[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
Infinite regress is resolved when a ground for one's proposition is proven
(see #1 below in 'ways to address...")  Adhyasa as anadi gives jagat and
samsara a timeless presence = experience. Experience proves adhyasa first
hand to one who knows the meaning of the term. Therefore there is no
defect in saying the false notion is itself false. AND, if this leads your
self inquiry to a zen like halt, so be it - a good thing!

As for your dive deep into the unfathomable world of perception and Vedanta
Paribhasa, I suggest it is quite avoidable as it is based on accepting
Prasthanatraya Bhasya Vedanta with an empirical realist's perspective. And
that is based on one or two bhasya citations only which position is
summarily refuted in the following link by the arguments of AJ Alston,
Prasanth Netiji and Ramanatha Keralapuraji, Further, analyzing perception
is not the aim of Vedanta rather falsifying its appearance is our endeavor.
Why divert from Gaudapada teachings?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13_SYzZALuHLTMDh8EKh5AcjUgrp0SKry/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115262902008900337610&rtpof=true&sd=true

Chatgpt on Infinite Regress

The *defect of infinite regression* refers to a logical or philosophical
problem that arises when a concept, argument, or explanation depends on an
unending series of causes, conditions, or premises, without any
foundational point of resolution. This creates an infinite loop that
prevents meaningful conclusions or understanding. Infinite regression is
often considered a flaw or defect because it undermines the explanatory
power of an argument.
Types of Infinite Regression

   1.

   *Epistemological Infinite Regression*: Involves the need for every
   belief or justification to be supported by another, leading to an endless
   chain. For example:
   - "Why do you believe X?"
      - "Because of Y."
      - "Why Y?"
      - And so on, without reaching a foundational belief.

   This is problematic because it makes it impossible to establish
   certainty or knowledge.
   2.

   *Ontological Infinite Regression*: Occurs in explanations of existence
   or causality. For example:
   - "What caused A?"
      - "B caused A."
      - "What caused B?"
      - This continues indefinitely without a first cause or ultimate
      explanation.

   This is a common issue in cosmological arguments about the origin of the
   universe.

Examples of Infinite Regression

   - *Philosophical*: Aristotle’s critique of infinite regression in
   metaphysics argued that a chain of causes must have a "first mover" or
   "unmoved mover."
   - *Theological*: Questions about the origin of God, or the "who created
   the creator?" problem.
   - *Practical*: Recursive definitions or algorithms that fail to
   terminate.

Ways to Address Infinite Regression

   1. *Foundationalism*: Proposes that some beliefs or causes are
   self-evident or axiomatic, and thus do not require further justification.
   2. *Coherentism*: Suggests that beliefs are justified as part of a
   coherent system, avoiding the need for linear regressions.
   3. *Circular Reasoning (in moderation)*: Accepting a loop of
   explanations that sustain themselves might sometimes be preferable to
   infinite regress (though this approach has its own criticisms).
   4. *Acceptance of Limits*: Recognizing certain questions or causes as
   beyond the scope of inquiry, as in some interpretations of Gödel's
   incompleteness theorems.

The defect of infinite regression highlights the importance of finding a
stopping point or an alternative explanatory framework to maintain logical
coherence.


On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 2:10 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji,
>
> If your vichara draws you to infinite regress, that is a good thing. It
>> confirms that avidya itself is sastrika adhyaropa and your reasoning has
>> led you to the apavada of avidya/adhyasa. If however, it is only reasoning
>> that leads you to infinite regress, then the anaditva of adhyasa should
>> resolve your doubt. Anaditva indicates that adhyasa is present by common
>> experience rather than by mere belief hence infinite regression does not
>> apply.
>>
>
> Infinite regress is not a good thing. It is a defect. It vitiates the
> model and is accordingly rejected in a discussion.
>
> Here, the question is not of anAditva. But right at this moment, this
> appearance would require infinite appearances. That is the issue.
>
>
>>  Your many arguments are logical constructions to prove distinction in
>> non-existence and relativity in the Absolute. Not the message i derive from
>> reading Bhasya, ji.
>>
>
> Please apply mind to the following:
>
> 1. Define appearance.
> 2. Is appearance an appearance?
> 3. Is avidyA an appearance?
> 4. Is "horns of hare" an appearance?
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
>
>
>