavarupa avidya/mAya shakti functions to project the illusion/vikshepa and thus also functions as an upadhi of Brahman but is nonetheless sublatable/badita, how can it be said to be anirvacaniya/indescribable and then, neither real nor unreal? Only a positively affirmed something can be described, can function or can be removed, it seems to me. Thanks in advance for your continued patience.  

Regards, michael

Chatgpt (free) translation:  a
Here is a clear and faithful translation of the Sanskrit passage you provided. The text is a philosophical argument, likely in the Advaita Vedānta tradition, denying the reality of kārya-kāraṇa-bhāva (cause-effect relationship), asserting it is only an appearance. The translation keeps the tone and logical development of the original:

---

Translation:

The relationship of cause and effect (kārya-kāraṇa-bhāva) is considered real by us. We say: “Clay is the cause, the pot is the effect.” In this world, we all perceive a pot made by a potter using clay. From this perception, we conclude: “Clay is the cause; the pot is the effect.”

However, inference based on reason shows us a deeper understanding.

There is such an inference: "The cause-effect relationship is unreal—because it is perceived—like the mirage in the desert or the silver in a shell." By this inference, it is shown that the cause-effect relationship is merely an appearance and does not truly exist. Like a mirage appears similar to water but is not, so too the cause-effect relationship is shown to be only an appearance by this inference.

It merely appears to us as though the cause-effect relation is real, though in truth it is not.

That is, our perception that “clay is the cause” and “pot is the effect” is not grounded in a true cause-effect link. Between clay and pot, or between any so-called cause and effect, no real cause-effect relationship exists—though it appears to be so.

For example, consider a wooden pot. All agree that there is no cause-effect relationship between the wood and the wooden pot. Between the two, such a connection does not exist. But their similarity appears to us due to our own mental projections. According to the wise, this is merely a mental construction. The pot is one mental construct, and the clay is another.

There is no real pot or real clay—everything is a manifestation of the mind. All of it is agreed to be the play of the mind. In one thought the object appears as clay, and in another it appears as pot. But there is no real connection between the two. Just as there is no shadow or reflection in the absence of an object, likewise there is no real cause-effect connection between clay and pot when examined closely.

Even among types (jāti), such as pot-ness and clay-ness, no relationship can be established. Experience reveals all as homogeneous. Thus, the specific example demonstrates: just as there's no cause-effect link between pot and clay, so too, among their types (jāti), such a link is not real. These are only names for mental constructs, not real objects.

Unreal Consequences of Accepting Cause-Effect:

Wherever we realize that the cause-effect relationship is unreal—that it is merely an appearance—we reach the end of questions like: "From where? How? Why?" These questions arise only when the cause-effect relation is accepted as real.

Hence, the implications are radical:

• "From where does the wind blow?" – this question has no basis, because the notion of causality here is only an appearance.

• "From where comes fire?" – the answers about chemical reactions are not ultimately valid, because causality is only apparent.

Thus, though wind appears to be caused, and though the release of gases seems to be caused by reactions, in truth there is no real cause at all. No "from where" (kutaḥ) can truly be answered. These are empty inquiries.

Similarly, "By what cause am I happy or sorrowful?"—there is no real cause. To say, "Because I performed good deeds in the past, I am now happy" is also a meaningless mental imagination. "Because I fulfilled my duties or was devoted, now I am happy"—again, a false imagination.

To say, "I got diabetes because I used my smartphone too much"—this too is an unproven conclusion, since cause-effect itself is only an appearance. There is no cause even for mental states such as "I am happy"—because cause and effect are not real.

To say, "Because I lost my beloved, I am sorrowful"—there is no true cause. To say, "I did this action, therefore I gained this result" is meaningless, because such statements rely on a real cause-effect structure, which is absent.

Even the belief that desire and thirst are causes for sorrow must be discarded—because cause-effect is only an appearance.

So what is to be concluded from all this?

Something is seen to be moving—this much appears to us. That appearance is not real, but only an appearance, like the rope appearing as a snake or silver in the shell. In the world, such appearances are never without some substrate or basis. Just as the mirage needs the desert, or silver appears only with a shell, so too any appearance of cause-effect needs an imagined substratum.

That substratum is referred to in scripture as adhishṭhāna (the basis). That basis is not itself an appearance—because it is not perceived. It is the Reality (sat), not subject to perception.

Scripture refers to it as “that which is perceived as real.” But this “perception” is not sensory. It is not known by ordinary means; speech also withdraws from it. It is not an object of perception. The word “not” (na) also is not truly needed. By denying perceptibility, the substratum is known. The Reality is that which is free from all characteristics—it is known only through the method of “neti neti” (“not this, not this”).

In the imagined pot and imagined clay, there is no real object, no real cause, no real effect—because the cause-effect relationship is only apparent.

Hence, all questions like “from where?”, “why?”, “how?” have no relevance.

So, what is to be done now?

Just this much: I have understood that my happiness or sorrow has no real cause. Even desire and thirst have no real cause. All these are moving phenomena seen apart from me.

So, do I still identify with the ego? What then is the fruit of this knowledge? Or what should be its effect?

You, my friend, fall back into the net of thought and again seek the fruit of knowledge—thus showing that you still believe in causality.

But understand: the final step is recognizing the non-reality of the cause-effect relation. Once this is known, there remains nothing to be done, no future to be hoped for, no goal to be pursued.

Indeed, even the appearance of time is included in this unreal appearance.

The question “from where?” cannot coexist with the realization of the non-reality of cause and effect.

And know this well: "appearance" means “that which appears though the substance is absent.” Thus, even though the words “from where?” may still be uttered, their basis is lost once the cause-effect belief is dismissed.

By this understanding, the craving for meaning and planning falls away. This knowledge reveals the meaninglessness of all appearances.

This is the ultimate fruit of knowing the non-reality of cause-effect—that all questioning like “from where comes fire, wind, happiness, sorrow?” has no place.

To say “If I do this now, what will happen later?” becomes clearly meaningless.

The idea “what I do now will cause a result in the future” collapses under the realization that there is no real cause-effect link.

Therefore, even the belief “past impressions are the cause of my sorrow” must be rejected.

With the determination that cause-effect is unreal, the belief in any cause, any duty, any action also dissolves.

Even the notion “I am this person” is merely a perception—it is seen like the body. All identities are like a web of appearances. Whether they are seen or not makes no difference—they have no purpose.

This realization—of the unreality of cause-effect—removes all striving and concern. The perception of sorrow or joy has no control over us. Seeing their baselessness, we rest in joy alone.

By abiding as the witness of all movements of the ego and mind, we are free from all objects. Watching the play of the seen, dwelling as pure awareness, we abide in joy.

No perception remains. Bliss alone—of the nature of Consciousness—shines forth.

---

Let me know if you'd like a cleaned-up version for publication or academic use.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBD8%2BHAiAEavfo0VDoE4jJZQHP%2B%2Bn7Bb8bOywdj-iQ%2BX5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji,

The chatgpt translation is just plain useless. Please don't use it. It is erroneous and misleading.

You clearly show that cause/effect is the mind's illusion but not stated is the cause of mind itself.

Mind itself is within the domain of illusion.

