Real import of creation-sentences

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

Upanishads propound Brahman as the cause of world and elaborately describe creation of world from Brahman. They describe the sequence of creation of world from Brahman in TaittirIya 2.1.1. 

BhAshyakAra would insist that this sequence is inviolable and would hence reconcile the passages of TaittirIya and ChhAndogya. (एवमीक्षित्वा तत् तेजः असृजत तेजः सृष्टवत् । ननु ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ (तै. उ. २ । १ । १) इति श्रुत्यन्तरे आकाशाद्वायुः ततस्तृतीयं तेजः श्रुतम् , इह कथं प्राथम्येन तस्मादेव तेजः सृज्यते तत एव च आकाशमिति विरुद्धम् ? नैष दोषः, आकाशवायुसर्गानन्तरं तत्सत् तेजोऽसृजतेति कल्पनोपपत्तेः । (Chh. U. 6.2.3))

This prima facie implies that srishTi-vAkya (creation-sentences) are pramANa. Therefore, Brahman must be with world. And hence, the existence of world should not be negated and Brahman should not be advitIya.

BhAshyakAra is therefore quick to respond - अथवा अविवक्षितः इह सृष्टिक्रमः ; सत्कार्यमिदं सर्वम् , अतः सदेकमेवाद्वितीयमित्येतद्विवक्षितम् , मृदादिदृष्टान्तात् । That the sequence of creation is not the intention, rather to establish the advitIyatva of Brahman is the import.

The same concept is elucidated in VedAnta ParibhAshA. 

It explains that creation-sentences do not have their import in propounding srishTi. Rather, they propound advitIya Brahamn.

Question: How exactly do creation-sentences establish advitIya-Brahman?

Answer: When it is said - there is no rUpa in vAyu, it does not ipso facto imply that rUpa does not exist elsewhere. Despite the absence of rUpa in vAyu, it may pretty well be present elsewhere, say in fire, water, earth etc. 

Similarly, when it is said -- नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन -- it negates the existence of world in Brahman. However, ipso facto, this sentence does not prohibit the existence of world anywhere else, just as in the example of rUpa-vAyu. And hence advitIyatva of Brahman is not established.

However, when creation-sentences are propounded, which establish Brahman as the upAdAna kAraNa, it implies that the effect-world cannot exist anywhere else without its material cause, Brahman. And then, Shruti through नेति नेति, नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन etc speaks of non-existence of world in Brahman also. 

Thus, what results is the tuchchhatva of world and advitIyatva of Brahman is established faultlessly. Because world cannot exist apart from its material cause, Brahman --- and in the very same Brahman, it is non-existent. Thus, world is utterly non-existent. 

Thus, creation-sentences have their import in advitIya-Brahman through paramparA.

 

ननु वेदान्तैर्ब्रह्मणि जगत्कारणत्वेन प्रतिपाद्यमाने सति सप्रपञ्चं स्यात् , अन्यथा सृष्टिवाक्यानामप्रामाण्यापत्तिरिति चेत् न । न हि सृष्टिवाक्यानां सृष्टौ तात्पर्यम् । किन्तु अद्वये ब्रह्मण्येव । तत्प्रतिपत्तौ कथं सृष्टेरुपयोगः ? इत्थम् - यदि सृष्टिमनुपन्यस्य प्रपञ्चस्य निषेधो ब्रह्मणि प्रतिपाद्येत, तदा ब्रह्मणि प्रतिषिद्धस्य प्रपञ्चस्य वायौ प्रतिषिद्धस्य रूपस्येव ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत्रावस्थानशङ्कायां न निर्विचिकित्समद्वितीयत्वं प्रतिपादितं स्यात् । ततः सृष्टिवाक्याद्ब्रह्मोपादेयत्वज्ञाने सति, उपादानं विना कार्यस्यान्यत्र सद्भावशङ्कायां निरस्तायां, " नेति नेति"(बृ.उ. २.३.६.) इत्यादिना ब्रह्मण्यपि तस्यासत्त्वोपपादनेन प्रपञ्चस्य तुच्छत्वावगमे, निरस्तनिखिलद्वैतविभ्रममखण्डं सच्चिदानन्दैकरसं ब्रह्म सिद्ध्यतीति परम्परया सृष्टिवाक्यानामपि अद्वितीये ब्रह्मण्येव तात्पर्यम् । [

