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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Jaishankarji,
//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.//
You are creating a logical category not an ontic category! By doing so, you
invest vyavahara with a relative reality uncalled for in any normal reading
of Gaudapada, Sankara, Sureswara or SSSS.

 asat avyAkrta or avyAkrta brahman? Switching nominatives is indicative of
a bhavarupa bias resulting in reifying asat with an adjectival attribute.

It is nirguna Brahman referred to in Tait 2.7.1 not some reified bhavarupa
that manifested. Sankara clarifies in his bhasya, "That Brahman exists as
the cause of fear and fearlessness of the men of ignorance and knowledge
(respectively). For fearlessness comes as a result of taking refuge in
something that exists, whereas fear cannot cease by resorting to something
that does not exist."
"So the Self alone is the cause of fear to the self in the case of an
ignorant man. The Upanisad states that very fact"

Indeed, the entire 2.7.1 bhasya is intended to express not some new
category called asat avyakta but "that very Brahman is a terror to the (so
called) learned man- who lacks the unitive outlook."

//anrta / mithyA //
we define mithya differently. You with bhavarupa quasi-ontic implication,
third existential. To Sankara, SSSS & Hacker,  mithya and adhyasa or
adhyaropa are synonymous epistemological entities and that changes
everything you suggest

//Here satyam is an Ontological term, shruti having already defined satyam
and anrta as  वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् vācārambhaṇaṃ
vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛttiketyeva satyam.//
Sorry, but I fail to see how you are using this sruti's maxim in a
ontological sense. Rather, sruti is saying, there is only one ontic reality
all else is subsumed away as epistemology, name and form.

love and prayer, michael chandra

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 6:20 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>