Avidya is virodha or abhava-1 review and redo

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste All, 

Again, this is a multipart response to Jaisankara Narayanji's 7 point/12 page challenge (linked below) to Sri Swami Satchidnandendra Saraswati/SSSS's claim to have restored the teaching of Prasthanatraya Bhasya of Sankaracharya from post-Sankara distortions and deviations. I can only do this with the assistance of Chatgpt but will stand behind all claims and citations.

obeisances, Michael Chandra

A quick review:
1. नञ ्pratyaya meaning
The core issue is whether the Sanskrit prefix नञ् (nañ) in "avidya" should be interpreted as indicating virodha (opposition) or abhava (absence).

Jaishankar's traditional position argues that avidya is vidya-virodhi (opposed to knowledge), citing Shankara's commentaries where he explicitly uses the language of opposition (विरोध). This interpretation supports viewing avidya as having some substantial reality.

SSSS's counter-position argues that jñāna-abhāva doesn't contradict virodha terminology. Instead, it reframes the debate by distinguishing between epistemic absence (non-apprehension/agrahaṇa) and ontological absence (abhava padartha), arguing that Shankara's use of virodha is figurative rather than indicating two substantial entities in conflict.

“SSSS shows repeatedly in Mūlāvidyā Nirāsa that abhāva of jñāna is only relative, not absolute—it lasts only until true knowledge arises. Thus, the virōdhatva is not proof of bhāvarūpa avidyā, but a pointer to the nature of knowledge: it alone negates non-apprehension.”

SSSS explains that later schools (like Vivaraṇa) take virōdha to imply mutual exclusion between two entities—i.e., that avidyā is a bhāva opposing another bhāva (vidyā).

Overlooked by Chat was your misrepresentation of vakya. You quoted BGbh 2.69, 

“And ignorance ceases because it is opposed to Knowledge” and somehow contort that to:

“So dvaita-perception is not a problem but how one perceives is the  problem. So once mUlAvidyA is destroyed dvaita is seen as asat and brahman alone is seen as sat.“

Dvaita is not the problem because there is no one to perceive! Bhasya continues, “The last valid means of (Self-) knowledge eradicates the possibility of the Self’s becoming a perceiver. And even as it eradicates, it loses its own authoritativeness, in the same way as the means

of knowledge which is valid in dream becomes unauthoritative during the

waking state.”

And to add insult to injury Bhasyakara continues to clarify that it is discriminating knowledge that is opposed to ignorance - no mulavidya virodha anywhere in sight!

‘In the case of a man of steady wisdom in whom has arisen

discriminating knowledge…ignorance ceases because it is opposed to Knowledge”,

Then you say, 

//Further Br Up. Bh 3.3 Intro he says अनभभव्यस््तः अज्ञानम ्अभभव्यस््तलक्षणेन ज्ञानेन विरुध्यते ; - Ignorance which is non-manifestation (covering) is opposed to Knowledge which manifests (brings to  light). //

And the very next line: “If ignorance is said to be absence of knowledge, or doubtful knowledge, or contrary (erroneous) knowledge—then all of that is removed only by knowledge…”

Where is the mention of a shakti or some undefinable something? Rather, there is ridicule in the next paragraph regarding the invention an opposing force thinking it might be required iin addition to knowledge. What is bhavarupa avidya  but an adrsta, intermediary force

“If, on the other hand, you suppose that the unseen force (adṛṣṭa) of karma has the capacity to remove ignorance—no, because when ignorance is clearly seen to be removed by knowledge, it is not reasonable to posit some unseen [intermediate force]. Just as in the removal of husk from rice by pounding, when the result (removal of husk) is evidently caused by the act of pounding, one does not posit an unseen force (adṛṣṭa) produced by some daily ritual like Agnihotra—so too, in the removal of ignorance, ”. 

Śaṅkara explicitly calls ajñāna "anabhivyaktasthaḥ" — i.e., it is non-manifestation or covering (āvaraṇa), which SSSS explains as agrahaṇa, not as a reified object. http://www.aarshavidyavarshini.org/downloads/AvidyaIsJnanaVirOdhi.pdf

[Bhaskar YR]

SSSS explains that later schools (like Vivaraṇa) take virōdha to imply mutual exclusion between two entities—i.e., that avidyā is a bhāva opposing another bhāva (vidyā).