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

The same thing is said in BrUBh 2.1.20

‘क्षुद्राविस्फुलिङ्गाः’ (बृ. उ. २ । १ । २०) ‘ममैवांशः’ (भ. गी. १५ । ७) इति च श्रूयते स्मर्यते चेति चेत् , न, एकत्वप्रत्ययार्थपरत्वात् ; अग्नेर्हि विस्फुलिङ्गः अग्निरेव इत्येकत्वप्रत्ययार्हो दृष्टो लोके ; तथा च अंशः अंशिना एकत्वप्रत्ययार्हः ; तत्रैवं सति विज्ञानात्मनः परमात्मविकारांशत्ववाचकाः शब्दाः परमात्मैकत्वप्रत्ययाधित्सवः । उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां च — सर्वासु हि उपनिषत्सु पूर्वमेकत्वं प्रतिज्ञाय, दृष्टान्तैर्हेतुभिश्च परमात्मनो विकारांशादित्वं जगतः प्रतिपाद्य, पुनरेकत्वमुपसंहरति ; तद्यथा इहैव तावत् ‘इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । ६) इति प्रतिज्ञाय, उत्पत्तिस्थितिलयहेतुदृष्टान्तैः विकारविकारित्वाद्येकत्वप्रत्ययहेतून् प्रतिपाद्य ‘अनन्तरमबाह्यम्’ (बृ. उ. २ । ५ । १९) ‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म’ (बृ. उ. २ । ५ । १९) इत्युपसंहरिष्यति ; तस्मात् उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यामयमर्थो निश्चीयते — परमात्मैकत्वप्रत्ययद्रढिम्ने उत्पत्तिस्थितिलयप्रतिपादकानि वाक्यानीति ; अन्यथा वाक्यभेदप्रसङ्गाच्च — सर्वोपनिषत्सु हि विज्ञानात्मनः परमात्मना एकत्वप्रत्ययो विधीयत इत्यविप्रतिपत्तिः सर्वेषामुपनिषद्वादिनाम् ; तद्विध्येकवाक्ययोगे च सम्भवति उत्पत्त्यादिवाक्यानां वाक्यान्तरत्वकल्पनायां न प्रमाणमस्ति ; फलान्तरं च कल्पयितव्यं स्यात् ; तस्मादुत्पत्त्यादिश्रुतय आत्मैकत्वप्रतिपादनपराः ॥

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBArm5M8akGcQWC32yWw-p5rRRRoJ9B9AyVwUcJ50eGwHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Sudhanshu ji,  here is another input, directly addressing the question:

Gaudapada Karika: 

मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा ।
उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथञ्चन ॥ १५ ॥

Creation, taught with analogies such as iron/gold, clay, spark, etc. is only to enable understanding the Advaitic Truth. Thus, creation shrutis no way teach bheda/naanaatva, manifoldness. 

Bhashya: 

