AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with AI

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

We have come across many posts here which maintain that as per Sri SSS, the Bhashya on BG 13-2 admits of only three alternatives for avidyA namely avidyA,samshaya and vipareetagrahaNa. And that it does not admit of a fourth alternative namely ajnAna as the rootcause for the other three. In fact Sri SSS claims this part of the Bhashya as pramANa for his postulate dismissing any such cause for avidyA  admitted in Bhashya. I am attaching a PDF document detailing my discussions with AI on this issue. My views are based on my understanding of the topic as covered in the Bhoomika of  Poalagam  Sri Srirama Shastry. For whoever might be interested.

Regards 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Raghav Ji,

I was using Gemini.

Incidentally, I had covered in an earlier discussion with the same AI, Swami Sureswaracharya vArtika on this same issue of AvaraNAtmika ajnAna being the cause for agrahaNa etc. I had posted a PDF doc on that in an earlier post here recently. Just for your info in case you are interested.

Regards

On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 5:11 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Chandramouliji
Thank you for the discussion with generative AI. May I ask which engine you
used?

The key passage which you discussed āvaraṅātmaka avidyā being the cause
of even agrahaNa is noteworthy and it’s beyond the framework of SSS.
(In the same BG13.2 context, Shankara continues from where you left off **
तामसो �ह प्रत्ययः,

आवरणात्मकत्वात् अ�वद्या �वपर�तग्राहकः, संशयोपस्थापको वा, अग्रहणात्मको वा *)

Om

Raghav

On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 4:40 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste.
>
> We have come across many posts here which maintain that as per Sri SSS, the
> Bhashya on BG 13-2 admits of only three alternatives for avidyA namely
> avidyA,samshaya and vipareetagrahaNa. And that it does not admit of a
> fourth alternative namely ajnAna as the rootcause for the other three. In
> fact Sri SSS claims this part of the Bhashya as pramANa for his postulate

> dismissing any such cause for avidyA  admitted in Bhashya. Please see
> following link wherein I have attached a PDF doc on my discussions with AI
> on the topic . For whoever might be interested
>
> // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //.
>
> Regards
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

 We disconnected the other day in reference to sambandha. No problem. Here is my Claude in response to your AI on 13.2 &  SSS. I suspect AI is plastic and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's position. I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours.

Your link:  > // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //

My prompt following the pasting of your link:

//How might SSS respond to the points made in this interchange between AI and human. Be brief as possible//

SSS would have little difficulty here, and the AI conceded ground it should not have. His rebuttal would run roughly:

1. Philology first. Pratyaya in Śaṅkara means cognition/vṛtti — aham-pratyaya, avidyā-pratyaya, uniformly across the bhāṣyas. "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no lexicon or parallel usage supports it. Tāmaso hi pratyayaḥ is "a cognition of tamasic character," full stop. The AI's first grammatical instinct on tāmasatvāt (ablative of quality, not origination) was also correct; the capitulation to "born of tamas" was philologically unwarranted.

2. Nobody excluded agrahaṇa. SSS counts exactly Śaṅkara's triad: agrahaṇa, saṁśaya, viparīta-grahaṇa. The interlocutor's "fourth type" is tamas itself — but tāmasa is the adjective qualifying the pratyaya, not a fourth member of the avidyā-traya. Śaṅkara's own traya settles the count; the disagreement is manufactured.

3. The passage cuts against bhāvarūpa, not for SSS's opponents. The timira analogy locates avidyā as a doṣa of the instrument, an object of the witness (dṛśyatva) — the entire thrust of the 13.2 bhāṣya is that avidyā belongs to the kṣetra, not the kṣetrajña. And crucially: agrahaṇa is mere jñānābhāva. If Śaṅkara counts sheer non-apprehension as avidyā removed by jñāna, that directly contradicts the Vivaraṇa insistence that avidyā is bhāvarūpa and expressly not abhāva. Including agrahaṇa in the triad is evidence for SSS's position, which is presumably why he cites it as pramāṇa.

