space, time, causality, error and duality versus mUlavidyA vAda

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Copy/Pasted from elsewhere - not my own words. Most of the debates on here about Moolavidya and what it means seem to get stuck in textual citations - Shankara said this, no meant that, Padmapada said this, Prakashatman refined that, etc and usually do not pProgress further.

I want to take a different approach, so do try this one for size. There might be tightening needed here and there, but hopefully the intent comes across clear.

Let us start with basic primitives and define them, basically - space, time, causality, error and duality and follow the reasoning to its conclusion, wherever it leads us. To me, this analysis shows that moolavidya is not merely textually questionable, but also logically untenable. Not because the wrong acharya is being followed, but because the concept defeats itself.

Primitive 1 - Space & Time are ONE package

-------------------------------------------------

Space requires extent. Without extent - without separation between points - space has no content/meaning. And for two points to be meaningfully separate, time MUST enter necessarily. To traverse separation requires elapsed moments. To *perceive* two points as distinct requires light traveling paths - and path length is already time. To *cognize* two things as two rather than one requires sequential attention - first this, then that. Therefore space requires time, and vice versa. You cannot talk of one without the other and the two are mutually entailing. Rejecting one, rejects both.

This isn't modern physics. This is derivable by anyone willing to sit carefully with what these words actually mean.

Primitive 2 - What Anadi actually means

--------------------------------------------

Shankara characterizes adhyasa - the fundamental superimposition - as *anadi*. Beginingless.

The standard reading treats this temporally. Infinitely old. Time runs back without finding a beginning.

But that reading is too shallow. Infinitely old is *still a temporal* concept - time is still running, adhyasa just has no starting point within it.

The deeper and more precise reading is this _ *anadi means beyond the temporal framework ENTIRELY*. Not that time runs back forever without finding a begninng. But that time itself has no foothold here.

And since space and time are a package deal, beyond time actually means beyond space-time. This means acausal. Because causality requires both - a cause must precede its effect (time) and act on something (space). Remove the fabric and causlity becomes not weak but categorically inapplicable.

And acausal IMPLES non-duality. Because multiplicity is held together entirely by causal relationships. Remove causality and there is nothing to individuate this from that, nothing separating one thing from another.

So the logical chain is:

Anadi => beyond time => beyond space => acausal => non-dual

The interesting bit is, saying any one of these 5 things automatically mean the remaining four as well. No escaping this. These are logical entailments; not assertions.

Now let is see what this does to Moolavidya.

Moolavidya is introduced as the causal basis of adhyasa. The root ignorance that produces superimposition. The beginningless power that conceals Brahman and projects multiplicity. Note that if it is just an explanatory device within vyavahara, then it doesnt say much. Any *real* explanation of adhyasa within the vyavaharika framework must necessarily have a causal basis. Every version of this doctrine, however carefully qualified requires it to function as some kind of prior principle from which adhyasa follows. Else, it has no place anyway.

The primitives just destroyed that possibility completely. Here is how - in as many ways as the doctrine presents itself.

Failure 1 - The Anadi Contradiction

---------------------------------------

Shankara says adhyasa is anadi - beginningless. Moolavidya says it is the cause of adhyasa.

But the moment you introduce a cause, you introduce a sequence, moolavidya first, then adhyasa. This implies a temporal order, and so it implies a beginning - it began when moolavidya produced it. Implying Adhyasa can no longer be anadi.

The only escape is to say Moolavidyua is also anadi. Both are beginningless. But then what does causal priority mean between two equally beginningless things?? Causation without temporal priority is not causation in any sense. Only the word cause has been retained while its entire content has been evacuated.

Moolavdiya fails at the first word of Shankara's own characterization of what it is supposed to explain.

Failure 2 - The Acausality Problem

-------------------------------------

Anadi properly understood means acausal. Moolavidya is a causal principle. You cannot give a causal account of something that is by its own characterization beyond causality. That is not a gap in theory. That is a category error - applying a concept in a domain where it has NO foothold.

It is like asking for the spatial location of a number. The question is not hard to answer. It is malformed. Location does not apply to numbers. Causality does not apply to what is anadi.