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna

To counter this objection, vyAkhyAna says we are saying avidyA is bhAva just to drive home the point that it is abhAva vilakshaNa and it is sAkshi vedya and it is neither bhAva nor abhAva it is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa!! And again they will say avidyA is a solid thing (Dravya padArtha) in their books even 'darkness' (prakAsha abhAva) too a solid thing like chair table in a room 😊 After reading all these things I have a mischievous doubt (apart from how many KGs of darkness in a dark room 😊) if the avidyA is a solid existing thing like chair or table the prakAsha (jnAna / vidyA) can ONLY illumine that there is avidyA / chair / table existing in a room and jnAna does not have any capacity whatsoever to remove / vanish any existing thing nor it has the ability to create anything new, even if they argue it has the capability to 'move' the avidyA (jnAna virOdhi avidyA) from the avidyAvanta's mind and supersede the vidyA in place of avidyA, that avidyA which is solid which was earlier existing as a solid thing should find some other place to reside, is it not?? Where it will go!!?? It will go to its source i.e. brahma, hence they say brahman is always the Ashraya for the avidyA 😊

Jokes apart, I have one genuine doubt with regard to this, Sri SSS invariably equates avidyA with adhyAsa, is this adhyAsa is not bhAvarUpa or wrong notion in our intellect about the actually existing thing!!?? Does not thinking about the snake when he is actually seeing the rope, a bhAva rUpa!!?? Without misconceiving the rope as snake (jnAnAdhyAsa / sarpa bhAva) there cannot be fear of snake, shivering etc. is it not?? What is the clarification Sri SSS provides to justify that even this avidyA as adhyAsa is NOT bhAva rUpa just only jnAnAbhAva of the rope?? You can just guide me to the relevant works of Sri SSS with regard to this.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

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. Thus formulating a structured realistic theory of perception not found in Bhasyakara and thus confusing the entire teaching.  There is no experienced. "wrong kno'wledge is indeterminable because it is onlv existent \vhile it manifests, and that it is therefore not the object of an authoritati\'e cognition. This idea should be rejected. For indet~rminability in this sense is not accepted, as it is only a mere \vord (unsupported by anything exp~rienced). "HOSS p51

And then Swamiji continues to deconstruct PSA bhavarupa notions of perception (section 129):
http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=english&book_id=042&pagenum=0001#page/160/mode/1up

[Bandaru Viswanath]

SSSS explains that later schools (like Vivaraṇa) take virōdha to imply mutual exclusion between two entities—i.e., that avidyā is a bhāva opposing another bhāva (vidyā).

This kind of means that the author has not read Panchapadika or Vivarana.

For the following Bhashya,

 

विषयविषयिणोः तमःप्रकाशवत् विरुद्धस्वभावयोरितरेतरभावानुपपत्तौ सिद्धायाम् इति 

Here is panchapadika -

कोऽयं विरोधः? कीदृशो वा इतरेतरभावः अभिप्रेतः? यस्य अनुपपत्तेः—'तमःप्रकाशवत्' इति निदर्शनम् । यदि तावत् सहानवस्थानलक्षणो विरोधः, ततः प्रकाशभावे तमसो भावानुपपत्तिः, तदसत् ; दृश्यते हि मन्दप्रदीपे वेश्मनि अस्पष्टं रूपदर्शनं, इतरत्र च स्पष्टम् । तेन ज्ञायते मन्दप्रदीपे वेश्मनि तमसोऽपि ईषदनुवृत्तिरिति ; तथा छायायामपि औष्ण्यं तारतम्येन उपलभ्यमानं आतपस्यापि तत्र अवस्थानं सूचयति । एतेन शीतोष्णयोरपि युगपदुपलब्धेः सहावस्थानमुक्तं वेदितव्यम् ।

Clearly, Mutual exclusion is ruled out by saying saha-avasthanam-uktam-veditavyam

Ofcourse this is saha-avasthanam = simultaneous-existence is famously expanded in Vivaranam.

So why would the author assume - later schools take virodha to imply mutual exclusion ? Clearly it is not the case. 

What may I be missing ?

