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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

*Namaste Prasanth ji, Venkat ji, Michael ji and other respected members.*

*In continuation to the previous e-mail wherein I had summarised Prasanth
ji's post, I offer my comments here for consideration:*


>
>
>
>
> *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.*
>

*While Prasanth ji starts to show as to how material causality cannot be
force-fitted in adhyAsa bhAshya, he arrives at the conclusion that avidyA
is not only material cause but also efficient cause. He says that it is
wrong to hold avidyA as material cause alone.*


>
>
> *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”.*
>

*Thus, he did not prove what he set out to prove. He started to show as to
why material causality of avidyA should not be force-fitted in adhyAsa
bhAshya. But proved that avidyA should not be restricted to material
causality alone.*

*It is irrelevant whether he contradicts himself. I am happy that his
conclusion is absolutely spot on. avidyA is indeed both efficient cause as
well as material cause. Just a small bit of difference -
chaitanya-reflected-in-avidyA is the efficient cause, and not avidyA per
se. After all, efficient cause has to be chaitanya. *


>
>
> *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.*
>

*Perfect in so far as causality of Brahman owing to ignorance is concerned.
However, regarding ontological and epistemic, I submit that this
distinction is erroneous. The gradation is not from ontological to
epistemic, it is from "sequential transformation" to "simultaneous
transformation" of ignorance and ultimately to no transformation. The world
is earlier believed to be a sequential transformation in the form of space,
air, fire etc (SDV). But, subsequently, it is believed to be a
"simultaneous transformation" like a dream (DSV). Both sequential and
simultaneous transformations have equal lack of ontological status. They
both are non-existent in three periods of time in the locus where they are
perceived. VedAnta does not admit of any ontological status to the world,
ever.*



>
>
>
>
>
> *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.*
>

*Addressed earlier.*


>
> *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.*
>

*Just a word of caution. Efficient causality requires chaitanya. *


>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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.*
>

*Addressed above. *


> *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.*
>

*There can be a separate discussion on what exactly avidyA-nivritti is. Let
that be a separate discussion.*


>
>
>
> *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.*
>

*As discussed above. *


> *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.*
>

*This is perfectly in accordance with VedAnta.*

*I made this attempt to respond to Prasanth ji's post out of my love and
respect to Prasanth ji, Michael ji, Venkatraghavan ji and other learned
members of this group. I tried to present Prasanth ji's views as
succinctly as I could. If there is any dissonance between my presentation
and what Prasanth ji intended, I apologize, though I don't see any
probability of dissonance. However, I will be grateful if the same can be
conveyed.  *

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.