Failure 3 - The self-undermining Retreat

--------------------------------------------

When pressed on moolavidyas ontological status, its defenders consistently retreat:

It is not really a causal principle - it is vyavahara only

It is not ontologically robust - it is mithya

It is not a second reality - it has no paramarthika status

Each retreat is designed to save the doctrine from the reification charge. But each retreat simultaneously ECAVUATES the doctrine of EXPLANATORY content.

If moolavidya has no ontological weight, it explains *nothing*

If it is not a genuine cause - it does *no* causal work.

If it is indistinguishable from adhyasa itself, it adds *nothing* to what adhyasa already covers.

THe doctrine survives each challenge by becoming progressively emptier - until nothing remains but the word.

This is precisely the trajectory of the luminiferous ether in physics. Every time experiments failed to detect it, its properties were adjusted - more transparent, zero viscosity, perfectly entrained. Each adjustment saved the theory temporarily while quietly removing its content. Eventually there was nothing left but the name. ANother thing that it was disproved by the Michelson Morley experiment.

Moolavidya is the "philosophical ether".

Failure 4 - the circularity problem

-------------------------------------

The demand for a causal account of adhyasa already presupposes a causal framework. But the causal framework is iteself a product of adhyasa - it belongs to the dual, space-time bound order that adhyasa generates.

So the argument is - Adhyasa generates the causal framework - we use the causal framework to explain adhyasa.

This is not a subtle circularity that philosophy can dissolve. It is a foundational loop - using the product to explain the producer, using the dream to explain the dreaming.

Moolavidya isnt just an unnecessary explanatory layer. It is an explanatory layer that pressupposes the very thing it is trying to explain.

Failure 5 - The location Paradox

-----------------------------------

Where does moolavidya reside? If in Brahman, non-duality is compromised.

If in jiva - the jiva itself is a product of avidya. So avida produces jiva and jiva is the locus of avidya. The effect containing its own cause, pure circularity again.

If neither - the principle has no locus. A causally active principle with no locus is not a principle. It is a placeholder for an unanswered question.

Every available option leads to either contradiction, circularity or emptiness.

Failure 6 - the taxonomy of Errors

____________________________________

A careful analysis of what error actually is reveals something decisive.

Errors fall in to distinct categories - perceptual, inferential, assumption-based, superimposition, absence. All of them share a critical feature - they work *within* the framework of space, time, causality/duality. They are framework-internal. They can be corrected by tools operating within the same framework.

But, there is exactly ONE kind of error that is different in kind - the *constitutive* error that generates the *framework itself*. Thus error is acausal, as anadi implies. It cannot be corrected by any causal mechanism because causality operates "downstream" of it. Moolavidya is itntroduced as a causal account of this constitutive error. But a causal account of an acausal error is not just unsatisfing, it is a *category mistake of the most fundamental kind*.

Failure 7 - The Entanglement Problem

________________________________________

The entity that supposedly harbors or is affected by moolavidya - the jiva, the cognizing subject - does not exist independently of the fundamental error. The separate self co-arises with the error. They are entangled - each requiring the other to exist.

This means there is no neutral subject who has moolavidya the way one has a mistaken belief. The subject IS the error. They are ONE movement appearing as TWO.

Moolavidya treats the error as something a subject *has* - a positive obscuring substance that covers what the subject would otherise "see". But if the subject and the error co-arise, there is no prior subject to be covered. The covering and the covered and the one who is covered are all one single movement.

Moolavidya requires a subject-error separation that the logic of the situation denies.

What SHankara Actually Did

______________________________

He did not ask for the cause of adhyasa. He pointed it out, characterized it, and moved immediately to sublation.

This was not a gap in his analysis. It was THE analysis.

Calling adhyasa anadi was not a lazy hand-wave. It was a precise and deliberate philosophical move - a stop sign placed exactly where the causal question seases to be coherent. It was Shankara saying - the causal framework does not apply here. There is no before to find. Stop looking for one.