Thanks

Viswanath

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGBoOLhSMzQS8Z%2B2-X2RGbsgdy%2BM5QcoQjYS26c2CeQ9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste B,andaru Viswanath,
Chatgpt translation: 

“The relationship between an object and its subject (viṣaya–viṣayin) is like that between darkness and light—of mutually opposing natures. When the presence of one entails the absence of the other, their coexistence becomes untenable (anupapatti).”

Vishaya-vishayin are related as pramatr-prameya - co-dependent functions. 

Pañcapādikā's objection/explanation:

“What is this contradiction (virodha)? And what sort of mutual opposition (itaretara–bhāva) is intended, whose impossibility is being asserted by the example 'like darkness and light'? If the contradiction meant is of the kind marked by non-coexistence (sahānavasthāna-lakṣaṇa), then the argument that the presence of light entails the absence of darkness does not hold. Why? Because in a room dimly lit by a faint lamp, we do see blurred forms, whereas elsewhere (in brighter places) the forms appear clearly. From this, it is understood that even in a dimly lit room, some presence (anuvṛtti) of darkness still remains.

Similarly, the varying degrees of warmth observed in shadows suggest that warmth (from sunlight) too exists there to some extent. From this, it should be understood that cold and heat can also coexist, as they are both experienced simultaneously.”

A dimly lit room is not the presence of a bhavarupa darkness but the absence of sufficient light. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy while cold is the absence of heat only. Neither example consists of two opposing bhavarupa-s but only an example of Vyakhyanakara's contorting reason to establish bhavarupa avidya. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2BjqNHmNNPfjP1w%2BpF_yfSQuRFY0nhquns5B78wLOjhMcvOVUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bandaru Viswanath]

Namaste Micheal,

I am unsure what you are implying from chat-gpt copy-paste.

SSSS explains that later schools (like Vivaraṇa) take virōdha to imply mutual exclusion between two entities—i.e., that avidyā is a bhāva opposing another bhāva (vidyā).

My point was that - This implies that the author has not read Panchapadika or Vivarana. You can also see this from the chat-gpt translation that Padmapadacharya offers saha-avastha (simultaneous-existence) as the type of virodha in his opinion, by citing simultaneous existence of tama and prakasha. Vivarana expands on it significantly.

So this means that the author's point of later schools (like Vivaraṇa) take virōdha to imply mutual exclusion between two entities is incorrect. 

If you are suggesting that Padmapadacharya has not understood Shankaracharya, I am not offering any opinion on it. That is a completely different discussion. 

Thanks

Vissu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFMnj-F32xjG9-94bNyC-FRwF0mtAhBDbZ4FQN9Cxooag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Viswanath Ji and Michael ji.

I had written two articles refuting SSSS Ji's views on PanchapAdikA. One of that addresses the instant issue. The same can be read in the PDF

https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/pnachapadika-.pdf

I agree with Viswanath Ji that SSSS ji could not understand the depth of VivaraNa or PanchapAdikA. Also, the arguments of ajnAna being jnAna-abhAva is actually the view of dvaita people which MadhvAchArya expounded. At least SSSS ji could have stated this.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vissu and Sudhanshuji,

Isn't Padmapada saying that light and darkness are not opposed as mutual exclusion because of dim light. If dim light = the presence of darkness, then darkness and light do co-exist as two bhavas. Am I missing something? 

Sudhanshuji, thanks for the paper - a bit tough but worthy of a response by someone. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCy%2B_4rE7us6-S1A4_qFtJCQWpspCKJvHQMzpL5FhkKGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Isn't Padmapada saying that light and darkness are not opposed as mutual exclusion because of dim light.

Opposition can be of two types:

1. Opposition of appearance together

2. Opposition of mutual non-self-ness (अनात्मता)

PadmapAda is saying that light and darkness don't have the first type of opposition. They have second type of opposition. They are mutually अनात्मक.

PadmapAda is saying that asmat-pratyaya-gOchara (APG) and yushmat-pratyaya-gOchara (YPG) have the opposition of mutual non-self-ness. That is, APG and YPG have mutual anAtmatA (परस्पर अनात्मता).

For this, he explains the example of BhAshyakAra of light and darkness. He says that light and darkness do not have the opposition of appearance together. Rather, they have mutual anAtmatA.

This view is logical because BhAshyakAra himself subsequently says - तथाप्यन्योन्यस्मिन्नन्योन्यात्मकतामन्योन्यधर्मांश्चाध्यस्य.

