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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Jaishankar,  Sir, you provide false translation, asat avyakta, beg
to ignore English terms that you yourself employ, cherry pick a phrase
while ignoring its context, create bhava padartha out of tarka and side
step every objection by repeating the same challenge.

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 10:11 AM mc1 at aol.com <mc1 at aol.com> wrote:

> Sir, you provide false translation, asat avyakta, beg to ignore English
> terms that you yourself employ, cherry pick a phrase while ignoring its
> context, create bhava padartha out of tarka and side step every objection
> by repeating the same challenge.
>
> On Saturday, July 12, 2025 at 09:51:56 AM EDT, Jaishankar Narayanan <
> jai1971 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Namaste,
>
> We cannot discuss based on terminologies like Ontic and Epistemic which
> are English Philosophical terms. It cannot be denied that Upanishad and
> Shankara mention three categories to account for all that is commonly
> experienced and conceptualised: satyam, anrtam / mithyA and atyanta asat.
> It does not matter to me whether they are Ontic or Epistemic or any other
> type you may want to define. Tell me whether the jnAna-abhAva and jnAna you
> talk about are satyam, anrtam/mithyA or atyanta asat?
>
> with love and prayers,
> Jaishankar
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 5:28 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>