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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
//advaita can be known through logic also. How exactly is that possible -
will be shown by initiating advaita-prakaraNa (third chapter).
How have you disregarded this clear and emphatassertion of BhAshyakAra
Michael ji by saying "Truth of the Self is not determined by anumana".//

--It is only such anumana that is supportive of sruti spoken about here.
I'm sure that's clear. Sastrika tarka not lokyia tarka. It is interesting
to reflect on the precise role of tarka versus Sruti. Here's a couple of
pages from SSSS commenting on this issue. Though he agrees on the role of
tarka but based only on sastrika adhyaropa apavada - different from PSA
analysis.
http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=english&book_id=034&pagenum=0209#page/280/mode/1up

// Extinction of perception is of ignorance, which is non-self. There is no
change in condition of self. The perceptible-ignorance has always been
non-existent. So, Self, being Brahman, is realised as Brahman. The cover of
ignorance falls apart. //

--The argument is that a bhavarupa avidya that precedes adhyasa must
survive though adhyasa extinguished. You hold that a bhavarupa maya shakti
is the cause of adhyasa. Destroy the pot, clay remains and your clay is
maya not brahman!

//What vastu this "wrong perception" is? What is it?

   1. Is "wrong perception" a mental mode?
   2. Can "wrong perception" be without mind?
   3. Is mind also a "wrong perception"?
   4. How does it not lead to infinite regress?//


--Of course it is the mind that perceives but Brahman is the ground of both
perceiver and perceived. No regress. However, if you think mind and
perception are positive mithya entities caused by maya rather than simply
atma/anatma adhyasa, then logical complications will arise.

//These are quotations. These are not the answer to the question. avidyA is
not a second thing. It does not exist. So, there is non-duality. Fear
arises when there is attribution of existence to non-existent ignorance and
its products. That falls apart with knowledge. In SDV, even though
perception continues due to avidyA-lesha, there is no attribution of
existence thereto by the jIvanmukta. Hence, no fear and sorrow for him.//

--How can you say that the jivanmukta with avidya-lesha would not be
affected by conditions in Gaza, for instance or a swift kick to the chin -
will he not shout, ow!? . If there is perception, there is duality. I think
that crystal clear
--Then also, "avidya...does not exist'??? you mean snake does not exist? or
that snake kinda exists but not really exists? There is no third
ontological category for Bhasyakara - only two fact/illusion, sat/asat,
atma/anatma. Rope/snake as you describe it is mithya or sadasat vilaksana
anirvacaniya.  Other than existence or non-existence and that is a
violation of the law of 'excluded middle' - there is no partial existence.

Additionally,  you're endowing a description and function to mithya. If it
cannot be defined, how can we even say what it is? To say something cannot
be categorized yet appears and is experienced is to smuggle in a functional
reality, while denying its ontological basis. It is logically incoherent
and needlessly complex.

//Dream-elephant was non-existent. It was not changeless Brahman. //
Dream-elephant was non-existent because it was always only changeless
Brahman.  But you say dream-elephant is neither existing nor non-existing
bhavarupa perception that is not changeless Brahman. Doesn't that seem
awkward as nonduality? ,

On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 3:57 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> 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.
>>
>
> What is this Michael ji? Have you not deliberated upon the opening lines
> of the third chapter of MANDUkya Upanishad? Here, I am reproducing the same
>
> अद्वैतं किमागममात्रेण प्रतिपत्तव्यम् , आहोस्वित्तर्केणापीत्यत आह — शक्यते
> तर्केणापि ज्ञातुम् ; तत्कथमित्यद्वैतप्रकरणमारभ्यते ।
>
> Can advaita be known/experienced/realized only through VedAs, or can it be
> known/experienced/realized through tarka (logic) also?
>
> Here it is answered - advaita can be known through logic also. How exactly
> is that possible - will be shown by initiating advaita-prakaraNa (third
> chapter).
>
> How have you disregarded this clear and emphatic assertion of BhAshyakAra
> Michael ji by saying "Truth of the Self is not determined by anumana".
>
> --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.
>>
>
> Extinction of perception is of ignorance, which is non-self. There is no
> change in condition of self. The perceptible-ignorance has always been
> non-existent. So, Self, being Brahman, is realised as Brahman. The cover of
> ignorance falls apart.
>
> --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.
>>
>
> Let us ask a pin-pointed question. What vastu this "wrong perception" is?
> What is it?
>
>    1. Is "wrong perception" a mental mode?
>    2. Can "wrong perception" be without mind?
>    3. Is mind also a "wrong perception"?
>    4. How does it not lead to infinite regress?
>
>
>
>> -- 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)
>>
>
> These are quotations. These are not the answer to the question. avidyA is
> not a second thing. It does not exist. So, there is non-duality. Fear
> arises when there is attribution of existence to non-existent ignorance and
> its products. That falls apart with knowledge. In SDV, even though
> perception continues due to avidyA-lesha, there is no attribution of
> existence thereto by the jIvanmukta. Hence, no fear and sorrow for him.
>
>
>> //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.
>>
>
> What are you saying Michael ji? That the dream-elephant running around in
> the dream is changeless Brahman?
>
> No, there is no need to refer to any text for answering this.
> Dream-elephant was non-existent. It was not changeless Brahman.
>
> Regards,
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>