4. Sequence ≠ substance. Granting that non-apprehension epistemically precedes misapprehension (Sureśvara's point) yields only a logical order among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agrahaṇa into a positive, pre-existing causal entity — which is the only thing SSS denies.

The transcript's core move — redefining pratyaya to smuggle in causal ontology — is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list, that's where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest.

--
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/CAEs%2B%2BdO%3Dmn7t6cr1UxROvS4paOBO-asiy8NAsd16p%2BO01a6-zQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

Thanks for the response.

Reg  // I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours //,

I have posted the discussion in its entirety. No editing. If you find any **influence** by me on **my** (??) AI, I have certainly not intended it. Nor did I notice any. Gemini was not selected by me. It just happened to be there on Google Chrome. I entirely agree when you say ** I suspect AI is plastic and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's position **. But it is not my problem. I participate in the discussion because I want to understand the Bhashya better. I make use of SSS views in order to have an opposite view precisely for this reason. I have no intention of opposing or supporting SSS views per se. I don’t lose or gain one way or the other by taking a position.

Reg // "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no lexicon or parallel usage supports it //,

I refer to the Sanskrit-English Dictionary at the link // https://www.learnsanskrit.cc/translate?search=pratyaya&dir=au //. It lists a number of options. Two of the translations for pratyaya it listed were ** fundamental notion or idea ** and ** basis **. I chose them as I thought they were relevant to the context of my discussion.

Reg point 3, I am not interested in what vivaraNa says or not. I try to understand the Bhashya in my own way.

Reg  // Sequence ≠ substance. Granting that non-apprehension epistemically precedes misapprehension (Sureśvara's point) yields only a logical order among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agrahaṇa into a positive, pre-existing causal entity — which is the only thing SSS denies //,

I have covered my discussions with the (same) AI Swami Sureswaracharya vartika in another one of my recent posts. If you care to, you may look it up. Swami Sureswaracharya in his vartika I have cited concludes the same way as I have understood here. That again is my understanding of the vArtika portion I cited therein.  

Reg  // The transcript's core move — redefining pratyaya to smuggle in causal ontology — is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list, that's where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest //,

I do not think I am in a Boxing Ring. I try to enter into discussions to understand the Bhashya better in my own way. I do not have any preferences.

Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

I had a discussion with Claude AI itself on the topic of pratyaya. I am attaching a unedited PDF document of the discussion. It debunks your claim emphatically.

Regards

[Venkatraghavan S]

This is very interesting and a bit amusing. Sounds like each instance of a user's AI has its own pUrva prompt vAsanA :)

Kind regards

Venkatraghavan

--
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/CAEs%2B%2BdOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA%3Dpt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5%3Dmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste. 
 I first asked Claude whether I can recall an earlier discussion it had with another person for further analysis. It said yes I can give a reference to that conversation. I copy pasted entire initial portion of Michael Jis discussion with Claude. After a lapse of a few minutes, got a response that it cannot linkup and I need to ask any question afresh !!!!

Regards

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW%2BFcYk%3D%2BWEcFCqkmXzSB0xh%2B5j-icqPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, and more  importantly instead of getting our doubts cleared from the shrotreeya-brahmanishTa guru, we are using the technology called AI to clear our doubts and build an argument based on it’s inputs😊 Just I was wondering what would be the input if I ask AI something like :  I need only vyAkhyAnas’ more logical arguments about avidyA as against PTB & vArtika’s anubhava sammata avidya…I am sure it wont disappoint us 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Michael ji,

I hope so. However, I suspect it will be one other view - acceptance or rejection of which is subjective.

Regards

Venkatraghavan

On Mon, 6 Jul 2026, 14:45 , <m...@aol.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji, 

//This is very interesting and a bit amusing. Sounds like each instance of a user's AI has its own pUrva prompt vAsanA :)//

Indeed. These machines have become so well informed yet seem to conclude subjectively as per the end user.  Surely, there's a remedy for that bias and the chance to arrive at a decisive study.   What do you think? 

Regards, michael