[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Avidya is virodha or abhava 3 - "All types of abhAva are also bhAvarUpa only"

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji
I appreciate your and Jaishankar ji’s very lenient view of the nonsensical
fake passages generated by ChatGPT.

Henceforth I request Michael ji or others to not mention any chatGPT
responses at all. It’s utterly disrespectful to the group.

It’s fine if someone takes 100% responsibility for whatever is posted
rather than fire from the shoulders of AI on dope.

I am sure Michael ji innocently sent it without thinking about it. But I
request him to stop hiding behind chatGPT and just frame the response the
way normal people do and then take responsibility for whatever he writes
(he can use AI in the backend but if it’s too obvious then such posts don’t
inspire trust). Also I think he will apologize soon for his mistake.

Om
Raghav



On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 at 9:56 AM, Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> >
> > Namaste Jaishankar ji and Michael ji.
>
> 🪙 4. Śaṅkara Explicitly Denies Bhāvarūpatva of Avidyā
> >>
> >> This is the death blow to the opponent’s position.
> >>
> >> In *Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 2.1.14*, Śaṅkara says:
> >>
> >> *"nāvidyā nāma kaścid vastusvabhāvaḥ..."*
> >> "There is no such thing as avidyā having an essential nature
> >> (vastu-svarūpa)."
> >>
> >>
> >> The above quote is not present anywhere in Brahmasutra. AI is known to
> > generate fake content but you are posting here without verifying
> > it yourself. In fact BS Bh 2.1.14 is one of the clinching Bhashyas for
> > MulAvidyA being bIjashakti and it being non different from mAyA.  Please
> > post your own content here and not copy paste from AI. You may use AI for
> > your own understanding but verify everything and present your own
> > understanding.
> >
>
> This is another level of discussion really. 😃
>
> Recently there was a case where a tax tribunal passed order in which it
> quoted Supreme Court decisions in support of their ruling as a binding
> precedent. And it was later pointed out by some affected parties that those
> decisions were never given by Supreme Court. It turned out that the
> tribunal had relied on Chatgpt.
>
> I think the use of ChatGPT is welcome. But cutting-pasting the response of
> ChatGPT in a discussion, and expecting a reply thereto, without having at
> least verified the comment - is not welcome. To me, it seems a disrespect
> to the hard work the members put in to write their informed comments.
>
> It is easy to put forth the response of ChatGPT as a comment. It does not
> require any hard work. But to write a comment with due deliberation and
> application of mind requires not only hard work and time, but also a
> feeling of care, love and respect the writer has towards the questioner.
> These subtle virtues are missing if one reproduces the comment of ChatGPT.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>