Isn't mind and its perceptions taken to be a bhavarupa creation of mAyA? Is that not cause/effect?

Yes. And that causation between avidyA-mind is illusory. This is what is pointed out in the article.

And please a tangent issue, if bhavarupa avidya/mAya shakti functions to project the illusion/vikshepa and thus also functions as an upadhi of Brahman but is nonetheless sublatable/badita, how can it be said to be anirvacaniya/indescribable and then, neither real nor unreal?

The word anirvachanIya means only this much -- that you can neither call it sat (Brahman) nor asat (horns of hare). There is nothing more to read into it. And this is a fact that avidyA cannot be described as sat, as it is sublated. And it cannot be called as asat, because it is perceived. So, it is anirvachanIya.

Only a positively affirmed something can be described, can function or can be removed, it seems to me.

On the contrary, only the illusory object can be sublated. There is no need for it to be positive something. 

In any case, avidyA is accepted to different from bhAva also. It is called bhAva-rUpa (like bhAva). It is not bhAva. It is different from bhAva. So, the objection does not sustain.

Thanks in advance for your continued patience.  

Humble prostrations.

Regards, 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Sudhanshuji,

//The chatgpt translation is just plain useless. Please don't use it. It is erroneous and misleading//.

I am surprised you rejected it. I have been told repeatedly by more than one person, that Chatgpt's translations were excellent - 95+% accurate. Have you tested the translations elsewhere and found them useless there as well?   

//And that causation between avidyA-mind is illusory. //.

But, there is a bhavarupa perception of causation. The causation itself is illusory but the perception is bhavarupa. How does that perception appear without a cause? And also this causeless, bhavarupa perception actually survives the destruction of avidya called avidya-lesa. If avidya is destroyed, it is a contradiction to posit perception remaining. what is perception but mind and mind is avidya. 

//The word anirvachanIya means only this much -- that you can neither call it sat (Brahman) nor asat (horns of hare). There is nothing more to read into it.//
But you read into it a third alternative, perception as neither sat nor asat - we perceive the snake therefore it is not as non-existent as a hare's horn. Yet, there is no snake except as a wrongly perceived rope. The difference between a non-existent snake and hare's horn is argumentative, especially when Bhasyakara himself notes that there is no difference in non-existence. 

//And it cannot be called as asat, because it is perceived. So, it is anirvachanIya.//

How can a logical entity, anirvacaniya, be positively defined to function so dynamically as an upadhi to cover the real and project false perceptions and yet claim not be a bhava nor abhava? 

//On the contrary, only the illusory object can be sublated. //

but it isn't sublated as avidya-lesa. 

You are playing with ontology instead of recognizing all is simply error/bhranti with no need for an intermediary invention of a bhavarupa avidya to explain a creation that you admit is illusory anyway! So, I ask what is the purpose of bhavarupa avidya? 

  

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC%2BGAuAUWjLgg-peJ63%3DzT-DKzTC8Wzk%3DphLLB6tjm13A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

I am surprised you rejected it. I have been told repeatedly by more than one person, that Chatgpt's translations were excellent - 95+% accurate. Have you tested the translations elsewhere and found them useless there as well?   

I have checked the translation of my article which you shared. And I can say with conviction that this translation is useless and misleading.

But, there is a bhavarupa perception of causation. The causation itself is illusory but the perception is bhavarupa. How does that perception appear without a cause?

If one has understood that causation is illusory, then "how" is no longer askable. Causation is illusory - means - there exists no cause, it just appears as if there is a cause. So, perception can continue without actually having a cause. It can be perceived that a bhAvarUpa-avidyA is the cause of bhAva-perception. However, it is not the cause. That is what the theory says.

And also this causeless, bhavarupa perception actually survives the destruction of avidya called avidya-lesa. If avidya is destroyed, it is a contradiction to posit perception remaining. what is perception but mind and mind is avidya.

In srishTi-drishTi-vAda, avidyA-lesha is admitted. In drishTi-srishTi-vAda, no avidyA-lesha is admitted.

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.

But you read into it a third alternative, perception as neither sat nor asat - we perceive the snake therefore it is not as non-existent as a hare's horn.

Snake is non-existent. Period. 

Snake is not asat.

asat is a technical term. When we say anirvachanIya, we use the term asat in its defined sense, and not in terms of non-existence. 

Yet, there is no snake except as a wrongly perceived rope.

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.

The difference between a non-existent snake and hare's horn is argumentative, especially when Bhasyakara himself notes that there is no difference in non-existence. 

The difference is not in non-existence. Both are equally non-existent. The difference is in the eligibility to appear.

How can a logical entity, anirvacaniya, be positively defined to function so dynamically as an upadhi to cover the real and project false perceptions and yet claim not be a bhava nor abhava? 

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.

but it isn't sublated as avidya-lesa. 

That is because the pratibandhaka, prArabdha, which is non-contradictory to jnAna, is present. Electricity gives shock. But if you put on gloves, you won't get shock. PrAdabdha is that gloves because of which jnAna is unable to remove avidyA-lesha.

You are playing with ontology instead of recognizing all is simply error/bhranti with no need for an intermediary invention of a bhavarupa avidya to explain a creation that you admit is illusory anyway!

You have left the concept of error unexplored. Go deep into it and you will have no way but to accept bhAvarUpatva of avidyA. Any sincere person will arrive at the same conclusion if he applies mind with openness. We are not here to parrot BhAshyakAra or anyone. We are here to understand and abide as and in truth. It does not matter who says what. We have to think for ourselves.

So, I ask what is the purpose of bhavarupa avidya? 

There is no purpose of any seen. They are illusory. They are non-existent appearances. avidyA is one such illusion. It does not have any purpose whatsoever. Nothing has any purpose. Accepting purpose implies reality of causation.

There is no purpose of clouds moving and trees growing. They appear to be. Similarly, avidyA appears to be. That is it.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

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.

[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

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB4tpsg2AQhMW%2Bv0dGq%3DgfqJWFxnr96H4iNgXL8Lm4pxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Didn't Madhusudhana structure Videhamukti as 'superior' to jivanmukti and he was a DSV, no? Videha mukti admits avidyA-lesha. 

The concept of videha-mukti vis-a-vis jIvanmukti appears only in sirshTi-drishTi-vAda. In drishTi-srishTi-vAda, jIvanmukti is treated as merely arthavAda.

Madhusudan Saraswati presented both SDV as well as DSV. 

jIvanmukti cannot be explained without avidyA-lesha. 

The idea of "superiority" of videha-mukti is only on account of non-obstructed manifestation of Ananda. In case of jIvanmukti, vikeshpa created by prArabdha sustains, and hence there is subdued manifestation of Ananda. However, these are all valid in SDV alone.

