[Advaita-l] [advaitin] request for PTB support for DSV and EJV

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbuji,
//The Chat GPT response can't be considered 'traditional' since you have
already trained it to be biased, based on your personal
views/understanding.//
My motive in our dialogue is for you to point out inconsistencies and
errors. I check everything ChatGPT says and take full responsibility,
sharing only minimal credit. I humbly submit that Chat simply levels the
field with your dimensionally greater grasp of Vedanta technicalities -
truly

// Is not exactly the //experiential appearance.// that is denied, as I
have stated? Is not the pratiti (experience) in vyavahara denied by G and
S?//
 --They *do not deny experiential appearance (pratīti) in vyavahāra*.-They
deny *ontological status (sattā)* to what appears. What is denied: utpatti
(real origination), nirodha (real destruction), bandha, mokṣa, etc. *as
realities. *What is *not* denied: appearance, experience, vyavahāra,.

//*Actually appearance is what is * *bhāvarūpa existence.//*
SSS points out that's backward. Appearance is only an error of what is
bhava - rope appears as snake, Self alone mistakenly appearing with rupa.
Whereas, Bhavarupa avidya endows that appearance with a positive
quasi-ontological ability to cover, project, continue thru 3 avasthas and
supposedly be ultimately overcome. That's my understanding of bhavarupa

*// * this is wrong. No one has claimed *'the knower produces what appears,
ontically.'  //*

You are correct: I should not attribute to you the claim that “the knower
produces what appears, ontically,” My point is simply this: *Śaṅkara does
not answer “how did the experienced world come about?” by any doctrine of
production—whether objective or subjective.* He answers it through *adhyāsa*,
i.e., *mis-taking* and *superimposition*. *Adhyāsa* explains *why* an
appearance is taken as real (error). It does *not* assert that cognition
*produces* the appearance (origination).

//Cognizes what? something that really exists or something that appears to
exist? It's the latter that is DSV. //
Cognizing what merely appears to exist is adhyāsa; explaining the world by
appeal to cognition is DSV. Gauḍapāda does the former, not the latter.
There is no need for DSV to explain what appears.

// In BGB 13.5,6 Shankara repeatedly says: Because it is cognized, it is
kshetram (the world) and in the last verse of that chapter Shankara says:
the liberating knowledge is (apart from 'I am the Cognizer/Brahman), that
which is cognized does not exist.'  //

Śaṅkara defines *kṣetra* as:*yat kiñcit jñeyatvena pratīyate* — “whatever
is cognized as an object.” Here, *“because it is cognized”* functions
as a *criterion
for objecthood*, not as a *cause of existence.. *. He is drawing the
*subject–object
distinction*, not explaining how the object comes into being.
And then, “that which is cognized does not exist.” - Śaṅkara is
saying:the *entire
object-field*, precisely *because* it is objectifiable,is *mithyā / asat*
in the sense of lacking reality.  This is a statement of *ontological
negation*, not *perceptual dependence*.He is *not* saying:“objects exist
only when cognized.” He is saying:“whatever is available for cognition
never had real existence at all.” THis is Adhyasa/apavada not DSV

Then, on *GK II.11–14 like BhG Bhāṣya 13, use cognizability to mark falsity
and objecthood, not to ground a doctrine that cognition explains or
generates the world. *That is why these verses do *not* establish DSV/EJV.

Historically and doctrinally, *DSV* normally means more than:“objects are
only appearances when cognized.” It means an *explanatory stance* where:the
world is said to be dependent on perception *as such*,linked with eka-jīva
and bhāvarūpa avidyā..
We both say what appears is mithya but you treat it as something that:must
be *accounted for* explanatorily, hence linked to cognition, dṛṣṭi,
eka-jīva, etc. So the question becomes “How does this mithyā world arise in
experience?” That question pushes toward *DSV-style explanation*, even if
no one says “ontic production.” My use (PTB / Śaṅkara / Gauḍapāda) mithyā
is *diagnostic*, not explanatory it marks:falsity. sublatability, absence
of reality and *terminates inquiry*, rather than extending it. So the
question: “How does the mithyā world arise?” is treated as *misplaced*,
because mithyā things are not things whose arising needs explanation.Śaṅkara’s
move is:*“It appears — therefore negate its claim to reality.”*not

