From jai1971 at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 00:56:43 2026
From: jai1971 at gmail.com (Jaishankar Narayanan)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:26:43 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?=5Badvaitin=5D_A_Post-Shankara_Advaitin_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?eXMgJ2FuxIFkaSBham7EgW5hLCBldGMuIGFyZSBtaXRoecSBJw==?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAz9PvH12g54Lcn5vz=+KYy+ZXDMoh8VJN2VO03Av0-_0SbSdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te3PVa_FXqD+KtU8tTjdwTdrXxDEnhz-e0yup=bJGW8v8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvERSvtvZFHaPuwUN3EeGyUYdaKzcPnKTXCDfrB-3o-haw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te24d9FTe2f9vdM9ZsE3zxOeVYxHJfKt65oMkabhP4rNPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvGumB1OxR86cwux-RueO7AQhZm4N4zUj=dtu841grLA7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te3dqrWh9FUp04mjn1j4Egc8ubLz0p6y3UqjOXBM0T-x-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvH12g54Lcn5vz=+KYy+ZXDMoh8VJN2VO03Av0-_0SbSdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOkLS-EjLo_CYvM_GCcMsnwr4Hbt6-ooX2aO965XopACMjs33w@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste,

You claim

?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha; it is
atasmi?s tad-buddhi?

That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the same
for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.

Further you are talking about bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only if
the bIja is moolAvidya. The bIja cannot be abhAva in which case you are
closer to Buddhists than Shankara who clearly talks about a bIja which is
bhAvarupa and which needs to be burned by the fire of knowledge.

I think enough has been said about these topics.

With love and prayers,
Jaishankar


On Tue, 30 Jun, 2026, 4:45?pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Jaishankarji,
>
> You are quite right and I easily forget satkaryavada. Your 3 definitions
> are helpful.
>
>
>
> The issue is how does SSS warrant the accusation of reifying a second
> entity onto PSA? It is more subtle than just upAdAnakAraNa. There is always
> an implication of ?something? that is not Brahman with the notion of
> mulavidya. Calling it anirvacaniya, maya or ?not a tangible substance as it
> avyakta (unmanifest) and sookshma (subtle),? only disguises by implying
> there is something which is avyakta, sookshma, or indefinable.
>
>
>
> ?mulAvidya is drishya as it is sAkshi-bhAsya and so it is mithyA.? ?
> reifying by way of both standpoint and explanation.
>
> ?So it is created every time a samsAri wakes up.? ? the mere idea of
> creation, of a samsAri ?waking up?,  is the subtle second thing SSS refers
> to in all the above.
>
>
>
> However, none of this applies to simple error ? adhyasa. Why add a cause to
> adhyasa and all sorts of weighty explanation to that which is to be
> sublated in the end anyway? Instead, simply recognize Sankara?s words that
> adhyasa is prasiddha, anadi, naisargika ? no cause necessary to prove
>
>
> Claude responds to the remainder of your attack:
>
>
> First, the Taittir?ya maxim you turn against us ? abh?v?d bh?votpatti?
> sarvapram??avy?kopa? ? charging that we breed the waking sa?s?rin from the
> j??na-abh?va of su?upti. But we assert no utpatti. The whole force of
> "naisargiko 'ya? loka-vyavah?ra?" is an?ditva: the sa?s?ra is unoriginated.
> Where nothing is produced, a maxim against production-from-absence has no
> purchase. It binds precisely whoever needs a positive up?d?na for an arisen
> effect ? i.e., the bh?var?pa account. The pram??a tells against the side
> that requires a bh?va, not against ours.
>
> Second, the abh?va/bh?va pincer ? "vi?e?a?avattve bh?va eva sy?t." A false
> dilemma. ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha; it
> is atasmi?s tad-buddhi? ? viparyaya-j??na, erroneous cognition. A cognition
> may be false and still be a cognition, bearing its phenomenal features
> without being reified into insentient stuff. The abh?va-horn is not ours to
> hold. It is m?l?vidy? that must be at once positive (bh?var?pa), insentient
> (ja?a), and the negation of knowledge ? Padmap?da's own gloss ? and it is
> that composite which strains the very logic you cite.
>
> On naisargikatva: occurrent superimpositions do recur on each waking;
> granted. But beginninglessness belongs to the series (b?ja-a?kura-ny?ya),
> not to a continuant dozing through su?upti. To read a persisting positive
> substrate out of the recurrence is to assume the reification under dispute
> ? no differently than inferring a stored homunculus from the daily return
> of waking.
>
> @advaita-vedanta.org <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>

From swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 03:06:41 2026
From: swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com (Swagata Chowdhury)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:06:41 +0600
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?Publication_of_Guruji=27s_New_Book_?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=93_Shodanibandhachandrika?=
Message-ID: <CAMxaFCzD8DXnZXHQ0SDM9fA5tZ3Di3eRe=zdR0uiu=8i0G12pA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Friends,

I am delighted to share that revered Guruji, *Professor Ramkishor Tripathi
PhD,D.Litt,Vedantashastrasiromoni, Vidvat Bhusan,Kashi Vidvat Gaurav etc*,
a distinguished scholar of Ved?nta and various Shastras, former Professor
at Sampurnanand Sanskrit University,Vice President of Shree Kashi Vidvat
Parishad, has published a new three-volume scholarly work titled
*Shodanibandhachandrika*.

https://livevns.news/Varanasi/launch-of-shodhnibandha-chandrika-a-new-dimension-to/cid18850296.htm

The book was formally released by the Vice-Chancellor of Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University, Professor Bihari Lal Sharma, in the presence of the
Registrar, Mr. Rakesh Kumar (IAS). The university described this
publication as a significant contribution to the preservation and
advancement of Traditional Shastriya Knowledge, Sanskrit research, and
classical scholarship.

*Shodanibandhachandrika* brings together Guruji Bhagwan's years of
research, reflection, and published academic papers on Sanskrit literature,
Indian philosophy, and Advaita Ved?nta. The work is expected to serve as an
important reference for researchers, scholars, and students, while
contributing meaningfully to the development of future scholarship in these
fields.

It is a matter of great pride and privilege for us to share this wonderful
news with you. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to my Guruji on this
remarkable scholarly contribution and wish him continued success in his
academic,traditional pursuits.

Kind regards,

Swagata Chowdhury

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 03:26:56 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:56:56 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Dr. Hegde: Key differences: SSS & PSA --
 a fresh voice
In-Reply-To: <CAAz9PvHmqavf3yqw8BPPp6R5fXGo6o-ezPcfWWs_btkAx2WvEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAz9PvGnHEsYtbL_+a3Ggjg64Xq_C107YU-nEaN1yZxddsr1OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dO3iJn=w4iAAtseCc0PgmrRW20GnqNA30c9W4n90m+Bpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOSE51a24Kk=JqPYTePsse1zv5peGEL_2mc3t=ddDjZJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1870468386.1926680.1782738792048@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAEs++dMUQgQpZWruuxW2enBAzBfQjf+53nbnQG=qZwN5mxZO3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEatD8F6qnV-AhcvHJi7eSga9ybLvY1ZWLeLTM1PK1+Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dNdCNptt5ra05QSVC-ej2uHoZqWA2Ji21ik-YBDYgmjXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvECEh5AKRV7jqMmU2jaaCN7oUAMhn6hOFEXK2OFJ6w0hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvHmqavf3yqw8BPPp6R5fXGo6o-ezPcfWWs_btkAx2WvEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEs++dMGEC7yFgj8hkuzOayax9WOY6cKWL7kayQ2K4R=ogzcRg@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Michael Ji,

Reg // I was to say, suddha brahman is the only ontic and any relationship
is epistemological only, and end it there //,

If the intention is to maintain no ontic other than Brahman, that would be
incorrect even as per above statement. Remember epistemological is mental,
and that needs mind/vrittis etc. All these are ontic only. True they do not
need  ontic objects external to mind. But that does not mean no ontic
entities at all other than Brahman. Mind/vrittis etc demand ontic status.

Reg  //  To ask "what is the ontological status of the relation between
Self and non-Self?" is therefore to take the explanandum (the false
coupling) and demand for it the dignity of a real connection ? which is
precisely the demand SSS spends his corpus refusing //,

I had mentioned about this in another post addressed to you recently which
I am copying below for ready reference. You have again mentioned here about
 ** dignity of a real connection ** . You did not respond to my earlier
post copied below

//  Namaste Michael Ji,

*You*

//  *SSS drops sm?tir?pa? and p?rvad????vabh?sa? from the essential
definition only for the beginningless ?tma?an?tma adhy?sa, because those
terms fit laukika/s?dya adhy?sa such as rope-snake, shell-silver //*

*And*

*//  As per Sugama,  ?The two adjectives, such
as sm?tir?pa? and p?rvad????vabh?sa? are used here? to include the
superimposition of the worldly instances, such as silver upon the
sea-shell?? //,*

*//  As per Sugama,  ??sm?tir?pa? p?rvad????vabh?sa?? is only for
clarifying the definition of adhy?sa having a beginning; it should not be
forgotten that it does not enter into the body of the definition of the
present adhy?sa.? //,*

*Me*

I entirely agree. That is how Sri SSS characterizes  in Sugama. But it is
*his* *declaration*. Where does such a declaration leave Sri Bhagavatpada
who does not make such a distinction *while defining adhyAsa in the context
of his opening statement* . The definition is preceded by ** ?? ?
??????????? ?????? ? (Aha ? ko.ayamadhyAso nAmeti | ) **. What is
*this* adhyAsa?.
Sri SSS shifts the emphasis in this to read as ** What is this *adhyAsa*?
** and considers this as the general definition adhyAsa , and not as
specifically addressing *this* adhyAsa. Sri SSS himself violates what he
himself states above, namely  ** *definition of the present adhy?sa **. * That
not only defeats the intent of the definition, but also leaves Sri
Bhagavatpada open to be shown up as being casual and irresponsible while
defining such important terms. This is quite unacceptable. This is just my
point. Every term used for the definition must be given full weightage
considering the context in which it is defined. Curtailment as done in
sugama is unacceptable.

*You*

//  So there are two different senses of t?d?tmya:

   1. *Real t?d?tmya-sambandha* between ?tman and an?tman ? SSS rejects
   this entirely.
   2. *Falsely cognized t?d?tmya*, as in ?I am this body/mind? ? SSS makes
   this central

*Me*

Why restrict it to only two. Why not three. Third one being

3.       False (mithyA or AdhyAsika) tAdAtmya sambanda between Atman and
anAtman.

This is exactly my point. I am not suggesting ** real tAdAtmya sambanda **.
AdhyAsika only. The definition of adhyAsa given by Sri Bhagavatpada admits
of such an interpretation. Just to pointout one reference from the bhAshya
for such understanding, BSB 2-2-38 ** ???????????? ?????? ???? , ?; ????
????????????????????????????? ? ** (brahmavAdinaH kathamiti chet , na;
tasya tAdAtmyalakShaNasambandhopapatteH |).

*You*

//  *saty?n?te mithun?k?tya*, *anyony?tmat?*, and *anyonya-dharma-adhy?sa*?with
the important proviso that this t?d?tmya is *false appearance*, not real
relation //.

*Me*

Agreed. That holds good with three alternatives as well. //.

Reg        // There's a sharper point hiding in the word "mutual." At its
root the superimposition is *t?d?tmya* ? false identity ("*aham idam*," I
am this body) ? not *sa?sarga*, relation. "Relation" is already the wrong
category for an identity-error: there is no relation between A and A, only
a collapse mistaken for unity.//,

Excuse me for asking. Is this from Claude or your statement? I will respond
subsequently if needed.
Regards


>>>>
>>>>

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 03:49:21 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:19:21 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Dr. Hegde: Key differences: SSS & PSA --
 a fresh voice
In-Reply-To: <CAEs++dMGEC7yFgj8hkuzOayax9WOY6cKWL7kayQ2K4R=ogzcRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAz9PvGnHEsYtbL_+a3Ggjg64Xq_C107YU-nEaN1yZxddsr1OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dO3iJn=w4iAAtseCc0PgmrRW20GnqNA30c9W4n90m+Bpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOSE51a24Kk=JqPYTePsse1zv5peGEL_2mc3t=ddDjZJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1870468386.1926680.1782738792048@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAEs++dMUQgQpZWruuxW2enBAzBfQjf+53nbnQG=qZwN5mxZO3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEatD8F6qnV-AhcvHJi7eSga9ybLvY1ZWLeLTM1PK1+Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dNdCNptt5ra05QSVC-ej2uHoZqWA2Ji21ik-YBDYgmjXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvECEh5AKRV7jqMmU2jaaCN7oUAMhn6hOFEXK2OFJ6w0hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvHmqavf3yqw8BPPp6R5fXGo6o-ezPcfWWs_btkAx2WvEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dMGEC7yFgj8hkuzOayax9WOY6cKWL7kayQ2K4R=ogzcRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEs++dONQ7nJPt1oPZqd8k8V7oPx9xSNpQg7JCyOKoMGLtR9mQ@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Michael Ji,

I am copying below from another recent post addressed to you

//  You wrote

//  For SSS avidy? is adhy?sa ? a false cognition, the taking of one thing
for another ? neither a positive cosmic entity nor a mere absence of
knowledge //.

I am responding since you are repeatedly mentioning about mananam. Not for
raising any controversy.

In my understanding of Sri SSS, an important point has been missed out when
he states ** avidy? is adhy?sa ? a false cognition, the taking of one thing
for another **. And that is ** the relationship of tAdAtmya between the two
- * one thing for another **. This requirement has been completely ignored.
In my understanding of Sri SSS, that is the consequence of dropping the
definition by Sri Bhagavatpada of adhyAsa as ** ?????????? ?????
???????????????? ? (smRRitirUpaH paratra pUrvadRRiShTAvabhAsaH | ) ** and
preferring to use the other definition mentioned by Sri Bhagavatpada **
??????? ??? ?????????????????? (adhyAso nAma atasmiMstadbuddhi ) ** which
retains only the ** ????? (paratra) ** part from the first definition. Sri
SSS himself has  explained why he has dropped the other three terms from
the first definition. In my understanding, this is the most fundamental
 deviation from the Bhashya leading to consequential differences. //.

I think this is THE core issue.  Once this is resolved, namely which is the
definition for adhyasa which Sri Bhagavatpada intended in the context of
the preamble stated in the adhyasa bhashya just prior to ** ???????????
?????? ? (ko.ayamadhyAso nAmeti |) **. Is it ** ?????????? ?????
???????????????? ? (smRRitirUpaH paratra pUrvadRRiShTAvabhAsaH | ) ** or **
??????? ??? ?????????????????? (adhyAso nAma atasmiMstadbuddhi ) **. All
other issues being addressed so often are consequential to this and can be
deferred.

Regards

On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:56?PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> Reg // I was to say, suddha brahman is the only ontic and any
> relationship is epistemological only, and end it there //,
>
> If the intention is to maintain no ontic other than Brahman, that would be
> incorrect even as per above statement. Remember epistemological is mental,
> and that needs mind/vrittis etc. All these are ontic only. True they do not
> need  ontic objects external to mind. But that does not mean no ontic
> entities at all other than Brahman. Mind/vrittis etc demand ontic status.
>
> Reg  //  To ask "what is the ontological status of the relation between
> Self and non-Self?" is therefore to take the explanandum (the false
> coupling) and demand for it the dignity of a real connection ? which is
> precisely the demand SSS spends his corpus refusing //,
>
> I had mentioned about this in another post addressed to you recently which
> I am copying below for ready reference. You have again mentioned here about
>  ** dignity of a real connection ** . You did not respond to my earlier
> post copied below
>
> //  Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> *You*
>
> //  *SSS drops sm?tir?pa? and p?rvad????vabh?sa? from the essential
> definition only for the beginningless ?tma?an?tma adhy?sa, because those
> terms fit laukika/s?dya adhy?sa such as rope-snake, shell-silver //*
>
> *And*
>
> *//  As per Sugama,  ?The two adjectives, such
> as sm?tir?pa? and p?rvad????vabh?sa? are used here? to include the
> superimposition of the worldly instances, such as silver upon the
> sea-shell?? //,*
>
> *//  As per Sugama,  ??sm?tir?pa? p?rvad????vabh?sa?? is only for
> clarifying the definition of adhy?sa having a beginning; it should not be
> forgotten that it does not enter into the body of the definition of the
> present adhy?sa.? //,*
>
> *Me*
>
> I entirely agree. That is how Sri SSS characterizes  in Sugama. But it is
> *his* *declaration*. Where does such a declaration leave Sri Bhagavatpada
> who does not make such a distinction *while defining adhyAsa in the
> context of his opening statement* . The definition is preceded by ** ?? ?
> ??????????? ?????? ? (Aha ? ko.ayamadhyAso nAmeti | ) **. What is *this* adhyAsa?.
> Sri SSS shifts the emphasis in this to read as ** What is this *adhyAsa*?
> ** and considers this as the general definition adhyAsa , and not as
> specifically addressing *this* adhyAsa. Sri SSS himself violates what he
> himself states above, namely  ** *definition of the present adhy?sa **. * That
> not only defeats the intent of the definition, but also leaves Sri
> Bhagavatpada open to be shown up as being casual and irresponsible while
> defining such important terms. This is quite unacceptable. This is just my
> point. Every term used for the definition must be given full weightage
> considering the context in which it is defined. Curtailment as done in
> sugama is unacceptable.
>
> *You*
>
> //  So there are two different senses of t?d?tmya:
>
>    1. *Real t?d?tmya-sambandha* between ?tman and an?tman ? SSS rejects
>    this entirely.
>    2. *Falsely cognized t?d?tmya*, as in ?I am this body/mind? ? SSS
>    makes this central
>
> *Me*
>
> Why restrict it to only two. Why not three. Third one being
>
> 3.       False (mithyA or AdhyAsika) tAdAtmya sambanda between Atman and
> anAtman.
>
> This is exactly my point. I am not suggesting ** real tAdAtmya sambanda
> **. AdhyAsika only. The definition of adhyAsa given by Sri Bhagavatpada
> admits of such an interpretation. Just to pointout one reference from the
> bhAshya for such understanding, BSB 2-2-38 ** ???????????? ?????? ???? , ?
> ; ???? ????????????????????????????? ? ** (brahmavAdinaH kathamiti chet ,
> na; tasya tAdAtmyalakShaNasambandhopapatteH |).
>
> *You*
>
> //  *saty?n?te mithun?k?tya*, *anyony?tmat?*, and *anyonya-dharma-adhy?sa*?with
> the important proviso that this t?d?tmya is *false appearance*, not real
> relation //.
>
> *Me*
>
> Agreed. That holds good with three alternatives as well. //.
>
> Reg        // There's a sharper point hiding in the word "mutual." At its
> root the superimposition is *t?d?tmya* ? false identity ("*aham idam*," I
> am this body) ? not *sa?sarga*, relation. "Relation" is already the wrong
> category for an identity-error: there is no relation between A and A, only
> a collapse mistaken for unity.//,
>
> Excuse me for asking. Is this from Claude or your statement? I will
> respond subsequently if needed.
> Regards
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>

From michaelchandra108 at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 07:44:48 2026
From: michaelchandra108 at gmail.com (Michael Chandra Cohen)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 07:44:48 -0400
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?=5Badvaitin=5D_A_Post-Shankara_Advaitin_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?eXMgJ2FuxIFkaSBham7EgW5hLCBldGMuIGFyZSBtaXRoecSBJw==?=
In-Reply-To: <CAOkLS-EjLo_CYvM_GCcMsnwr4Hbt6-ooX2aO965XopACMjs33w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te3PVa_FXqD+KtU8tTjdwTdrXxDEnhz-e0yup=bJGW8v8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvERSvtvZFHaPuwUN3EeGyUYdaKzcPnKTXCDfrB-3o-haw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te24d9FTe2f9vdM9ZsE3zxOeVYxHJfKt65oMkabhP4rNPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvGumB1OxR86cwux-RueO7AQhZm4N4zUj=dtu841grLA7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te3dqrWh9FUp04mjn1j4Egc8ubLz0p6y3UqjOXBM0T-x-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvH12g54Lcn5vz=+KYy+ZXDMoh8VJN2VO03Av0-_0SbSdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-EjLo_CYvM_GCcMsnwr4Hbt6-ooX2aO965XopACMjs33w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAz9PvEc2boJHO7v6C=E-4F0ayPksZWc5aSyjqoCA6cU6+ngtA@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Jaishankar,
I find it disappointing that you only present scant response to my critical
assessments. I understand, Bhasyakara is difficult to refute when he is
understood as SSS sees him. Nevertheless

you say, //?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha;
it is atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the same
for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//

Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings. So
what is the difference, do you suggest?

// bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only if the bIja is moolAvidya.  //
You are asserting, not arguing. The analogy simply presents a beginningless
causation. To say the analogy *requires* a positive substance is to smuggle
in the conclusion as a premise!!

Accusing SSS of postulating an abhavarupa ontic as seed, is a superficial
reading:
"But 'Ignorance' in the form of failure to apprehend the Self is only a
precondition
for misconceiving it: it may be referred to metaphorically as a seed, but
it is
not a substance (dravya) having a po\ver (saleti) in any concrete sense. As
S~kara puts
it, 'The "seed" is only failure to apprehend the real'
(tattva-apratibodha-matram eva hi
bijam, G.K.Bh. 1.11). If it \vere anything else it would be real, and then
it \vould be
impossible to cancel it through metaphysical knowledge. SSS, Heart of Sri
Samkara p212

Regards, Michael

On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:56?AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> You claim
>
> ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha; it is
> atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>
> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.
>
> Further you are talking about bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only if
> the bIja is moolAvidya. The bIja cannot be abhAva in which case you are
> closer to Buddhists than Shankara who clearly talks about a bIja which is
> bhAvarupa and which needs to be burned by the fire of knowledge.
>
> I think enough has been said about these topics.
>
> With love and prayers,
> Jaishankar
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun, 2026, 4:45?pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Jaishankarji,
>>
>> You are quite right and I easily forget satkaryavada. Your 3 definitions
>> are helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> The issue is how does SSS warrant the accusation of reifying a second
>> entity onto PSA? It is more subtle than just upAdAnakAraNa. There is
>> always
>> an implication of ?something? that is not Brahman with the notion of
>> mulavidya. Calling it anirvacaniya, maya or ?not a tangible substance as
>> it
>> avyakta (unmanifest) and sookshma (subtle),? only disguises by implying
>> there is something which is avyakta, sookshma, or indefinable.
>>
>>
>>
>> ?mulAvidya is drishya as it is sAkshi-bhAsya and so it is mithyA.? ?
>> reifying by way of both standpoint and explanation.
>>
>> ?So it is created every time a samsAri wakes up.? ? the mere idea of
>> creation, of a samsAri ?waking up?,  is the subtle second thing SSS refers
>> to in all the above.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, none of this applies to simple error ? adhyasa. Why add a cause
>> to
>> adhyasa and all sorts of weighty explanation to that which is to be
>> sublated in the end anyway? Instead, simply recognize Sankara?s words that
>> adhyasa is prasiddha, anadi, naisargika ? no cause necessary to prove
>>
>>
>> Claude responds to the remainder of your attack:
>>
>>
>> First, the Taittir?ya maxim you turn against us ? abh?v?d bh?votpatti?
>> sarvapram??avy?kopa? ? charging that we breed the waking sa?s?rin from the
>> j??na-abh?va of su?upti. But we assert no utpatti. The whole force of
>> "naisargiko 'ya? loka-vyavah?ra?" is an?ditva: the sa?s?ra is
>> unoriginated.
>> Where nothing is produced, a maxim against production-from-absence has no
>> purchase. It binds precisely whoever needs a positive up?d?na for an
>> arisen
>> effect ? i.e., the bh?var?pa account. The pram??a tells against the side
>> that requires a bh?va, not against ours.
>>
>> Second, the abh?va/bh?va pincer ? "vi?e?a?avattve bh?va eva sy?t." A false
>> dilemma. ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha;
>> it
>> is atasmi?s tad-buddhi? ? viparyaya-j??na, erroneous cognition. A
>> cognition
>> may be false and still be a cognition, bearing its phenomenal features
>> without being reified into insentient stuff. The abh?va-horn is not ours
>> to
>> hold. It is m?l?vidy? that must be at once positive (bh?var?pa),
>> insentient
>> (ja?a), and the negation of knowledge ? Padmap?da's own gloss ? and it is
>> that composite which strains the very logic you cite.
>>
>> On naisargikatva: occurrent superimpositions do recur on each waking;
>> granted. But beginninglessness belongs to the series (b?ja-a?kura-ny?ya),
>> not to a continuant dozing through su?upti. To read a persisting positive
>> substrate out of the recurrence is to assume the reification under dispute
>> ? no differently than inferring a stored homunculus from the daily return
>> of waking.
>>
>> @advaita-vedanta.org <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>>
>

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 09:11:26 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 18:41:26 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Fwd: [advaitin] Dr. Hegde: Key differences: SSS & PSA
 -- a fresh voice
In-Reply-To: <CAEs++dMXEgy3uqj7bux4yimTjeMggdb5pezrhHm-CgEJK8y2pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAz9PvGnHEsYtbL_+a3Ggjg64Xq_C107YU-nEaN1yZxddsr1OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dO3iJn=w4iAAtseCc0PgmrRW20GnqNA30c9W4n90m+Bpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOSE51a24Kk=JqPYTePsse1zv5peGEL_2mc3t=ddDjZJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1870468386.1926680.1782738792048@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAEs++dMUQgQpZWruuxW2enBAzBfQjf+53nbnQG=qZwN5mxZO3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEatD8F6qnV-AhcvHJi7eSga9ybLvY1ZWLeLTM1PK1+Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dNdCNptt5ra05QSVC-ej2uHoZqWA2Ji21ik-YBDYgmjXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvECEh5AKRV7jqMmU2jaaCN7oUAMhn6hOFEXK2OFJ6w0hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvHmqavf3yqw8BPPp6R5fXGo6o-ezPcfWWs_btkAx2WvEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dMGEC7yFgj8hkuzOayax9WOY6cKWL7kayQ2K4R=ogzcRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dONQ7nJPt1oPZqd8k8V7oPx9xSNpQg7JCyOKoMGLtR9mQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvGPCdvkRvz3usrdjrwqmZzASh-nJ-mweyXMh1mM=GfGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dMXEgy3uqj7bux4yimTjeMggdb5pezrhHm-CgEJK8y2pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEs++dN+s+rAJ+8Q-QCzYe3hoyFO8mUWo+hUDx9s-RbFfiP4WQ@mail.gmail.com>

Resending

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 6:37?PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Dr. Hegde: Key differences: SSS & PSA
-- a fresh voice
To: Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelchandra108 at gmail.com>
Cc: <advaitin at googlegroups.com>, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>


Namaste Michael Ji,

Reg  // Again, where do I say these things? I can imagine a reply but I
need context /,

Please refer the link  //
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/QgrcJHrhxnfLrlzWxzSXPQhPmshFRVdnKqL
 //

Regards

On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 6:29?PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli,
> Sorry, I am lost. These comments are not in the present thread. However,
> your issue of sambandha seems to be handled by Sankara:
>
> //Remember epistemological is mental, and that needs mind/vrittis etc. All
> these are ontic only//
> All is adhyasa even the idea of atma/anatma.  You reify by demanding an
> explanation of that status. It is like the various narratives Sankara
> proposes to explain avidya, "If the opponent were to say??Who in that
> case, is the one, that is in ignorance i.e. in need of such realization ??,
> we reply?It is you yourself, who are asking this question."BSbh4.1.3 also
> see, Gita 13.2, U.S. prose 2 & verse 18.44-6
>
> You quote me, //  *SSS drops sm?tir?pa? and p?rvad????vabh?sa? from the
> essential definition only for the beginningless ?tma?an?tma adhy?sa,
> because those terms fit laukika/s?dya adhy?sa such as rope-snake,
> shell-silver //*
>
> *And ...// ... etc. *
>
> Where do I supposedly say these things? Not in Dr. Hegde's paper nor in my
> understanding of SSS
>
> *//t?d?tmya-sambandha* //
>
> Again, where do I say these things? I can imagine a reply but I need
> context
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

From psangeerthgenius at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 10:14:04 2026
From: psangeerthgenius at gmail.com (Sangeerth P)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 19:44:04 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Purana-Sharada Sringeri
In-Reply-To: <CABWcbR2dysQBEBUBPc_oOTMeqHvfEMA_FiB94_=ejEUm3Zi_XA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACT7j-HYL-Mm90sZh2HWn3r9Zq6gqowLFF_RFsj1GV=0_7QMaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPWridBPhnD=0=DU-p3Dr=UzCpknBmKVHVba+oa7p5YPYyNxOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <402aa045-9fd3-8116-97fd-85552e8835f1@braincells.com>
 <CABWcbR3ArgUpX0Kqqxj=CjoSwOQq6gYzdkt8Xi=HGcEu+PVShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7b47b8fa-db50-b0eb-4df8-c73a0f6cb01a@braincells.com>
 <CABWcbR2dysQBEBUBPc_oOTMeqHvfEMA_FiB94_=ejEUm3Zi_XA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPWridA-hRyHwL-K6UivntViTi_obN_qqY=_d=9PubYB-8-80w@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste sir
I have a small query regarding the website. There are small typos here
and there found in the website. I completely respect and agree that the
work is actually a humongous task. But i would also like to inform the
website people regarding the errors so that they can rectify the typos.
The attached image is just an example that it has to be twara yavan na
vidyate. Its tara. I have some more things to add to the list. So can you
please give me the contact of the people to whom i shall reach regarding
this?

Regards
Sangeerth P
8608658009


On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 8:40?AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ?
>
> Raghav Kumar Dwivedula reacted via Gmail
> <
> https://www.google.com/gmail/about/?utm_source=gmail-in-product&utm_medium=et&utm_campaign=emojireactionemail#app
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 21:36:35 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 07:06:35 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Purana-Sharada Sringeri
In-Reply-To: <CAPWridA-hRyHwL-K6UivntViTi_obN_qqY=_d=9PubYB-8-80w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACT7j-HYL-Mm90sZh2HWn3r9Zq6gqowLFF_RFsj1GV=0_7QMaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPWridBPhnD=0=DU-p3Dr=UzCpknBmKVHVba+oa7p5YPYyNxOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <402aa045-9fd3-8116-97fd-85552e8835f1@braincells.com>
 <CABWcbR3ArgUpX0Kqqxj=CjoSwOQq6gYzdkt8Xi=HGcEu+PVShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7b47b8fa-db50-b0eb-4df8-c73a0f6cb01a@braincells.com>
 <CABWcbR2dysQBEBUBPc_oOTMeqHvfEMA_FiB94_=ejEUm3Zi_XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPWridA-hRyHwL-K6UivntViTi_obN_qqY=_d=9PubYB-8-80w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te0vp4PQjSJ7-wSE8hoDj++sY9uiPj+ntFagjfMrjEz1sw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Sangeerth, you can please send your findings to this email who will
eventually address them:

 mailtoiyeris at gmail.com

Best regards
Subbu

On Wed, 1 Jul, 2026, 7:44?pm Sangeerth P, <psangeerthgenius at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste sir
> I have a small query regarding the website. There are small typos here
> and there found in the website. I completely respect and agree that the
> work is actually a humongous task. But i would also like to inform the
> website people regarding the errors so that they can rectify the typos.
> The attached image is just an example that it has to be twara yavan na
> vidyate. Its tara. I have some more things to add to the list. So can you
> please give me the contact of the people to whom i shall reach regarding
> this?
>
> Regards
> Sangeerth P
> 8608658009
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 8:40?AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> ?
>>
>> Raghav Kumar Dwivedula reacted via Gmail
>> <
>> https://www.google.com/gmail/about/?utm_source=gmail-in-product&utm_medium=et&utm_campaign=emojireactionemail#app
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Thu Jul  2 01:36:03 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:06:03 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] "Aditya Hrudayam - Discourse in Telugu | Shatavadhani
 Vid. Sri Gannavaram Lalithadithya Garu"
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te1C4jBhJtv4APhaDd-nUq=pp-z8f75kWw0mj35z75P3aQ@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.youtube.com/live/yTwA5Iyutss?si=ySbVMyjfoXkxRc3k

From vmurthy36 at gmail.com  Thu Jul  2 10:31:46 2026
From: vmurthy36 at gmail.com (Venkatesh Murthy)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 20:01:46 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?4KSF4KSo4KS/4KSw4KWN4KS14KSa4KSo4KWA4KSv?=
 =?utf-8?b?4KSu4KWN?=
Message-ID: <CADHCXMUJZB3_-483-CoVwRHv9PQMGiNamEkec70MwLc3TBqfCg@mail.gmail.com>

*??????????????? ?????????? ????????????????? ??????? ???????? ?????
??????????*

*????? ???????? ?????????????????????????? ????????, ???????????
???????????????, ???????????? ??????? ??????????????*

?????????????????? ????? ???????????; ?????????????? ???????? ???????????
????? ???????????; ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????, ???? ????? ???????????? ????

???????????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ???? ???????????????????????
????????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????????????????? ??????????,
???????? ? ????????? ?????????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????????? ????????????, ???
???????????? ??????? ?????????

???????? ??? ???? ????????, ??? ? ???; ????????????? ???? ???????????? ? ?
??? ????; ????????????????? ???? ????????????????????????? ???? ??
????????????? ??????? ??????? ???????????????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????????
? ???, ????????? ? ? ??? ??????????????; ???? ???????? (?????
???????????????? ????) ? ??????? ??? ????? *????????????* ?????????????? ?
???????? ????????? ??????, ??????????, ? ?  ??????????????????

-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh

From rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  2 10:36:45 2026
From: rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com (Raja Krishnamurti)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 14:36:45 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
 =?utf-8?b?4KSF4KSo4KS/4KSw4KWN4KS14KSa4KSo4KWA4KSv?=
 =?utf-8?b?4KSu4KWN?=
In-Reply-To: <CADHCXMUJZB3_-483-CoVwRHv9PQMGiNamEkec70MwLc3TBqfCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADHCXMUJZB3_-483-CoVwRHv9PQMGiNamEkec70MwLc3TBqfCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1512360109.581000.1783003005612@mail.yahoo.com>

Sri Venkatesh,Appreciate it if you can provide translation, commentary in English.Regards,Raja


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, July 2, 2026, 7:32 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

*??????????????? ?????????? ????????????????? ??????? ???????? ?????
??????????*

*????? ???????? ?????????????????????????? ????????, ???????????
???????????????, ???????????? ??????? ??????????????*

?????????????????? ????? ???????????; ?????????????? ???????? ???????????
????? ???????????; ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????, ???? ????? ???????????? ????

???????????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ???? ???????????????????????
????????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????????????????? ??????????,
???????? ? ????????? ?????????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????????? ????????????, ???
???????????? ??????? ?????????

???????? ??? ???? ????????, ??? ? ???; ????????????? ???? ???????????? ? ?
??? ????; ????????????????? ???? ????????????????????????? ???? ??
????????????? ??????? ??????? ???????????????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????????
? ???, ????????? ? ? ??? ??????????????; ???? ???????? (?????
???????????????? ????) ? ??????? ??? ????? *????????????* ?????????????? ?
???????? ????????? ??????, ??????????, ? ?? ??????????????????