Excerpt from advaita siddhi:

न च जीवन्मुक्तिप्रयोजकवृत्त्यपेक्षया परममुक्तिप्रयोजकवृत्तौ आनन्दाभिव्यक्तिगतविशेषाभावे चरमक्षणेन चरमश्वासेन वा उपलक्षित आत्मा मुक्तिरिति किं न स्यादिति वाच्यम् ; प्रारब्धकर्मप्रयुक्तविक्षेपाविक्षेपाभ्यामभिव्यक्तिविशेषस्याङ्गीकारात् ।

Objection: There is absence of difference in the expression of bliss in AV1 (akhanDAkarA-vritti leading to jIvanmukti) and AV2 (akhanDAkArA-vritti leading to videha-mukti). Therefore, why liberation should not be last-moment-upalkshitA-AtmA or last-breath-upalskhita-AtmA. {Liberation i.e. avidyA-nivritti is AV2-upalskhita-AtmA.}.

Answer: No. The difference in the expression of bliss in AV1 and AV2 is admitted on account of vikshepa-caused-by-prArabdha (in case of AV1) and absence-of-vikshepa-caused-by-prArabdha (in case of AV2).

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."

This is a description of jIvanmukti. This is admissible in SDV.

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 )

What is misconception? Isn't it an activity? How can activity be permitted in nishkriya Brahman?

BSB 3.3.32: Liberation is immediate with right knowledge and does not require death.

What is liberation? Is it an event in time which happens post "right-knowledge"? No. Liberation is ever-present. Even now when one thinks that he is in bondage, he is actually free. So, where is the question of death for liberation!!

(In SDV model), difference between jIvanmukti and videha-mukti is different grades of manifestation of bliss. in DSV, even that is not there as jIvanmukti itself is not admitted. So, questions of death etc do not arise. When there is no birth in the first place, where is the question of 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."

Yes. The dawn of knowledge removes the covering of ignorance. 

And therefore following powers of ignorance cease:

(i) causing illusion of reality to seen-world 

(ii) causing illusion of usefulness to the seen-world.

However, that power of ignorance which creates illusory perceptible-seen remains. That is how jIvanmukta mahAtmA sees the world. prArabdha is not contradictory to jnAna. However, it ensures that jnAna is unable to remove avidyA-lesha.

Excerpt form advaita siddhi:

अनेकशक्तिमदविद्यायाः प्रपञ्चे पारमार्थिकत्वादिभ्रमहेतुशक्तेः प्रपञ्चे अर्थक्रियासमर्थत्वसम्पादकशक्तेश्च प्रारब्धकर्मसमकालीनतत्त्वसाक्षात्कारेण निवृत्तावपि अपरोक्षप्रतिभासयोग्यार्थाभासजनिकायाः शक्तेरनुवृत्तेः तद्वती विद्यापि तिष्ठत्येवेति नोक्तदोषावकाशः ।

--please say more about these 'aspects of avidyA'

As discussed above.

--'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.

So what?

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

Shankara also meant the same. Nishkriya Brahman cannot create. You can never answer as how nishkriya Brahman appears as world!! Giving clay-pot example for appearance of Brahman and world is incorrect because clay is not singular inactive entity. A singular inactive entity cannot appear as anything else. 

--how can non-existence appear?

That is what illusion is. Non-existent phoenix can appear in thin air as illusion.

 

What appears is Brahman only! That it looks like something other than Brahman is the mistake of avidya.

This is true. However, Brahman is not non-existent. The non-existent is what I saw. The phoenix in thin air -- that has always been non-existent. 

 

There's no evidence of anything other than Brahman.

Your eyes are the evidence of non-Brahman. You saw a phoenix in thin air and you yourself are saying that phoenix was non-existent. Brahman is never non-existent. This proves that seen-phoenix was non-existent illusory non-Brahman.

To say phoenix is Brahman is same as saying "phoenix is not (being non-Brahman), only Brahman is".

 

Perception is not proved by anything other than perception so seeing a snake does  not indicate a third category apart from sat and asat. 

Seeing a snake is evidence enough that it is not asat. Sublation of snake is evidence enough that it is non-Brahman. 

-- an anirvacaniya mithya bhavarupa avidya explaining perception is a logical entity.

Your experience "I am ignorant" is a proof of perceptible-ignorance. We can discuss it separately.

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.  

What do you mean by "wrong idea"? Is it horns of hare? What vastu is it? Is it a mental transformation? If yes, then is mind itself not wrong idea? If yes, then it is infinite regress.

Define what vastu "wrong idea" is!!

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? 

Let us come to what BhAshyakAra says separately. 

First. What vastu is "wrong cognition"? 

a condescending remark especially when you recognize that it is standing up to 1200 years of entrenched tradition. 

I am sorry but repeating BhAshykAra's quotes serves no purpose when basic logical analysis has not been done. Just see: how can singular inactive entity appear as anything else!! Try explaining this to an eight-year old boy. I bet you won't be able to explain to him.

The explanation of SSSS ji does not stand a chance even before an eight-year old boy. What to talk of standing against traditional AchAryAs.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji

Sorry but I don't know where Sankara might have said it is antahkara vritti or even brahmakara vritti that causes liberation as your quote states. Nor, do I read SDV/ DSV in Gaudapada nor Bhasyakara however it is quite evident in later Vedanta and elsewhere. i know you disagree but I'll stand with Prof. Timalsinaji in observing a paucity of actual PTB reference. These are issues vigorously argued here that we needn't resuscitate now. 

You say BUbh4.4.6 describes jivanmukti but the last line seems to indicate otherwise, "for if liberation was a change of condition, it would contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upani~ds seek to teach."

//What is misconception? Isn't it an activity? How can activity be permitted in nishkriya Brahman?//

--Adhyasa is naisargarika - no activity. 

//What is liberation? Is it an event in time which happens post "right-knowledge"? No. Liberation is ever-present. Even now when one thinks that he is in bondage, he is actually free. So, where is the question of death for liberation!!//

-- That's my argument! Avidya-lesa contradicts this.  

//However, that power of ignorance which creates illusory perceptible-seen remains. That is how jIvanmukta mahAtmA sees the world. prArabdha is not contradictory to jnAna. However, it ensures that jnAna is unable to remove avidyA-lesha.//

--The whole issue is the status of perception. Is there a mithya ajnana positive perception or is it simply Brahman wrong perceived. Let's take it to dream. Are dream perceptions something other than Consciousness appearing to be differentiated? If you say they're thoughts/vasanas, you reify mind and take your stand with a waker's bias. 

//What do you mean by "wrong idea"? Is it horns of hare? What vastu is it? Is it a mental transformation? If yes, then is mind itself not wrong idea? If yes, then it is infinite regress.//

Yes, mind and its ideas are wrong. Namarupa only. Ignorance and liberation also wrong ideas. PSA needs to discover WHY/HOW/Creation because of being locked into an actual bhavarupa avidya. 

//The explanation of SSSS ji does not stand a chance even before an eight-year old boy. What to talk of standing against traditional AchAryAs.//

--To imagine ji, all these years you've engaged your own extraordinary logic skills and textual exegesis upon an eight year old's explanation.  

Chatgpt translation of your passage with detailed terminology - worthy translation? 

Nor may one say: “Why should it not be that liberation (mokṣa) is attained by the self (ātmā), as indicated (upalakṣita) at the final moment or with the final breath, in the absence of any distinctive manifestation of bliss (ānanda-abhivyakti-related differentiation) in the mental mode (vṛtti) that causes final liberation (parama-mukti-prayojaka), in comparison to the mental mode that causes jīvanmukti (liberation while living)?” —
Because the acceptance is of a distinction in manifestation (abhivyakti-viśeṣa) caused by the presence or absence of projection (vikṣepa) due to prārabdha-karma.

