[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Prasanth Netiji's Reply to Venkatraghavanji

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Prasanth ji, Michael ji, Venkat ji and other respected members,

I have summarised Prasanth Neti ji's post. The post was quite large and it
is easy that the main points are missed or ignored. I think even this
summary is quite large. But then it was a test of my precis writing skills.
I will offer my comments on his post in a separate e-mail.














































*1.    It cannot be argued that material-causality of mithyAjnAna is not
denied in adhyAsa bhAshya. This is so on account of following: -a.      Let
nimitta remain mere “cause” in adhyAsa bhAshya. Why to force fit “material
causality”?b.      It cannot be argued that identity of kArya (adhyAsa)
with kAraNa (avidyA) stated through तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति
मन्यन्ते implies material causality of avidyA. This is so because it will
imply deviation from bhAshya.2.      It is true that satkAryavAda hold that
for an effect to be identical with its cause it must imply that such cause
must be material cause and it can not be an efficient/instrumental cause.
However, BSB 1.4.23 should be studied to gain glarity on context. The
salient features thereof are as under:a.      As a response to the doubt as
to whether जन्माद्यस्य यतः talks of material causation or efficient
causation, BhAshykAra mentions the opponent’s conclusion which thinks of
Brahman having only efficient causation and not material causation. AchArya
clarifies, that Brahman is not only efficient cause, but also material
cause. SatkAryavAda not only covers material causation but also efficient
causation as explained by BhAshyakAra.b.      सर्वविज्ञानम् in the
एकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानम् when applied to clay-pot limits itself to the
knowledge of material of all. However, in the context of dArShTanta
Brahman-World, the सर्वविज्ञानम् includes everything i.e. it covers Brahman
as efficient cause also.c.      VedAntic satkAryavAda refers to both
material causation and efficient causation. It does not restrict to
material causation alone. Shruti also supports it through प्रागुत्पत्तेः
‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’.3.      Therefore, it is wrong to limit the cause to
material cause alone by invoking the satkaryavada – the implicaiton to
efficient cause is automatic in case of metaphysical entities for
wise/learned.4.      Therefore, when it is said in adhyasa bhashya that
तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते, the correct implication of
the word ‘wise/learned’ (i.e. पण्डिता) lies in not restricting the avidya
to be only a “material cause”.Further, some important points are as
under: 1.      In metaphysical sense, material cause and efficient cause
are not different. Being non-dual, Brahman is said to be ‘the cause’ of the
world only owing to ignorance as the ‘perceived world’ is considered
existentital at the start of enquiry but gets sublated later. World
initially considered as ontological, becomes epistemic as world is only
mithyA-jnAna about the sole reality, Brahman.2.       It is wrong to
present avidyA as “only” material cause of adhyAsa. Though material cause
and efficient cause are not different in the metaphysical sense, within the
context of avidya-adhyasa pair, sampradaya Vedantins prefer to not present
avidya as material cause but choose to present avidya as efficient cause or
simply ‘a cause’ without unnecessarily even adding label “efficient” before
it.3.      There is also another important reason behind sublating material
cause into efficient cause – it connotes vidya and thus it is
apavada-pradhana whereas the other way around connotes avidya and thus it
is adhyaropa, which also must be understoof in apavada-pradhana way.4.
 When bhashyakara says mithya-jnana-nimittah in adhyasa bhashya, he simply
means ‘cause’ which can be taken by us as “efficient cause” and later on in
the adhyasa bhashya when he says तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति
मन्यन्ते, it is not necessarily only “material cause”. It can very easily
pave way to mean avidya is “efficient cause” to adhyasa.5.      I am
inclined to say that it is meaningless to differentiate between material
causalhood vs efficient causalhood to adhyasa because entire causality is
within adhyasa.6.      Upanishads always present Brahman first as efficient
cause and then as material cause. Subsequently, creation is rescinded and
Brahman is presented as sole reality. Attributing causality is adhyAropa
and rescinding that is apavAda. Same idea is there in adhyAsa-bhAshya
wherein AchArya first presents avidyA as efficient cause by
“mithyA-jnAna-nimittah” and then as material cause by “तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं
पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते” but then immediately ensures that unnecessary
distinction is not created between material and efficient causality. Hence,
He uses merely the word “nimittah” so that ultimate goal of transcending
ignorance does not suffer.7.      Brahman is subtlest. From there, there
arises a will (an efficient cause) and thus happens the manifestation
(vyAkRta) of the unmanifest (of the avyAkRta) names and forms. Both vyAkRta
and avyAkRta are sybtle. Vedantic enquiry is from gross-to-subtle and from
subtle-to-more-subtle levels. It is a journey to intuit inmost atman as
Self-of-All. In this journey, the route is always from
sthUla-to-sUkShma-to-kAraNa. This route (i.e. sthUla-to-sUkShma-to-kAraNa)
is vidya and the opposite route (kAraNa-to-sUkSha-to-sthUla) is avidya.8.
   This is not just applicable to the discussion on ‘process of creation’
and causality between ‘created world’ and its cause ‘the Brahman’. But it
is also for everything else including the discussion of causality between
‘adhyasa’ and ‘avidya’ – instead of talking always in material-like terms
which is surely a sign of avidya (lack of wisdom) there must be
assimilation in more subtler terms which is sign of vidya (presence of
wisdom – पण्डिता).9.      We should always remember that it is a journey of
ontological-to-epistemological shift where taking something to be
ontological and taking something to be epistemological are both in their
strictest sense must be after all notional (i.e. epistemological) alone!
Only when avidya is nothing but an epistemological error it makes sense to
say that jnana can remove it, otherwise it is not possible.10.   ‘Removal
of ignorance’ it is not really an act of removal as in an action of
sweeping the material (like) dirt with a broom stick. But, it simply means
that with raise of jnana the vastu reveals itself and by raise of jnana we
mean only correcting an erroneous notion in the light of sruti vakya as the
only pramana.Therefore the conclusions which makes sense are:1) avidya is
not only the efficient cause but also material cause. It is incorrect to
hold that avidyA is material cause alone.2) The real wisdom lies in
rescinding entire causality. Finally, Brahman alone bereft of any
causalhood whatsoever must remain as none other than Atman. That Thou Art!
– the correct message of Vedanta which can be established in no other way
than through understanding meaning of upanishad vakyas in adhyaropa-apavada
framework.*

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.