-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh
_______________________________________________
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




From swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com  Thu Jul  2 16:38:49 2026
From: swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com (Swagata Chowdhury)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 02:38:49 +0600
Subject: [Advaita-l] Availability of ShodhNibandhChandrika (Three-Volume
 Set) by Prof. Dr. Ramkishor Tripathi
Message-ID: <CAMxaFCw=q+kyiu_Oy3dWramTffMaLms5j_m_xn+WWsdNPqcs-A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Researchers/Scholars,

I am happy to inform you that *ShodhNibandhChandrika*, three-volume
collection of various research articles authored by *Prof. Guruji Bhagwan
Dr. Ramkishor Tripathi, D.Litt., Vedantashastrasiromani, Vedanta Martanda
etc*, is now available for purchase at *INR 4,500*.

https://www.amazon.in/ShodhNibandhChandrika-Sanskrit-Research-Ramkishor-Tripathi/dp/B0H5KZLYF5/ref=mp_s_a_1_37?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.IpEh-XEsQRwYxEKooQrWjH8nUl0DqIJm3TJ_a5gEeKtHi1XA7RPa6TAvSvAvYRxRxFDAho04QGkwPr_o2B11xLQ9eLDTuZmJ8jCIh5DJPah6F10mgXh4BzFMzN-71reBh3poSDOaiVcoC7HxPWqdSVzUAMn9J8I6V15g1U5XeaEqk11srbzBGbmh6BKsuG2n5u27FAR8ZCI9eYkWqF-TIw.GpCsK2I4qcFdLXRsQ_XlSffNA2A9rRkqFg6uY9aNNsA&dib_tag=se&m=A334B2OELAW84A&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1783024316&s=merchant-items

*About the Book*

Published by *Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pustakalaya*, *ShodhNibandhChandrika* is
a comprehensive collection of original Sanskrit research essays and serves
as an invaluable resource for students, researchers, and academics engaged
in Sanskrit studies and the classical Indian knowledge tradition.

The three volumes are organised thematically:

   -

   *Mayukh I:* Essays on Grammar (*Vyakaranashastriya Nibandha*)
   -

   *Mayukh II:* Essays on Vedanta (*Vedantashastriya Nibandha*)
   -

   *Mayukh III:* Essays on Various Disciplines (*Vividhashastriya Nibandha*)

Prof. Ramkishor Tripathi, Head of the Department of Vedanta at Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University, Varanasi, is a highly distinguished scholar who has
been honoured with numerous prestigious awards for his outstanding
contributions to Sanskrit literature and Indian philosophy.

This three-volume set is an essential addition to academic libraries and
the personal collections of anyone devoted to Sanskrit, Vedanta, and the
broader classical Indian intellectual tradition.


Thank you.

Kind regards,

swagata

From jai1971 at gmail.com  Thu Jul  2 23:38:10 2026
From: jai1971 at gmail.com (Jaishankar Narayanan)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 09:08:10 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?=5Badvaitin=5D_A_Post-Shankara_Advaitin_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?eXMgJ2FuxIFkaSBham7EgW5hLCBldGMuIGFyZSBtaXRoecSBJw==?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAz9PvEc2boJHO7v6C=E-4F0ayPksZWc5aSyjqoCA6cU6+ngtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te3PVa_FXqD+KtU8tTjdwTdrXxDEnhz-e0yup=bJGW8v8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvERSvtvZFHaPuwUN3EeGyUYdaKzcPnKTXCDfrB-3o-haw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te24d9FTe2f9vdM9ZsE3zxOeVYxHJfKt65oMkabhP4rNPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvGumB1OxR86cwux-RueO7AQhZm4N4zUj=dtu841grLA7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te3dqrWh9FUp04mjn1j4Egc8ubLz0p6y3UqjOXBM0T-x-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvH12g54Lcn5vz=+KYy+ZXDMoh8VJN2VO03Av0-_0SbSdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-EjLo_CYvM_GCcMsnwr4Hbt6-ooX2aO965XopACMjs33w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEc2boJHO7v6C=E-4F0ayPksZWc5aSyjqoCA6cU6+ngtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOkLS-GNjr++M0pFKZ7+myADButrjQ3--bq-6yPozGDYF8F-AA@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste,

See below.

On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 17:15, Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Jaishankar,
> I find it disappointing that you only present scant response to my
> critical assessments.
>

Jai: I have already written an entire paper refuting your arguments which
was shared a few years back for which there is no refutation from your
side. So this is facetious for you to say.

I understand, Bhasyakara is difficult to refute when he is understood as
> SSS sees him. Nevertheless
>

Jai: It is so absurd that there is nothing to refute really.


> you say, //?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
> bh?va-pad?rtha; it is atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>
> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings. So
> what is the difference, do you suggest?
>

Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa. You
absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all means of
knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa somehow
manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha!


> // bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only if the bIja is moolAvidya.  //
> You are asserting, not arguing. The analogy simply presents a
> beginningless causation. To say the analogy *requires* a positive
> substance is to smuggle in the conclusion as a premise!!
>

Jai: I am not smuggling anything. Everything I state is from the BhAshya
unlike your concoctions which are kapola-kalpita. See the following

eka eva parame?vara? k??asthanityo vij??nadh?turavidyay?, m?yay? m?y?vivat
, anekadh? vibh?vyate, n?nyo vij??nadh?turast?ti ? B.S.Bh. 1.3.19

vidyay? tasy? b?ja?akterd?h?t ? avidy?tmik? hi
b?ja?aktiravyakta?abdanirde?y? parame?var??ray? m?y?may? mah?su?upti?,
yasy?? svar?papratibodharahit?? ?erate sa?s?ri?o j?v??
... avyakt? hi s? m?y?, tattv?nyatvanir?pa?asy??akyatv?t ?
... avidy? hyavyaktam; ? B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3


> Accusing SSS of postulating an abhavarupa ontic as seed, is a superficial
> reading:
> "But 'Ignorance' in the form of failure to apprehend the Self is only a
> precondition
> for misconceiving it: it may be referred to metaphorically as a seed, but
> it is
> not a substance (dravya) having a po\ver (saleti) in any concrete sense.
> As S~kara puts
> it, 'The "seed" is only failure to apprehend the real'
> (tattva-apratibodha-matram eva hi
> bijam, G.K.Bh. 1.11). If it \vere anything else it would be real, and
> then it \vould be
> impossible to cancel it through metaphysical knowledge. SSS, Heart of Sri
> Samkara p212
>
>
Jai: All these fancy words like Ontic or epistemic are irrelevant. The
kArikA you quote is given below

k?ryak?ra?abaddhau t?vi?yete vi?vataijasau ?
pr?j?a? k?ra?abaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyata? ? 1.11 ?

The BhAshya is
k?rya? kriyata iti phalabh?va?, k?ra?a? karot?ti b?jabh?va? ?
tattv?graha??nyath?graha??bhy?? b?japhalabh?v?bhy?? tau yathoktau
vi?vataijasau baddhau sa?g?h?tau i?yete ? pr?j?astu b?jabh?venaiva baddha?
? tattv?pratibodham?trameva hi b?ja? pr?j?atve nimittam ? tata? dvau tau
b?japhalabh?vau tattv?graha??nyath?graha?e tur?ye na sidhyata? na vidyete,
na sambhavata ityartha? ?

It is very clear from the above the tattv?pratibodha is kAraNa which can
never be abhAva as then the kArya anyath?graha?a will be from abhAva-kAraNa
which will make Shankara and GaudapAda as saying abhAvAt bhAva-utpattih
which is against all means of knowledge. This tattv?pratibodha is b?ja?akti
as quoted above in B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3. It is AvaraNa as mentioned in B.G
5.15. BhAshyakAra also uses the timira-DrishtAnta (cataract analogy) to
point out the AvaraNa shakti of avidyA. You cannot get out of jail by
simply saying all of this is figurative or metaphorical. If it is so then
bhAshyakAra would have definitely mentioned it ,but he does not.
Further figurative
or metaphorical meaning can only be considered if the direct meaning does
not make any sense. In this case the direct meaning makes immense sense and
your metaphorical reading will make bhAshyakAra into a Buddhist.

I have written this reply knowing very well that it will not make any
difference to you. I hope other sincere mumukshus do not get confused by
such faulty prakriyas and for their sake the above has been stated.

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar


> Regards, Michael
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:56?AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste,
>>
>> You claim
>>
>> ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha; it is
>> atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>>
>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.
>>
>> Further you are talking about bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only
>> if the bIja is moolAvidya. The bIja cannot be abhAva in which case you are
>> closer to Buddhists than Shankara who clearly talks about a bIja which is
>> bhAvarupa and which needs to be burned by the fire of knowledge.
>>
>> I think enough has been said about these topics.
>>
>> With love and prayers,
>> Jaishankar
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun, 2026, 4:45?pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Jaishankarji,
>>>
>>> You are quite right and I easily forget satkaryavada. Your 3 definitions
>>> are helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue is how does SSS warrant the accusation of reifying a second
>>> entity onto PSA? It is more subtle than just upAdAnakAraNa. There is
>>> always
>>> an implication of ?something? that is not Brahman with the notion of
>>> mulavidya. Calling it anirvacaniya, maya or ?not a tangible substance as
>>> it
>>> avyakta (unmanifest) and sookshma (subtle),? only disguises by implying
>>> there is something which is avyakta, sookshma, or indefinable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ?mulAvidya is drishya as it is sAkshi-bhAsya and so it is mithyA.? ?
>>> reifying by way of both standpoint and explanation.
>>>
>>> ?So it is created every time a samsAri wakes up.? ? the mere idea of
>>> creation, of a samsAri ?waking up?,  is the subtle second thing SSS
>>> refers
>>> to in all the above.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, none of this applies to simple error ? adhyasa. Why add a cause
>>> to
>>> adhyasa and all sorts of weighty explanation to that which is to be
>>> sublated in the end anyway? Instead, simply recognize Sankara?s words
>>> that
>>> adhyasa is prasiddha, anadi, naisargika ? no cause necessary to prove
>>>
>>>
>>> Claude responds to the remainder of your attack:
>>>
>>>
>>> First, the Taittir?ya maxim you turn against us ? abh?v?d bh?votpatti?
>>> sarvapram??avy?kopa? ? charging that we breed the waking sa?s?rin from
>>> the
>>> j??na-abh?va of su?upti. But we assert no utpatti. The whole force of
>>> "naisargiko 'ya? loka-vyavah?ra?" is an?ditva: the sa?s?ra is
>>> unoriginated.
>>> Where nothing is produced, a maxim against production-from-absence has no
>>> purchase. It binds precisely whoever needs a positive up?d?na for an
>>> arisen
>>> effect ? i.e., the bh?var?pa account. The pram??a tells against the side
>>> that requires a bh?va, not against ours.
>>>
>>> Second, the abh?va/bh?va pincer ? "vi?e?a?avattve bh?va eva sy?t." A
>>> false
>>> dilemma. ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha;
>>> it
>>> is atasmi?s tad-buddhi? ? viparyaya-j??na, erroneous cognition. A
>>> cognition
>>> may be false and still be a cognition, bearing its phenomenal features
>>> without being reified into insentient stuff. The abh?va-horn is not ours
>>> to
>>> hold. It is m?l?vidy? that must be at once positive (bh?var?pa),
>>> insentient
>>> (ja?a), and the negation of knowledge ? Padmap?da's own gloss ? and it is
>>> that composite which strains the very logic you cite.
>>>
>>> On naisargikatva: occurrent superimpositions do recur on each waking;
>>> granted. But beginninglessness belongs to the series (b?ja-a?kura-ny?ya),
>>> not to a continuant dozing through su?upti. To read a persisting positive
>>> substrate out of the recurrence is to assume the reification under
>>> dispute
>>> ? no differently than inferring a stored homunculus from the daily return
>>> of waking.
>>>
>>> @advaita-vedanta.org <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>>>
>>

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 01:05:10 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 10:35:10 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] "How Adi Shankaracharya Changed India Forever? | The
 Changemakers" Hindi
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te1oTofMVqjPWbV8irmNZ8A21KPFk1ZsFzK9xp=Bv57jAA@mail.gmail.com>

https://youtu.be/QXGd8eVtwGQ?si=oW25ElIrbaciFc9-

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 04:20:18 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 13:50:18 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?Adhyaropa_-_Apav=C4=81da_in_the_Bh=2EGita_?=
 =?utf-8?q?2nd_chapter?=
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te0GN5tUZ+SoXySyyj40kf5u3TK1C+Kv7z8sBCKnZ8Z79A@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the verse in the 2nd chapter for which the Bhashya commences in the
Bh.Gita:

? ???????? ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ???????? ?
? ??? ? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ? ?? ?

 Certainly, it is not a fact that I did not exist at any time; nor you, nor
these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we shall all cease to exist
after this.

Shankara comments here: 'The use of plural here by Bhagavan is on the basis
of bodily plurality and not on the Atmic plurality.

This is an extremely significant Vedantic doctrinal point to which Shankara
is drawing our attention: the Atman is only one across all bodies.

Krishna proves this in the subsequent instructions:

??????? ?? ????????? *??? ???????? ????* ?
????????????????? ? ?????????????????? ? ?? ? 2.17

But know That to be indestructible by which* all this is pervaded*. None
can bring about the destruction of this Immutable.

??????????????????????????????????? ?? ? ?
??????* ???????* ????????????? ?????? ? ?? ? 2.24

It cannot be cut, it cannot be burnt, cannot be moistened, and surely
cannot be dried up. *It is eternal, omnipresent*, stationary, unmoving and
changeless.

Krishna teaches that though the bodies perish, the Atman never does. The
Atman is all-pervading. This all-pervading feature of the Atman negates
(apav?da) the plural used in verse 2.12. There, the plural based on the
bodies was justified but the truth is that the Atman is one alone. Since
there can't be multiple all-pervading Atmans, the Vedantic doctrinal point
Shankara highlighted in 2.12 is upheld by Bhagavan, who states twice that
the Atman is all-pervading.

The adhy?ropa of many beings existing (based on the many bodies) is
negated, apav?da, by clarifying that one all-pervading Atman alone exists.

We see Veda Vyasa doing this in many other places across his works. Here is
a very glaring example:

**Krishna says to his father Vasudeva:**

??? ??????????? ??? ? ??????????
???????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ??

We must examine the notions of 'myself, you, these people, the people of
Dwaraka - the entire animate and inanimate world'


*????? ?????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ??????????????????????????
?????? ???????? ??*
?? ???????????????? ????????????? ???????
????????????????????? ???????? ?????????? ??

*The Self is one, self-luminous. Eternal. Different from non-Self. Without
attributes*. This is the declaration of Brahma eva satyam. It appears as
many due to imagined qualities. Just as the five elements manifest in their
effects like pots etc., and disappear during dissolution, Brahman, through
imagined qualities, experiences the worldly states like birth and death in
bodies which are its effects. This is mere appearance.

Vasudeva became freed from the* delusion of the multiplicity* of Atman:

???????????????????/??????? ??/??????????/??????? ??

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/j55

??????? ????

??? ????? ??????????? ???????

???????? ????????????????????? ???????? ????? ??

Thus, O King Parikshit, having been instructed/taught by the son Krishna,
the father Vasudeva, hearing this, abandoned the notion of diversity and
became peaceful.
Read more on this here from the Bhagavatam and Vishnu Puranam:
https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2025/06/29/nanatva-manyness-is-bhrama-bhagavatam/

The Bhagavatam says that Bhishma at the time of giving up his body became
freed from bheda-moha.

Thus the Adhy?ropa-apav?da ny?ya is demonstrated in the 2nd chapter of the
Bh.Gita. Another such instance in the Gita itself is in the 13th chapter,
verses 13 and 14, where Shankara cites that maxim in the Bhashyam.

Read about this maxim, which is akin to the Sh?kha chandra and Sthula
Arundhati nyayas here:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/aa-listed-in-books-of-maxims-cc.pdf


Om Tat Sat

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 04:27:57 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 13:57:57 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
 =?utf-8?q?Adhyaropa_-_Apav=C4=81da_in_the_Bh=2EGita_?=
 =?utf-8?q?2nd_chapter?=
In-Reply-To: <CAKk0Te0GN5tUZ+SoXySyyj40kf5u3TK1C+Kv7z8sBCKnZ8Z79A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te0GN5tUZ+SoXySyyj40kf5u3TK1C+Kv7z8sBCKnZ8Z79A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te3SFcYUicDg9KcgUGW0-DDAZpz2q7WT7eEn_q8OSSW_tQ@mail.gmail.com>

Please read this sentence in the post:

Here is the verse in the 2nd chapter for the Bhashya commences in the
Bh.Gita:

as // Here is the verse in the 2nd chapter of the  Bh.Gita://

regards
subbu


On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 1:50?PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here is the verse in the 2nd chapter for which the Bhashya commences in
> the Bh.Gita:
>
> ? ???????? ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ???????? ?
> ? ??? ? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ? ?? ?
>
>  Certainly, it is not a fact that I did not exist at any time; nor you,
> nor these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we shall all cease to
> exist after this.
>
> Shankara comments here: 'The use of plural here by Bhagavan is on the
> basis of bodily plurality and not on the Atmic plurality.
>
> This is an extremely significant Vedantic doctrinal point to which
> Shankara is drawing our attention: the Atman is only one across all bodies.
>
> Krishna proves this in the subsequent instructions:
>
> ??????? ?? ????????? *??? ???????? ????* ?
> ????????????????? ? ?????????????????? ? ?? ? 2.17
>
> But know That to be indestructible by which* all this is pervaded*. None
> can bring about the destruction of this Immutable.
>
> ??????????????????????????????????? ?? ? ?
> ??????* ???????* ????????????? ?????? ? ?? ? 2.24
>
> It cannot be cut, it cannot be burnt, cannot be moistened, and surely
> cannot be dried up. *It is eternal, omnipresent*, stationary, unmoving
> and changeless.
>
> Krishna teaches that though the bodies perish, the Atman never does. The
> Atman is all-pervading. This all-pervading feature of the Atman negates
> (apav?da) the plural used in verse 2.12. There, the plural based on the
> bodies was justified but the truth is that the Atman is one alone. Since
> there can't be multiple all-pervading Atmans, the Vedantic doctrinal point
> Shankara highlighted in 2.12 is upheld by Bhagavan, who states twice that
> the Atman is all-pervading.
>
> The adhy?ropa of many beings existing (based on the many bodies) is
> negated, apav?da, by clarifying that one all-pervading Atman alone exists.
>
> We see Veda Vyasa doing this in many other places across his works. Here
> is a very glaring example:
>
> **Krishna says to his father Vasudeva:**
>
> ??? ??????????? ??? ? ??????????
> ???????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ??
>
> We must examine the notions of 'myself, you, these people, the people of
> Dwaraka - the entire animate and inanimate world'
>
>
> *????? ?????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ??????????????????????????
> ?????? ???????? ??*
> ?? ???????????????? ????????????? ???????
> ????????????????????? ???????? ?????????? ??
>
> *The Self is one, self-luminous. Eternal. Different from non-Self. Without
> attributes*. This is the declaration of Brahma eva satyam. It appears as
> many due to imagined qualities. Just as the five elements manifest in their
> effects like pots etc., and disappear during dissolution, Brahman, through
> imagined qualities, experiences the worldly states like birth and death in
> bodies which are its effects. This is mere appearance.
>
> Vasudeva became freed from the* delusion of the multiplicity* of Atman:
>
> ???????????????????/??????? ??/??????????/??????? ??
>
> https://sa.wikisource.org/s/j55
>
> ??????? ????
>
> ??? ????? ??????????? ???????
>
> ???????? ????????????????????? ???????? ????? ??
>
> Thus, O King Parikshit, having been instructed/taught by the son Krishna,
> the father Vasudeva, hearing this, abandoned the notion of diversity and
> became peaceful.
> Read more on this here from the Bhagavatam and Vishnu Puranam:
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2025/06/29/nanatva-manyness-is-bhrama-bhagavatam/
>
> The Bhagavatam says that Bhishma at the time of giving up his body became
> freed from bheda-moha.
>
> Thus the Adhy?ropa-apav?da ny?ya is demonstrated in the 2nd chapter of the
> Bh.Gita. Another such instance in the Gita itself is in the 13th chapter,
> verses 13 and 14, where Shankara cites that maxim in the Bhashyam.
>
> Read about this maxim, which is akin to the Sh?kha chandra and Sthula
> Arundhati nyayas here:
>
>
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/aa-listed-in-books-of-maxims-cc.pdf
>
>
> Om Tat Sat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 07:09:43 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 16:39:43 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with AI
Message-ID: <CAEs++dMc3wXoNEephUaiutDibxdcC+N4Z3kQUB1RrKp74oMOqw@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste.