Moolavidya is what happens when that STOP sign is ignored. When the demand for causal explanation is pressed past the point it has any validity. The result is a doctribe that

- contradicts anadi

- commits a category error

- empties itself through its own defensive retreats

- circles back on itself

- has nowhere coherent to locate itself

- misunderstands the nature of the one error that stands apart

- requires a subject-error separation that just does not exist

Centuries of sophisticated philosophical defense have kept it alive - not because the logic is sound but because the defences were always subtle enough to survive the immediate challenge without ever actually resolving anything.

But the primitives - space, time, causality, error, duality - examined carefully and followed honestly, leave no room for it. The coffin was already closed. Moolavidya, the philosophical ether, just couldnt find the lid.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Brilliant, Michael! This is just the sort of analysis I like to do, although I have to confess that this is much more rigorous. I believe that most of Advaita can be ‘reasoned out’, without reference to scriptures, (although not without reference to Śaṅkara) and therefore avoiding all of the material that is likely to put off the modern seeker. I think you should do the ‘tightening’, provide references to your sources and publish the resultant paper.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

--
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/CAAz9PvHU92AJRNUo4aMzWN9ayMSTO0-qy7oVcTnRq9N%2B4_nS7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Thanks for the kind words, Dennis. I'll share them with the author. I agree - these are the kinds of thoughts that draw us all to Vedanta and have inspired reflection since time immemorial.

I was hoping to get push back from some of our learned adherents to opposing positions. It seems necessary to me to address these thoughts as purvapaksa. 

regards, michaelm 🙏🙏🙏

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000701dcbb6b%2475f8d9d0%2461ea8d70%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste.

The article suffers from fatal errors in understanding the concepts of avidyA and adhyAsa.

I just glanced through it. So many inaccuracies that one feels disinterested.

Before writing a note opposing a concept, why don't the writers study the concept first.

Mere bhai, adhyAsa is of two types. kArya-adhyAsa and kAraNa-adhyAsa.

kArya-adhyAsa is with beginning. kAraNa-adhyAsa is without beginning. 

kArya-adhyAsa is effect of cause avidyA.

kAraNa-adhyAsa, which is ajnAna-adhyAsa, is not ajnAna-kArya but ajnAna-vyApya.

BhAshya talks of both adhyAsa. 

Seriously, if the writer of the note not aware of this? If aware, then why not mention it? If not aware, then better read the texts.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEV7kyRScm9kaQZ26WdbF8T7WTzbSXnJufETm2fKeS%3D%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Sudhanshu-ji.

 

I think there are far more than two ‘types’ of adhyāsa, aren’t there? What about sopādhika adhyāsa (dharma adhyāsa , saṃsarga adhyāsa), nirupādhika adhyāsa (dharmi adhyāsa), anyonya adhyāsa, ekonmukha adhyāsa, jñāna adhyāsa, artha adhyāsa? I suspect the author wanted to stick to simple reasoning and not get involved in all of this (post-Śaṅkara?) complication and confusion.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis 

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 2:11 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] space, time, causality, error and duality versus mUlavidyA vAda

 

Namaste.

 

The article suffers from fatal errors in understanding the concepts of avidyA and adhyAsa.

 

I just glanced through it. So many inaccuracies that one feels disinterested.

 

Before writing a note opposing a concept, why don't the writers study the concept first.

 

Mere bhai, adhyAsa is of two types. kArya-adhyAsa and kAraNa-adhyAsa.

 

kArya-adhyAsa is with beginning. kAraNa-adhyAsa is without beginning. 

 

kArya-adhyAsa is effect of cause avidyA.

 

kAraNa-adhyAsa, which is ajnAna-adhyAsa, is not ajnAna-kArya but ajnAna-vyApya.

 

BhAshya talks of both adhyAsa. 

 

Seriously, if the writer of the note not aware of this? If aware, then why not mention it? If not aware, then better read the texts.

 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji.

I think there are far more than two ‘types’ of adhyāsa, aren’t there?

True. I just wanted to highlight this wrong presentation of the writer.

