[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Illusoriness of causation (cause-effect-relationship)

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
//One basic question Michael ji. What is this fuss about finding quotes in
PTB? If something is not quoted in PTB, does it cease to be a truth?//
The fuss is simply to maintain sampradaya. However reasonable DSV may seem,
if it's not in PTB, it's not Vedanta and Truth of the Self is not
determined by anumana.

//(I said:) You say BUbh4.4.6 describes jivanmukti but the last line seems
to indicate otherwise, "for if liberation was a change of condition, it
would contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upanishads seek to
teach."

(your reply) Liberation is not a change of condition of self, because self
is changeless. From the frame of reference of ignorance, it is the
extinction of perception of hitherto apparent ignorance.//

--Sorry but I don't follow. What is 'extinction of perception of hitherto
apparent ignorance'? and how does that phrase fit into the text, "being but
Brahman he is merged in Brahman in this very life, not after the body
falls."? That's jivanmukti, ever-established and thus no change of
condition. If there was extinction of something, that would be a change of
condition. Either it's apparent or it's bhavarupa, it seems to me. The same
old argument - darkness is something opposed to light; ignorance is
something perceived.

//Naisargika does not mean inactive. Naisargika means natural. Nisarg means
nature. So, you will have to explain the question.
--yes, apologies. It's natural, innate -- means we need not do anything for
it to appear. It is also timeless and activity requires change and time.
There is no cause to think 'misconception' is an activity. Adhyasa is wrong
perception only - it is not an event that occurs in time and space.

//(you said:)


//What is liberation? Is it an event in time which happens post
"right-knowledge"? No. Liberation is ever-present. Even now when one thinks
that he is in bondage, he is actually free. So, where is the question of
death for liberation!!//
(my reply:) -- That's my argument! Avidya-lesa contradicts this.

(your counter reply:) avidyA-lesha does not contradict what I said. Please
explain how does it contradict?

-- if the absolute truth is that we are ever free and never have been in
bondage, then what can remain when this is realized? Is it part of the
Absolute? "When, however, this soul makes in this one the smallest interval
(difference), then, for him, there is fear' (Taitt. 2.7),
·        'Assuredly it is from a second (thing) that fear arises' (Brhad.
1.4.2)

//Obviously dream-perceptions are something other than nishkriya Brahman.
So many activities appear in dream. How can it be nishkriya Brahman//
Are they? What are they if not Consciousness? It is the waking intellect
that thinks dreams are  'activities'.  Why wouldn't Gita 2.16 apply - That
which changes, doesn't exist.

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 6:16 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> Sorry but I don't know where Sankara might have said it is antahkara
>> vritti or even brahmakara vritti that causes liberation as your quote
>> states. Nor, do I read SDV/ DSV in Gaudapada nor Bhasyakara however it is
>> quite evident in later Vedanta and elsewhere. i know you disagree but I'll
>> stand with Prof. Timalsinaji in observing a paucity of actual PTB
>> reference. These are issues vigorously argued here that we needn't
>> resuscitate now.
>>
>
> One basic question Michael ji. What is this fuss about finding quotes in
> PTB? If something is not quoted in PTB, does it cease to be a truth?
>
> Regarding AtmAkAra-vritti, akhanDAkAra-vritti or BrahmAkAra-vritti, there
> are sufficient indicators present in bhAshya. We can discuss it separately.
>
> You say BUbh4.4.6 describes jivanmukti but the last line seems to indicate
>> otherwise, "for if liberation was a change of condition, it would
>> contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upanishads seek to teach."
>>
>
> Liberation is not a change of condition of self, because self is
> changeless. From the frame of reference of ignorance, it is the extinction
> of perception of hitherto apparent ignorance.
>
>
>> //What is misconception? Isn't it an activity? How can activity be
>> permitted in nishkriya Brahman?//
>> --Adhyasa is naisargarika - no activity.
>>
>
> Naisargika does not mean inactive. Naisargika means natural. Nisarg means
> nature. So, you will have to explain the question.
>
> //What is liberation? Is it an event in time which happens post
>> "right-knowledge"? No. Liberation is ever-present. Even now when one thinks
>> that he is in bondage, he is actually free. So, where is the question of
>> death for liberation!!//
>> -- That's my argument! Avidya-lesa contradicts this.
>>
>
> avidyA-lesha does not contradict what I said. Please explain how does it
> contradict?
>
> --The whole issue is the status of perception. Is there a mithya ajnana
>> positive perception or is it simply Brahman wrong perceived. Let's take it
>> to dream. Are dream perceptions something other than Consciousness
>> appearing to be differentiated? If you say they're thoughts/vasanas, you
>> reify mind and take your stand with a waker's bias.
>>
>
> Obviously dream-perceptions are something other than nishkriya Brahman. So
> many activities appear in dream. How can it be nishkriya Brahman.
>
> Yes, mind and its ideas are wrong. Namarupa only. Ignorance and liberation
>> also wrong ideas. PSA needs to discover WHY/HOW/Creation because of being
>> locked into an actual bhavarupa avidya.
>>
>
> There is nothing "actual" about bhAvarUpa-avidyA. You have not answered
> pin-pointed question "What do you mean by "wrong idea"? Is it horns of
> hare? What vastu is it? Is it a mental transformation? If yes, then is mind
> itself not wrong idea? If yes, then it is infinite regress."
>
> Namaste Raghav ji.
>
> //Does PTB mention anywhere the fact that functioning  ears are required
> for shastra shravaNam? Since followers of SSS don’t see the self-evident
> fact that antaHkaraNa vRttis arise and are instrumental in all pramANa
> operation including both shabda and pratyaxa etc., I got the doubt!//
>
> One needs authority about issues for which one has no clarity. I don't
> have an iota of understanding about swarga and Yajna. So, I seek knowledge
> from VedAs and treat it as authority.
>
> But about Atma-jnAna? Sure, we need help from Guru and shAstra. But not in
> a way we seek help in matters of Yajna and swarga.
>
> The approach by SSSS ji is like that. See, here is a dictum by Shankara.
> Shankara has said so and so. And hence it is a pramANa. No room for logic.
> Shruti has said this. Stop arguing. Etc etc.
>
> This is basically fanaticism. And no logical or rather sane discussion can
> happen. Just as is the case with ISKCON people, same with SSSS ji's
> followers. There is something like "as it is" syndrome. 🙂
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>