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

[Bandaru Viswanath]

>
> 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).


This kind of means that the author has not read Panchapadika or Vivarana.

For the following Bhashya,



विषयविषयिणोः तमःप्रकाशवत् विरुद्धस्वभावयोरितरेतरभावानुपपत्तौ सिद्धायाम् इति

Here is panchapadika -

कोऽयं विरोधः? कीदृशो वा इतरेतरभावः अभिप्रेतः? यस्य
अनुपपत्तेः—'तमःप्रकाशवत्' इति निदर्शनम् । यदि तावत् सहानवस्थानलक्षणो
विरोधः, ततः प्रकाशभावे तमसो भावानुपपत्तिः, तदसत् ; दृश्यते हि मन्दप्रदीपे
वेश्मनि अस्पष्टं रूपदर्शनं, इतरत्र च स्पष्टम् । तेन ज्ञायते मन्दप्रदीपे
वेश्मनि तमसोऽपि ईषदनुवृत्तिरिति ; तथा छायायामपि औष्ण्यं तारतम्येन
उपलभ्यमानं आतपस्यापि तत्र अवस्थानं सूचयति । एतेन शीतोष्णयोरपि युगपदुपलब्धेः
सहावस्थानमुक्तं वेदितव्यम् ।

Clearly, Mutual exclusion is ruled out by saying
*saha-avasthanam-uktam-veditavyam*

Ofcourse this is saha-avasthanam = simultaneous-existence is famously
expanded in Vivaranam.

So why would the author assume - later schools take virodha to imply mutual
exclusion ? Clearly it is not the case.

What may I be missing ?

Thanks
Viswanath


On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 6:20 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> --
> 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 visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGBoOLhSMzQS8Z%2B2-X2RGbsgdy%2BM5QcoQjYS26c2CeQ9Q%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGBoOLhSMzQS8Z%2B2-X2RGbsgdy%2BM5QcoQjYS26c2CeQ9Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>