What about sopādhika adhyāsa (dharma adhyāsa , saṃsarga adhyāsa), nirupādhika adhyāsa (dharmi adhyāsa), anyonya adhyāsa, ekonmukha adhyāsa, jñāna adhyāsa, artha adhyāsa?

Yes. These are also there.

I suspect the author wanted to stick to simple reasoning and not get involved in all of this (post-Śaṅkara?) complication and confusion.

My point is this Dennis ji. Even a fifth class student would know that effect has to be temporal. So, when texts say that adhyAsa is effect of avidyA, then obviously it is the kArya-adhyAsa which is talked.

The kAraNa-adhyAsa is without beginning. 

And kAraNa-adhyAsa is not accepted as avidyA-kArya but avidyA-vyApya.

In a rebuttal, it is most important to present the opponent's view correctly. For that, one needs to study the opponent's views properly.

Half baked study leads to incorrect understanding of opponent's views and consequent irrelevant rebuttal which is liable to be ignored.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Sudhanshuji, 

//.and And kAraNa-adhyAsa is not accepted as avidyA-kArya but avidyA-vyApya.//
If avidya is 'absence of knowledge' it can be all pervading but as a deluding force, it would have to exert itself in waking, dream and deep sleep to be truly pervading. That would make avidya existential, not merely wrong knowledge. Something that is all pervading and exists in all three states is no longer illusory. Something possesses functions like covering and projecting, is sublatable and requires a standpoint is a rather tall tale to falsify. 

And as to deny avidya as a material cause, I offer Panchapadika,

"[" Mithyajnana nimitta iti " —that which is mithya

(erroneous) and at the same time, ajnana (nescience) is mithyajnana.];

The word ' mithya ' means * inexpressible ' (anirvacanlya),

and by the word * ajnana ' is meant the potency of avidya which

is of the nature of insentience and is the negation of jnana. And

' tannimitta ' means * having that (viz., mithyajnana) as the material cause.'" And SSS from The Method of the Vedanta, 262 SUMMARY OF THE VIVARANA (abbreviated)
From the fact that the respected Prakasgtma Yati (Prakasatnsn) quotes many different opinions, we infer that many different sub-schools of Advaita had come into existence before the time when he came to compose his Vivaraga on the Pancapadika.
Amongst the medley of different views summarized, it is only occasionally that he reveals his own view in unmistakable terms. He gave support, buttressed by original arguments, to the doctrine of the author of the I«ta Siddhi that there existed a different kind of Ignorance over and above the uni¬ versally recognized triad of non-apprehension, erroneous cogni¬ tion and doubt —' namely a positive Ignorance of indeterminable reality-grade. We must conclude from this that many Vedantins in his day accepted the doctrine that Ignorance was the mate¬ rial cause of the world of plurality. Amongst the different theories for solving the problem of the cause of the world mentioned in the course of the book, there appear to have been some which agreed with the followers of Vacaspati Misra. But it was with the view of the author cf the I;ta Siddhi that Prakasatman was particularly inclined to associate himself.

... The Vivaraqa gives itself out as a mere explanation of the Pancapadika. But in fact it goes into the whole question of what the PancapadikS said, what it did not say and ought to have said, and what it said wrongly (in the manner not of a {Ika but of a Vartika). Compared to the Pancapadika, it uses more powerful arguments to establish the doctrine that Igno¬ rance is a form of material cause. The style of argumentation of the Logicians is introduced in what is supposed to be the path of pure Vedantic reflection; numerous inferential argu¬ ments based on mere Intellectual hypothesis are introduced, on the plea that Vedanta teaching admits of argumentation that is not in conflict with the Upanishads.

....In spite of all this, modern Vedantins insist on claiming that the system of £ri Sankara is fundamentally the same as that of the Vivaraija. Wherever any difference between the two systems is too obvious to be altogether denied, scholars exercise all their ingenuity in reducing them to unity with every kind of foolhardy argument. That they should accuse those who point out the differences between the two systems of not knowing the true tradition is, in my view, a remarkable testimony to the strange fascination that the Vivara^a can exert over the minds of certain people.