---

Notes on Key Terms:

• जीवन्मुक्तिप्रयोजकवृत्तिः – the mental mode responsible for jīvanmukti.

• परममुक्तिप्रयोजकवृत्तिः – the mental mode responsible for final or ultimate liberation (after death).

• आनन्दाभिव्यक्तिगतविशेषाभावः – absence of any distinctive manifestation of bliss.

• चरमक्षण / चरमश्वास – final moment / final breath.

• उपलक्षित आत्मा – the self that is merely indicated or perceived (not necessarily in its full realization).

• प्रारब्धकर्मप्रयुक्तविक्षेप / अविक्षेप – projection or non-projection caused by operative karma (prārabdha).

• अङ्गीकार – acceptance, acknowledgment.

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDT8FEwth-jSKns_qppw4%2BFnKxTx6h_D7-6vxBm%2Bcw6dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Sorry but I don't know where Sankara might have said it is antahkara vritti or even brahmakara vritti that causes liberation as your quote states. Nor, do I read SDV/ DSV in Gaudapada nor Bhasyakara however it is quite evident in later Vedanta and elsewhere. i know you disagree but I'll stand with Prof. Timalsinaji in observing a paucity of actual PTB reference. These are issues vigorously argued here that we needn't resuscitate now. 

One basic question Michael ji. What is this fuss about finding quotes in PTB? If something is not quoted in PTB, does it cease to be a truth? 

Regarding AtmAkAra-vritti, akhanDAkAra-vritti or BrahmAkAra-vritti, there are sufficient indicators present in bhAshya. We can discuss it separately.

You say BUbh4.4.6 describes jivanmukti but the last line seems to indicate otherwise, "for if liberation was a change of condition, it would contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upanishads seek to teach."

Liberation is not a change of condition of self, because self is changeless. From the frame of reference of ignorance, it is the extinction of perception of hitherto apparent ignorance.

 

//What is misconception? Isn't it an activity? How can activity be permitted in nishkriya Brahman?//

--Adhyasa is naisargarika - no activity. 

Naisargika does not mean inactive. Naisargika means natural. Nisarg means nature. So, you will have to explain the question.

//What is liberation? Is it an event in time which happens post "right-knowledge"? No. Liberation is ever-present. Even now when one thinks that he is in bondage, he is actually free. So, where is the question of death for liberation!!//

-- That's my argument! Avidya-lesa contradicts this.  

avidyA-lesha does not contradict what I said. Please explain how does it contradict?

--The whole issue is the status of perception. Is there a mithya ajnana positive perception or is it simply Brahman wrong perceived. Let's take it to dream. Are dream perceptions something other than Consciousness appearing to be differentiated? If you say they're thoughts/vasanas, you reify mind and take your stand with a waker's bias. 

Obviously dream-perceptions are something other than nishkriya Brahman. So many activities appear in dream. How can it be nishkriya Brahman.

Yes, mind and its ideas are wrong. Namarupa only. Ignorance and liberation also wrong ideas. PSA needs to discover WHY/HOW/Creation because of being locked into an actual bhavarupa avidya. 

There is nothing "actual" about bhAvarUpa-avidyA. You have not answered pin-pointed question "What do you mean by "wrong idea"? Is it horns of hare? What vastu is it? Is it a mental transformation? If yes, then is mind itself not wrong idea? If yes, then it is infinite regress."

Namaste Raghav ji.

//Does PTB mention anywhere the fact that functioning  ears are required for shastra shravaNam? Since followers of SSS don’t see the self-evident fact that antaHkaraNa vRttis arise and are instrumental in all pramANa operation including both shabda and pratyaxa etc., I got the doubt!//

One needs authority about issues for which one has no clarity. I don't have an iota of understanding about swarga and Yajna. So, I seek knowledge from VedAs and treat it as authority.

But about Atma-jnAna? Sure, we need help from Guru and shAstra. But not in a way we seek help in matters of Yajna and swarga. 

The approach by SSSS ji is like that. See, here is a dictum by Shankara. Shankara has said so and so. And hence it is a pramANa. No room for logic. Shruti has said this. Stop arguing. Etc etc. 

This is basically fanaticism. And no logical or rather sane discussion can happen. Just as is the case with ISKCON people, same with SSSS ji's followers. There is something like "as it is" syndrome. 🙂

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

//One basic question Michael ji. What is this fuss about finding quotes in PTB? If something is not quoted in PTB, does it cease to be a truth?//

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. 

//(I said:) You say BUbh4.4.6 describes jivanmukti but the last line seems to indicate otherwise, "for if liberation was a change of condition, it would contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upanishads seek to teach."

(your reply) Liberation is not a change of condition of self, because self is changeless. From the frame of reference of ignorance, it is the extinction of perception of hitherto apparent ignorance.//

--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.  

//Naisargika does not mean inactive. Naisargika means natural. Nisarg means nature. So, you will have to explain the question.

--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. 

//(you said:)

//What is liberation? Is it an event in time which happens post "right-knowledge"? No. Liberation is ever-present. Even now when one thinks that he is in bondage, he is actually free. So, where is the question of death for liberation!!//

(my reply:) -- That's my argument! Avidya-lesa contradicts this.  

(your counter reply:) avidyA-lesha does not contradict what I said. Please explain how does it contradict?

-- 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) 

//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.  

[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.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

//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 emphatassertion of BhAshyakAra Michael ji by saying "Truth of the Self is not determined by anumana".//

--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. 
http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=english&book_id=034&pagenum=0209#page/280/mode/1up

// 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. //

--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!

//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"?

1. How does it not lead to infinite regress?//

--Of course it is the mind that perceives but Brahman is the ground of both perceiver and perceived. No regress. 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. 

//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.//

--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

--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. 

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

//Dream-elephant was non-existent. It was not changeless Brahman. //

Dream-elephant was non-existent because it was always only changeless Brahman.  But you say dream-elephant is neither existing nor non-existing bhavarupa perception that is not changeless Brahman. Doesn't that seem awkward as nonduality? , 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

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.

 

• We must wonder how palatable these statements are to purely dry logicians who prefer mere tarka over bhAshya and shruti??  😊 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.  But even for these categorical statements also logicians have their own excuses to replace logic over shruti verdict.  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.  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 😊

 

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. 

• 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 8^th standard student 😊

[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.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji and Sudhanshuji, 

Bhaskarji, I don't why but I have not received your last few emails. Perhaps they are embedded within other postings in a thread and I've missed them viewing just subject headings. Nothing personal, please.

Sudhanshuji, 

//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.//

-- Sir, I am sure you know my answer but rather be rhetorical. 

We have strayed, The question was as to the place of logic with regard to sruti. Originally you asked:

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

--Sruti is pramana through an inquiry into its words and meaning. "You are the tenth" is not a logical statement. 

"Sū.Bhā. 1-1-2: “Knowledge of Brahman arises from the determination of the meaning of the Vedic statements, not from inference or 

other means of knowledge.”