We have come across many posts here which maintain that as per Sri SSS, the
Bhashya on BG 13-2 admits of only three alternatives for avidyA namely
avidyA,samshaya and vipareetagrahaNa. And that it does not admit of a
fourth alternative namely ajnAna as the rootcause for the other three. In
fact Sri SSS claims this part of the Bhashya as pramANa for his postulate
dismissing any such cause for avidyA  admitted in Bhashya. Please see
following link wherein I have attached a PDF doc on my discussions with AI
on the topic . For whoever might be interested

// https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //.

Regards

From michaelchandra108 at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 07:37:47 2026
From: michaelchandra108 at gmail.com (Michael Chandra Cohen)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 07:37:47 -0400
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?=5Badvaitin=5D_A_Post-Shankara_Advaitin_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?eXMgJ2FuxIFkaSBham7EgW5hLCBldGMuIGFyZSBtaXRoecSBJw==?=
In-Reply-To: <CAOkLS-GNjr++M0pFKZ7+myADButrjQ3--bq-6yPozGDYF8F-AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te3PVa_FXqD+KtU8tTjdwTdrXxDEnhz-e0yup=bJGW8v8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvERSvtvZFHaPuwUN3EeGyUYdaKzcPnKTXCDfrB-3o-haw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te24d9FTe2f9vdM9ZsE3zxOeVYxHJfKt65oMkabhP4rNPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvGumB1OxR86cwux-RueO7AQhZm4N4zUj=dtu841grLA7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te3dqrWh9FUp04mjn1j4Egc8ubLz0p6y3UqjOXBM0T-x-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvH12g54Lcn5vz=+KYy+ZXDMoh8VJN2VO03Av0-_0SbSdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-EjLo_CYvM_GCcMsnwr4Hbt6-ooX2aO965XopACMjs33w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEc2boJHO7v6C=E-4F0ayPksZWc5aSyjqoCA6cU6+ngtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-GNjr++M0pFKZ7+myADButrjQ3--bq-6yPozGDYF8F-AA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAz9PvFkT5FAvuwGGGBUzcKm0AA+EyCsz_Vzm4ysgaogzenxOA@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Jaishankar,

Please know I excuse your arrogant, rude and intolerant comments not as a
your own personality affliction but as the product of an entrenched
intransigence whose face is so close to the book that the eyes can't see
the words.  Your seven point attempt to assail SSS was very capably
refuted, imo, months ago in my series of 47 pages of AI assisted responses.
You ignored them - behavior again excused as per the above. They need
editing and perhaps in time I will re-post

My only immediate reply addresses your comment as shown in this exchange:

//you say, //?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
bh?va-pad?rtha; it is atasmi?s tad-buddhi?

> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>
> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings. So
> what is the difference, do you suggest?
>

Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa. You
absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all means of
knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa somehow
manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha!//

---SSS does not say kAraNa is abhAva! He and Sankaracharya say,
kAraNa/kArya are adhyasa only. This is a basic SSS correction. You are a
worthy pundit, please read up on SSS.

Respectfully, Michael Chandra

On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 11:38?PM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> See below.
>
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 17:15, Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Jaishankar,
>> I find it disappointing that you only present scant response to my
>> critical assessments.
>>
>
> Jai: I have already written an entire paper refuting your arguments which
> was shared a few years back for which there is no refutation from your
> side. So this is facetious for you to say.
>
> I understand, Bhasyakara is difficult to refute when he is understood as
>> SSS sees him. Nevertheless
>>
>
> Jai: It is so absurd that there is nothing to refute really.
>
>
>> you say, //?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>> bh?va-pad?rtha; it is atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>>
>> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings.
>> So what is the difference, do you suggest?
>>
>
> Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa.
> You absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all
> means of knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa
> somehow manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abh?va nor a
> bh?va-pad?rtha!
>
>
>> // bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only if the bIja is moolAvidya.
>> //
>> You are asserting, not arguing. The analogy simply presents a
>> beginningless causation. To say the analogy *requires* a positive
>> substance is to smuggle in the conclusion as a premise!!
>>
>
> Jai: I am not smuggling anything. Everything I state is from the BhAshya
> unlike your concoctions which are kapola-kalpita. See the following
>
> eka eva parame?vara? k??asthanityo vij??nadh?turavidyay?, m?yay? m?y?vivat
> , anekadh? vibh?vyate, n?nyo vij??nadh?turast?ti ? B.S.Bh. 1.3.19
>
> vidyay? tasy? b?ja?akterd?h?t ? avidy?tmik? hi
> b?ja?aktiravyakta?abdanirde?y? parame?var??ray? m?y?may? mah?su?upti?,
> yasy?? svar?papratibodharahit?? ?erate sa?s?ri?o j?v??
> ... avyakt? hi s? m?y?, tattv?nyatvanir?pa?asy??akyatv?t ?
> ... avidy? hyavyaktam; ? B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3
>
>
>> Accusing SSS of postulating an abhavarupa ontic as seed, is a superficial
>> reading:
>> "But 'Ignorance' in the form of failure to apprehend the Self is only a
>> precondition
>> for misconceiving it: it may be referred to metaphorically as a seed, but
>> it is
>> not a substance (dravya) having a po\ver (saleti) in any concrete sense.
>> As S~kara puts
>> it, 'The "seed" is only failure to apprehend the real'
>> (tattva-apratibodha-matram eva hi
>> bijam, G.K.Bh. 1.11). If it \vere anything else it would be real, and
>> then it \vould be
>> impossible to cancel it through metaphysical knowledge. SSS, Heart of Sri
>> Samkara p212
>>
>>
> Jai: All these fancy words like Ontic or epistemic are irrelevant. The
> kArikA you quote is given below
>
> k?ryak?ra?abaddhau t?vi?yete vi?vataijasau ?
> pr?j?a? k?ra?abaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyata? ? 1.11 ?
>
> The BhAshya is
> k?rya? kriyata iti phalabh?va?, k?ra?a? karot?ti b?jabh?va? ?
> tattv?graha??nyath?graha??bhy?? b?japhalabh?v?bhy?? tau yathoktau
> vi?vataijasau baddhau sa?g?h?tau i?yete ? pr?j?astu b?jabh?venaiva baddha?
> ? tattv?pratibodham?trameva hi b?ja? pr?j?atve nimittam ? tata? dvau tau
> b?japhalabh?vau tattv?graha??nyath?graha?e tur?ye na sidhyata? na vidyete,
> na sambhavata ityartha? ?
>
> It is very clear from the above the tattv?pratibodha is kAraNa which can
> never be abhAva as then the kArya anyath?graha?a will be from
> abhAva-kAraNa which will make Shankara and GaudapAda as saying abhAvAt
> bhAva-utpattih which is against all means of knowledge. This tattv?pratibodha
> is b?ja?akti as quoted above in B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3. It is AvaraNa as
> mentioned in B.G 5.15. BhAshyakAra also uses the timira-DrishtAnta
> (cataract analogy) to point out the AvaraNa shakti of avidyA. You cannot
> get out of jail by simply saying all of this is figurative or metaphorical.
> If it is so then bhAshyakAra would have definitely mentioned it ,but he
> does not. Further figurative or metaphorical meaning can only be
> considered if the direct meaning does not make any sense. In this case the
> direct meaning makes immense sense and your metaphorical reading will make
> bhAshyakAra into a Buddhist.
>
> I have written this reply knowing very well that it will not make any
> difference to you. I hope other sincere mumukshus do not get confused by
> such faulty prakriyas and for their sake the above has been stated.
>
> with love and prayers,
> Jaishankar
>
>
>> Regards, Michael
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:56?AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste,
>>>
>>> You claim
>>>
>>> ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha; it is
>>> atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>>>
>>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.
>>>
>>> Further you are talking about bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only
>>> if the bIja is moolAvidya. The bIja cannot be abhAva in which case you are
>>> closer to Buddhists than Shankara who clearly talks about a bIja which is
>>> bhAvarupa and which needs to be burned by the fire of knowledge.
>>>
>>> I think enough has been said about these topics.
>>>
>>> With love and prayers,
>>> Jaishankar
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun, 2026, 4:45?pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Jaishankarji,
>>>>
>>>> You are quite right and I easily forget satkaryavada. Your 3 definitions
>>>> are helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issue is how does SSS warrant the accusation of reifying a second
>>>> entity onto PSA? It is more subtle than just upAdAnakAraNa. There is
>>>> always
>>>> an implication of ?something? that is not Brahman with the notion of
>>>> mulavidya. Calling it anirvacaniya, maya or ?not a tangible substance
>>>> as it
>>>> avyakta (unmanifest) and sookshma (subtle),? only disguises by implying
>>>> there is something which is avyakta, sookshma, or indefinable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ?mulAvidya is drishya as it is sAkshi-bhAsya and so it is mithyA.? ?
>>>> reifying by way of both standpoint and explanation.
>>>>
>>>> ?So it is created every time a samsAri wakes up.? ? the mere idea of
>>>> creation, of a samsAri ?waking up?,  is the subtle second thing SSS
>>>> refers
>>>> to in all the above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, none of this applies to simple error ? adhyasa. Why add a
>>>> cause to
>>>> adhyasa and all sorts of weighty explanation to that which is to be
>>>> sublated in the end anyway? Instead, simply recognize Sankara?s words
>>>> that
>>>> adhyasa is prasiddha, anadi, naisargika ? no cause necessary to prove
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Claude responds to the remainder of your attack:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, the Taittir?ya maxim you turn against us ? abh?v?d bh?votpatti?
>>>> sarvapram??avy?kopa? ? charging that we breed the waking sa?s?rin from
>>>> the
>>>> j??na-abh?va of su?upti. But we assert no utpatti. The whole force of
>>>> "naisargiko 'ya? loka-vyavah?ra?" is an?ditva: the sa?s?ra is
>>>> unoriginated.
>>>> Where nothing is produced, a maxim against production-from-absence has
>>>> no
>>>> purchase. It binds precisely whoever needs a positive up?d?na for an
>>>> arisen
>>>> effect ? i.e., the bh?var?pa account. The pram??a tells against the side
>>>> that requires a bh?va, not against ours.
>>>>
>>>> Second, the abh?va/bh?va pincer ? "vi?e?a?avattve bh?va eva sy?t." A
>>>> false
>>>> dilemma. ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>>>> bh?va-pad?rtha; it
>>>> is atasmi?s tad-buddhi? ? viparyaya-j??na, erroneous cognition. A
>>>> cognition
>>>> may be false and still be a cognition, bearing its phenomenal features
>>>> without being reified into insentient stuff. The abh?va-horn is not
>>>> ours to
>>>> hold. It is m?l?vidy? that must be at once positive (bh?var?pa),
>>>> insentient
>>>> (ja?a), and the negation of knowledge ? Padmap?da's own gloss ? and it
>>>> is
>>>> that composite which strains the very logic you cite.
>>>>
>>>> On naisargikatva: occurrent superimpositions do recur on each waking;
>>>> granted. But beginninglessness belongs to the series
>>>> (b?ja-a?kura-ny?ya),
>>>> not to a continuant dozing through su?upti. To read a persisting
>>>> positive
>>>> substrate out of the recurrence is to assume the reification under
>>>> dispute
>>>> ? no differently than inferring a stored homunculus from the daily
>>>> return
>>>> of waking.
>>>>
>>>> @advaita-vedanta.org <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>>>>
>>>

From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 07:41:34 2026
From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 17:11:34 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with AI
In-Reply-To: <CAEs++dMc3wXoNEephUaiutDibxdcC+N4Z3kQUB1RrKp74oMOqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dMc3wXoNEephUaiutDibxdcC+N4Z3kQUB1RrKp74oMOqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABWcbR28zAX6NKwrNAuCWEJxJdc-5ficttV6G8KASw4m+eo0=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Chandramouliji
Thank you for the discussion with generative AI. May I ask which engine you
used?

The key passage which you discussed ?vara??tmaka avidy? being the cause
of even agrahaNa is noteworthy and it?s beyond the framework of SSS.
(In the same BG13.2 context, Shankara continues from where you left off **
????? ?? ????????,

??????????????? ??????? ?????????????, ????????????? ??, ???????????? ?? *)

Om

Raghav


On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 4:40?PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste.
>
> We have come across many posts here which maintain that as per Sri SSS, the
> Bhashya on BG 13-2 admits of only three alternatives for avidyA namely
> avidyA,samshaya and vipareetagrahaNa. And that it does not admit of a
> fourth alternative namely ajnAna as the rootcause for the other three. In
> fact Sri SSS claims this part of the Bhashya as pramANa for his postulate
> dismissing any such cause for avidyA  admitted in Bhashya. Please see
> following link wherein I have attached a PDF doc on my discussions with AI
> on the topic . For whoever might be interested
>
> // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //.
>
> Regards
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 08:25:59 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 17:55:59 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with AI
In-Reply-To: <CABWcbR28zAX6NKwrNAuCWEJxJdc-5ficttV6G8KASw4m+eo0=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dMc3wXoNEephUaiutDibxdcC+N4Z3kQUB1RrKp74oMOqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABWcbR28zAX6NKwrNAuCWEJxJdc-5ficttV6G8KASw4m+eo0=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEs++dNDSuLnSsYyWa++WGa4=LtujHNw6N=ZXmOPchd0=oaRXw@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Raghav Ji,

I was using Gemini.

Incidentally, I had covered in an earlier discussion with the same AI,
Swami Sureswaracharya vArtika on this same issue of AvaraNAtmika ajnAna
being the cause for agrahaNa etc. I had posted a PDF doc on that in an
earlier post here recently. Just for your info in case you are interested.

Regards

On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 5:11?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouliji
> Thank you for the discussion with generative AI. May I ask which engine you
> used?
>
> The key passage which you discussed ?vara??tmaka avidy? being the cause
> of even agrahaNa is noteworthy and it?s beyond the framework of SSS.
> (In the same BG13.2 context, Shankara continues from where you left off **
> ????? ?? ????????,
>
> ??????????????? ??????? ?????????????, ????????????? ??, ???????????? ?? *)
>
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 4:40?PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste.
> >
> > We have come across many posts here which maintain that as per Sri SSS,
> the
> > Bhashya on BG 13-2 admits of only three alternatives for avidyA namely
> > avidyA,samshaya and vipareetagrahaNa. And that it does not admit of a
> > fourth alternative namely ajnAna as the rootcause for the other three. In
> > fact Sri SSS claims this part of the Bhashya as pramANa for his postulate
> > dismissing any such cause for avidyA  admitted in Bhashya. Please see
> > following link wherein I have attached a PDF doc on my discussions with
> AI
> > on the topic . For whoever might be interested
> >
> > // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //.
> >
> > Regards
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 10:35:35 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 20:05:35 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with
 AI
In-Reply-To: <CAAz9PvEq1Oz9m5RbfJ9Q4x6=7Sv8RBUo+YsyODx5i=moq=__Lg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dO=mn7t6cr1UxROvS4paOBO-asiy8NAsd16p+O01a6-zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEq1Oz9m5RbfJ9Q4x6=7Sv8RBUo+YsyODx5i=moq=__Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEs++dOVZAa6pvQ6VrzEqaYa3QxyNOtZ59N9SF+Rpuc+SrMCuQ@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Michael Ji,

Thanks for the response.

Reg  // I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours //,

I have posted the discussion in its entirety. No editing. If you find any
**influence** by me on **my** (??) AI, I have certainly not intended it.
Nor did I notice any. Gemini was not selected by me. It just happened to be
there on Google Chrome. I entirely agree when you say ** I suspect AI is
plastic and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's
position **. But it is not my problem. I participate in the discussion
because I want to understand the Bhashya better. I make use of SSS views in
order to have an opposite view precisely for this reason. I have no
intention of opposing or supporting SSS views per se. I don?t lose or gain
one way or the other by taking a position.

Reg // "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no
lexicon or parallel usage supports it //,

I refer to the Sanskrit-English Dictionary at the link //
https://www.learnsanskrit.cc/translate?search=pratyaya&dir=au //. It lists
a number of options. Two of the translations for pratyaya it listed were **
fundamental notion or idea ** and ** basis **. I chose them as I thought
they were relevant to the context of my discussion.

Reg point 3, I am not interested in what vivaraNa says or not. I try to
understand the Bhashya in my own way.

