[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Asked of Chatgpt: "Are there any definitions or descriptions that depict a positive ignorance in Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras or classic 10 Upanishads whether in context or otherwise?

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji

The general claim of those who argue that avidyA is only jnAna-abhAva
rather than jnAna-virodhI is that

"Advaita Siddhi and other later vyAkhyAnakAra-s use too much 'convoluted
tarka' and their claims are beyond our comprehension since we have not
studied tarka. So we think AS is not in conformity with bhAShya and we
don't have the commitment or capacity to logically answer AS."

In other words, if I don't understand AS tarka which negates the ideas of
avidyA being jnAna-abhAva , then AS must be either wrong or convoluted.,
irrespective of how logically it is presented.

I think the dvaitin school too says Sri Shankara himself has convoluted the
shAstra and introduced mAyAvAda. Same argument is now being made against
Sri MS.

So the use of tarka at whatever level cannot be held against anyone, even
if one may not follow the tarka used in AS. It's a cop-out to dismiss the
yukti offered by Advaita Siddhi without even examining it.

So it's illogical to say, without any reasoning being offered to back such
a baseless claim that -"because Advaita Siddhi uses logic at a level I
cannot understand, it must be against the method of bhAShyakAra" and
equally illogical to say that Advaita Siddhi uses tarka which is not
Shruti-sammata.

Simply put - understanding bhAShya in a logical and shruti-sammata manner
is what AS does. So anyone who accepts bhAshya and Shruti-matas-tarka
cannot ignore the compelling yukti of Sri Madhusudana Saraswati and others
in Advaita Siddhi - all of whom logically establish that avidyA is not an
abhAva.

Om




On Fri, 5 Jul, 2024, 7:19 pm Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Micheal ji.
>
> Do you then propose that nama and rupa, abhidhana and abhideha are
> distinct.
> >
>
> I don't understand whence this question is coming and what is the relevance
> of this question to the discussion. Please explain.
>
> Namaste Bhaskar ji.
>
> //Whatever it is, asat is in my dictionary (atleast in one of the meanings
> of this term) is NOT atyanta abhAva instead I would like to look at it as
> per shankara's interpretation in taittireeya.  Here asat is what which
> changes its colour time and again, something existing but changing and not
> like shashavishANa or vaNdyAputra. //
>
> You are putting words in BhAshyakAra's mouth. What changes - is termed by
> Shankara - as asatya, not asat. Please check TaittirIya.
>
> See what Shankara has to say about asat --
>
> न असतः अविद्यमानस्य शीतोष्णादेः सकारणस्य न विद्यते नास्ति भावो भवनम्
> अस्तिता ॥
>
> सत् विद्यमानम् , असत् च यत्र नास्ति इति बुद्धिः ;
>
> असत् अविद्यमानं रज्जुसर्पवद्विकल्पितं वस्तु जागरिते दृष्ट्वा
>
> These show that asat is avidyamAna. It does not exist.
>
> BhagvadgItA in 2.16 clearly says that that which is asat does not have any
> existence. Na asatah vidyate bhAvah. So, to say that asat is something
> existing which changes is incorrect and directly against Gita and
> BhAshyakAra.
>
> //  If we narrow the meaning of asat to kevala atyanta abhAva then asadvA
> edam agra Asit leads to shUnyavAda and satyamchaanrutaMcha satyamabhavat
> does not convey any meaningful position of asat at the beginning.//
>
> Asat means  क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीयमानत्वानधिकरणत्वम् and not
> atyanta-abhAva. So, please reframe your objection.
>
> // I don’t know how to name it. // Again I don’t know how to term this in
> technical terms. //
>
> I am asking you to name it. Try. Just thinking something vaguely is
> meaningless.
>
> //  In short abhAva is simply lack of knowledge which I myself do not know
> during bhrAntikAla hence there is no corresponding chitta vrutti with
> regard to jnAnAbhAva hence it is called abhAva rUpa. //
>
> Be specific. Is jnAna-abhAva asat or mithyA?
>
> //again here there is tAndava nrutya of tarka which is simply goes against
> our common / natural anubhava.//
>
> There is no tAnDav nritya taking place here. These are sane and logical
> discussions. Using words without defining them is gossip, loose and causal
> talk. You go through the write-up carefully and come-up with informed and
> rational objections.
>
> // Whatever we submit should be in line with shruti, yukti and anubhava. //
>
> Sir ji. Whatever I have written is in line with shruti, yukti and anubhava.
>
> //Does mUlAvidyA is simply subjective feeling or objective existence or
> subjective feeling of objective existence by the ajnAni ?? //
>
> What is "feeling"?
>
> mUlAvidyA is mithyA, i.e. it is appearance while being non-existence. So,
> it has no objective existence.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>