//Clay is myAya-vishishTa-Brahman.//

-- I'd bet this is a post-Sankara term. It sounds like a kind of vishishTa advaita! I know that is not your intention but it takes logical wrangling to distinguish your bhAva abhAva vilakshaNa from an inhibition upon Brahman even as a vyavaharika explanation. Brahman needs to be understood as not different from what we now experience otherwise the Absolute is compromised. Perception is Brahman misperceived just as dream is just Consciousness misperceived. Nondual Absolute is here and now. It is not after some condition is removed from Brahman or from Jiva. 

//mAyA cannot be posited without Brahman.//

--clearly. 

 

//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.//

--I never mentioned cause. It is adhyasa itself to assume kArya & kArana adhyAsa. That you demand an actual cause where there is only mistaken identity is the crux of SSSS's determinations

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

--we've discussed this before where you make a distinction between mind and its thoughts. I think you argued that thoughts cease in deep sleep but mind is present therefore mind and thoughts are not the same.  I ask you to prove mind continues in deep sleep. And please, "I had a good sleep' is not evidence as it is a waking observation which could as easily be phrased as, I had a good absence. What's not refutable is the experience per se of deep sleep free of mind/thoughts

I said: "but Brahman is the ground of both perceiver and perceived. No regress."

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

Wh

--Do you propose there is an entity other than Brahman that perceives mind?! Surely not but you will say, it is a "condition" of brahman that perceives mind. This condition needs clarification. If it is a wrong thought, knowledge can be its remedy. But, you say it is something more than a wrong thought, it is the power of illusion. How can right knowledge resolve a powerful cause? 

//Neither snake exists, nor avidyA exists. I agree that there is no third ontological category. asat and mithyA are both non-existent. //

you distinguish between asat and mithya as between hare's horn and rope/snake by virtue of non-perception and perception. That gives a status to perception that is different from hare's horn asat. Thus a third ontological category not found in PTB. Instead, Self and not-Self only. Whether perceived or not-perceived, asat does not exist.  

The 'third ontological category' accusation becomes decided when this reasoning is extended to the three states. By proclaiming pratibhasika dream to be distinct from vyavaharika satta entitles vyavaharika to possess a relative or temporary reality in comparison to the unreality of pratibhasika. PTB never made this distinction. 

I said, "And then, you give a description and function to this which you say does not exist and reply,"

you replied: //What is wrong in that?// 

--I repeat, "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."

and you responded, 

//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.//

-- my reply: You make an assumption that dream and snake are effects produced by some mithya ajnana. Bhasyakara tells aviveka is the only cause for naisargarika, anadi adhyasa. 

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

-- Indeed, yet it does appear. "mithyeti bhavitum yuktam. tatha api..."

Avidya is not pramana siddha but anubhava siddha. no one can deny. 

Regards & 🙏🙏🙏

[Bhaskar YR]

Namaste Bhaskarji

 

Bhaskarji, I don't why but I have not received your last few emails. Perhaps they are embedded within other postings in a thread and I've missed them viewing just subject headings. Nothing personal, please.

 

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

It is OK, no issues prabhuji,  for that matter I was not expecting any reply from you as I have written that to those who are overly obsessed with dry logic 😊

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

//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. 

 

Ø     It is through Aapta vAkya as the pramANa.  You know something called Apta vAkya as a valid pramANa, in your childhood you listen to your parents, teachers, elders etc.  without logically scrutinizing / doubting their instructions.  It is just like that, in the path of jnAna mArga you / we are still kids you should have conviction in the pramANa of the guru-Acharya vAkya without looking at it with your logically conditioned mind. 

 

//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. 

 

Ø     So you are holding this kArika as pramANa and arguing that shruti is NOT the untya pramANa in brahma jignAsa any conditioned mind with ‘socalled’ logical backdrop can determine what that brahman is without the help of shAstra !!  Yes for brahma jignAsa shruti is not only the pramANa but anubhavAdi also bhAshyakAra too says but note that this anubhavAdi (experience etc.) not free from shrutyanugraheeta, pUrNAnubhava and anubhava sammata tarka to erroneously argue OK I can deduce brahma jnAna with mere dry logic I don’t need bhAshya nor shruti.  Are you really a saMpradAyavAdi or mere tArkika ??  Please let me know which vyAkhyAnakAra floating these type of asampradAyik statements in his works!!

 

So, it needs to be appreciated that truth can be described or found through logic as well as through Shruti.

 

• Again you are making blunder here.  There are no two alternatives here one in conditioned mind’s dry logic and another one is shruti.  Tarka mananaM should be endorsed by shruti and pUrNAnubhava and not the other way round i.e. dry logic should put clearance / acceptance label on shruti verdict.  There is no end to the logical conclusions which has been originated through the conditioned / qualified mind…where human logic ends and accepts its limitations from there shruti starts. 

 

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.

 

Ø     How do you know that shruti contains truth!!??  Through your conditioned mind’s logic?? or through Apta vAkya and shraddha in sampradaya Acharya’s words??  If you are holding 1-1-2 sutra bhAshya to say something nonsense like above then please note there also bhAshyakAra not talking about dry logic which has limited boundary as it is restricted to individual mind’s intellect. 

 

MantrAs glorifying Shruti is on account of Shruti containing truth.  

 

Ø     And for the shruti and its truth, brahman is the source which cannot be ascertained by any conditioned dry logic to declare shruti per se not important and and ‘my’ logic also can serve this purpose!! Again I am really surprised asaMpradAyik statements like this sneaking in without being questioned by socalled official flag bearers of shAstra/ sampradaya 😊

 

//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.

 

Ø     The other name of this fanaticism is shraddha and bhakti in shAstra, sampradaya, guru and Acharya, and I know in the atheist/tArkika conditioned mind these terms mean nothing. 

 

//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? 

 

Ø     I am sorry for asking this question, how do you know that you are the son of your own parents??  Just because they said so or have you used any / some logical device to determine that ?? 

 

• Because Shruti says so? - then anyOnyAshraya. 
• Because Shankara says so? - then you are a fanatic. 

• Over dose of mere speculations born out of dry logic making you to pass these type of dreadful statements.  For those who follow shankara and shruti are doing so as it is for them AptavAkya, only tArkika-s who do not have any respect to shAstra-saMpradAya, guru-Acharya can make some statements like this…

• Because logic says so? - Here is a welcome refreshing glass of lemon-mint-squash in my camp!! 😀

• You can live in your delusional  logical world,no issues 😊 But those who know sampradaya, those who respect their Acharya, Acharya vAkya know that only shruti, shrutyanugraheeta tarka based on pUrNAnubhava permitted in brahma jignAsa.  And they know very well kevala tarka, nirAgama tarka, shushka tarka etc. which you are passionately promoting here in this list are simply shruti viruddha, nishpramANakavAdaM and goes against anubhava as well.  We the fanatic followers of shankara knows what verdict our Acharya given on kevala tArkika-s..By the way since you are not the fanatic I don’t have to quote what my Acharya says on ‘kevala tarka’. 

 

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?

 

• I can understand your frustration here resulting in bAlisha (childish) conclusions about these examples in shruti. 

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Bhaskar-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. 