Reg  // *Sequence ? substance.* Granting that non-apprehension
epistemically precedes misapprehension (Sure?vara's point) yields only a
logical order among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agraha?a into
a positive, pre-existing causal entity ? which is the only thing SSS denies
//,

I have covered my discussions with the (same) AI Swami Sureswaracharya
vartika in another one of my recent posts. If you care to, you may look it
up. Swami Sureswaracharya in his vartika I have cited concludes the same
way as I have understood here. That again is my understanding of the
vArtika portion I cited therein.

Reg  // The transcript's core move ? redefining *pratyaya* to smuggle in
causal ontology ? is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list,
that's where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest //,

I do not think I am in a Boxing Ring. I try to enter into discussions to
understand the Bhashya better in my own way. I do not have any preferences.

Regards

On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 6:49?PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
>  We disconnected the other day in reference to sambandha. No problem. Here
> is my Claude in response to your AI on 13.2 &  SSS. I suspect AI is plastic
> and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's position.
> I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours.
>
> Your link:  > // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //
> My prompt following the pasting of your link:
>
> //How might SSS respond to the points made in this interchange between AI
> and human. Be brief as possible//
>
> SSS would have little difficulty here, and the AI conceded ground it
> should not have. His rebuttal would run roughly:
>
>    1.
>
>    *Philology first.* *Pratyaya* in ?a?kara means cognition/v?tti ?
>    *aham-pratyaya*, *avidy?-pratyaya*, uniformly across the bh??yas.
>    "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no lexicon
>    or parallel usage supports it. *T?maso hi pratyaya?* is "a cognition
>    of tamasic character," full stop. The AI's first grammatical instinct on
>    *t?masatv?t* (ablative of quality, not origination) was also correct;
>    the capitulation to "born of tamas" was philologically unwarranted.
>    2.
>
>    *Nobody excluded agraha?a.* SSS counts exactly ?a?kara's triad:
>    agraha?a, sa??aya, vipar?ta-graha?a. The interlocutor's "fourth type" is
>    tamas itself ? but *t?masa* is the adjective qualifying the pratyaya,
>    not a fourth member of the *avidy?-traya*. ?a?kara's own *traya*
>    settles the count; the disagreement is manufactured.
>    3.
>
>    *The passage cuts against bh?var?pa, not for SSS's opponents.* The
>    timira analogy locates avidy? as a *do?a* of the instrument, an object
>    of the witness (*d??yatva*) ? the entire thrust of the 13.2 bh??ya is
>    that avidy? belongs to the k?etra, not the k?etraj?a. And crucially:
>    agraha?a is mere *j??n?bh?va*. If ?a?kara counts sheer
>    non-apprehension as avidy? removed by j??na, that directly contradicts the
>    Vivara?a insistence that avidy? is *bh?var?pa* and expressly *not*
>    abh?va. Including agraha?a in the triad is evidence *for* SSS's
>    position, which is presumably why he cites it as pram??a.
>    4.
>
>    *Sequence ? substance.* Granting that non-apprehension epistemically
>    precedes misapprehension (Sure?vara's point) yields only a logical order
>    among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agraha?a into a positive,
>    pre-existing causal entity ? which is the only thing SSS denies.
>
> The transcript's core move ? redefining *pratyaya* to smuggle in causal
> ontology ? is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list, that's
> where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest.
>
>
>

From jai1971 at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 21:17:50 2026
From: jai1971 at gmail.com (Jaishankar Narayanan)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2026 06:47:50 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?=5Badvaitin=5D_A_Post-Shankara_Advaitin_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?eXMgJ2FuxIFkaSBham7EgW5hLCBldGMuIGFyZSBtaXRoecSBJw==?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAz9PvFkT5FAvuwGGGBUzcKm0AA+EyCsz_Vzm4ysgaogzenxOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te3PVa_FXqD+KtU8tTjdwTdrXxDEnhz-e0yup=bJGW8v8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvERSvtvZFHaPuwUN3EeGyUYdaKzcPnKTXCDfrB-3o-haw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te24d9FTe2f9vdM9ZsE3zxOeVYxHJfKt65oMkabhP4rNPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvGumB1OxR86cwux-RueO7AQhZm4N4zUj=dtu841grLA7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te3dqrWh9FUp04mjn1j4Egc8ubLz0p6y3UqjOXBM0T-x-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvH12g54Lcn5vz=+KYy+ZXDMoh8VJN2VO03Av0-_0SbSdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-EjLo_CYvM_GCcMsnwr4Hbt6-ooX2aO965XopACMjs33w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEc2boJHO7v6C=E-4F0ayPksZWc5aSyjqoCA6cU6+ngtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-GNjr++M0pFKZ7+myADButrjQ3--bq-6yPozGDYF8F-AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvFkT5FAvuwGGGBUzcKm0AA+EyCsz_Vzm4ysgaogzenxOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOkLS-EwfZO16GOB98__MwW8p0gj_fT8wFjAvOM3OFj3JHFSMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste,

I apologize if my previous emails caused anyone any kind of distress. That
was not my intention.

You say 'SSS does not say kAraNa is abhAva! He and Sankaracharya say,
kAraNa/kArya are adhyasa only. '

That is exactly what the traditional acharyas are saying. So welcome to
traditional Shankara SampradAya.

I asked Gemini AI the below question and its answer does not correspond to
what you have said above. I leave it to you to reconcile the below with
your understanding.

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar

Question: Does Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS) accept a kAraNa
avidyA which is not abhAva in sleep?

Answer: No, Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS) does not accept a
kAraNa avidyA (causal ignorance) that is bhAvarUpa (a positive, substantive
entity) or a structural, unmanifest root entity (mUlAvidyA) existing in
deep sleep.  In fact, the systematic refutation of this exact concept is
the defining cornerstone of SSS's entire life's work?most famously detailed
in his masterpiece, mUlAvidyA-nirAsa (The Dissolution of Root Ignorance).

Here is a breakdown of SSS's specific stance regarding avidyA and deep
sleep:

1. Refutation of bhAvarUpa kAraNa avidyAThe post-Shankara commentarial
traditions (such as the Vivara?a and Bh?mat? schools) developed the theory
that avidyA is a positive entity (bhAvarUpa) that serves as a material
cause (kAraNa) of the universe, hiding the Self and projecting the
world.SSS directly argued against this, asserting that:

Purely Epistemological: According to SSS's reading of Adi Shankara, avidyA
is strictly a cognitive error?defined precisely as mutual superimposition
(adhyAsa) or a wrong notion (mithyA-j?Ana).

Not an Entity: It is not an ontological, cosmic "substance" or a "positive
something" (bhAvarUpa) that exists independently of a thinking mind.

2. The Nature of Deep Sleep (Su?upti)Traditional post-Shankara Advaita
holds that in deep sleep, a trace or causal form of individual ignorance
(kAraNa-sharIra or mUlAvidyA) persists in a latent, unmanifest state, which
is why we wake up again into duality.SSS fundamentally rejects this
interpretation:

No Ignorance in Sleep: SSS maintains that in deep sleep, there is absolute
absence of avidyA. Because avidyA is synonymous with adhyAsa (wrong
perception/misapprehension), and there is no mind or ego actively
misapprehending anything in deep sleep, avidyA cannot exist there.

Pure Brahman: In deep sleep, the jIva temporarily merges into its true
nature, which is pure Brahman, completely untouched by ignorance.

3. If there is no avidyA in sleep, why do we wake up?The natural question
that arises against SSS's view is: If there is no seed of ignorance left in
sleep, why doesn't a person wake up enlightened?

SSS resolves this using Shankara's method of AdhyAropa-Apav?da (deliberate
superimposition followed by negation):

When we wake up and retrospectively look back at sleep, we say, "I slept
soundly and knew nothing."

SSS argues that this "ignorance" (agrahaNa or non-perception) assigned to
sleep is actually a retrospective, waking superimposition.From the true,
transcendental standpoint (paramArtha), deep sleep is pristine and devoid
of any seed or cause.

The manifestation of the waking state is not caused by a latent bhAvarUpa
entity waiting in sleep, but is simply the re-emergence of the mind's
habitual projections (avidyA/adhyAsa) the moment the waking state begins.

Summary: SSS rejects mUlAvidyA entirely. For him, avidyA is nothing more
than subjective adhyAsa (misapprehension). Since there is no
misapprehension in deep sleep, there is no kAraNa avidyA?positive or
otherwise?present in that state.


On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 17:08, Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Jaishankar,
>
> Please know I excuse your arrogant, rude and intolerant comments not as a
> your own personality affliction but as the product of an entrenched
> intransigence whose face is so close to the book that the eyes can't see
> the words.  Your seven point attempt to assail SSS was very capably
> refuted, imo, months ago in my series of 47 pages of AI assisted responses.
> You ignored them - behavior again excused as per the above. They need
> editing and perhaps in time I will re-post
>
> My only immediate reply addresses your comment as shown in this exchange:
>
> //you say, //?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
> bh?va-pad?rtha; it is atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>
>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>>
>> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings.
>> So what is the difference, do you suggest?
>>
>
> Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa.
> You absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all
> means of knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa
> somehow manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abh?va nor a
> bh?va-pad?rtha!//
>
> ---SSS does not say kAraNa is abhAva! He and Sankaracharya say,
> kAraNa/kArya are adhyasa only. This is a basic SSS correction. You are a
> worthy pundit, please read up on SSS.
>
> Respectfully, Michael Chandra
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 11:38?PM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste,
>>
>> See below.
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 17:15, Michael Chandra Cohen <
>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Jaishankar,
>>> I find it disappointing that you only present scant response to my
>>> critical assessments.
>>>
>>
>> Jai: I have already written an entire paper refuting your arguments which
>> was shared a few years back for which there is no refutation from your
>> side. So this is facetious for you to say.
>>
>> I understand, Bhasyakara is difficult to refute when he is understood as
>>> SSS sees him. Nevertheless
>>>
>>
>> Jai: It is so absurd that there is nothing to refute really.
>>
>>
>>> you say, //?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>>> bh?va-pad?rtha; it is atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>>>
>>> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings.
>>> So what is the difference, do you suggest?
>>>
>>
>> Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa.
>> You absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all
>> means of knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa
>> somehow manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>> bh?va-pad?rtha!
>>
>>
>>> // bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only if the bIja is moolAvidya.
>>> //
>>> You are asserting, not arguing. The analogy simply presents a
>>> beginningless causation. To say the analogy *requires* a positive
>>> substance is to smuggle in the conclusion as a premise!!
>>>
>>
>> Jai: I am not smuggling anything. Everything I state is from the BhAshya
>> unlike your concoctions which are kapola-kalpita. See the following
>>
>> eka eva parame?vara? k??asthanityo vij??nadh?turavidyay?, m?yay?
>> m?y?vivat , anekadh? vibh?vyate, n?nyo vij??nadh?turast?ti ? B.S.Bh.
>> 1.3.19
>>
>> vidyay? tasy? b?ja?akterd?h?t ? avidy?tmik? hi
>> b?ja?aktiravyakta?abdanirde?y? parame?var??ray? m?y?may? mah?su?upti?,
>> yasy?? svar?papratibodharahit?? ?erate sa?s?ri?o j?v??
>> ... avyakt? hi s? m?y?, tattv?nyatvanir?pa?asy??akyatv?t ?
>> ... avidy? hyavyaktam; ? B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3
>>
>>
>>> Accusing SSS of postulating an abhavarupa ontic as seed, is a
>>> superficial reading:
>>> "But 'Ignorance' in the form of failure to apprehend the Self is only a
>>> precondition
>>> for misconceiving it: it may be referred to metaphorically as a seed,
>>> but it is
>>> not a substance (dravya) having a po\ver (saleti) in any concrete sense.
>>> As S~kara puts
>>> it, 'The "seed" is only failure to apprehend the real'
>>> (tattva-apratibodha-matram eva hi
>>> bijam, G.K.Bh. 1.11). If it \vere anything else it would be real, and
>>> then it \vould be
>>> impossible to cancel it through metaphysical knowledge. SSS, Heart of
>>> Sri Samkara p212
>>>
>>>
>> Jai: All these fancy words like Ontic or epistemic are irrelevant. The
>> kArikA you quote is given below
>>
>> k?ryak?ra?abaddhau t?vi?yete vi?vataijasau ?
>> pr?j?a? k?ra?abaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyata? ? 1.11 ?
>>
>> The BhAshya is
>> k?rya? kriyata iti phalabh?va?, k?ra?a? karot?ti b?jabh?va? ?
>> tattv?graha??nyath?graha??bhy?? b?japhalabh?v?bhy?? tau yathoktau
>> vi?vataijasau baddhau sa?g?h?tau i?yete ? pr?j?astu b?jabh?venaiva baddha?
>> ? tattv?pratibodham?trameva hi b?ja? pr?j?atve nimittam ? tata? dvau tau
>> b?japhalabh?vau tattv?graha??nyath?graha?e tur?ye na sidhyata? na vidyete,
>> na sambhavata ityartha? ?
>>
>> It is very clear from the above the tattv?pratibodha is kAraNa which can
>> never be abhAva as then the kArya anyath?graha?a will be from
>> abhAva-kAraNa which will make Shankara and GaudapAda as saying abhAvAt
>> bhAva-utpattih which is against all means of knowledge. This tattv?pratibodha
>> is b?ja?akti as quoted above in B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3. It is AvaraNa as
>> mentioned in B.G 5.15. BhAshyakAra also uses the timira-DrishtAnta
>> (cataract analogy) to point out the AvaraNa shakti of avidyA. You cannot
>> get out of jail by simply saying all of this is figurative or metaphorical.
>> If it is so then bhAshyakAra would have definitely mentioned it ,but he
>> does not. Further figurative or metaphorical meaning can only be
>> considered if the direct meaning does not make any sense. In this case the
>> direct meaning makes immense sense and your metaphorical reading will make
>> bhAshyakAra into a Buddhist.
>>
>> I have written this reply knowing very well that it will not make any
>> difference to you. I hope other sincere mumukshus do not get confused by
>> such faulty prakriyas and for their sake the above has been stated.
>>
>> with love and prayers,
>> Jaishankar
>>
>>
>>> Regards, Michael
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:56?AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste,
>>>>
>>>> You claim
>>>>
>>>> ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha; it is
>>>> atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>>>>
>>>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>>>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.
>>>>
>>>> Further you are talking about bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only
>>>> if the bIja is moolAvidya. The bIja cannot be abhAva in which case you are
>>>> closer to Buddhists than Shankara who clearly talks about a bIja which is
>>>> bhAvarupa and which needs to be burned by the fire of knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> I think enough has been said about these topics.
>>>>
>>>> With love and prayers,
>>>> Jaishankar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun, 2026, 4:45?pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste Jaishankarji,
>>>>>
>>>>> You are quite right and I easily forget satkaryavada. Your 3
>>>>> definitions
>>>>> are helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is how does SSS warrant the accusation of reifying a second
>>>>> entity onto PSA? It is more subtle than just upAdAnakAraNa. There is
>>>>> always
>>>>> an implication of ?something? that is not Brahman with the notion of
>>>>> mulavidya. Calling it anirvacaniya, maya or ?not a tangible substance
>>>>> as it
>>>>> avyakta (unmanifest) and sookshma (subtle),? only disguises by implying
>>>>> there is something which is avyakta, sookshma, or indefinable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ?mulAvidya is drishya as it is sAkshi-bhAsya and so it is mithyA.? ?
>>>>> reifying by way of both standpoint and explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?So it is created every time a samsAri wakes up.? ? the mere idea of
>>>>> creation, of a samsAri ?waking up?,  is the subtle second thing SSS
>>>>> refers
>>>>> to in all the above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, none of this applies to simple error ? adhyasa. Why add a
>>>>> cause to
>>>>> adhyasa and all sorts of weighty explanation to that which is to be
>>>>> sublated in the end anyway? Instead, simply recognize Sankara?s words
>>>>> that
>>>>> adhyasa is prasiddha, anadi, naisargika ? no cause necessary to prove
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Claude responds to the remainder of your attack:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the Taittir?ya maxim you turn against us ? abh?v?d bh?votpatti?
>>>>> sarvapram??avy?kopa? ? charging that we breed the waking sa?s?rin from
>>>>> the
>>>>> j??na-abh?va of su?upti. But we assert no utpatti. The whole force of
>>>>> "naisargiko 'ya? loka-vyavah?ra?" is an?ditva: the sa?s?ra is
>>>>> unoriginated.
>>>>> Where nothing is produced, a maxim against production-from-absence has
>>>>> no
>>>>> purchase. It binds precisely whoever needs a positive up?d?na for an
>>>>> arisen
>>>>> effect ? i.e., the bh?var?pa account. The pram??a tells against the
>>>>> side
>>>>> that requires a bh?va, not against ours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, the abh?va/bh?va pincer ? "vi?e?a?avattve bh?va eva sy?t." A
>>>>> false
>>>>> dilemma. ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>>>>> bh?va-pad?rtha; it
>>>>> is atasmi?s tad-buddhi? ? viparyaya-j??na, erroneous cognition. A
>>>>> cognition
>>>>> may be false and still be a cognition, bearing its phenomenal features
>>>>> without being reified into insentient stuff. The abh?va-horn is not
>>>>> ours to
>>>>> hold. It is m?l?vidy? that must be at once positive (bh?var?pa),
>>>>> insentient
>>>>> (ja?a), and the negation of knowledge ? Padmap?da's own gloss ? and it
>>>>> is
>>>>> that composite which strains the very logic you cite.
>>>>>
>>>>> On naisargikatva: occurrent superimpositions do recur on each waking;
>>>>> granted. But beginninglessness belongs to the series
>>>>> (b?ja-a?kura-ny?ya),
>>>>> not to a continuant dozing through su?upti. To read a persisting
>>>>> positive
>>>>> substrate out of the recurrence is to assume the reification under
>>>>> dispute
>>>>> ? no differently than inferring a stored homunculus from the daily
>>>>> return
>>>>> of waking.
>>>>>
>>>>> @advaita-vedanta.org <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>>>>>
>>>>

From michaelchandra108 at gmail.com  Fri Jul  3 22:24:49 2026
From: michaelchandra108 at gmail.com (Michael Chandra Cohen)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 22:24:49 -0400
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?=5Badvaitin=5D_A_Post-Shankara_Advaitin_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?eXMgJ2FuxIFkaSBham7EgW5hLCBldGMuIGFyZSBtaXRoecSBJw==?=
In-Reply-To: <CAOkLS-EwfZO16GOB98__MwW8p0gj_fT8wFjAvOM3OFj3JHFSMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te3PVa_FXqD+KtU8tTjdwTdrXxDEnhz-e0yup=bJGW8v8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvERSvtvZFHaPuwUN3EeGyUYdaKzcPnKTXCDfrB-3o-haw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te24d9FTe2f9vdM9ZsE3zxOeVYxHJfKt65oMkabhP4rNPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvGumB1OxR86cwux-RueO7AQhZm4N4zUj=dtu841grLA7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te3dqrWh9FUp04mjn1j4Egc8ubLz0p6y3UqjOXBM0T-x-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvH12g54Lcn5vz=+KYy+ZXDMoh8VJN2VO03Av0-_0SbSdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-EjLo_CYvM_GCcMsnwr4Hbt6-ooX2aO965XopACMjs33w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEc2boJHO7v6C=E-4F0ayPksZWc5aSyjqoCA6cU6+ngtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-GNjr++M0pFKZ7+myADButrjQ3--bq-6yPozGDYF8F-AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvFkT5FAvuwGGGBUzcKm0AA+EyCsz_Vzm4ysgaogzenxOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkLS-EwfZO16GOB98__MwW8p0gj_fT8wFjAvOM3OFj3JHFSMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAz9PvFaT=Zk-zcy_b0OYEfQZpwcWgui0-Cggo8vz++LJNAwTw@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Jaishankar ji,

no distress and I appreciate your recognition.

your AI depiction of SSS sounds accurate enough to me though I wouldn't say
"jiva temporarily merges into its true nature" just as we wouldn't say the
snake or the mirage 'merges' into rope or sand.  Adhyasa appears  upon
waking for the ignorant indicating their lack of Self Knowledge

Best regards, ???