B says that despite this opposition of APG and YPG like that of light and darkness, there is superimposition of आत्मकता of one into another. 

Now this makes sense only if --- one says --- despite there being mutual अनात्मकता, there is superimposition of आत्मकता.

Hope I am able to convey. The illustration and illustrated have to highlight same idea. Here, illustration is of light and darkness and illustrated is APG and YPG. B says that there is superimposition of आत्मकता in APG and YPG. Naturally the virOdha has to be in the nature of अनात्मता. Otherwise, it does not make sense. Thus, it has to be accepted that B intends the virOdha between light and darkness as that of अनात्मता.

This is merely explained by P using the example of light and darkness. 

If dim light = the presence of darkness, then darkness and light do co-exist as two bhavas. Am I missing something? 

Light and darkness are opposed as they are mutually अनात्मक. They are not opposed in so far as co-appearance is concerned. For e.g. in dim light, both darkness and light appear together.

However, प्रखर प्रकाश (bright luminous light) and darkness have the opposition of co-appearance also. But not light per se.

In advaita, Brahman (light) and ignorance (darkness) are opposed. Not for co-appearance, but as mutual अनात्मक. In fact, Brahman (sAkshI) illumines ignorance. Otherwise, we would not have been able to say - I am ignorant. That is why ignorance is said to be sAkshi-bhAsya. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Sudhanshuji, thanks for the paper - a bit tough but worthy of a response by someone. 

On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 1:47 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Viswanath Ji and Michael ji.

I had written two articles refuting SSSS Ji's views on PanchapAdikA. One of that addresses the instant issue. The same can be read in the PDF

https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/pnachapadika-.pdf

I agree with Viswanath Ji that SSSS ji could not understand the depth of VivaraNa or PanchapAdikA. Also, the arguments of ajnAna being jnAna-abhAva is actually the view of dvaita people which MadhvAchArya expounded. At least SSSS ji could have stated this.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCy%2B_4rE7us6-S1A4_qFtJCQWpspCKJvHQMzpL5FhkKGw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFK58MjBixRy6TDvnecoC0FxA%3DwYa8mkWMNssrkfOTxnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

See below.

On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 6:20 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@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

[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

[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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

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

[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 m...@aol.com <m...@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. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Is "epistemic error" ontic?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, word games. you ask, 'is epistemological error, ontic?' -- rope is the only ontology, snake is that same ontology, misunderstood. The error is only as valid as the rope - there can be no error without rope - error has no independent existence. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBDwG1WrxMALzkG_V3n1ueW7e2%2BbZA%3DLyzU5bxFJe9Jzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Namaste Sudhanshuji, word games. you ask, 'is epistemological error, ontic?' --

No games. Serious stuff.

rope is the only ontology, snake is that same ontology, misunderstood.

Sir, your error is not same as rope. Error and rope are two different things. A class 5 student will say the same.

Question is - what is error!!

The error is only as valid as the rope - there can be no error without rope - error has no independent existence. 

Error requires rope. But is error identical to rope? 

A son may require father for its existence. But no one says son as identical to father.

You cannot run away by using the word "epistemic error". You have to describe its ontic status. Is it horns of hare? What is this fancy term "epistemic error"?

A loose and casual usage of words is the problem. Define properly and the problem is solved. 

A fascinating discussion in VivaraNa starts with - केयं भ्रान्तिः (what is this error(delusion)). A satisfying logical description follows which is rigorous. Casual words like "epistemic error" without proper definition is roadside tea-stall gossip.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

See below.

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 7:43 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@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?

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

1. If avidya was ontic, knowledge could not remove it whereas wrong imaginations are indeed susceptible to right corrections. 

2. Avidya is not mentioned as a bhava padartha mulavidya but only as agrahana in Prasthanatraya bhasya.

3, Avidya is a pedagogic device of sastra - an adhyaropa. There is no real avidya - consider Gaudapada 2.32

4. Ontic/Epistemic are categories produced due to avidya/adhyasa. They cannot define their source.

5. Avidya is due to lack of discrimination - Adhyasa Bhasya. That cannot be stretched to be some kind of ontic entity. 

Please share Post-Sankara distinctions between ontic and epistemic

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBD_Q_jgYB3MA7%2B%2BP7pDL0P-FQgCxGxZW2m7AHwh7oY3zw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

1. If avidya was ontic, knowledge could not remove it whereas wrong imaginations are indeed susceptible to right corrections. 