 

Ø     It is through Aapta vAkya as the pramANa.  You know something called Apta vAkya as a valid pramANa, in your childhood you listen to your parents, teachers, elders etc.  without logically scrutinizing / doubting their instructions.  It is just like that, in the path of jnAna mArga you / we are still kids you should have conviction in the pramANa of the guru-Acharya vAkya without looking at it with your logically conditioned mind. 

>>>

My apologies for the intrusion. IMHO, Atmaikatva is logical (as it is svatah siddha) and it is also Shruti siddha. In the adhyAsa bhAshya, AchArya has used logic only to establish adhyAsa / jaganmithyAtva which also indirectly points to Atmaikatva vidya that is taught in the Shruti. The following concluding vAkya summarizes the same.

एवमयमनादिरनन्तो नैसर्गिकोऽध्यासो मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूपः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वप्रवर्तकः सर्वलोकप्रत्यक्षः । अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते । यथा चायमर्थः सर्वेषां वेदान्तानाम् , तथा वयमस्यां शारीरकमीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः ।

Further, in the sutra bhAshya for ShAstrayOnitvAt - it is taught that Atman/Brahman is known/realized through Shruti and it is also the yOni or origin of Shruti. This IMHO establishes Atman/Brahman as both shrouta and tArkika. Shruti is apourusheya because it has Atman/Brahman as the origin which is essentially apourusheya. 

Therefore, it can be said that, BrahmAtmaikatva is logical but shAstra/sampradAya is the only means to realize the same.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 7:39 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>; Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Illusoriness of causation (cause-effect-relationship)

 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66252AAE65FEDB87E3F4CB998422A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

My apologies for the intrusion. IMHO, Atmaikatva is logical (as it is svatah siddha) and it is also Shruti siddha.

 

• Yes, Atmaikatva vidyA is what is svarUpa jnAna and that is what shruti siddhAnta.  In the BG bhAshya, bhagavatpAda explains this beautifully :  vAsudevaM sarvasya AtmAnaM sarvatra sarvabhuteshu sarvaM cha brahmAdibhUta jAtaM mayi sarvAtmani pashyati, tasyaivaM AtmakatvadarshinaH ahameeshvaraH na praNashyAmi na parOkshatAM gamishyAmi.  Those who cannot realize this through only shravaNa they contemplate on this shruti siddhAnta with mananaM with the help of ‘shrauta tarka’. 

 

In the adhyAsa bhAshya, AchArya has used logic only to establish adhyAsa / jaganmithyAtva which also indirectly points to Atmaikatva vidya that is taught in the Shruti.

 

• IMO, adhyAsa is as per bhAshyakAra is anubhava gamya, it is what we are experiencing in our day to day life.  Hence he gives only ‘laukika’ example without resorting to logical devices to prove the adhyAsa.  We can hardly find any pramANa vAkya to establish adhyAsa as it is naisargika lOka vyAvahAra and sarva lOka pratyaksha 😊 as you quoted below. 

 

The following concluding vAkya summarizes the same.

 

एवमयमनादिरनन्तो नैसर्गिकोऽध्यासो मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूपः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वप्रवर्तकः सर्वलोकप्रत्यक्षः । अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते । यथा चायमर्थः सर्वेषां वेदान्तानाम् , तथा वयमस्यां शारीरकमीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः ।

 

Further, in the sutra bhAshya for ShAstrayOnitvAt - it is taught that Atman/Brahman is known/realized through Shruti and it is also the yOni or origin of Shruti. This IMHO establishes Atman/Brahman as both shrouta and tArkika. Shruti is apourusheya because it has Atman/Brahman as the origin which is essentially apourusheya. 

 

Therefore, it can be said that, BrahmAtmaikatva is logical but shAstra/sampradAya is the only means to realize the same.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Ø     Yes nobody denying the importance of shrauta tarka or shruti anugraheeta tarka lest there would not be any meaning to mananaM in sAdhana.  But point to be noted here is the proposed tarka should be subservient to the shruti. It is (reasoning ) NOT an independent means to realize brahman.  The difference between shrauta tarka and mere dry logic (shushkatarka) has been explained by bhAshyakAra himself in sUtra bhAshya.  The reasoning recommended by shruti being meant to be conducive to intuitive experience (sarvatrika pUrNAnubhava is the term used by Sri SSS) is never in conflict with experience whereas the shushka tarka (dry logic without the aid of shruti) or independent reasoning (like what we see in this list most often) is merely the result of the guesswork of one’s own conditioned mind.  Hence speculation is uncontrolled here as dry logician goes on speculating according to his whims and fancies and it is impossible to expect any solid conclusion from mere dry logic.  It is because of simple fact that an independent mind is always diversely inclined due to its conditioned state.  Today some intelligent person comes out with some observation and could able to convince everyone through his logical justification but tomorrow another person who is more intelligent could come out with some other observation which is contrary to earlier one.  And being a vaidika saMpradAyavAdi we should know the shruti verdict with regard to Atma jnAna, : it is beyond speculation for it is subtler than the subtlest and this knowledge is not to be had through mere speculation (reference vide Katha shruti). 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

//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.//

-- Sir, I am sure you know my answer but rather be rhetorical. 

I have asked a very precise question for which you have not advanced any answer.

 

We have strayed, The question was as to the place of logic with regard to sruti. Originally you asked:

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

--Sruti is pramana through an inquiry into its words and meaning. "You are the tenth" is not a logical statement. 

Shruti tells me - "there is a heaven". There is no means to verify it. It is neither a logical statement, nor an illogical statement. Question is - "how have you arrived at the conclusion that there is a heaven". 

You hold Shruti to be pramANa. How have you arrived at this conclusion? Let us be more specific and consider the question of heaven propounded in Shruti.

Please note - I am not saying that the prAMANya of Shruti is through logic. I am merely trying to understand your thought process. How have you arrived at this conclusion that Shruti is pramANa. Because Shankara said so, because SSSS ji said so, because you "feel" so? Why Quran is not a pramANa but Shruti is pramANa?

 

"Sū.Bhā. 1-1-2: “Knowledge of Brahman arises from the determination of the meaning of the Vedic statements, not from inference or other means of knowledge.”

We will come to this. First appreciate the question - how have you accepted this statement? What is the modus? Why is Qurana not a pramANa but Shruti a pramANa. Why is jannat not acceptable but swarga is acceptable?

//Clay is myAya-vishishTa-Brahman.//

-- I'd bet this is a post-Sankara term. It sounds like a kind of vishishTa advaita! I know that is not your intention but it takes logical wrangling to distinguish your bhAva abhAva vilakshaNa from an inhibition upon Brahman even as a vyavaharika explanation. Brahman needs to be understood as not different from what we now experience otherwise the Absolute is compromised. Perception is Brahman misperceived just as dream is just Consciousness misperceived. Nondual Absolute is here and now. It is not after some condition is removed from Brahman or from Jiva. 

Digression, hence not responding.

//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.//

--I never mentioned cause. It is adhyasa itself to assume kArya & kArana adhyAsa. That you demand an actual cause where there is only mistaken identity is the crux of SSSS's determinations.

You use terms without elaborating. What is "mistaken identity", "misperceived"? 