On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 9:18?PM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> I apologize if my previous emails caused anyone any kind of distress. That
> was not my intention.
>
> You say 'SSS does not say kAraNa is abhAva! He and Sankaracharya say,
> kAraNa/kArya are adhyasa only. '
>
> That is exactly what the traditional acharyas are saying. So welcome to
> traditional Shankara SampradAya.
>
> I asked Gemini AI the below question and its answer does not correspond to
> what you have said above. I leave it to you to reconcile the below with
> your understanding.
>
> with love and prayers,
> Jaishankar
>
> Question: Does Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS) accept a kAraNa
> avidyA which is not abhAva in sleep?
>
> Answer: No, Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS) does not accept a
> kAraNa avidyA (causal ignorance) that is bhAvarUpa (a positive, substantive
> entity) or a structural, unmanifest root entity (mUlAvidyA) existing in
> deep sleep.  In fact, the systematic refutation of this exact concept is
> the defining cornerstone of SSS's entire life's work?most famously detailed
> in his masterpiece, mUlAvidyA-nirAsa (The Dissolution of Root Ignorance).
>
> Here is a breakdown of SSS's specific stance regarding avidyA and deep
> sleep:
>
> 1. Refutation of bhAvarUpa kAraNa avidyAThe post-Shankara commentarial
> traditions (such as the Vivara?a and Bh?mat? schools) developed the theory
> that avidyA is a positive entity (bhAvarUpa) that serves as a material
> cause (kAraNa) of the universe, hiding the Self and projecting the
> world.SSS directly argued against this, asserting that:
>
> Purely Epistemological: According to SSS's reading of Adi Shankara, avidyA
> is strictly a cognitive error?defined precisely as mutual superimposition
> (adhyAsa) or a wrong notion (mithyA-j?Ana).
>
> Not an Entity: It is not an ontological, cosmic "substance" or a "positive
> something" (bhAvarUpa) that exists independently of a thinking mind.
>
> 2. The Nature of Deep Sleep (Su?upti)Traditional post-Shankara Advaita
> holds that in deep sleep, a trace or causal form of individual ignorance
> (kAraNa-sharIra or mUlAvidyA) persists in a latent, unmanifest state, which
> is why we wake up again into duality.SSS fundamentally rejects this
> interpretation:
>
> No Ignorance in Sleep: SSS maintains that in deep sleep, there is absolute
> absence of avidyA. Because avidyA is synonymous with adhyAsa (wrong
> perception/misapprehension), and there is no mind or ego actively
> misapprehending anything in deep sleep, avidyA cannot exist there.
>
> Pure Brahman: In deep sleep, the jIva temporarily merges into its true
> nature, which is pure Brahman, completely untouched by ignorance.
>
> 3. If there is no avidyA in sleep, why do we wake up?The natural question
> that arises against SSS's view is: If there is no seed of ignorance left in
> sleep, why doesn't a person wake up enlightened?
>
> SSS resolves this using Shankara's method of AdhyAropa-Apav?da (deliberate
> superimposition followed by negation):
>
> When we wake up and retrospectively look back at sleep, we say, "I slept
> soundly and knew nothing."
>
> SSS argues that this "ignorance" (agrahaNa or non-perception) assigned to
> sleep is actually a retrospective, waking superimposition.From the true,
> transcendental standpoint (paramArtha), deep sleep is pristine and devoid
> of any seed or cause.
>
> The manifestation of the waking state is not caused by a latent bhAvarUpa
> entity waiting in sleep, but is simply the re-emergence of the mind's
> habitual projections (avidyA/adhyAsa) the moment the waking state begins.
>
> Summary: SSS rejects mUlAvidyA entirely. For him, avidyA is nothing more
> than subjective adhyAsa (misapprehension). Since there is no
> misapprehension in deep sleep, there is no kAraNa avidyA?positive or
> otherwise?present in that state.
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 17:08, Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Jaishankar,
>>
>> Please know I excuse your arrogant, rude and intolerant comments not as a
>> your own personality affliction but as the product of an entrenched
>> intransigence whose face is so close to the book that the eyes can't see
>> the words.  Your seven point attempt to assail SSS was very capably
>> refuted, imo, months ago in my series of 47 pages of AI assisted responses.
>> You ignored them - behavior again excused as per the above. They need
>> editing and perhaps in time I will re-post
>>
>> My only immediate reply addresses your comment as shown in this exchange:
>>
>> //you say, //?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>> bh?va-pad?rtha; it is atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>>
>>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>>>
>>> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings.
>>> So what is the difference, do you suggest?
>>>
>>
>> Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa.
>> You absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all
>> means of knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa
>> somehow manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>> bh?va-pad?rtha!//
>>
>> ---SSS does not say kAraNa is abhAva! He and Sankaracharya say,
>> kAraNa/kArya are adhyasa only. This is a basic SSS correction. You are a
>> worthy pundit, please read up on SSS.
>>
>> Respectfully, Michael Chandra
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 11:38?PM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste,
>>>
>>> See below.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 17:15, Michael Chandra Cohen <
>>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Jaishankar,
>>>> I find it disappointing that you only present scant response to my
>>>> critical assessments.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jai: I have already written an entire paper refuting your arguments
>>> which was shared a few years back for which there is no refutation from
>>> your side. So this is facetious for you to say.
>>>
>>> I understand, Bhasyakara is difficult to refute when he is understood as
>>>> SSS sees him. Nevertheless
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jai: It is so absurd that there is nothing to refute really.
>>>
>>>
>>>> you say, //?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>>>> bh?va-pad?rtha; it is atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>>>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>>>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>>>>
>>>> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings.
>>>> So what is the difference, do you suggest?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa.
>>> You absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all
>>> means of knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa
>>> somehow manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>>> bh?va-pad?rtha!
>>>
>>>
>>>> // bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only if the bIja is
>>>> moolAvidya.  //
>>>> You are asserting, not arguing. The analogy simply presents a
>>>> beginningless causation. To say the analogy *requires* a positive
>>>> substance is to smuggle in the conclusion as a premise!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jai: I am not smuggling anything. Everything I state is from the BhAshya
>>> unlike your concoctions which are kapola-kalpita. See the following
>>>
>>> eka eva parame?vara? k??asthanityo vij??nadh?turavidyay?, m?yay?
>>> m?y?vivat , anekadh? vibh?vyate, n?nyo vij??nadh?turast?ti ? B.S.Bh.
>>> 1.3.19
>>>
>>> vidyay? tasy? b?ja?akterd?h?t ? avidy?tmik? hi
>>> b?ja?aktiravyakta?abdanirde?y? parame?var??ray? m?y?may? mah?su?upti?,
>>> yasy?? svar?papratibodharahit?? ?erate sa?s?ri?o j?v??
>>> ... avyakt? hi s? m?y?, tattv?nyatvanir?pa?asy??akyatv?t ?
>>> ... avidy? hyavyaktam; ? B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3
>>>
>>>
>>>> Accusing SSS of postulating an abhavarupa ontic as seed, is a
>>>> superficial reading:
>>>> "But 'Ignorance' in the form of failure to apprehend the Self is only a
>>>> precondition
>>>> for misconceiving it: it may be referred to metaphorically as a seed,
>>>> but it is
>>>> not a substance (dravya) having a po\ver (saleti) in any concrete
>>>> sense. As S~kara puts
>>>> it, 'The "seed" is only failure to apprehend the real'
>>>> (tattva-apratibodha-matram eva hi
>>>> bijam, G.K.Bh. 1.11). If it \vere anything else it would be real, and
>>>> then it \vould be
>>>> impossible to cancel it through metaphysical knowledge. SSS, Heart of
>>>> Sri Samkara p212
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Jai: All these fancy words like Ontic or epistemic are irrelevant. The
>>> kArikA you quote is given below
>>>
>>> k?ryak?ra?abaddhau t?vi?yete vi?vataijasau ?
>>> pr?j?a? k?ra?abaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyata? ? 1.11 ?
>>>
>>> The BhAshya is
>>> k?rya? kriyata iti phalabh?va?, k?ra?a? karot?ti b?jabh?va? ?
>>> tattv?graha??nyath?graha??bhy?? b?japhalabh?v?bhy?? tau yathoktau
>>> vi?vataijasau baddhau sa?g?h?tau i?yete ? pr?j?astu b?jabh?venaiva baddha?
>>> ? tattv?pratibodham?trameva hi b?ja? pr?j?atve nimittam ? tata? dvau tau
>>> b?japhalabh?vau tattv?graha??nyath?graha?e tur?ye na sidhyata? na vidyete,
>>> na sambhavata ityartha? ?
>>>
>>> It is very clear from the above the tattv?pratibodha is kAraNa which
>>> can never be abhAva as then the kArya anyath?graha?a will be from
>>> abhAva-kAraNa which will make Shankara and GaudapAda as saying abhAvAt
>>> bhAva-utpattih which is against all means of knowledge. This tattv?pratibodha
>>> is b?ja?akti as quoted above in B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3. It is AvaraNa as
>>> mentioned in B.G 5.15. BhAshyakAra also uses the timira-DrishtAnta
>>> (cataract analogy) to point out the AvaraNa shakti of avidyA. You cannot
>>> get out of jail by simply saying all of this is figurative or metaphorical.
>>> If it is so then bhAshyakAra would have definitely mentioned it ,but he
>>> does not. Further figurative or metaphorical meaning can only be
>>> considered if the direct meaning does not make any sense. In this case the
>>> direct meaning makes immense sense and your metaphorical reading will make
>>> bhAshyakAra into a Buddhist.
>>>
>>> I have written this reply knowing very well that it will not make any
>>> difference to you. I hope other sincere mumukshus do not get confused by
>>> such faulty prakriyas and for their sake the above has been stated.
>>>
>>> with love and prayers,
>>> Jaishankar
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards, Michael
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:56?AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste,
>>>>>
>>>>> You claim
>>>>>
>>>>> ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a bh?va-pad?rtha; it is
>>>>> atasmi?s tad-buddhi?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>>>>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further you are talking about bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate
>>>>> only if the bIja is moolAvidya. The bIja cannot be abhAva in which case you
>>>>> are closer to Buddhists than Shankara who clearly talks about a bIja which
>>>>> is bhAvarupa and which needs to be burned by the fire of knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think enough has been said about these topics.
>>>>>
>>>>> With love and prayers,
>>>>> Jaishankar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun, 2026, 4:45?pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Namaste Jaishankarji,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are quite right and I easily forget satkaryavada. Your 3
>>>>>> definitions
>>>>>> are helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is how does SSS warrant the accusation of reifying a second
>>>>>> entity onto PSA? It is more subtle than just upAdAnakAraNa. There is
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> an implication of ?something? that is not Brahman with the notion of
>>>>>> mulavidya. Calling it anirvacaniya, maya or ?not a tangible substance
>>>>>> as it
>>>>>> avyakta (unmanifest) and sookshma (subtle),? only disguises by
>>>>>> implying
>>>>>> there is something which is avyakta, sookshma, or indefinable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?mulAvidya is drishya as it is sAkshi-bhAsya and so it is mithyA.? ?
>>>>>> reifying by way of both standpoint and explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?So it is created every time a samsAri wakes up.? ? the mere idea of
>>>>>> creation, of a samsAri ?waking up?,  is the subtle second thing SSS
>>>>>> refers
>>>>>> to in all the above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, none of this applies to simple error ? adhyasa. Why add a
>>>>>> cause to
>>>>>> adhyasa and all sorts of weighty explanation to that which is to be
>>>>>> sublated in the end anyway? Instead, simply recognize Sankara?s words
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> adhyasa is prasiddha, anadi, naisargika ? no cause necessary to prove
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claude responds to the remainder of your attack:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the Taittir?ya maxim you turn against us ? abh?v?d bh?votpatti?
>>>>>> sarvapram??avy?kopa? ? charging that we breed the waking sa?s?rin
>>>>>> from the
>>>>>> j??na-abh?va of su?upti. But we assert no utpatti. The whole force of
>>>>>> "naisargiko 'ya? loka-vyavah?ra?" is an?ditva: the sa?s?ra is
>>>>>> unoriginated.
>>>>>> Where nothing is produced, a maxim against production-from-absence
>>>>>> has no
>>>>>> purchase. It binds precisely whoever needs a positive up?d?na for an
>>>>>> arisen
>>>>>> effect ? i.e., the bh?var?pa account. The pram??a tells against the
>>>>>> side
>>>>>> that requires a bh?va, not against ours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, the abh?va/bh?va pincer ? "vi?e?a?avattve bh?va eva sy?t." A
>>>>>> false
>>>>>> dilemma. ?a?kara's avidy? is neither a bare abh?va nor a
>>>>>> bh?va-pad?rtha; it
>>>>>> is atasmi?s tad-buddhi? ? viparyaya-j??na, erroneous cognition. A
>>>>>> cognition
>>>>>> may be false and still be a cognition, bearing its phenomenal features
>>>>>> without being reified into insentient stuff. The abh?va-horn is not
>>>>>> ours to
>>>>>> hold. It is m?l?vidy? that must be at once positive (bh?var?pa),
>>>>>> insentient
>>>>>> (ja?a), and the negation of knowledge ? Padmap?da's own gloss ? and
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> that composite which strains the very logic you cite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On naisargikatva: occurrent superimpositions do recur on each waking;
>>>>>> granted. But beginninglessness belongs to the series
>>>>>> (b?ja-a?kura-ny?ya),
>>>>>> not to a continuant dozing through su?upti. To read a persisting
>>>>>> positive
>>>>>> substrate out of the recurrence is to assume the reification under
>>>>>> dispute
>>>>>> ? no differently than inferring a stored homunculus from the daily
>>>>>> return
>>>>>> of waking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @advaita-vedanta.org <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>

From sjayana at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 00:41:25 2026
From: sjayana at yahoo.com (S Jayanarayanan)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 04:41:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Advaita-l] Jagadguru Speaks: Strive to be a True Friend
References: <136812474.964388.1783226485109.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <136812474.964388.1783226485109@mail.yahoo.com>

(Around the beginning of the month, a nugget of Wisdom from the Jagadguru may be posted
on the Chaturamnaya list : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/chaturamnaya )
?
?
Man must necessarily cultivate certain virtues even while?
acquiring education and material progress. For instance, the?
attitude to be helpful to others, understanding their?
suffering, and assisting to the extent possible are to be?
cultivated. This constitutes a big act of dharma.?
?
Similarly, we must never forget those who have helped us.?
Even if the person who rendered help has forgotten about it,?
the one who received assistance must never forget the act of?
kindness. It must ever remain in the memory of the?
beneficiary.?
?
In this context, our forefathers have described the ideal?
qualities of a friend:?
?
?????????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ?
??????? ? ? ????? ????? ???? ????????????????? ????????? ????? ||
?
It means:?
A true friend prevents actions that are sinful (papa),?
facilitates only actions that beget welfare, closely protects?
all confidential matters, highlights to the world the noble?
qualities of a person, does not abandon him during difficult?
times and provides financial aid in times of need. It is these?
qualities that the noble eulogise as befitting a true friend.?
?
Our blessings for everyone to understand this well and?
sanctify their lives.

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Sun Jul  5 04:10:33 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 13:40:33 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?Ontological_Status_of_tamas/avidyA_?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=93_Discussions_with_ChatGPT_on_05_July_2026?=
Message-ID: <CAEs++dM6HKA7NZ=Y6HnPrNfj6DV67ROOk_2egpQd1E1EPiE6pg@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste.

