[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Kilogram not yet concluded after all

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

*> I repeat my issue: what causes the cause?*

avidyA is the cause of adhyAsa. Since avidyA is considered as adhyasta,
avidyA is accepted as the cause of itself. It is stated in SiddhAnta Bindu
- अनिर्वाच्यम् अनृतं तत्त्वज्ञाननिवर्त्यं च अज्ञानं स्व-पर-अध्यासे कारणम्.
That means - anirvachanIya mithyA ajnAna, which is removed by tattva-jnAna,
is the cause of swa-adhyAsa (avidyA-adhyasa/kAraNa-adhyAsa) and
para-adhyAsa (kArya-adhyAsa). [
https://archive.org/details/SiddhantaBinduShriMadhusudanaSarasvati/page/n103/mode/1up?view=theater
]

*> If mulavidya is adhyasta, something had to bring it about.  *

We saw that avidyA itself is the cause. That amounts to saying - A causes
A. This is referred to as AtmAshraya-dosha.

However, that is inapplicable in case of avidyA. This is because
AtmAshraya-dosha is applicable with respect to utpatti (origin), sthiti
(sustainance) and jnapti (knowledge). avidyA does not require itself in
either of the three. Hence, there is no AtmAshraya-dosha.

   1. avidyA does not require avidyA for its origin. Because, there is no
   origin of avidyA.
   2. avidyA does not avidyA for its location because it has Brahman as the
   locus and not itself.
   3. avidyA does not require avidyA for its jnapti because it is known not
   by itself but by swaprakAsha anAdi sAkshI. Though sAkshI is
   avidyA-upahita-chaitanya, since upAdhi is kArya-ananvayI, the swarUpa of
   jnapti is swaprakAsha-chaitanya and not avidyA.


Thus, we see that there is no AtmAshraya-dosha. avidyA is thus eligible to
be swa-para-nirvAhikA. There is evidence to that effect:

   1. SwaprakAsha-AtmA is swa-para-nirvAhaka.
   2. Bheda is swa-para-nirvAhaka.

Thus, we see that the conditions of AtmAshraya-dosha are not satisfied and
there are examples of swa-para-nirvAhaka entities. avidyA is another such
example.

Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that avidyA is the cause of
avidyA-adhyAsa and is capable of doing so on account of it being
swa-para-nirvAhikA without AtmAshraya dosha.

> *False means incorrect, not according to fact. You must be defining
mithya as false appearance. What do you mean by appearance?*

Appearance means non-existence in three periods of time in the locus of
perception.

>* Is this appearance the same as Brahman or different? Is it bhavarupa or
'not at all there'? *

The appearance is also an appearance. It is non-Brahman. So, mithyA-tva is
also mithyA. The appearance-ness of appearance is also an appearance. It
also is not at all existent, just appears to exist.

> *Sorry, I am not following. If MV is adhyastha/effect how will it appear
without effect?*

MUlAvidyA has the world as its effect. All products starting from ahamkAra
are its effects. Even though effects starting from ahamkAra are absent (in
sushupti), avidyA survives. So, in sushupti, avidyA-adhyAsa remains without
its effect starting from ahamkAra. [Though avidyA-vritti are accepted in
sushupti, they are of the nature of kAraNa itself and not kArya like
ahamkAra etc. Hence, I am not including them in kArya-adhyAsa. If they are
also admitted to be kArya-adhyAsa, that is not damaging either.] In any
case, as long as avidyA is accepted, kAraNa-adhyAsa has to be accepted.

 >*If you are saying mulavidya/mithya is both cause and effect, please
define mulavidya as cause. How is it a 'mula' if its an effect.*

Because avidyA is without beginning whereas everything else, starting from
ahamkAra, is with beginning. So, the usage of "mUla" is apt.

> *We have been discussing how even absence is a bhavarupa, how then is
bhavarupa mulavidya, bija shakti, jada mithya, said to be non-existent?*

bhAvarUpa is asserted not to posit existence. But to aver difference from
asat. Now, asat does not mean mere non-existence. It means something which
cannot be perceived in any locus. Like horns of hare. So, the usage of word
bhAvarUpa is to only distinguish it from asat like horns of hare, and not
to ascribe existence. So, when we say pot-abhAva, it is still a knowable.
It is perceived in a locus, say ground. So, it is not asat like horns of
hare. Therefore, pot-abhAva is bhAvarUpa. This does not imply that it is
existent.

Both pot-abhAva and horns of hare are non-existent. While the former can be
perceived in a locus, the latter cannot be perceived in any locus. Hence,
the former is called bhAvarUpa while the latter is called asat.

>*That seems to oppose the vyakhyana kara vada. What am I missing? *

How does it oppose?

> *I find no cause/effect relationship depicted in Adhyasa Bhasya. Rather
vishayi/vishaya or asmat/yusmad are instinctually superimposed, birthless
and due to indiscrimination rather than some effect or event. Please find a
more precise example where Bhasyakara describes karana adhyasa as opposed
to karya adhyasa*

This indiscrimination needs to be analysed by you.

> *You mention avarana but indiscrimination is enough to cover the truth
according to Adhyasa Bhasya and that is not spoken of as an effect but just
the nature of superimposition*.

Please define AvaraNa and indiscrimination.

> *Satkaryavada argues that the One Brahman is what appears as both cause
and effect without changing its nature. The implication is that Brahman
alone exists and that the appearance of presence and absence of existence
and non-existence of objects, of clay and unmanifested jar, are mistaken
notions. AS NOTIONS, object and its absence both appear as bhavarupa
entities. Bhavarupa however pertains to the jar's svarupa and whether it is
present or absent (of course, the only svarupa is Brahman). Absence, per
se, is only a bhavarupa when it refers to an actual object but in and of
itself cannot denote a physical fact.*

What is 'actual object'? What is 'physical fact'?

> *Thus, darkness also is not 'something' opposed to light - it is solely
dependent upon light and may be only spoken of metaphorically as
covering/avarana light. *

This has been disproved by specific arguments. You need to present
counter-arguments. It has been demonstrated that darkness is neither
prakAsha-sAmAnya-abhAva, nor prakAsha-vishesha-abhAva not
sarva-prakAsha-abhAva. In the first two cases, in daylight, when there is
prakAsha-sAmAnya-abhAva (some light say torch-light is not present) as well
as prakAsha-vishesha-abhAva, there should be perception of darkness, which
is not the case. In case of sarva-prakAsha-abhAva, you will have to turn on
all lights in order to remove darkness, which is an impossibility.

Further, there is anumAna which proves that darkness is not abhAva: तमः
शब्द वाच्यो नाभावः,
स्वमात्रवृत्तिधर्मप्रकारकप्रतियोगिज्ञानाजन्यप्रत्यक्षविषयत्वाद्, घटवत्।

These prove that darkness is 'something' that is opposed to light. We
should however not confuse that it is existen, when we say it is not
abhAva. It is bhAvarUpa which is sat-asat-vilakshaNa and hence non-existent
in three periods of time in its locus, i.e. Brahman.

>
*Light is the only svarupa. SSSSji brought this out briefly in one of the
footnotes to the Ghata Bhasya that I shared in a previous email. *
SSSS ji did not counter the specific arguments adduced. Merely repeating a
belief cannot disprove the argument. Can it?

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.