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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.


> What is the difficulty?
>

Well, he accepted the material causality of ajnAna in an unambiguous
manner. He wrote the following as conclusion:





*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.*

If you are ok with these conclusions and these "make sense" to you, then
you should not have any problem with what I say. Because I say the same
thing. If you are not ok with these conclusions, then you can yourself
appreciate the "difficulty".

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,.
>

So, illusory causal avidyA and illusory effect thereof along with illusory
causality are permissible. There is no requirement of "real existence"  of
x in order to be a cause of y.


> 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.
>

If you get the definitions correct, you will not have such problems. Is
pot-space different from room-space? They appear different but they are
not. Similarly, mUla-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya is called
vyAvahArika-sattA, avasthA-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya is called
prAtibhAsika-sattA. Whereas chaitanya is pAramArthika-sattA. Just as
pot-avachchhinna-space, room-avachchhinna-space and space are not
different, similarly mUla-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya i.e.
vyAvahArika-sattA, avasthA-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya i.e.
prAtibhAsika-sattA and chaitanya i.e. pAramArthika-sattA are not different.
Their difference is stated only with respect to the upAdhi. The statement
of their relative reality, as stated by BhAshyakAra by using the term
"relative reality" in इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं सत्यम् ,
मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमुच्यते is only on account of
difference in upAdhi. SattA-wise they are same.

PNji made a subtle but valid technical point, it seems to me.
>

You are searching for subtlety Michael ji. If despite going through 10
pages written by him, you are still searching for some subtle point, then
please rest assured - there is no subtlety.


> 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.
>

Sometime when there is enough motivation, I will comment on his second
post.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.