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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

a great effort - kudos. I will share both email sections in one original
post.

regards, michael

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 11:02 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> *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.
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCGPqzEkUU5WnDMamJDTVJ92SGorcVaHGr1gWT1aZCtTQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCGPqzEkUU5WnDMamJDTVJ92SGorcVaHGr1gWT1aZCtTQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>