ननु यद्युत्पत्तेः प्रागजं सर्वमेकमेवाद्वितीयम् , तथापि उत्पत्तेरूर्ध्वं जातमिदं सर्वं जीवाश्च भिन्ना इति । मैवम् , अन्यार्थत्वादुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनाम् । पूर्वमपि परिहृत एवायं दोषः — स्वप्नवदात्ममायाविसर्जिताः सङ्घाताः, घटाकाशोत्पत्तिभेदादिवज्जीवानामुत्पत्तिभेदादिरिति । इत एव उत्पत्तिभेदादिश्रुतिभ्य आकृष्य इह पुनरुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनामैदम्पर्यप्रतिपिपादयिषयोपन्यासः मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गादिदृष्टान्तोपन्यासैः सृष्टिः या च उदिता प्रकाशिता कल्पिता अन्यथान्यथा च, स सर्वः सृष्टिप्रकारो जीवपरमात्मैकत्वबुद्ध्यवतारायोपायोऽस्माकम् , यथा प्राणसंवादे वागाद्यासुरपाप्मवेधाद्याख्यायिका कल्पिता प्राणवैशिष्ट्यबोधावताराय ; तदप्यसिद्धमिति चेत् ; न, शाखाभेदेष्वन्यथान्यथा च प्राणादिसंवादश्रवणात् । यदि हि वादः परमार्थ एवाभूत् , एकरूप एव संवादः सर्वशाखास्वश्रोष्यत, विरुद्धानेकप्रकारेण नाश्रोष्यत ; श्रूयते तु ; तस्मान्न तादर्थ्यं संवादश्रुतीनाम् । तथोत्पत्तिवाक्यानि प्रत्येतव्यानि । कल्पसर्गभेदात्संवादश्रुतीनामुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनां च प्रतिसर्गमन्यथात्वमिति चेत् ; न, निष्प्रयोजनत्वाद्यथोक्तबुद्ध्यवतारप्रयोजनव्यतिरेकेण । न ह्यन्यप्रयोजनवत्त्वं संवादोत्पत्तिश्रुतीनां शक्यं कल्पयितुम् । तथात्वप्रत्तिपत्तये ध्यानार्थमिति चेत् ; न, कलहोत्पत्तिप्रलयानां प्रतिपत्तेरनिष्टत्वात् । तस्मादुत्पत्त्यादिश्रुतय आत्मैकत्वबुद्ध्यवतारायैव, नान्यार्थाः कल्पयितुं युक्ताः । अतो नास्त्युत्पत्त्यादिकृतो भेदः कथञ्चन ॥ 

warm regards

subbu

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 1:14 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Very nice references Jaishankar ji and Subbu ji. Many thanks.

However, the mechanism as to how exactly advitIyatva of Brahman is established through srishTi-vAkya -- I did not find in BhAshya.

AchArya does use upakrama-upasamhAra and other supporting logic to conclude that advitIyatva is the import. The exact mechanism, however, I found to be very well explained in VedAnta ParibhAshA. 

Regards.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te02WrjJ6VF_XgC0vR3s4KhQRifFjbRnO_ROHChtqE6daQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

If srushti is immaterial in Advaita siddhAnta pratipAdana, please don’t try your hand / logic to prove DSV, SDV etc.  But it is a matter of fact that shankara quite categorically said: jagat kAraNa is brahman, he is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, if there is no nAma rUpa creation, you would definitely not knowing that brahman is ultimately nirguNa, nirvishesha and prajnAna ghana.  And more importantly he announced Ishwara hetuka srushti is ‘vedAnta maryAda’.  Though ‘order’ of srushti is hardly the matter of concern to the shruti, the srushti itself is not just a joke in shruti / bhAshya.  The role of logic, limitations of dry logic etc. in siddhAnta nirNaya simply thrown out of window here.  Shrutyukta, anubhava sammata tarka is quite conspicuously absent here.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The below observation from bhAshyakAra would be appropriate for more contemplation on srushti prakriya :

 

All the vedAntic statements teach about the creation as that which has Ishwara as (the rationally valid and acceptable) hetu, the cause of creation. That Ishwara is hetu means, He creates the jeevas according to their own Karma.

 

If we don’t accept these observations then we are no good than shUnya vAdins ( even vijnAnavAdins ).  By saying srushti is mere time pass theory in shruti we are hitting prakriya-s like: (a) concept of Ishwara (b) Omniscience of brahman (c)cause and effect (d) empirical reality of the universe ( e) Atmaikatva vAda / samyak darshana/ sarvAtma bhAva (f) the essential identity of the universe with brahman etc. etc. for a BIG SIX completely ignoring its place and status in Advaita siddhAnta pratipAdana. 

 

I would like to quote Sri SSS here :

 

// quote // Atmaikatva or the unity of Atman (or brahman) is the ONLY absolute truth according to the shruti-s as shown by bAdarAyaNa interpreted by shankara, even while the distinction of sentient and non-sentient nature remains quite real from the empirical standpoint.  The universe as an effect is NONDIFFERENT from the cause or brahman and is ESSENTIALLY one with brahman.//unquote//

 

And shruti elsewhere warns us : If anyone sees the world in front of us as non Atman / abrahman / asarvaM etc., then the world would reject and throw out such a one as ineligible for mOksha, liberation.  So any one trying to prove absolute non-existence of jagat through mere dry logic, they are doing so by comfortably going against shruti verdict.  May the Almighty srushtikarta guide them in the right path.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

//If srushti is immaterial in Advaita siddhAnta pratipAdana, please don’t try your hand / logic to prove DSV, SDV etc. //

DSV, SDV are taught only to those who think that there is srishTi. Through the teaching, it becomes clear that srishTi is immaterial. So, the teaching is prior to the conclusion that srishTi is immaterial. Don't reverse the order.

//But it is a matter of fact that shankara quite categorically said: jagat kAraNa is brahman, he is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, if there is no nAma rUpa creation, you would definitely not knowing that brahman is ultimately nirguNa, nirvishesha and prajnAna ghana.//

Sir, this kAraNatva attributed to Brahman is by accepting the ajnAna-adhyAsa. That is why VArtikakAra said- अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते।।

So, we must understand that jagat-kAraNatva is by admitting ajnAna-adhyAsa and it is not some swarUpa-lakshaNa of Brahman. It is a mere taTastha-lakshaNa as explained by VArtikakAra. This attribution is negated to reveal shuddha nirvishesha Brahman, devoid of imputed causality. So, don't stop midway. Go the entire distance.

//And more importantly he announced Ishwara hetuka srushti is ‘vedAnta maryAda’.//

This VedAnta MaryAdA is itself maryAdita to the domain wherein srishTi is admitted. That is why it is important to understand the model within which maryAdA is spoken about.

//Though ‘order’ of srushti is hardly the matter of concern to the shruti, the srushti itself is not just a joke in shruti / bhAshya.//

It is an appearance. It is asat which appears as sat. It is a mirage-water, an elephant conjured by magic. You may like to give it great importance. Go on. But do it on the fact of tacit admission of violation of BhAshyakAra --- क्षेत्रं च मायानिर्मितहस्तिस्वप्नदृष्टवस्तुगन्धर्वनगरादिवत् ‘असदेव सदिव अवभासते.’

//The role of logic, limitations of dry logic etc. in siddhAnta nirNaya simply thrown out of window here.  Shrutyukta, anubhava sammata tarka is quite conspicuously absent here.//

When the entire kshetra is asat, merely appears as sat, you attachment to "wet logic" is quite amusing. All tarka mentioned here are in accordance with Shruti. It is up to you to attribute dryness or wetness thereto. 

//All the vedAntic statements teach about the creation as that which has Ishwara as (the rationally valid and acceptable) hetu, the cause of creation. That Ishwara is hetu means, He creates the jeevas according to their own Karma.//

Within a certain model. 

//If we don’t accept these observations then we are no good than shUnya vAdins ( even vijnAnavAdins ).//

No. Because, illusion requires substratum. That substratum is non-dual Brahman. Hence, no shUnyavAda. This is VedAnta 101.

//By saying srushti is mere time pass theory in shruti we are hitting prakriya-s like: (a) concept of Ishwara (b) Omniscience of brahman (c)cause and effect (d) empirical reality of the universe ( e) Atmaikatva vAda / samyak darshana/ sarvAtma bhAva (f) the essential identity of the universe with brahman etc. etc. for a BIG SIX completely ignoring its place and status in Advaita siddhAnta pratipAdana.//

Please apply this charge to BhAshyakAra who equates creation to AkhyAyikA. सुखावबोधप्रतिपत्त्यर्थं लोकवदाख्यायिकादिप्रपञ्च इति युक्ततरः पक्षः । न हि सृष्ट्याख्यायिकादिपरिज्ञानात्किञ्चित्फलमिष्यते । ऐकात्म्यस्वरूपपरिज्ञानात्तु अमृतत्वं फलं सर्वोपनिषत्प्रसिद्धम् ।

Sir, this creation is certainly a story. If you are believing in this story, please come to SDV, I have many very-very interesting stories therein to entertain.

When causality is taught to be owing to ignorance, the "BIG SIX" must go out of window. 

 

// Atmaikatva or the unity of Atman (or brahman) is the ONLY absolute truth according to the shruti-s as shown by bAdarAyaNa interpreted by shankara, even while the distinction of sentient and non-sentient nature remains quite real from the empirical standpoint.  The universe as an effect is NONDIFFERENT from the cause or brahman and is ESSENTIALLY one with brahman.//

As stated above by VArtikakAra, kAraNatva of Brahman is not Its intrinsic feature. It is owing to adhyAsa of avidyA therein. It is the avidyA which is the material cause. You superimpose this feature of avidyA in Brahman, and you say - Brahman is material cause. It is upAdhi-prayukta and not inherent to Brahman.

Empirical standpoint is itself result of ignorance. So, within ignorance -- you term Brahman whatever. Hardly matters!! 

//And shruti elsewhere warns us : If anyone sees the world in front of us as non Atman / abrahman / asarvaM etc., then the world would reject and throw out such a one as ineligible for mOksha, liberation.//

Sir ji. This is called bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNya. I have explained it earlier. This means that world is illusory and non-existent and only Brahman is the reality. 

//So any one trying to prove absolute non-existence of jagat through mere dry logic, they are doing so by comfortably going against shruti verdict.  May the Almighty srushtikarta guide them in the right path.//

Very nice. MAyA-nirmita-hasti, gandharva-nagar-vat-asat world does not have absolute non-existence!! Indeed a great "wet logic"!! If only one understood the concept of bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNya when BhAshyakAra says -- ‘सर्वं ब्रह्म’ इति तु सामानाधिकरण्यं प्रपञ्चप्रविलापनार्थम् -- one would not have had this doubt.

"World is Brahman" is identical to "snake is rope". The sAmAnAdhikaraNya is for negating the snake/world and not to equate world with Brahman through mukhya-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. Such fanciful ideas are rejected by BhAshyakAra by propounding bAdhAyAm-sAmAnAdhikaraNya in ‘सर्वं ब्रह्म’ इति तु सामानाधिकरण्यं प्रपञ्चप्रविलापनार्थम्.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 6:44 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sir, this creation is certainly a story. If you are believing in this story, please come to SDV, I have many very-very interesting stories therein to entertain.

And how can we forget the beautiful words of Bhagavan Karikakara so:

विभूतिं प्रसवं त्वन्ये मन्यन्ते *सृष्टिचिन्तकाः*।

स्वप्नमायासरूपेति सृष्टिरन्यैर्विकल्पिता ॥ ७ ॥

followed by bhAShya so:

विभूतिर्विस्तार ईश्वरस्य सृष्टिरिति सृष्टिचिन्तका मन्यन्ते, *न तु परमार्थचिन्तकानां सृष्टावादर इत्यर्थः*, 

....

 *अतस्तच्चिन्तायामेवादरो मुमुक्षूणामार्याणाम् , न निष्प्रयोजनायां सृष्टावादर* इत्यतः सृष्टिचिन्तकानामेवैते विकल्पा इत्याह — स्वप्नमायासरूपेति । स्वप्नसरूपा मायासरूपा चेति ॥

gurupAdukAbhyAm,

--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Blessed Selfr Dear Sudhanshuji and Bhaskarji,  Forgive me for injecting myself here but I think it is important to understand differences rather than just gloss over them. Sudhanshuji's comments in //

//this kAraNatva attributed to Brahman is by accepting the ajnAna-adhyAsa.// 

Accepting adhyasa is the explanation accepted by all. What ajnana means is the issue. Ajnana to mulavidya is some kind of positive identity. If you deny it is positive you need to explain what is meant by something that is indeterminable or that covers and projects or that is a shakti or continues in all three sattas. How might you interpret  this as other than something positive? From Siddhanta Bindu, "Isvara is threefold, as Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra in accordance with the three gunas of avidya which is the limiting adjunct of Brahman." Avidya is material guna with the ability to limit Unalloyed Self

//and you say - Brahman is material cause... his attribution is negated to reveal shuddha nirvishesha Brahman, devoid of imputed causality.// 

Again we agree. Cause is adhyasa. Causation is discussed only for munda adhicaris. . . . 

However, again from Siddhanta Bindu, "The five elements before the process of quintuplication which are called subtle are constituted of the three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas, since they are identical with their cause (maya or avidya)"

and again, "In deep sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the mind is dormant. So it is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which is the causal state of the mind, through which the ignorance was known during deep sleep" 

//You may like to give it great importance. Go on. But do it on the fact of tacit admission of violation of BhAshyakAra// 

It is you who give jagat importance in violation of Bhashyakara by distinguishing rope/snake and hare's horn. Thus, mulavidya vada invents a distinction between vyavahara and pratibhasika that cannot be found in bhasya. By doing so, you inject into vyavahara a status more real than dream,. calling it relative reality or borrowed reality or temporary reality - again never in bhasya. This comes from drawing distinction in non-existence, the seen snake and the never seen hare's horn. Neither exists ... not that one is more real or less non-existent. 

These discussions are too free wheeling with cherry picked citations and brash generalizations. We should choose a text, go through it carefully and pick out objections to discuss. I think that's more worthy manana. 

regards, mcc

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAcOK3sFYU6tfHwzQ6S5gS9FxLpdZb9wjcxoTK7B4-hSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji, Subbu ji.

Very apt reference from MANDUkya. Thanks.

Can you apply mind on the following from MANDUkya 1.9 -  न हि रज्ज्वादीनामविद्यास्वभावव्यतिरेकेण सर्पाद्याभासत्वे कारणं शक्यं वक्तुम् ॥

It says - in the perception of illusory snake, no other cause is possible to be stated other than the avidyA-swabhAva of rope. I was pondering over the significance of the word "of". 

AnandagirI SwAmI explains - अधिष्ठानभूतरज्ज्वादीनां स्वभावशब्दितस्वाज्ञानादेव सर्पाद्याभासत्वं तथा परस्य स्वमायाशक्तिवशादाकाशाद्याभासत्वम्। ‘आत्मन आकाशः संभूत’(तै. उ. २ । १। १) इत्यादिश्रुतेः ।

He explains - swabhAva = swa+ajnAna.

So, the rope-avidyA is a feature stated by BhAshyakAra to belong to rope. The usage of "of" appears significant. It implies the locus of avidyA is rope (rope-avachchhinna-chaitanya).

Please share your views.

Namaste Michael ji.

//Ajnana to mulavidya is some kind of positive identity.//

ajnAna is both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa. That is how it is described in siddhAnta. If despite this, you continue to conjure imaginary objections by referring to ajnAna as "positive", it shows that you have not really understood the siddhAnta. You should categorically answer as to why you refer to ajnAna as positive entity even when it is described in siddhAnta as bhAva-vilakshaNa. If you think it is not possible for ajnAna to be both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa, then that is a different matter. We can discuss that. But desist from calling ajnAna a positive entity when it has been held to be bhAva-vilakshaNa or else justify where in siddhAnta, it is described as bhAva. You cannot put your words in the mouth of siddhAnta. How are you saying ajnAna as positive when it is stated to be bhAva-vilakshaNa?

//If you deny it is positive you need to explain what is meant by something that is indeterminable or that covers and projects or that is a shakti or continues in all three sattas.//

SiddhAnta denies both bhAva-tva and abhAva-tva of ajnAna. That precisely is the anirvachanIyatva of ajnAna. I need not explain anything else. If you say ajnAna is bhAva, I will contradict. If you say ajnAna is abhAva, I will contradict it. And my job is over. Because I have proved the anirvachanIyatA thereby. 

The abhAva-vilakshaNatA is proved by Shruti (covering/material cause) and anumAna as described below. If you cannot disprove the anumAna, you must accept abhAva-vilakshaNatA.

1. विवादगोचरापन्नं प्रमाणज्ञानं, स्वप्रागभावव्यतिरिक्त-स्वविषयावरण-स्वनिवर्त्य-स्वदेशगत-वस्त्वन्तरपूर्वकम्, अप्रकाशितार्थप्रकाशकत्वात्, अन्धकारे प्रथमोत्पन्नप्रदीपप्रभावत्।
2. चैत्रप्रमा, चैत्रगतप्रमाप्रागभावातिरिक्तानादिनिवर्तिका, प्रमात्वान्मैत्रप्रमावत् ;

The bhAva-vilakshaNatA is proved by anumAna. If you cannot disprove the anumAna, you must accept bhAva-vilakshaNatA.

1.विनाशिभावः सादि:, घटवत्

And then and there, the anirvachanIyatA of ajnAna stands proved by being both bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa. Nothing more needs to be proved. This precisely is the anirvachanIyatA of ajnAna.

//How might you interpret  this as other than something positive? From Siddhanta Bindu, "Isvara is threefold, as Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra in accordance with the three gunas of avidya which is the limiting adjunct of Brahman." Avidya is material guna with the ability to limit Unalloyed Self//

See, avidyA is stated as the triguNAtmikA and as material cause. That proves that it is abhAva-vilakshaNa. Do not proceed further to declare it as bhAva. Stop with abhAva-vilakshaNa. Please remember, bhAva is not abhAva-vilakshaNa AND abhAva is not bhAva-vilakshaNa. They are not paraspara-viraha-rUpa. 

//However, again from Siddhanta Bindu, "The five elements before the process of quintuplication which are called subtle are constituted of the three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas, since they are identical with their cause (maya or avidya)"

and again, "In deep sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the mind is dormant. So it is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which is the causal state of the mind, through which the ignorance was known during deep sleep" //

PanchIkaraNa etc are valid in SDV. No problem with avidyA-vritti in deep sleep.

//It is you who give jagat importance in violation of Bhashyakara by distinguishing rope/snake and hare's horn. Thus, mulavidya vada invents a distinction between vyavahara and pratibhasika that cannot be found in bhasya. By doing so, you inject into vyavahara a status more real than dream,. calling it relative reality or borrowed reality or temporary reality - again never in bhasya. This comes from drawing distinction in non-existence, the seen snake and the never seen hare's horn. Neither exists ... not that one is more real or less non-existent. //

Are you saying that "relative reality" is absent in bhAshya? Search again. You will find. 

For other comments, it is too general. Whatever I say is supported by Shruti, bhAshya and logic. You do not have fundamental understanding of bhAva, abhAva, sat, asat, anirvachanIya etc. That is why you see contradictions. Once you have clear understanding of basics, you will not see any contradiction.

//These discussions are too free wheeling with cherry picked citations and brash generalizations. We should choose a text, go through it carefully and pick out objections to discuss. I think that's more worthy manana.//

That would certainly be better. However, I deny that my statements are general. They are specific and to-the-point.

Regards.