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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vissu and Sudhanshuji,
Thanks for your patience and explanation. The difference is how we are to
understand perception. Perception as bhavarupa avidya is  co-appearance
opposition versus ontological opposition. Neat distinction, subtle but I
don't believe that's Sankara's position. Mutual anātmatva = mutual
exclusion as "selves" is never used in Bhasya according to SSSS for whom
viruddha is ontologically opposed as to how light and darkness do not
co-exist. Darkness is only the absence of light - it is a simple common
sense example. Turning it into 'mutual anatmatva,' manifests
logical ghosts. Chatgpt concludes, "Result: Shift from Śaṅkara’s intuitive
experiential clarity to philosophical abstraction". "Intuitive
Experiential" is Tattvamasi, here and now despite appearance to the
contrary. That's what is meant.

& Vissu, I believe it is this ghost that SSSS is referring to as two
bhavas.
Regards, Michael

🔚 Final Summary
Concept *Padmapāda* *SSSS/Śaṅkara Bhasya*
*Viruddhatā* Mutual anātmatā (*conceptual*) Mutual *incompatibility of
presence* (*existential*)
*Light/Darkness Analogy* Used to explain conceptual mutual-otherness Meant
literally: can't co-exist
*APG/YPG* Opposed as mutually non-self Opposed in practical experience;
adhyāsa occurs in spite of that
*Adhyāsa* Requires mutual anātmatā Happens even between real/unreal; no
need for such logic
*Verdict* Interpretation is *Nyāya-influenced*, not true to Bhāṣya Śaṅkara's
own words suffice; no abstraction needed

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 12:29 AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>