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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

See below.

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.
>

Jai: This is an utter misrepresentation of Shankara Bhashya. Let us see
what BhashyakAra says in Taittiriya Bhashya 2.1

 सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम् । यद्रूपेण
यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम्
satyamiti yadrūpeṇa yanniścitaṃ tadrūpaṃ na vyabhicarati, tatsatyam ।
yadrūpeṇa yanniścitaṃ tadrūpaṃ vyabhicarati, tadanṛtamityucyate । ato
vikāro'nṛtam

Here BhashyakAra defines as Satyam as that which never changes its nature
once you determine it. Anrtam is that which changes its nature after
determining it as such and such. So clearly Anrtam is something which is
perceived but changing. It is the third Ontic Category as atyanta asat
(Absolute non-existence) cannot be even perceived.

 Bhashyakara makes it clearer in the following Taittiriya Bhashya 2.7.1

असदिति व्याकृतनामरूपविशेषविपरीतरूपम् अव्याकृतं ब्रह्म उच्यते ; न
पुनरत्यन्तमेवासत् । न ह्यसतः सज्जन्मास्ति । इदम् इति नामरूपविशेषवद्व्याकृतं
जगत् ; अग्रे पूर्वं प्रागुत्पत्तेः ब्रह्मैव असच्छब्दवाच्यमासीत् । ततः असतः
वै सत् प्रविभक्तनामरूपविशेषम् अजायत उत्पन्नम् ।
asaditi vyākṛtanāmarūpaviśeṣaviparītarūpam avyākṛtaṃ brahma ucyate ; na
punaratyantamevāsat । na hyasataḥ sajjanmāsti । idam iti
nāmarūpaviśeṣavadvyākṛtaṃ jagat ; agre pūrvaṃ prāgutpatteḥ brahmaiva
asacchabdavācyamāsīt । tataḥ asataḥ vai sat pravibhaktanāmarūpaviśeṣam
ajāyata utpannam ।

Here Atyanta Sat (Absolute Existence) is Brahman which is ontologically
satyam. The word asat in this Upanishad vAkya is used in the meaning of
avyAkrta (undifferentiated, unmanifest) and not in the meaning of
atyanta-asat (Absolute non-existence which is an Ontological category by
itself). This asat avyAkrta was there in the beginning and itself becomes
the sat (used in the meaning of differentiated names and forms)  which is
born. So this asat avyAkrta changes into sat vyAkrta and the vyAkrta again
become avyAkrta (pralaya). Due to the changing nature of this avyAkrta -
vyAkrta it is anrta (mithyA) as per the above definition given in TU Bh
2.1. which is the third Ontological category.

Further there is nothing called epistemic error by itself. It has to be in
one of these categories. It cannot be satyam brahma nor atyanta asat. So
the epistemic error whether in the form of 'I do not know', doubt or
erroneous cognition which are all vyAkrta perception are anrta / mithyA and
the avyAkrta (mUlAvidyA, AvaraNa or tattva-agrahana) is also anrta /
mithyA. All the things they call as positive, concrete, solid entity such
as bhAvarUpa mulAvidya or their term jnAna-abhAva etc are also anrta /
mithyA as they are either avyAkrta or vyAkrta.

The entire vedanta teaching and vichAra is ontological and about satyam and
anrta / mithya. Seeing satyam as satyam and anrta as anrta is
tattvadarshana as said by bhagavan and BhashykAra in BG 2.16. Chandogya
Upanishad also repeatedly says तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा tatsatyaꣳ sa ātmā (That
jagatkAraNam sadvastu is satyam and that is the self). Here satyam is an
Ontological term, shruti having already defined satyam and anrta as
वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro
nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyam.

So creating something like an epistemic error which does not have any
Ontlogical status is not supported by either the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita
or the Bhasya. Further calling this the Shuddha Shankara Prakriya is the
biggest irony. It is like PrabhupAda's 'Bhagavad Gita - As it is' (For it
to be 'As it is' he should not have written anything about it ) :-)

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar