[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?

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

Very well said.


On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 9:14 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com