[Advaita-l] Avidya is virodha or abhava-1 review and redo

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu bhaiji,
There does indeed exist a bhavarupa avidya and removing that 'solid entity'
from the thinking of PSA Vedantins has been SSSS's job all along :)

Fine inquiry.    // Without misconceiving the rope as snake (jnAnAdhyAsa /
sarpa bhAva) there cannot be fear of snake, shivering etc.  is it not??  //
Who is seeing what? Perceiver-perceived is a distinction wrongly reified.
The only bhavarupa is Eshwara wrongly determined. The wrong view takes
perception as something quasi-ontic, anirvacaniya or bhavabhava vilakshana,
saying that the wrong view is not only caused by something but that
positive something can't be called sat or asat and thus is some third
ontological category. Thus formulating a structured realistic theory of
perception not found in Bhasyakara and thus confusing the entire teaching.
There is no experienced. "wrong kno'wledge is indeterminable because it is
onlv existent \vhile it manifests, and that it is therefore not the object
of an authoritati\'e cognition. This idea should be rejected. For
indet~rminability in this sense is not accepted, as it is only a mere \vord
(unsupported by anything exp~rienced). "HOSS p51

And then Swamiji continues to deconstruct PSA bhavarupa notions of
perception (section 129):
http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=english&book_id=042&pagenum=0001#page/160/mode/1up


On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 5:42 AM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> SSSS explains that later schools (like Vivaraṇa) take virōdha to imply
> mutual exclusion between two entities—i.e., that avidyā is a bhāva opposing
> another bhāva (vidyā).
>
> praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> To counter this objection, vyAkhyAna says we are saying avidyA is bhAva
> just to drive home the point that it is abhAva vilakshaNa and it is sAkshi
> vedya and it is neither bhAva nor abhAva it is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa!!  And
> again they will say avidyA is a solid thing (Dravya padArtha) in their
> books even 'darkness' (prakAsha abhAva) too a solid thing like chair table
> in a room 😊 After reading all these things I have a mischievous doubt
> (apart from how many KGs of darkness in a dark room 😊) if the avidyA is a
> solid existing thing like chair or table the prakAsha (jnAna / vidyA) can
> ONLY illumine that there is avidyA / chair / table existing in a room  and
> jnAna does not have any capacity whatsoever to remove / vanish any existing
> thing nor it has the ability to create anything new, even if they argue it
> has the capability to 'move' the avidyA (jnAna virOdhi avidyA) from the
> avidyAvanta's mind and supersede the vidyA in place of avidyA, that avidyA
> which is solid which was earlier existing as a solid thing should find some
> other place to reside, is it not??  Where it will go!!??  It will go to its
> source i.e. brahma, hence they say brahman is always the Ashraya for the
> avidyA 😊
>
> Jokes apart, I have one genuine doubt with regard to this, Sri SSS
> invariably equates avidyA with adhyAsa, is this adhyAsa is not bhAvarUpa or
> wrong notion in our intellect about the actually existing thing!!??   Does
> not thinking about the snake when he is actually seeing the rope, a bhAva
> rUpa!!??  Without misconceiving the rope as snake (jnAnAdhyAsa / sarpa
> bhAva) there cannot be fear of snake, shivering etc.  is it not??  What is
> the clarification Sri SSS provides to justify that even this avidyA as
> adhyAsa is NOT bhAva rUpa just only jnAnAbhAva of the rope??  You can just
> guide me to the relevant works of Sri SSS with regard to this.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>