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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Jaishankar,

Sir, you provide false translation
>
Can you give an instance where my translation is false? Those who copy
paste from chatgpt should not be accusing others. I don't need any
translation. We can have a discussion in Sanskrit itself which will be
better.


> I already give the instance. Your phrase 'asat avyakta' is a distortion of
> Bhasyakara's intention in this discussion. Asat cannot create.
>

The Upanishad vAkya is असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत् । ततो वै सदजायत । asadvā
idamagra āsīt । tato vai sadajāyata । Here Shankara says the asat mentioned
by Upanishad is not atyanta asat but avyākṛtaṃ  - असदिति
व्याकृतनामरूपविशेषविपरीतरूपम् अव्याकृतं ब्रह्म उच्यते ; न पुनरत्यन्तमेवासत्
। asaditi vyākṛtanāmarūpaviśeṣaviparītarūpam avyākṛtaṃ brahma ucyate ; na
punaratyantamevāsat ।

*Sankara is saying, brahman is avyakta, not asat is avyakta *but you
say, " This
asat avyAkrta was there in the beginning and itself becomes the sat " Asat
becomes sat!!!! Please! And then you go on to use this to establish a third
ontological category.

Bhasya does not say, 'asat avyakta'. Rather he says,  * "*By the word asat
is meant the unmanifested state of Brahman as contrasted with the state in
which distinctions of name and form become manifested. Not that absolute
non-existence (the root meaning of the word, asat) is meant, for the
existent cannot come out of the non-existent. 2.7.1 SANKARA"

>
> , beg to ignore English terms that you yourself employ
>

In my understanding satyam, anrtam and atyanta asat as defined by
bhAshyakAra are definitely Ontological terms. But I don't want to discuss
on whether they are Ontic or Epistemic as these categories are not relevant
here. Let us stick to Sanskrit terms and definitions as given by
bhAsyakAra.

*I have already used, bhava padartha and agahana as sanskrit equivalent -
you missed this. Satyam is the only bhava padartha. Anrtam is
viparitagrahana *

, cherry pick a phrase while ignoring its context,
>

// trying to desperately force fit every bhAshya-vAkya as per your agenda
by using sophistry and irrelevant quotations from paaramaarthika standpoint
and then accuse me of cherry picking.//

ha. you say darkness is a thing opposed to light and not mere absence of
light and accuse me of 'desperate force' - ha! No objective viewer would
agree. You turn avyakta into some attribute of non-existence and distort
the entire intention of bhasya and call our standpoint, sophistry. Please.
We need an umpire. You are like Donald Trump spinning narratives to suit
himself. But hey, he's been quite successful with that strategy.

create bhava padartha out of tarka and side step every objection by
> repeating the same challenge
>

//I am not creating anything. I am just quoting bhAshya (you misquoted
bhasya, asat avyakta) and anyone who reads the bhAshya with an open mind
and common sense cannot come to any other conclusion. //

by equating anrta with a positive mithyA - you create a third existential
out of logic and ignore Sankara bhasya as confirmed by SSSS & Hacker and
others. For Sankara, mithya is synonymous with adhyasa/adhyaropa and not
some kind of existential mithya based on the difference between a perceived
non-existence and a non-existence that is not perceived. Tarka producing a
bhava padartha.

I don't see the value of our communication presenting insight or novelty.
You know your Vedanta too well to entertain the possibility of error and
the danger of slipping into ad hominem already marks our reactions.

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 12:27 PM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> See below.
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 7:43 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Jaishankar,  Sir, you provide false translation
>>
> Can you give an instance where my translation is false? Those who copy
> paste from chatgpt should not be accusing others. I don't need any
> translation. We can have a discussion in Sanskrit itself which will be
> better.
>
>
>> , asat avyakta
>>
>
> The Upanishad vAkya is असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत् । ततो वै सदजायत । asadvā
> idamagra āsīt । tato vai sadajāyata । Here Shankara says the asat mentioned
> by Upanishad is not atyanta asat but avyākṛtaṃ  - असदिति
> व्याकृतनामरूपविशेषविपरीतरूपम् अव्याकृतं ब्रह्म उच्यते ; न पुनरत्यन्तमेवासत्
> । asaditi vyākṛtanāmarūpaviśeṣaviparītarūpam avyākṛtaṃ brahma ucyate ; na
> punaratyantamevāsat ।
>
>
>> , beg to ignore English terms that you yourself employ
>>
>
> In my understanding satyam, anrtam and atyanta asat as defined by
> bhAshyakAra are definitely Ontological terms. But I don't want to discuss
> on whether they are Ontic or Epistemic as these categories are not relevant
> here. Let us stick to Sanskrit terms and definitions as given by
> bhAsyakAra.
>
> , cherry pick a phrase while ignoring its context,
>>
>
> You have already decided something and trying to desperately force fit
> every bhAshya-vAkya as per your agenda by using sophistry and irrelevant
> quotations from paaramaarthika standpoint and then accuse me of cherry
> picking. This is really funny. Your only argument till now is everything
> which bhAshyakAra has said is figurative which we call Gouna in Sanskrit.
> But figurative meaning should be taken only if direct meaning or vAchyArtha
> does not make sense or is not appropriate. That is not at all the case
> here. If you cannot agree with the straight forward meaning of what
> bhAshyakAra teaches then better that you propose that SSSS prakriya is an
> independent prakriya. Why desperately hold on to bhAshya for validation?
>
> create bhava padartha out of tarka and side step every objection by
>> repeating the same challenge.
>>
>
> I am not creating anything. I am just quoting bhAshya and anyone who reads
> the bhAshya with an open mind and common sense cannot come to any other
> conclusion.
>
> Now let me repeat. Are your jnAna-abhAva and jnAna - satyam, anrtam or
> atyanta asat?
>
> with love and prayers,
> Jaishankar
>
>
>
>