*“It appears — therefore explain its mode of arising.”Regards, Michael*




On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 1:31 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 4:40 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Subbuji
> > Can we say that in mainstream advaita paramparā where DSV is a valid
> > prakriyā, the adhyāsa ‘sequence’ whereby different upādhis are mentioned,
> > is explained as
> > Ātmā —> viṣayī —> roles of use of mind and body in Jagat (pramātā)
> >
> > Whereas the counterpoint is (as per SSSS)
> > Ātmā —> roles of use of mind and body and experience of Jagat (pramātā)
> >
> > In the latter view, we cannot talk of viṣayitva upādhi  without mind and
> > body and Jagat already being there or taken for granted. So only SDV is
> > permissible, while in the former, DSV is tenable.
> >
>
> Dear Raghav ji,
>
> In my understanding, SSS school does not go with SDV too; for them it's
> straightaway adhyasa. The jiva is adhyaropa who later undergoes apavada. No
> jivanmukti, etc.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
> >
> >
> > Om
> > Raghav
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 8:18 AM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Michael ji,
> > >
> > > It's the vishayitva upalakshita Atman that's finally upheld by Shankara
> > in
> > > the Adhyasa Bhashyam. In other words Vishayitvam is superposed,
> > adhyaropa,
> > > on Atman and negated. Without doing this it's impossible for Shankara
> or
> > > the Upanishads to teach the true nature of the Atman. In that method
> it's
> > > the DSV alone and not SDV that helps Shankara. That's the reason why
> > > Shankara doesn't quote a single creation passage of the Upanishads.
> > *That's
> > > the sole undeniable proof of Shankara subscribing to the DSV EJV.
> > Gaudapada
> > > too adopted this. The Bhagavadgita 2nd and 13th chapters are indeed
> this.
> > > The DSV EJV is rooted in the Upanishads.*
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > subbu
> > >
> > > On Fri, 16 Jan, 2026, 2:54 am Michael Chandra Cohen, <
> > > michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Namaste Raja Krishnamurti,
> > > > Unless I'm misunderstanding, you are saying the same thing as the
> > Adhaysa
> > > > Bhasya quote, am I right?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 3:34 PM Raja Krishnamurti via Advaita-l <
> > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Also I do have to add: The Self is not absence of knowing; it is
> > beyond
> > > >> thoughts and action such as knowing. Anbsence of knowing is Ajnana
> and
> > > >> different from the realized state.With Prem,Raja Krishnamurti
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thursday, January 15, 2026, 12:30 PM, Raja Krishnamurti via
> > > Advaita-l <
> > > >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hari Om, Michael ji, One of the fundamental point in Vedanta is that
> > > >> objects like mind, body and intellect are superimposed - adhyaropa
> on
> > > the
> > > >> substratum - Brahman. As per your statement ‘In addition, without
> > > >> superimposing a notion of Self (anadhyasta ātmabhāva) on the body,
> one
> > > >> could not be doing any action. This statement is very much and
> differs
> > > from
> > > >> Advaitha. According to Advaitha, Self alone exists and unreality of
> > body
> > > >> thought and mind as related to action is super imposed on the Atman
> > also
> > > >> known as Brahman. With Om and Prem,Raja Krishnamurti
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thursday, January 15, 2026, 11:54 AM, Michael Chandra Cohen via
> > > >> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Namaste Subbu ji,
> > > >> There is no doubt avidya in some form must be taken for granted for
> > the
> > > >> teaching to be relevant. It is as you say,  "So, If the I's relation
> > > with
> > > >> the not-I is not demonstrated, there is no way the discourse takes
> > off."
> > > >> The issue however is the falsification of vishayi that you say will
> > > result
> > > >> in shunyavada, "Even when the adhyaropa world of body mind and all
> the
> > > >> bondage is negated, apavada, the entity is not negated; only its
> > > 'subject'
> > > >> label is negated. If that's done, then it would be no different from
> > > >> shunyavada, which Shankara terms nairātmya vada.
> > > >>
> > > >> However, here is Shankara in Adhyasa Bhasya negated all vishayitvam
> as
> > > >> avidya without implication of shunyatvam
> > > >>
> > > >> "We explain (*ucyate*) (listen). *“He who does not have any
> > > identification
> > > >> such as ‘me’ or ‘mine’ (aha**ṃ mama abhimāna rahita) in the body,
> > senses
> > > >> etc., cannot be a knower (pramāt**ṛ). Thus, it is incongruous to say
> > the
> > > >> means of knowledge (pramā**ṇa) such as direct observation and others
> > > >> (pratyakṣādī) function in him (who is not a pramāt**ṛ). That is,
> > without
> > > >> the assumption of senses (indriya-s) there could not be any
> > > >> pramā**ṇa-pramēya
