[Advaita-l] [advaitin] How jnAnAbhAva can cause adhyAsa !!??

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

What is the difficulty? PNji first wrote the following to Venkatraghava and
repeated in the response above. It clearly states the position.
***** In one way though I am inclined to say that it is meaningless to
unnecessarily differentiate between material causalhood Vs efficient
causalhood to adhyasa because entire causality is within adhyasa, and I
personally like that kind of transcendence in the argument/enquiry, I am
not taking that route here because I feel a bit more needs to be said about
the objections above. *****

 //What a misunderstanding!! For cause-effect relationship, is there a need
of "real existence"? Where does bhAshya or logic or anubhava say this? In
dream, there appears a cause-effect relationship which is itself illusory
along with both illusory cause and illusory effect. Same between avidyA and
adhyAsa.//

I believe you are missing the point. To the dreamer, dream cause and effect
are as real as to the waker. Ultimately, dream and waking together with
their respective causes and effects are all illusory,. What is the "real
existence' PN refers to? By embracing the notion of a pratibhasika satta
different from a vyavaharika satta, you give the latter a comparative
reality calling it relative reality or dependent reality or temporary
reality when it is only an erroneous illusory understanding, distinct but
not different from dream. There is no bhavarupa of appearance.

//One needs to be precise. Answer pin-pointedly. //

PNji made a subtle but valid technical point, it seems to me. All these
years, you have put up with my lack and often imprecise language with
generosity which enabled some otherwise good conversations and analysis.
Surely PNji is worth a bit of the same.

regards, michael



On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 6:55 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> EDIT: To make it clear, I do not admit that Ignorance is either an
>> efficient or the material cause of the world, because it has no real
>> existence at all. But it looks like, this way of cutting it at the root
>> seems to be not settling the record (both in online discussions and offline
>> discussions). Therefore, I thought that there is a need to discuss this in
>> a slightly different way by first turning the argument away from material
>> causality to efficient causality and then refute the entire causality
>> argumentation (just as how it is dismissed in मूलाविद्यानिरासः Sanskrit
>> topic number 134 or English translation topic number 131.)
>> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/Sankaraadvaita/posts/1428104547855839/?comment_id=1428518994481061>
>>
>
> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> The arguments were presented and Prasanth ji responded thereto by stating
> that avidyA is not only the material cause but also the efficient cause.
>
> If he wants to go against this conclusion of his own, he will have to
> rewrite his own response. Otherwise no sense can be drawn out of his posts.
>
> If you think there is something important he is saying - you can summarise
> that. I will comment.
>
> As such both the first reply and the subsequent reply by Prasanth ji hold
> avidyA to be material cause. And he quotes bhAshya etc. You can yourself
> decide what he is saying.
>
>
> //EDIT: To make it clear, I do not admit that Ignorance is either an
> efficient or the material cause of the world, because it has no real
> existence at all//
>
> What a misunderstanding!! For cause-effect relationship, is there a need
> of "real existence"? Where does bhAshya or logic or anubhava say this? In
> dream, there appears a cause-effect relationship which is itself illusory
> along with both illusory cause and illusory effect. Same between avidyA and
> adhyAsa.
>
> //Therefore, I thought that there is a need to discuss this in a slightly
> different way by first turning the argument away from material causality to
> efficient causality and then refute the entire causality argumentation
> (just as how it is dismissed in मूलाविद्यानिरासः//
>
> He has not contradicted material causality. Efficient causality too is
> agreed upon. Causality is also negated subsequently. So, what is the
> difference?
>
> One needs to be precise. Answer pin-pointedly. If you write one lakh words
> in response - where is the precision?
>
> 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%2BBBmC7cNwx1pATo%3Dg4nPQSLBqE3rkHk%3DG-fJjfpwUAzTzQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBmC7cNwx1pATo%3Dg4nPQSLBqE3rkHk%3DG-fJjfpwUAzTzQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>