[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

[Kalyan]

 Sorry, I think you have gone on a complete tangent. So let me explain this in greater detail.
Denial of Avidya with qualifications = Weak denial or WDDenial of Avidya without qualifications = Strong denial or SD
For example, a WD can be a statement like - "Jyothi Basu did not become PM of India in 1990s". Whereas, a SD can be be a statement like - "Jyothi Basu was never the PM of India". SD implies WD but WD does not imply SD. So if I have a book where I make a hundred statements indicating WD and just one statement indicating SD, the ultimate truth of the book is SD only.
10 WDs + 1SD is equivalent to SD.
100 WDs + 1SD is also equivalent to SD
Hence, if there is one SD, then SD becomes the ultimate truth. So, if there is denial of avidya without qualifications at even one place, then that becomes the purport of the book.
Hope this helps.
RegardsKalyan
    On Friday, May 4, 2018, 12:06:07 AM GMT+5:30, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com> wrote:

 I think you did not get my point - If no adjective is used ***even at one place***, then logic demands that there is unqualified rejection of ignorance in deep sleep. There is no adjective used at 4.3,34, so it proves my point. 

Actually the logic works the other way. Even if something is not mentioned in one or some places and mentioned in other places, logic demands that it has to be supplied where it is absent.  This is called 'atidesha'.  One example is: the Chandogya 6th chapter mentions creation of only the last three elements while the Taittiriya mentions creation of all five elements. This apparent dichotomy is discussed and settled by supplying the unmentioned two elements and thereby evening out the dichotomy.  So too where the explicit mention of the presence of avidya is not encountered, one has to supply it on the strength of its specific mention in other places. That is the method of samanvaya of all Vedanta passages without contradiction. Rejection of avidya is illogical and unscriptural. The adhyaropa of avidya is with a purpose. It cannot be wished away. Its apavaada has to be done methodically and not whimsically. Its mention alone is in accordance with logic and scripture. This is how it has to be seen. So, your point is not proven.