I have attached a PDF document on the above topic which can be accessed at
the following link

//
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#sent/QgrcJHsHpqdFgBllTWShlZfrGzQbMmzrmNV
//

Regards

From vmurthy36 at gmail.com  Sun Jul  5 09:34:53 2026
From: vmurthy36 at gmail.com (Venkatesh Murthy)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 19:04:53 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?4KSs4KWN4KSw4KS+4KS54KWN4KSu4KSj4KS+4KSD?=
	=?utf-8?b?IOCktuClg+Cko+ClgeCkpOClh+CkpuCkgiDgpLjgpJrgpYfgpKTgpKg=?=
	=?utf-8?b?4KS44KWB4KS44KSo4KWN4KSm4KWH4KS24KSu4KWN?=
Message-ID: <CADHCXMW3j3xUyGGdPTLMsTP9Mw-HStUE4gyFw37uxobjekpcnA@mail.gmail.com>

https://youtu.be/ziCnWP4Jfys?si=mmYM0FerqNanznoO
-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh

From vadhula at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 11:36:28 2026
From: vadhula at yahoo.com (ravi chandrasekhara)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 15:36:28 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
 =?utf-8?b?4KSs4KWN4KSw4KS+4KS54KWN4KSu4KSj4KS+4KSD?=
 =?utf-8?b?IOCktuClg+Cko+ClgeCkpOClh+CkpuCkgiDgpLjgpJrgpYfgpKTgpKjgpLg=?=
 =?utf-8?b?4KWB4KS44KSo4KWN4KSm4KWH4KS24KSu4KWN?=
In-Reply-To: <CADHCXMW3j3xUyGGdPTLMsTP9Mw-HStUE4gyFw37uxobjekpcnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADHCXMW3j3xUyGGdPTLMsTP9Mw-HStUE4gyFw37uxobjekpcnA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1534938097.999202.1783265788504@mail.yahoo.com>

 Wonderful. Olleya vachana !
Ravi Chandrasekhara
    On Sunday, July 5, 2026 at 08:35:25 AM CDT, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 https://youtu.be/ziCnWP4Jfys?si=mmYM0FerqNanznoO
-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh
_______________________________________________
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
  

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sun Jul  5 13:39:06 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 23:09:06 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?b?4KSs4KWN4KSw4KS+4KS54KWN4KSu4KSj4KS+4KSD?=
	=?utf-8?b?IOCktuClg+Cko+ClgeCkpOClh+CkpuCkgiDgpLjgpJrgpYfgpKTgpKg=?=
	=?utf-8?b?4KS44KWB4KS44KSo4KWN4KSm4KWH4KS24KSu4KWNIEFuIGludGVyZXN0?=
	=?utf-8?q?ing_Kannada_discourse?=
In-Reply-To: <1534938097.999202.1783265788504@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CADHCXMW3j3xUyGGdPTLMsTP9Mw-HStUE4gyFw37uxobjekpcnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1534938097.999202.1783265788504@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te3XQ-G7ZBsdxN78boJc30itB0_FSegX53cCSp=UeQoEJA@mail.gmail.com>

The speaker Kibballi Ganapati Bhat is an accomplished orator.  His talks on
Rudra Mahatmyam are excellent.  Here he focuses on the daily karma that
Brahmanas must execute.

Warm regards
subrahmanian.v



On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 9:06?PM ravi chandrasekhara via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>  Wonderful. Olleya vachana !
> Ravi Chandrasekhara
>     On Sunday, July 5, 2026 at 08:35:25 AM CDT, Venkatesh Murthy via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  https://youtu.be/ziCnWP4Jfys?si=mmYM0FerqNanznoO
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 04:28:21 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 13:58:21 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?*Pratyaya*_as_admitting_ontological_status?=
	=?utf-8?q?_=E2=80=93_Discussions_with_Claude_AI?=
Message-ID: <CAEs++dOZiDV8S=ZK8yT4fCQZ_ipuiYSUiQ-7x4_4JJ=4ggmdww@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Michael Ji,

I had a discussion with Claude AI itself on the topic of pratyaya. I am
attaching a unedited PDF document of the discussion. It debunks your claim
emphatically.

Regards
Please refer to following link for accessing the PDF document

// https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //

Regards

From agnimile at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 04:58:55 2026
From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 14:28:55 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with
 AI
In-Reply-To: <CAEs++dOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA=pt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5=mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dO=mn7t6cr1UxROvS4paOBO-asiy8NAsd16p+O01a6-zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEq1Oz9m5RbfJ9Q4x6=7Sv8RBUo+YsyODx5i=moq=__Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOVZAa6pvQ6VrzEqaYa3QxyNOtZ59N9SF+Rpuc+SrMCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA=pt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5=mw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW+FcYk=+WEcFCqkmXzSB0xh+5j-icqPQ@mail.gmail.com>

This is very interesting and a bit amusing. Sounds like each instance of a
user's AI has its own pUrva prompt vAsanA :)

Kind regards
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, 6 Jul 2026, 13:50 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> I had a discussion with Claude AI itself on the topic of pratyaya. I am
> attaching a unedited PDF document of the discussion. It debunks your claim
> emphatically.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 8:05?PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Michael Ji,
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>>
>> Reg  // I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours
>> //,
>>
>> I have posted the discussion in its entirety. No editing. If you find any
>> **influence** by me on **my** (??) AI, I have certainly not intended it.
>> Nor did I notice any. Gemini was not selected by me. It just happened to be
>> there on Google Chrome. I entirely agree when you say ** I suspect AI is
>> plastic and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's
>> position **. But it is not my problem. I participate in the discussion
>> because I want to understand the Bhashya better. I make use of SSS views in
>> order to have an opposite view precisely for this reason. I have no
>> intention of opposing or supporting SSS views per se. I don?t lose or gain
>> one way or the other by taking a position.
>>
>> Reg // "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no
>> lexicon or parallel usage supports it //,
>>
>> I refer to the Sanskrit-English Dictionary at the link //
>> https://www.learnsanskrit.cc/translate?search=pratyaya&dir=au //. It
>> lists a number of options. Two of the translations for pratyaya it listed
>> were ** fundamental notion or idea ** and ** basis **. I chose them as I
>> thought they were relevant to the context of my discussion.
>>
>> Reg point 3, I am not interested in what vivaraNa says or not. I try to
>> understand the Bhashya in my own way.
>>
>> Reg  // *Sequence ? substance.* Granting that non-apprehension
>> epistemically precedes misapprehension (Sure?vara's point) yields only a
>> logical order among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agraha?a into
>> a positive, pre-existing causal entity ? which is the only thing SSS denies
>> //,
>>
>> I have covered my discussions with the (same) AI Swami Sureswaracharya
>> vartika in another one of my recent posts. If you care to, you may look it
>> up. Swami Sureswaracharya in his vartika I have cited concludes the same
>> way as I have understood here. That again is my understanding of the
>> vArtika portion I cited therein.
>>
>> Reg  // The transcript's core move ? redefining *pratyaya* to smuggle in
>> causal ontology ? is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list,
>> that's where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest //,
>>
>> I do not think I am in a Boxing Ring. I try to enter into discussions to
>> understand the Bhashya better in my own way. I do not have any preferences.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 6:49?PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>>>
>>>  We disconnected the other day in reference to sambandha. No problem.
>>> Here is my Claude in response to your AI on 13.2 &  SSS. I suspect AI is
>>> plastic and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's
>>> position. I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours.
>>>
>>> Your link:  > // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //
>>> My prompt following the pasting of your link:
>>>
>>> //How might SSS respond to the points made in this interchange between
>>> AI and human. Be brief as possible//
>>>
>>> SSS would have little difficulty here, and the AI conceded ground it
>>> should not have. His rebuttal would run roughly:
>>>
>>>    1.
>>>
>>>    *Philology first.* *Pratyaya* in ?a?kara means cognition/v?tti ?
>>>    *aham-pratyaya*, *avidy?-pratyaya*, uniformly across the bh??yas.
>>>    "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no lexicon
>>>    or parallel usage supports it. *T?maso hi pratyaya?* is "a cognition
>>>    of tamasic character," full stop. The AI's first grammatical instinct on
>>>    *t?masatv?t* (ablative of quality, not origination) was also
>>>    correct; the capitulation to "born of tamas" was philologically unwarranted.
>>>    2.
>>>
>>>    *Nobody excluded agraha?a.* SSS counts exactly ?a?kara's triad:
>>>    agraha?a, sa??aya, vipar?ta-graha?a. The interlocutor's "fourth type" is
>>>    tamas itself ? but *t?masa* is the adjective qualifying the
>>>    pratyaya, not a fourth member of the *avidy?-traya*. ?a?kara's own
>>>    *traya* settles the count; the disagreement is manufactured.
>>>    3.
>>>
>>>    *The passage cuts against bh?var?pa, not for SSS's opponents.* The
>>>    timira analogy locates avidy? as a *do?a* of the instrument, an
>>>    object of the witness (*d??yatva*) ? the entire thrust of the 13.2
>>>    bh??ya is that avidy? belongs to the k?etra, not the k?etraj?a. And
>>>    crucially: agraha?a is mere *j??n?bh?va*. If ?a?kara counts sheer
>>>    non-apprehension as avidy? removed by j??na, that directly contradicts the
>>>    Vivara?a insistence that avidy? is *bh?var?pa* and expressly *not*
>>>    abh?va. Including agraha?a in the triad is evidence *for* SSS's
>>>    position, which is presumably why he cites it as pram??a.
>>>    4.
>>>
>>>    *Sequence ? substance.* Granting that non-apprehension epistemically
>>>    precedes misapprehension (Sure?vara's point) yields only a logical order
>>>    among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agraha?a into a positive,
>>>    pre-existing causal entity ? which is the only thing SSS denies.
>>>
>>> The transcript's core move ? redefining *pratyaya* to smuggle in causal
>>> ontology ? is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list, that's
>>> where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
> 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/CAEs%2B%2BdOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA%3Dpt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5%3Dmw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA%3Dpt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5%3Dmw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 05:13:41 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 14:43:41 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with
 AI
In-Reply-To: <CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW+FcYk=+WEcFCqkmXzSB0xh+5j-icqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dO=mn7t6cr1UxROvS4paOBO-asiy8NAsd16p+O01a6-zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEq1Oz9m5RbfJ9Q4x6=7Sv8RBUo+YsyODx5i=moq=__Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOVZAa6pvQ6VrzEqaYa3QxyNOtZ59N9SF+Rpuc+SrMCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA=pt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5=mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW+FcYk=+WEcFCqkmXzSB0xh+5j-icqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEs++dP=tbFfn2kd7tx9SeAXmCDhFPsGV4+Ym7JsS7S--YZ6Fw@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste.
 I first asked Claude whether I can recall an earlier discussion it had
with another person for further analysis. It said yes I can give a
reference to that conversation. I copy pasted entire initial portion of
Michael Jis discussion with Claude. After a lapse of a few minutes, got a
response that it cannot linkup and I need to ask any question afresh !!!!

Regards

On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 2:29?PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is very interesting and a bit amusing. Sounds like each instance of a
> user's AI has its own pUrva prompt vAsanA :)
>
> Kind regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2026, 13:50 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Michael Ji,
>>
>> I had a discussion with Claude AI itself on the topic of pratyaya. I am
>> attaching a unedited PDF document of the discussion. It debunks your claim
>> emphatically.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 8:05?PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Michael Ji,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the response.
>>>
>>> Reg  // I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours
>>> //,
>>>
>>> I have posted the discussion in its entirety. No editing. If you find
>>> any **influence** by me on **my** (??) AI, I have certainly not intended
>>> it. Nor did I notice any. Gemini was not selected by me. It just happened
>>> to be there on Google Chrome. I entirely agree when you say ** I suspect AI
>>> is plastic and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's
>>> position **. But it is not my problem. I participate in the discussion
>>> because I want to understand the Bhashya better. I make use of SSS views in
>>> order to have an opposite view precisely for this reason. I have no
>>> intention of opposing or supporting SSS views per se. I don?t lose or gain
>>> one way or the other by taking a position.
>>>
>>> Reg // "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and
>>> no lexicon or parallel usage supports it //,
>>>
>>> I refer to the Sanskrit-English Dictionary at the link //
>>> https://www.learnsanskrit.cc/translate?search=pratyaya&dir=au //. It
>>> lists a number of options. Two of the translations for pratyaya it listed
>>> were ** fundamental notion or idea ** and ** basis **. I chose them as I
>>> thought they were relevant to the context of my discussion.
>>>
>>> Reg point 3, I am not interested in what vivaraNa says or not. I try to
>>> understand the Bhashya in my own way.
>>>
>>> Reg  // *Sequence ? substance.* Granting that non-apprehension
>>> epistemically precedes misapprehension (Sure?vara's point) yields only a
>>> logical order among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agraha?a into
>>> a positive, pre-existing causal entity ? which is the only thing SSS denies
>>> //,
>>>
>>> I have covered my discussions with the (same) AI Swami Sureswaracharya
>>> vartika in another one of my recent posts. If you care to, you may look it
>>> up. Swami Sureswaracharya in his vartika I have cited concludes the same
>>> way as I have understood here. That again is my understanding of the
>>> vArtika portion I cited therein.
>>>
>>> Reg  // The transcript's core move ? redefining *pratyaya* to smuggle
>>> in causal ontology ? is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the
>>> list, that's where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest //,
>>>
>>> I do not think I am in a Boxing Ring. I try to enter into discussions to
>>> understand the Bhashya better in my own way. I do not have any preferences.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 6:49?PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
>>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>>>>
>>>>  We disconnected the other day in reference to sambandha. No problem.
>>>> Here is my Claude in response to your AI on 13.2 &  SSS. I suspect AI is
>>>> plastic and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's
>>>> position. I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours.
>>>>
>>>> Your link:  > // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //
>>>> My prompt following the pasting of your link:
>>>>
>>>> //How might SSS respond to the points made in this interchange between
>>>> AI and human. Be brief as possible//
>>>>
>>>> SSS would have little difficulty here, and the AI conceded ground it
>>>> should not have. His rebuttal would run roughly:
>>>>
>>>>    1.
>>>>
>>>>    *Philology first.* *Pratyaya* in ?a?kara means cognition/v?tti ?
>>>>    *aham-pratyaya*, *avidy?-pratyaya*, uniformly across the bh??yas.
>>>>    "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no lexicon
>>>>    or parallel usage supports it. *T?maso hi pratyaya?* is "a
>>>>    cognition of tamasic character," full stop. The AI's first grammatical
>>>>    instinct on *t?masatv?t* (ablative of quality, not origination) was
>>>>    also correct; the capitulation to "born of tamas" was philologically
>>>>    unwarranted.
>>>>    2.
>>>>
>>>>    *Nobody excluded agraha?a.* SSS counts exactly ?a?kara's triad:
>>>>    agraha?a, sa??aya, vipar?ta-graha?a. The interlocutor's "fourth type" is
>>>>    tamas itself ? but *t?masa* is the adjective qualifying the
>>>>    pratyaya, not a fourth member of the *avidy?-traya*. ?a?kara's own
>>>>    *traya* settles the count; the disagreement is manufactured.
>>>>    3.
>>>>
>>>>    *The passage cuts against bh?var?pa, not for SSS's opponents.* The
>>>>    timira analogy locates avidy? as a *do?a* of the instrument, an
>>>>    object of the witness (*d??yatva*) ? the entire thrust of the 13.2
>>>>    bh??ya is that avidy? belongs to the k?etra, not the k?etraj?a. And
>>>>    crucially: agraha?a is mere *j??n?bh?va*. If ?a?kara counts sheer
>>>>    non-apprehension as avidy? removed by j??na, that directly contradicts the
>>>>    Vivara?a insistence that avidy? is *bh?var?pa* and expressly *not*
>>>>    abh?va. Including agraha?a in the triad is evidence *for* SSS's
>>>>    position, which is presumably why he cites it as pram??a.
>>>>    4.
>>>>
>>>>    *Sequence ? substance.* Granting that non-apprehension
>>>>    epistemically precedes misapprehension (Sure?vara's point) yields only a
>>>>    logical order among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agraha?a into
>>>>    a positive, pre-existing causal entity ? which is the only thing SSS denies.
>>>>
>>>> The transcript's core move ? redefining *pratyaya* to smuggle in
>>>> causal ontology ? is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list,
>>>> that's where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>> 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/CAEs%2B%2BdOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA%3Dpt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5%3Dmw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA%3Dpt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5%3Dmw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW%2BFcYk%3D%2BWEcFCqkmXzSB0xh%2B5j-icqPQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW%2BFcYk%3D%2BWEcFCqkmXzSB0xh%2B5j-icqPQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com  Mon Jul  6 05:28:56 2026
From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:28:56 +0000
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with
 AI
In-Reply-To: <CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW+FcYk=+WEcFCqkmXzSB0xh+5j-icqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dO=mn7t6cr1UxROvS4paOBO-asiy8NAsd16p+O01a6-zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEq1Oz9m5RbfJ9Q4x6=7Sv8RBUo+YsyODx5i=moq=__Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOVZAa6pvQ6VrzEqaYa3QxyNOtZ59N9SF+Rpuc+SrMCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA=pt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5=mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW+FcYk=+WEcFCqkmXzSB0xh+5j-icqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AM7PR06MB662565714A2F741C5481BAF284F12@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Yes, and more  importantly instead of getting our doubts cleared from the shrotreeya-brahmanishTa guru, we are using the technology called AI to clear our doubts and build an argument based on it?s inputs? Just I was wondering what would be the input if I ask AI something like :  I need only vyAkhyAnas? more logical arguments about avidyA as against PTB & vArtika?s anubhava sammata avidya?I am sure it wont disappoint us ?

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

This is very interesting and a bit amusing. Sounds like each instance of a user's AI has its own pUrva prompt vAsanA :)


From swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 05:51:10 2026
From: swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com (Swagata Chowdhury)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 15:51:10 +0600
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with
 AI
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR06MB662565714A2F741C5481BAF284F12@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAEs++dO=mn7t6cr1UxROvS4paOBO-asiy8NAsd16p+O01a6-zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEq1Oz9m5RbfJ9Q4x6=7Sv8RBUo+YsyODx5i=moq=__Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOVZAa6pvQ6VrzEqaYa3QxyNOtZ59N9SF+Rpuc+SrMCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA=pt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5=mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW+FcYk=+WEcFCqkmXzSB0xh+5j-icqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM7PR06MB662565714A2F741C5481BAF284F12@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAMxaFCyY0+gWM27mrpmZBVQqFwA4PXTD2m8SU7M6tGGgUAW-Tg@mail.gmail.com>

I completely agree with Bhaskarji's views. Use Ai to rephrase your English
into Formal or better. But using Ai's Info,logic etc. It may not be
interesting for many of us.