. . 

 from Siddhantabindu (Sastri tr) where "material cause' appears 10x and 'covering' 20x  --

 नापि भ्रमसंशयतत्संस्कारपरम्पराऽरूपम्, अपरोक्षत्वात्, अतीतानागतभ्रमसंशयतत्संस्काराणां चापरोक्षत्वेन ज्ञातुम् अशक्यत्वात्, आवरणात्मकत्वात्, भ्रमाद्युत्पादनत्वाच् च । आत्मनो निर्विकारत्वात्, अन्तःकरणादेश् च तज्जन्यत्वात् । This nescience cannot be mere negation because it is something which covers or hides (the atman) and is the material cause of the delusion in the form ‘I am a man, etc’

तत्र च मन एव गजतुरगाद्यर्थाकारेण विवर्तते अविद्यावृत्त्या च ज्ञायत इति केचित् । अविद्यैव शुक्तिरजतादिवत् स्वप्नार्थकारेण परिणमते ज्ञायते चाविद्यावृत्त्येत्य् अन्ये । कः पक्षः श्रेयान्? उत्तरः । अविद्याया एव सर्वत्रार्थाध्यासज्ञानाध्यासोपादानत्वेन कल्पितत्वान् मनोगतवासनानिमित्तत्वेन च क्वचिन् मनःपरिणामत्ववयपदेशात् । It is the second, because everywhere it is avidya that is considered as the material cause of the superimposition of illusory objects as well as the superimposition of illusory cognition.

दृश्यत्वाद् विनाशित्वाच् च परिच्छिन्नाप्य् अविद्यानिर्वचनीयत्वेन विचारासहा आवरणविक्षेपशक्तिद्वयवती सर्वगतं चिदात्मानम् आवृणोति, अङ्गुलिर् इव नयनपुरःस्थिता सूर्यमण्डलम् । तत्र चक्षुष एवावरणे ऽङ्गुलेर् अप्य् अभानप्रसङ्गात् । अधिष्ठानावरणम् अन्तरेण च विक्षेपानुपपत्तेश् च । ततः सा पूर्वपूर्वसंस्कारजीवकर्मप्रयुक्ता सती निखिलजगदाकारेण परिणमते । सा च स्वगतचिदाभासद्वारा चित्तादात्म्यापन्नेति तत्कार्यम् अपि सर्वम् आभासद्वारा चिदनुस्यूतम् एव ।

Answer: Avidya, though limited, cannot stand scrutiny because it is indescribable, being an object of knowledge, inert, and perishable. Possessing the twin powers of concealment and projection, it covers the all-pervading self which is pure consciousness. It is like the finger placed in front of the eye concealing the orbit of the sun. If the eye itself were covered (by the finger), then the finger itself would not be seen. (So the finger does not cover the eye, but it covers only the sun which is much bigger). Projection (of an unreal object) cannot occur unless the substratum itself is covered. This avidya becomes modified as the entire universe as a result of the actions of the jivas prompted by the impressions of past actions. This avidya becomes identified with pure consciousness because of the reflection of the consciousness in itself. As a result, all the effects of avidya (the entire universe) become permeated by consciousness through its reflection.

--

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%2BBAX8CsvVxWxAQ%3DLZa8QWicn7EFeKBfYzyjQBqvCqN4peQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

If avidya is 'absence of knowledge' it can be all pervading

This statement is meaningless. 

 

but as a deluding force, it would have to exert itself in waking, dream and deep sleep to be truly pervading. That would make avidya existential, not merely wrong knowledge.

Time itself is an error. Yet, it appears in all three states. The co-appearance of ignorance with time does not imply that ignorance becomes existential, just as time itself is non-existential.

Fact is - time itself is ignorance. Time always appears and yet it is non-existent.

One should not argue that there is no perception of time in sushupti. The argument is to be rejected on the same lines on which it is proves that there is sAkshi-pratyaksha of ignorance in deep sleep.

I ask you -- what is time? Is it Brahman? Is it non-Brahman? Is it horns of hare?

 

Something that is all pervading and exists in all three states is no longer illusory.