 

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

--we've discussed this before where you make a distinction between mind and its thoughts. I think you argued that thoughts cease in deep sleep but mind is present therefore mind and thoughts are not the same.  I ask you to prove mind continues in deep sleep. And please, "I had a good sleep' is not evidence as it is a waking observation which could as easily be phrased as, I had a good absence. What's not refutable is the experience per se of deep sleep free of mind/thoughts

You have not given a clear-cut answer as to who perceives the mind.

Your comment does not state my position. I have never argued that the mind is present in deep sleep. So, the comments are incorrect. 

Mind merges in ignorance in deep sleep wherein avidyA sustains.

--Do you propose there is an entity other than Brahman that perceives mind?! Surely not but you will say, it is a "condition" of brahman that perceives mind. This condition needs clarification. If it is a wrong thought, knowledge can be its remedy. But, you say it is something more than a wrong thought, it is the power of illusion. How can right knowledge resolve a powerful cause? 

Sir, define thought. What is it? 

I have not said that "condition of Brahman" perceives mind. 

 

//Neither snake exists, nor avidyA exists. I agree that there is no third ontological category. asat and mithyA are both non-existent. //

you distinguish between asat and mithya as between hare's horn and rope/snake by virtue of non-perception and perception. That gives a status to perception that is different from hare's horn asat. Thus a third ontological category not found in PTB. Instead, Self and not-Self only. Whether perceived or not-perceived, asat does not exist.  

Distinguishing from hare's horn does not imply ontological status. Distinction is only on the ground of perception and not on the ground of non-existence. Illusory snake is as non-existent as a hare's horn. The distinction is only with respect to perception. That is borne from experience and hence cannot be disputed. 

The 'third ontological category' accusation becomes decided when this reasoning is extended to the three states. By proclaiming pratibhasika dream to be distinct from vyavaharika satta entitles vyavaharika to possess a relative or temporary reality in comparison to the unreality of pratibhasika. PTB never made this distinction. 

Please understand that vyAvahArika-sattA or prAtibhAsika-sattA spoken in VedAnta does not imply sattA of nAma-rUpa as it is the sattA of supreme Brahman which is superimposed on nAma-rUpa. 

I am however a lover of eka-sattA-vAda. PTB contains everything. It contains eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-dvaividhya-vAda and also sattA-traividhya-vAda. You choose what you like. Just don't argue that entire bhAshya is hard molded in one prakriyA. It contains SDV, it contains DSV and it also contains ajAtivAda. 

-- my reply: You make an assumption that dream and snake are effects produced by some mithya ajnana. Bhasyakara tells aviveka is the only cause for naisargarika, anadi adhyasa. 

That aviveka, ajnAna, ignorance, mAyA are all one and same. 

 

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

 

-- Indeed, yet it does appear. "mithyeti bhavitum yuktam. tatha api..."

I again request you to discuss your theory with an eighth-class student of a changeless singular inactive entity appearing as the changeable world, without accepting a changeable non-existent illusory ignorance. I would be interested in reading that conversation. If you won't, then I will do that at leisure and post it here.

Avidya is not pramana siddha but anubhava siddha. no one can deny. 

This is true. That is why avidyA is sAkshi-bhAsya and not pramANa-gamya.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

 Ø     It is through Aapta vAkya as the pramANa.  You know something called Apta vAkya as a valid pramANa, in your childhood you listen to your parents, teachers, elders etc.  without logically scrutinizing / doubting their instructions.  It is just like that, in the path of jnAna mArga you / we are still kids you should have conviction in the pramANa of the guru-Acharya vAkya without looking at it with your logically conditioned mind. 

How have you arrived at the conclusion that Shruti is Apta-vAkya, SSSS ji's is Apta vAkya but Quran is not Apta-vAkya and Prophet's is not Apta-vAkya? 

 

 Ø     So you are holding this kArika as pramANa and arguing that shruti is NOT the untya pramANa in brahma jignAsa any conditioned mind with ‘socalled’ logical backdrop can determine what that brahman is without the help of shAstra !! 

Sir, I hold that truth can be known through both logic and Shruti. Shruti is antya pramANa, because it is contains truth and not because it is Shruti.

A person with sufficient logical capacity can indeed come to the truth revealed by Shruti. 

Yes for brahma jignAsa shruti is not only the pramANa but anubhavAdi also bhAshyakAra too says but note that this anubhavAdi (experience etc.) not free from shrutyanugraheeta, pUrNAnubhava and anubhava sammata tarka to erroneously argue OK I can deduce brahma jnAna with mere dry logic I don’t need bhAshya nor shruti.  Are you really a saMpradAyavAdi or mere tArkika ??  Please let me know which vyAkhyAnakAra floating these type of asampradAyik statements in his works!!

You will have to do research on your own to find out that, if you are interested. I have given statement from BhAshyakAra - अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यम् , आहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह — शक्यते तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम् ; तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणमारभ्यते । If you wish to know how advaita is known through tarka, you can consider reading advaita prakaraNa. 

 Again you are making blunder here.  There are no two alternatives here one in conditioned mind’s dry logic and another one is shruti.  Tarka mananaM should be endorsed by shruti and pUrNAnubhava and not the other way round i.e. dry logic should put clearance / acceptance label on shruti verdict.  There is no end to the logical conclusions which has been originated through the conditioned / qualified mind…where human logic ends and accepts its limitations from there shruti starts. 

Sir, why not Quran? The words of Shruti are contradicted by Quran, which is directly the words of Allah. Not only my dry logic, but your wet logic also is superseded by the direct words of Allah. Where logic and Shruti both end, the realm of words of God start. I propose you explore that. You will get to hear direct words. Come on!!

 Ø     How do you know that shruti contains truth!!??  Through your conditioned mind’s logic??

Sir, all tools at my disposal point to the non-sublatable truth enunciated in Shruti. The logic by which I am convinced concludes the same truth which is enunciated in Shruti. And the anubhava too at my disposal is in harmony with statements of Shruti.

The illogical explanation of Shruti by you therefore stands negated.

 

or through Apta vAkya and shraddha in sampradaya Acharya’s words?? 

If Apta vAkya or sampradAya AchArya's vAkya are accepted without a logical enquiry, and blindly believed, it is another name of fanaticism. 

 

If you are holding 1-1-2 sutra bhAshya to say something nonsense like above then please note there also bhAshyakAra not talking about dry logic which has limited boundary as it is restricted to individual mind’s intellect. 

Since Shruti contains truth, any logical adventure contradicting Shruti is obviously liable to be rejected. Where is the objection in that? 

I don't know what is your definition of dry logic and wet logic. I am not interested in knowing that either. To me, "logic not conforming to thruth" is dry logic. That is rejected. Since the logic with which I am convinced leads to the same truth which shines in Upanishads, BSB 1.1.2 or whatever is not contradicted. 

 Ø     And for the shruti and its truth, brahman is the source which cannot be ascertained by any conditioned dry logic to declare shruti per se not important and and ‘my’ logic also can serve this purpose!!

There is nothing like "my logic" vs Shruti. My statement is that logic which conforms to truth is on equal footing with Shruti. Shruti is important because it contains truth. The logic which leads to truth is hence equally important.