Is knowledge ontic? 

How is ontic removing non-ontic?

Can one ontic remove another ontic?

What is the problem in ontic-knowledge removing ontic-avidyA?

2. Avidya is not mentioned as a bhava padartha mulavidya but only as agrahana in Prasthanatraya bhasya.

avidyA is neither bhAva nor abhAva. Rigveda says in NAsadIya sUkta -- there was neither sat, there was neither asat... Darkness was. This shows that darkness i.e. ignorance is neither sat nor asat.

3, Avidya is a pedagogic device of sastra - an adhyaropa. There is no real avidya - consider Gaudapada 2.32

Don't confuse by using words such as pedagogy and epistemic. Use simple terms, understand simply. 

JnAna-abhAva is Madhvacharya's description of ignorance which SSSS ji displayed as Shankara's view. This is improper. Shankara's avidyA is AvaraNa, which results into avidyA-traya including agrahaNa. It is like blindfold, which results in non-perception and mis-perception. avidyA is AvaraNa.

4. Ontic/Epistemic are categories produced due to avidya/adhyasa. They cannot define their source.

Epistemic is not and cannot be any category in parallel to ontic.

Such usage is extraneous to common sense and bhAshya both.

5. Avidya is due to lack of discrimination - Adhyasa Bhasya. That cannot be stretched to be some kind of ontic entity. 

Superficial statement. 

Please share Post-Sankara distinctions between ontic and epistemic.

No such distinction is present. Neither in common sense, nor in bhAshya, nor in any AchArya's work. If SSSS ji uses such division, it is devoid of rigour. It is loose and casual talk.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[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. 

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

This is my last post in this thread. I am replying to some blatant mischaracterisation of what I have written that too what I have written directly quoting the bhAshya (which I think is deliberate as you don't have any valid argument).

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 11:14 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@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.

 

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

I am not saying asat taken as non existence is creating anything. Here clearly bhAshyakAra is saying asat has to be understood as avyAkrta and the avyAkrta itself becomes sat which has to be understood as vyAkrta. This is what the bhAshya says

 ततः असतः वै सत् प्रविभक्तनामरूपविशेषम् अजायत उत्पन्नम् । किं ततः प्रविभक्तं कार्यमिति - पितुरिव पुत्रः ? नेत्याह । तत् असच्छब्दवाच्यं स्वयमेव आत्मानमेव अकुरुत कृतवत् ।  tataḥ asataḥ vai sat pravibhaktanāmarūpaviśeṣam ajāyata utpannam । kiṃ tataḥ pravibhaktaṃ kāryamiti - pituriva putraḥ ? netyāha । tat asacchabdavācyaṃ svayameva ātmānameva akuruta kṛtavat ।

I am not translating it as it is anyway useless for you.

Further both avyAkrta and vyAkrta are anrtam (Tai Up Bh 2.1) / asat (BG 2.16) and depend on brahman for their very existence.

It is funny to see those who claim jnAna-abhAva as kArana and bIja and that it produces the kArya which is dvaita-grahaNa accuse me of saying asat can create sat. 

Shankara is the ultimate sadvAdi as he refuses to acknowledge any abhAva which is qualified. All things which are 'produced' including jnAna which is nothing but a manovritti already exist potentially and only manifest under the right conditions as said by the bhAshyakAra in the ghatabhAshya. If jnAna is potentially there in every mind but not manifest, it has to be covered which is the avaraNa being talked about by Bhagavan and Bhashyakara in BG chapter 5. You cannot simply brush it aside as figurative. If Bhagavan had used avaraNa figuratively bhashyakAra would have mentioned that it is figurative as he does in many other places for gouna usages. But he simply takes the direct meaning and says tattvajnAna is covered by ajnAna and when this ajnAna is destroyed then the jnAna shines forth.

