[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A smart inference by Shankara

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

//Sri SSS ji and followers of abhAva-vAda do not accept DSV, EJV etc., as
being  in line with bhAShya. They regard these as asAdhu prakriyas which
have serious problems - they don't land on to Advaita . They assert only
one prakriya is there viz , adhyAropa apavAda. So even the word 'SDV'  is
redundant for them.//

Can you cite any reference for this? It will be amusing to read as to how
DSV is not in-line with bhAshya especially when BhAshykAra Himself says --
trayah swapnAh.

//Prashant Netiji felt that you seemed unfamiliar with AA as the prakriyA
involved, which I felt could be due to inadequate communication reaching
him, due to the innumerable posts and many threads etc. This is quite
understandable.//

AA is the framework upon which all prakriyAs are built depending on
adhikArI-bheda. This is a very basic point.

//My understanding is that all who assert bhAvarUpatvaM of course agree
that AA is the method, but within that ambit, DSV is also possible.//

True.

//The main thrust of abhAva-vAda is that if we assert bhAvarUpA avidyA,
that takes away from the idea of the entire teaching being only a prakriyA,
a method, to help us land on Advaita. AA should be understood as a
pedagogical tool rather than some metaphysical theory to explain how
Brahman became jagat through a bhAvarUpA avidyA, as is ostensibly the case
with the bhAvarUpA idea.//

They really don't understand bhAvarUpatva. Otherwise, they would not
translate it as "positive". Please explain -- when avidyA is both
abhAva-vilakshaNA and bhAva-vilakshaNA, how can it be termed as "positive"?
When texts categorically say it as bhAva-vilakshaNA, how can it be termed
"positive"?  न च – अभावविलक्षणाविद्यादौ भावविलक्षणत्वमसम्भवि,
परस्परविरोधादिति – वाच्यम् ; भावत्वाभावत्वयोर्बाधकसत्त्वेन
तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ परस्परविरहव्यापकत्वरूपविरोधासिद्धेः,
परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वरूपस्तु विरोधो नैकविरहेणापरमाक्षिपति । [Advaita Siddhi
- avidyA-lakshaNa-vichArah]

//My take is that - it's naive to think those acharyas who assert bhAvarUpA
avidyA do not understand that AA is indeed the underlying method or that
they are trying to foist a metaphysical theory upon bhAShya which gives a
substantial ontological status to avidyA rendering it non-negatable.//

Not only it is naive, it also shows their lack of study.

//Sure there can be discussion about this - whether avidyA is getting some
kind of "promotion" thereby. But to say AA is not understood by later
Acharyas who are thereby propounding a dualistic metaphysics, is an unwise
assertion.//

True.

Regards.