 

Again I am really surprised asaMpradAyik statements like this sneaking in without being questioned by socalled official flag bearers of shAstra/ sampradaya 😊 

You are incorrect about your understanding of sampradAya.

 Ø     The other name of this fanaticism is shraddha and bhakti in shAstra, sampradaya, guru and Acharya, and I know in the atheist/tArkika conditioned mind these terms mean nothing. 

You are incorrect in equating fanaticism with shraddhA/sampradAya/guru etc. 

 Ø     I am sorry for asking this question, how do you know that you are the son of your own parents??  Just because they said so or have you used any / some logical device to determine that ?? 

Blast from the past? ISKCON days? Srila Prabhupada's argument!!

Sir, just as I decided in my dream that I am a son of so and so, similarly I have decided here. As much truth value my that "belief" in swapna had, exactly the same truth value my "this belief" has. It means nothing. It is a mere belief.

If you insist that it is a pramA that "I am son of so and so", then sir, please know that it is through anumAna or arthApatti. 

If you say that it is through Apta vAkya, then you are in for a trouble because being a paurusheya-Apta-vAkya, it is fraught with danger.

In SDV model, Veda is considered pramANa not because it is Apta-vAkya, not because it is apaurusheya, not because of anything. Veda has swatah-prAmANya.

The aprAmANya is absent because of dOsha-abhAva. dOsha-abhAva is because of apaurusheyatva.

So, flow is as under:

apaurusheyatva => dOsha-abhAva => aprAmANya-abhAva.

prAmANya is swatah.

And please note that apaurusheyatva is not a blind belief. It comes from anumAna as under: 

1. सृष्टिकालीनं वेदाध्ययनं पूर्ववेदाध्ययनानुस्मृतिनिबन्धनम्, वेदाध्ययनत्वाद्, इदानीन्तनवेदाध्ययनवत्. 
2. कल्पादिषु शब्दार्थसम्बन्धव्यवहार: पूर्वपूर्वव्यवहारपरम्पराधीन:, अभिधान-अभिधेय-व्यवहारत्वाद्, इदानीन्तनव्यवहारवत्.

You will have to apply mind to understand what is said above.

So, sum and substance is this:

1. I am a man, son of so and so, -- is a belief. A rebuttable belief having as much truth value as my belief of being son of so and so in my dream yesterday.

2. Through tushyatu-durjana-nyAya, if it is accepted to be a pramA - then it is known through anumAna or arthApatti. 

• Over dose of mere speculations born out of dry logic making you to pass these type of dreadful statements.  For those who follow shankara and shruti are doing so as it is for them AptavAkya, only tArkika-s who do not have any respect to shAstra-saMpradAya, guru-Acharya can make some statements like this…

I am afraid that your statements are liable to be rejected on account of absence of application of mind.

• You can live in your delusional  logical world,no issues 😊 But those who know sampradaya, those who respect their Acharya, Acharya vAkya know that only shruti, shrutyanugraheeta tarka based on pUrNAnubhava permitted in brahma jignAsa.  And they know very well kevala tarka, nirAgama tarka, shushka tarka etc. which you are passionately promoting here in this list are simply shruti viruddha, nishpramANakavAdaM and goes against anubhava as well.  We the fanatic followers of shankara knows what verdict our Acharya given on kevala tArkika-s..By the way since you are not the fanatic I don’t have to quote what my Acharya says on ‘kevala tarka’. 

Sir, how many AchAryAs are there is your sampradAya after 10th century AD. Let us talk on that!! I want a list of AchAryAs of your sampradAya. Something akin to Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradAya??

 

• I can understand your frustration here resulting in bAlisha (childish) conclusions about these examples in shruti. 

Sir, sorry to disappoint you as I have no frustration in understanding Shruti. You have however an uphill task to explain your concept to even an eight-year old boy!! Try it. Post your conversation with an eight year old boy as to how a changeless singular inactive entity appears as changeable world. Good luck.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

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).

SSSS reflects on Bhasyakara's statement that is intended to logically prove only Nonduality but that no pramana is intended "to establish' svatahsiddha atma. from Essential Gaudapada: 

THE PLACE OF TARKA
Because it is stated that - "Advaita can be signified by ,
means of Sruti and it can be establislled by Tarka (reasoning,
logic)" - it should not be concluded that Tarka also, along with
Sruti (Sastra PramaI.1a) , , is an independent PramaIJ.8 (valid means
of knowledge). In the Sruti, which is the authoritative source for
the Agama PrakaraI.1a, since Advitlyatman is self-establislled tlle
special features of A vasthatraya which are superimposed upon
Him (i.e. Advitlyatman or non-dual Self) are sublated (falsified,
negated, rescinded) and the trutll that - "Atman is of Advaita
Swarupa (of the very essence of non-duality, i.e. having nothing
second to Himself)" - has been clearly explained. Therefore, to ,
some extent, the Sruti also has followed Tarka (reasoning) alone
and llas, for the sake of the superior class of seekers, instructed
the self-established " Tattwa . (Absolute, Transcendental Reality).
Tllat very truth was explained fully in tIle Agama Prakarat:la
Karikas. Since here in the present Chapter (Advaita Prakara~a)
too - having followed or ad, opted that kind of Tarka whicll is
adopted with felicity in the Sruti but in consonance with universal
Intuitive Experience (Anubhavariga Tarka) so that it does not
contradict It, tile impediments like Samshaya (doubt), Viparita
GrahaJ)a (misconception, wrong knowledge) are rescinded, ne- ,
gated and the real purport of the Sruti alone has been signified
- it has been affirmed that - "By means of Tarka also Advaita
can be established. " That is all. This explanation should be
suitably made applicable to the second Vaitathya PrakaraIJ.8 also.

Because Atmatattwa is not a PrameY8 (object of perceptual
knowledge), It cannot possibly be established by any PramaQa
wllatsoever ; because It is Swatahsiddha (self-established), there
is no need wllatsoever for establishing It by means of any
PramaQa. Even so, for tIle sake or benefit of those seekers WllO
are endowed with limited or low-grade intelligence (discriminative
faculty) and are having predominantly an extroverted view- ,
point, tIle Sruti, adopting tile ancient time-tested traditional methodology
of 'Adhyaropa Apavada Nyaya' (axiom of Superimposition
and Rescission), deliberately superimposes on It certain
Advaita Prakaran. a 213
Dharmas (special features or attributes) which do not really
exist in It and relatively rescinds certain other Dharmas,
showing that they do not exist in It. Those preceptors who are
well-versed in this traditional methodology of teaching are utilizing
as an aid to this teaching the empirical logical arguments
(Loukika Tarka) in consonance with that methodology. Therefore,
in the Vaitathya Prakarat:la, in order to clarify the truth that
- 'Atman is Advaita', first Dvaitamithyatwa (the truth that
duality is false) was indicated and then the Karyarupa (the
form or category of effect) was rescinded by means of Tarka
; but here in the present context the Kara~arupa (the category
of cause - as a superimposed special feature) is rescinded,
refuted. Thus, because Advaita Tattwa is self-established
alone, It reveals Itself to the properly qualified seekers
without any hindrance or hurdles whatsoever indeed.
- - "",-

[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.