Anyway this being kaliyuga I cannot expect a samvada that too in an online forum. Om Shantih

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste ji,

What you have written about Kena Upanishad vAkya is not correct. Please do shravanam from some traditional shrotriya Guru. May God bless you with such a Guru.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 10:37 PM Raja Krishnamurti <rajakris...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello everyone, We are here only to seek Brahman the one and everything as well and ultimately realize That. What we are doing here is purely intellectual and one has to go beyond pure intellectualism; Of course intellectualism is better than body or mind level. in Vedanta, there are four key requirements or qualifications (sādhana-catuṣṭaya) considered essential for an aspirant to be prepared for the study of the Vedas and the pursuit of spiritual liberation (moksha). These are: Nitya-Anitya Vastu Viveka (नित्यानित्य वस्तु विवेकः): This refers to the ability to discriminate between the eternal (nitya) and the impermanent (anitya). It's about recognizing that Brahman (the ultimate reality) is eternal and unchanging, while the material world and all its objects are temporary and subject to change. As indicated Nitya Anitya discrimination is the fundamental requirement. One needs to understand that anitya is only that which is impermanent and has no existence without the Truth or even better Rutham which is the Reality that is beyond perception. The Kena Upanishad states that one who claims to know Brahman does not truly know it, while one who acknowledges their ignorance of Brahman is considered to have some understanding. This is because Brahman is considered unknowable through ordinary means of cognition. Let us individually seek the truth as Moksha is not wholesale, but is based on God’s Grace and individual karma. God Bless All.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Jaishankarji, second wind ... 

//I am not saying asat taken as non existence is creating anything. //

yes, clear. 

//Here clearly bhAshyakAra is saying asat has to be understood as avyAkrta...//

I don't believe that is what Sankara is saying. It is asat as Brahman that is to be thought of as unmanifest from the name and form manifest's perspective. 

Chat's translation of the vakya you presented from 2.7.1, 

//ततः असतः वै सत् प्रविभक्तनामरूपविशेषम् अजायत उत्पन्नम् ।
From asat indeed, sat, as name-and-form differentiated (i.e., manifest), was born—came into being.

किं ततः प्रविभक्तं कार्यमिति - पितुरिव पुत्रः ?

Is this differentiated effect (kārya) from that (asat), like a son from a father?

नेत्याह ।
No, [the Upaniṣad] negates that.

तत् असच्छब्दवाच्यं स्वयमेव आत्मानमेव अकुरुत कृतवत् ।

That which is denoted by the word asat created only itself, namely its own Self—just like an agent acting (kṛtavat) does.//

"That which is denoted by the word asat' is Brahman as if unmanifest. You needlessly give asat a bhava that is intended for Brahman alone. "in the beginning before creation; asat was but Brahman that could be called asat." Gambhir tr. 

Further, "For, whenever the aspirant creates the slightest difference in It, he is' smitten with fear. Nevertheless, that very Brahman is a terror to the (so called) learned man- who lacks the unitive outlook. Illustrative of this (unitive outlook) here is a verse: Asat vai idam agre astt, in the beginning all this was but the unmanifested (Brahman). 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."

Asat is a word in the context of distinctions that stands for the unmanifest state of Brahman. It is not asat that is avyakta. Sir, I bow to your Sanskrit but that's what it seems to be saying to me. 

//... and the avyAkrta itself becomes sat which has to be understood as vyAkrta. //

I don't follow. How does avyakrta become sat? 

//Further both avyAkrta and vyAkrta are anrtam (Tai Up Bh 2.1) / asat (BG 2.16) and depend on brahman for their very existence.//

See, this seems clearly a contradiction. If something is anrtam is doesn't exist, just like 2.16 asat, no? avyAkrta/vyAkrta are namarupa only. Are you saying anrtam and namarupa are distinct? They depend on Brahman, not as entities but as adhyasa only.  

//It is funny to see those who claim jnAna-abhAva as kArana and bIja and that it produces the kArya which is dvaita-grahaNa accuse me of saying asat can create sat. //

We don't say jnAna-abhAva is kalakrama/time and space causation. We say it is pratipatti krama, logical sequence - if you see yourself in the world, that wrong notion implies you don't know your true self - jnana abhava. Bhasyakara refers to avidya as nimittah karana not upadana karana,  as you might wish. Hacker et. al, are clear on this despite nuanced challenges (see my most recent post, Avidya is Viruddha -5)  Please sir, you have repeatedly misunderstood SSSS on this point 

//You cannot simply brush it (avarana as a material covering) aside as figurative.//

I agree - it is denied for other reasons as well. Please see my response 'Avidya is virodha -3', dealing with Gita 5.15 & 13.2 etc. 

regards,