> > > >> vyavahāra since the senses cannot transact without their substratum
> > > >> (adhiṣ**ṭhāna,
> > > >> the body). In addition, without superimposing a notion of Self
> > > (anadhyasta
> > > >> ātmabhāva) on the body, one could not be doing any action. Moreover,
> > > >> without a knower (pramāt**ṛ) the pramā**ṇa-s do not function.
> > Therefore,
> > > >> the means of knowledge such as direct observation and others
> > > (pratyakṣādī)
> > > >> are objects of the ignorant* But, even in the Adhyasa Bhasya
> Shankara
> > > >> states,  "
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 11:32 AM V Subrahmanian <
> > > v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Dear Michael ji,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Shankara starts with the experience everyone has: I am so and so,
> > etc.
> > > >> > This will go only if the discourse that is aimed at removing it is
> > > first
> > > >> > put in place. That is the adhyāropa.  So, If the I's relation with
> > the
> > > >> > not-I is not demonstrated, there is no way the discourse takes
> off.
> > > The
> > > >> > known bound state has to be taken up to the unknown ever-free
> state.
> > > For
> > > >> > this, all the discourse is essential. Shankara makes it so
> perfect.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > //The challenge is that a bhavarupa avidya isn't subject to
> > > >> falsification
> > > >> > by knowledge - only an error can be falsified - therefore, it
> > doesn't
> > > >> work
> > > >> > as a provisional teaching. That is SSS's reasoning..//
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This is the fundamental, monumental misconception on the part of
> > SSS.
> > > >> No
> > > >> > one ever has said that the bhavarupa avidya is equivalent to
> > Brahman.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > warm regards
> > > >> > subbu
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 4:37 PM Michael Chandra Cohen via
> Advaita-l
> > <
> > > >> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> namaste Subbuji,
> > > >> >> isn't vishayi namarupa? why would there be sunya is namarupa is
> > > >> dispelled
> > > >> >> and nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa re-mains? vishaya/vishayi
> > are
> > > >> >> correlative terms, and if the object (vishaya) is negated, the
> > > subject
> > > >> >> (vishayi) must also be negated <AI finished this sentence for me
> > > >> >> unrequested - even AI knows the truth of that last sentence :) >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Chat can be long winded. All is agreed in your Chat response. The
> > > >> >> challenge
> > > >> >> is that a bhavarupa avidya isn't subject to falsification by
> > > knowledge
> > > >> -
> > > >> >> only an error can be falsified - therefore, it doesn't work as a
> > > >> >> provisional teaching. That is SSS's reasoning..
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'd like to propose an experiment: would you copy my last
> response
> > > into
> > > >> >> your chat and request a refutation? Given our discussion about
> how
> > AI
> > > >> >> responses can be shaped by user framing, I'm curious to see what
> > > >> >> alternative perspective it might offer.
> > > >> >> Regards, michael
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 5:19 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> > > >> >> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Namaste Raghav ji.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> The merger of prANa (and everything else)  in sushupti is
> > accepted
> > > >> by
> > > >> >> even
> > > >> >> >>  SSSS. (Notwithstanding the fact that it’s sabīja and not
> > nirbīja
> > > >> as
> > > >> >> per
> > > >> >> >>  mainstream Vedanta.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> If the “merger of prANa” is the distinctive characteristic of
> > DSV,
> > > >> we
> > > >> >> have
> > > >> >> >>  to say SSSS unwittingly accepts DSV !)
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I find SSSS ji to self-contradict himself. So, it is no
> surprise.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Regards.
> > > >> >> > Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > --
> > > >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> > Google
> > > >> >> Groups
> > > >> >> > "advaitin" group.
> > > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it,
> > > >> send
> > > >> >> an
> > > >> >> > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> > > >> >> > To view this discussion visit
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA5jJmVC0%2BcF_SEhD-TvVu0YWo_NFNk8fWcvPZ9zfxOxg%40mail.gmail.com
> > > >> >> > <
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA5jJmVC0%2BcF_SEhD-TvVu0YWo_NFNk8fWcvPZ9zfxOxg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > .
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> >> 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> 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
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>