So, what is time? Time pervades all three states. Is it not illusory? Is time Brahman?

 

Something possesses functions like covering and projecting, is sublatable and requires a standpoint is a rather tall tale to falsify. 

Anything which is seen, is easily falsifiable, like the illusory-snake-on-the-rope. There is no hard work in that. One can easily appreciate it with day-to-day experience. If x is seen, x is illusory.

 

And as to deny avidya as a material cause, I offer Panchapadika

No cut-paste discussion please.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

 

And as to deny avidya as a material cause, I offer Panchapadika

 

No cut-paste discussion please.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Despite this is year end at office, I am reading this thread with interest, but lost interest after seeing the above lines from our beloved Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji…when someone says something on their own he says you need to study hard to understand vyAkhyAna stand correctly and when someone tries to clarify their understanding by ‘copy and paste from original vyAkhyAna, he says no discussion on cut & paste 😊 I am not able to understand what sort of discussion he wants to indulge in. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

 And as to deny avidya as a material cause, I offer Panchapadika

Panchapaadika does not deny avidyA as material cause. It establishes avidyA as material cause. So, offering Panchapaadika to deny avidyA as material cause - means it is cut-paste. The translation offered also says the same. मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानम् । मिथ्येति अनिर्वचनीयता उच्यते । अज्ञानमिति च जडात्मिका अविद्याशक्तिः ज्ञानपर्युदासेन उच्यते । तन्निमित्तः तदुपादानः इत्यर्थः ॥

No cut-paste discussion please. 

 

 and when someone tries to clarify their understanding by ‘copy and paste from original vyAkhyAna, he says no discussion on cut & paste 😊 I am not able to understand what sort of discussion he wants to indulge in. 

The reference to cut-paste was for the following:

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

 

                                                                                                

Just  below this there was something from Sri MSS works translated by late Sri Sastri prabhuji.  How can you ignore this even though you have aversion towards Sri SSS’s observation 😊

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

                                                                                              

Just  below this there was something from Sri MSS works translated by late Sri Sastri prabhuji.  How can you ignore this even though you have aversion towards Sri SSS’s observation 😊

Why would I ignore Siddhanta Bindu? That excerpt also shows avidyA is material cause.

To offer that excerpt for denying avidyA as material cause is liable to be ignored. Isn't that so?

To offer that as 10x, 20x is ok... but that is not material to the discussion.

Regrads.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Bhaskar YR]

To offer that excerpt for denying avidyA as material cause is liable to be ignored. Isn't that so?

 

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Do you mean to say Sri MCC prabhuji quoting all these just to prove for adhyAsa, avidyA is NOT material cause as per him ??  or is he substantiating the vyAkhyAnakAra’s stand that for adhyAsa there is something solid but anirvachaneeya mUlAvidyA is the material cause which is not anyway absence of knowledge !!?? 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Do you mean to say Sri MCC prabhuji quoting all these just to prove for adhyAsa, avidyA is NOT material cause as per him ??  or is he substantiating the vyAkhyAnakAra’s stand that for adhyAsa there is something solid but anirvachaneeya mUlAvidyA is the material cause which is not anyway absence of knowledge !!?? 

Let him explain what he wants to prove/substantiate by showing excerpts from Panchapaadika and Siddhanta Bindu. The excerpts show that ajnAna is material cause. He has not contradicted it. He has given translation. And a cut-paste of some excerpt from somewhere (you say that it is SSSS ji's observation).

That observation does not address the issue at hand.

So, what am I to say? 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

And a cut-paste of some excerpt from somewhere (you say that it is SSSS ji's observation).

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

It is there in his mail itself :

 

//quote//

 

And SSS from The Method of the Vedanta, 262 SUMMARY OF THE VIVARANA (abbreviated)

 

// unquote //

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji, For some reason I never receive your comments in email. I only notice your emails when I see them included in someone else's reply. Just to let you know had there been any confusing had I negliected to respond. 🙏🙏🙏 

--

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/VI1PR06MB6638B1FE9BDF0E1ECE2D4C748449A%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.