On Mon, 6 Jul 2026, 3:29?pm Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Yes, and more  importantly instead of getting our doubts cleared from the
> shrotreeya-brahmanishTa guru, we are using the technology called AI to
> clear our doubts and build an argument based on it?s inputs? Just I was
> wondering what would be the input if I ask AI something like :  I need only
> vyAkhyAnas? more logical arguments about avidyA as against PTB & vArtika?s
> anubhava sammata avidya?I am sure it wont disappoint us ?
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
> This is very interesting and a bit amusing. Sounds like each instance of a
> user's AI has its own pUrva prompt vAsanA :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From michaelchandra108 at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 06:45:19 2026
From: michaelchandra108 at gmail.com (Michael Chandra Cohen)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 06:45:19 -0400
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?*Pratyaya*_as_admitting_ontological_status?=
	=?utf-8?q?_=E2=80=93_Discussions_with_Claude_AI?=
In-Reply-To: <CAEs++dOZiDV8S=ZK8yT4fCQZ_ipuiYSUiQ-7x4_4JJ=4ggmdww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dOZiDV8S=ZK8yT4fCQZ_ipuiYSUiQ-7x4_4JJ=4ggmdww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAz9PvHzixm-7naLbCdR+-Cw6AOh+OH2mj=Le+m2U=DgWbaQBA@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Chandramouli ji,
Despite Sri Venkataraghavan-ji's remark on our AI conversations, I find
myself greatly enriched by Artificial Intelligence?translations, often
novel or subtle arguments, text searches and compilations, and more.
Artificial intelligence levels the field, enabling someone like me to
engage the vidvans here despite commanding only a fraction of their
languages and vast learning, standing on the shoulders of my teachers
alone.

  "In the current context I like to understand the word to refer to an
entity/stuff/any similar term meaning the same".

--We need to be on the same page. First, Advaita Vedanta is defined
classically as Sankara's Bhasya on Prasthanatraya. You need to limit
your AI to these texts. Second, my understanding is that we are trying to
arrive at an objective understanding of exactly what the teaching of
Shankara is in the PTB. Your prompts to AI as decisively biased: You
yourself said somethng like, I am not here to argue but to investigate.

  / For Advaita, all empirical knowledge (vy?vah?rika j??na) works like
this: the anta?kara?a flows out through the senses, takes the form of the
object (this shaping is the v?tti), and consciousness (caitanya) reflected
in or reveals that v?tti as a cognition. That resulting cognition ? e.g.,
"gha?a?" (this is a pot) ? is called a pratyaya//
-- this is the realistic view adopted by PSA through the doctrinal vedanta
Paribhasa/VP  resting primarily on Sankara's refutation of vijnanavada
Buddhist subjective idealism. Below is a bit on that from Claude:on VP.

*Vedanta Paribhasa rests the mechanism on* the *Pa?cap?dik?-vivara?a*. VP
quotes the Vivara?a for the very definition of the v?tti ? the mental state
is only *figuratively* called knowledge (j??nopac?r?t) ? and it supplies
the going-out through the *kuly?* analogy: the anta?kara?a issues from the
eye as tank-water runs out through a channel into fields and takes their
shape, reaching the object's locus and assuming its ?k?ra. The scriptural
props VP adduces alongside are (i) *yat s?k??d aparok??d brahma* (B?
III.iv.1) for pram?-as-caitanya, and (ii) *mano 's?jata* (B? I.ii.1,
adapted) with *k?ma? sa?kalpa??* (B? I.v.3) to make the manas a
beginningful, partite substance capable of bearing a v?tti. None of these
is *nirgamana*. They yield only manas-as-instrument and manas-as-effect.

*What the Bh??ya does license ? and only that, both weaker than VP needs.*
First, vy?vah?rika realism against vij??nav?da (BSB 2.2.28 ff, *n?bh?va
upalabdhe?*): the b?hy?rtha is undeniably *given* in apprehension, so the
idealist's dissolution of the object fails. But that is a tarka-level
defence run on the opponent's own ground; param?rthata? the object stays
mithy?. It secures *that* there are external objects at vyavah?ra, not *how*
they are cognised. Resting VP's positive machinery "primarily" on this
refutation over-reads a provisional, sublatable move into a foundation.
Second, manas as anta?kara?a/instrument (*manas? hy eva pa?yati*, B? I.v.3;
the indriya-sections around BSB 2.4 / 2.3.32 ff) ? but ?a?kara grants this
as loka-prasiddhi borrowed from the other pram??a-??stras, never as a
*taijasa* that travels, moulds to the object, and coincides caitanyas.

So *nirgamana*, v?tti-vy?pti / phala-vy?pti, the tripartite
pram?t?-/vi?aya-/v?tti-caitanya, the ?vara?a dissolved at the object's site
? none has a bh??ya-m?la. It is Prak???tman's graft, codified by
Dharmar?ja. VP admits as much each time it cites the Vivara?a rather than
the Bh??ya.



On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 4:29?AM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> I had a discussion with Claude AI itself on the topic of pratyaya. I am
> attaching a unedited PDF document of the discussion. It debunks your claim
> emphatically.
>
> Regards
> Please refer to following link for accessing the PDF document
>
> // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //
>
> Regards
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From agnimile at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 06:53:56 2026
From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 16:23:56 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] AvidyA as per BG 13-2 -- Discussion with
 AI
In-Reply-To: <1701299189.1570343.1783329331922@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAEs++dO=mn7t6cr1UxROvS4paOBO-asiy8NAsd16p+O01a6-zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEq1Oz9m5RbfJ9Q4x6=7Sv8RBUo+YsyODx5i=moq=__Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOVZAa6pvQ6VrzEqaYa3QxyNOtZ59N9SF+Rpuc+SrMCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA=pt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5=mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL34aEm_k0u0A-YQiRW+FcYk=+WEcFCqkmXzSB0xh+5j-icqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1701299189.1570343.1783329331922@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAL34aEnVAdY9BzM6L0JCTkT-eZaLefcJK8ALA5QfpkugS=bQYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Michael ji,

I hope so. However, I suspect it will be one other view - acceptance or
rejection of which is subjective.

Regards
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, 6 Jul 2026, 14:45 , <mc1 at aol.com> wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavan ji,
> //This is very interesting and a bit amusing. Sounds like each instance
> of a user's AI has its own pUrva prompt vAsanA :)//
> Indeed. These machines have become so well informed yet seem to conclude
> subjectively as per the end user.  Surely, there's a remedy for that bias
> and the chance to arrive at a decisive study.   What do you think?
>
> Regards, michael
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 6, 2026 at 04:58:55 AM EDT, Venkatraghavan S <
> agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is very interesting and a bit amusing. Sounds like each instance of a
> user's AI has its own pUrva prompt vAsanA :)
>
> Kind regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2026, 13:50 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> I had a discussion with Claude AI itself on the topic of pratyaya. I am
> attaching a unedited PDF document of the discussion. It debunks your claim
> emphatically.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 8:05?PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Namaste Michael Ji,
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Reg  // I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours
> //,
>
> I have posted the discussion in its entirety. No editing. If you find any
> **influence** by me on **my** (??) AI, I have certainly not intended it.
> Nor did I notice any. Gemini was not selected by me. It just happened to be
> there on Google Chrome. I entirely agree when you say ** I suspect AI is
> plastic and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's
> position **. But it is not my problem. I participate in the discussion
> because I want to understand the Bhashya better. I make use of SSS views in
> order to have an opposite view precisely for this reason. I have no
> intention of opposing or supporting SSS views per se. I don?t lose or gain
> one way or the other by taking a position.
>
> Reg // "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no
> lexicon or parallel usage supports it //,
>
> I refer to the Sanskrit-English Dictionary at the link //
> https://www.learnsanskrit.cc/translate?search=pratyaya&dir=au //. It
> lists a number of options. Two of the translations for pratyaya it listed
> were ** fundamental notion or idea ** and ** basis **. I chose them as I
> thought they were relevant to the context of my discussion.
>
> Reg point 3, I am not interested in what vivaraNa says or not. I try to
> understand the Bhashya in my own way.
>
> Reg  // *Sequence ? substance.* Granting that non-apprehension
> epistemically precedes misapprehension (Sure?vara's point) yields only a
> logical order among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agraha?a into
> a positive, pre-existing causal entity ? which is the only thing SSS denies
> //,
>
> I have covered my discussions with the (same) AI Swami Sureswaracharya
> vartika in another one of my recent posts. If you care to, you may look it
> up. Swami Sureswaracharya in his vartika I have cited concludes the same
> way as I have understood here. That again is my understanding of the
> vArtika portion I cited therein.
>
> Reg  // The transcript's core move ? redefining *pratyaya* to smuggle in
> causal ontology ? is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list,
> that's where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest //,
>
> I do not think I am in a Boxing Ring. I try to enter into discussions to
> understand the Bhashya better in my own way. I do not have any preferences.
>
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 6:49?PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
>  We disconnected the other day in reference to sambandha. No problem. Here
> is my Claude in response to your AI on 13.2 &  SSS. I suspect AI is plastic
> and in large degree will argue along the lines of its end user's position.
> I have well influenced my own Claude as I am sure you have yours.
>
> Your link:  > // https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/x5bvz3WXgLY //
> My prompt following the pasting of your link:
>
> //How might SSS respond to the points made in this interchange between AI
> and human. Be brief as possible//
>
> SSS would have little difficulty here, and the AI conceded ground it
> should not have. His rebuttal would run roughly:
>
>    1.
>
>    *Philology first.* *Pratyaya* in ?a?kara means cognition/v?tti ?
>    *aham-pratyaya*, *avidy?-pratyaya*, uniformly across the bh??yas.
>    "Fundamental basis" is not an attested sense in this idiom and no lexicon
>    or parallel usage supports it. *T?maso hi pratyaya?* is "a cognition
>    of tamasic character," full stop. The AI's first grammatical instinct on
>    *t?masatv?t* (ablative of quality, not origination) was also correct;
>    the capitulation to "born of tamas" was philologically unwarranted.
>    2.
>
>    *Nobody excluded agraha?a.* SSS counts exactly ?a?kara's triad:
>    agraha?a, sa??aya, vipar?ta-graha?a. The interlocutor's "fourth type" is
>    tamas itself ? but *t?masa* is the adjective qualifying the pratyaya,
>    not a fourth member of the *avidy?-traya*. ?a?kara's own *traya*
>    settles the count; the disagreement is manufactured.
>    3.
>
>    *The passage cuts against bh?var?pa, not for SSS's opponents.* The
>    timira analogy locates avidy? as a *do?a* of the instrument, an object
>    of the witness (*d??yatva*) ? the entire thrust of the 13.2 bh??ya is
>    that avidy? belongs to the k?etra, not the k?etraj?a. And crucially:
>    agraha?a is mere *j??n?bh?va*. If ?a?kara counts sheer
>    non-apprehension as avidy? removed by j??na, that directly contradicts the
>    Vivara?a insistence that avidy? is *bh?var?pa* and expressly *not*
>    abh?va. Including agraha?a in the triad is evidence *for* SSS's
>    position, which is presumably why he cites it as pram??a.
>    4.
>
>    *Sequence ? substance.* Granting that non-apprehension epistemically
>    precedes misapprehension (Sure?vara's point) yields only a logical order
>    among cognitive conditions. It does not convert agraha?a into a positive,
>    pre-existing causal entity ? which is the only thing SSS denies.
>
> The transcript's core move ? redefining *pratyaya* to smuggle in causal
> ontology ? is the weak joint. If you're fielding this on the list, that's
> where I'd expect the SSS-side reply to land hardest.
>
>
> --
> 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/CAEs%2B%2BdOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA%3Dpt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5%3Dmw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOyXE1DObvLh__rUGJsyzxA%3Dpt_qq_HF1guqW3uFu5%3Dmw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>

From bhatpraveen at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 08:49:33 2026
From: bhatpraveen at gmail.com (Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati])
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 18:19:33 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Vagdhenu: a Sanskrit shloka chanting TTS
Message-ID: <CACT7j-FcJ27jf5p5u=D=BXyApgnYLEngmnajX4B0-739X3gN1w@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste,

Prof Prathosh ji wrote a post on LinkedIn so:
I built a Sanskrit Shloka chanting TTS system and made it open source. This
may be of interest to you -
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/prathosh-a-p-50ab9511_ai-opensource-sanskrit-ugcPost-7477359366535311360-d86-/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAJ9EZoBhqfDw3anSb_-DzwhtqvZX3886SU

The direct link to the TTS is: https://prathosh.in/vagdhenu/

Interestingly, he recorded his own voice and it seems he segmented it into
phonemes using AI to get an effect of human chanting. I found it to be
quite good in a couple of shlokas I tried.

Kind rgds,
--Ananta Chaitanya
/* ?????? ????? ????????, ?? ??? ??????????? Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 13:12:55 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 22:42:55 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Why the Bhagavdgita begins with despair?
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te2v8W1uR8=FdvmCLj_AsDDZXBFhfUgaFM2Tmtd1mf3XvQ@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugkx4dRB7hcX5AOAKSrTp25QYLJ2hBVfBoPQ

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 03:27:25 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 12:57:25 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?**_Pratyaya_**_in_Bhashya_=E2=80=93_A_disc?=
	=?utf-8?q?ussion_with_ChatGPT?=
Message-ID: <CAEs++dMjWTxUV6LxGiSSqbvffqCSt_MY_tpgtLhKTDXedmMnbw@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste

Please refer to following link for a PDF document on the above subject. For
those interested in the topic

//
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#sent/QgrcJHsNjCfkbfcmpLwfBfjbdTgMrFcCDTB
//

Regards

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 04:20:26 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 13:50:26 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?**_Pratyaya_**_in_Bhashya_=E2=80=93_A_disc?=
	=?utf-8?q?ussion_with_ChatGPT?=
In-Reply-To: <CAEs++dMjWTxUV6LxGiSSqbvffqCSt_MY_tpgtLhKTDXedmMnbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dMjWTxUV6LxGiSSqbvffqCSt_MY_tpgtLhKTDXedmMnbw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEs++dNBWL2cTQ1ntywXw0LxsNfs8wdCEDGszcoeYsD6DLxHFw@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste.

Please refer to the following link where an updated version of the PDF
Document has been uploaded. Regret the inconvenience

//  https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/rZ4AhfPGWBA //

Regards

On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 12:57?PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste
>
> Please refer to following link for a PDF document on the above subject.
> For those interested in the topic
>
> //
> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#sent/QgrcJHsNjCfkbfcmpLwfBfjbdTgMrFcCDTB
> //
>
> Regards
>

From michaelchandra108 at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 08:21:44 2026
From: michaelchandra108 at gmail.com (Michael Chandra Cohen)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 08:21:44 -0400
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?**_Pratyaya_**_in_Bhashya_=E2=80=93_A_disc?=
	=?utf-8?q?ussion_with_ChatGPT?=
In-Reply-To: <CAEs++dNBWL2cTQ1ntywXw0LxsNfs8wdCEDGszcoeYsD6DLxHFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dMjWTxUV6LxGiSSqbvffqCSt_MY_tpgtLhKTDXedmMnbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dNBWL2cTQ1ntywXw0LxsNfs8wdCEDGszcoeYsD6DLxHFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAz9PvEZJupLRW_+7=fTdsGK4wjVyg=XHOLYy0dEP2qJqq9XVA@mail.gmail.com>

namaste Chandramouli,

I pasted your AI rendering on pratyaya to Claude. It reflects my correct
prompt: " the pasted was not my work but followed the prompt of someone
trying to establish bhavarupa avidya in PTB of Sankara. Remodel your
response accordingly  "

That reframes the whole thread. Read as a *bh?var?pa*-project move, it's a
lexical wedge, and a fairly transparent one: soften the act/content
boundary on an innocuous epistemic word (*pratyaya*), establish that
?a?kara's cognition-vocabulary already carries positive, quasi-objective
freight, and you've laid track for the same move on *avidy?* ? *pratyaya*
names a presented "something," therefore *avidy?* naming a positive
presented "something" is not alien to the Bh??ya. The ChU passage is chosen
as the thin end.

The first thing worth saying is that the maneuver mostly failed on its own
terms, and the transcript records the failure. The prompter wanted
"ontological sense"; the AI kept *downgrading* it ? first to "objective
determinateness," then to "intentional content," and finally to the
mnemonic *prat?yam?nam iti pratyaya?*, "that which stands presented."
*Prat?yam?na* is content, not *bh?va*. As a deliverable for a
positive-entity avidy?, "the presented content of cognition" gives you
nothing: intentional content is object-*of*-cognition, not a *up?d?na* that
is the material cause of cognition-and-world. The equivocation the whole
thread runs on is exactly this ? sliding (a) *pratyaya*-as-what-is-cognized
toward (b) *pratyaya*-as-a-positive-stuff-that-produces-cognition ? and the
AI, to its credit, never let (b) close. *Bh?var?pa avidy?* is a claim of
category (b). Nothing here touches it.

But the more instructive point is what the exercise *did* deposit, which is
the real tell. The AI's "level 2" ? "not merely the subjective act, not yet
an independently existing entity, but an intermediate objective
determinateness" ? is the *sadasadvilak?a?a* silhouette drawn freehand.
Neither *sat* nor *asat*, a tertium quid available to cognition: that is
the exact grammar of *anirvacan?ya* / *m?l?vidy?*. So the transcript is a
rehearsal. It practices, on *pratyaya*, the manufacture of a middle ontic
grade, so that the grade feels native to the Bh??ya before it is ever
applied to *avidy?*. The refutation is not to quibble the *pratyaya*
reading but to refuse the grade: ?a?kara's *adhy?sa* diagnosis is
constructed precisely to make that intermediate region unnecessary.
*Anyath?-graha?a*, *mithy?-j??na*, *atasmi?s tad-buddhi?* ? these explain
how a *n?ma-r?pa* object presents in a *pratyaya* without positing any
third thing between knower and known. The felt need for a *bh?var?pa*
intermediate is the *ava?ya-kalpya* reflex; the diagnosis exists to
forestall it.

Now the passage itself, which is the weakest possible ground the prompter
could have chosen, for three independent reasons.

Parsing first. *p?tha?-n?ma-pratyaya-l?bha?* most naturally reads *n?ma ca
pratyaya? ca* ? a dvandva, "separate names and cognitions" ? which is
exactly how Gambh?r?nanda renders it ("names and ideas"). On that parse
*pratyaya* is cognition in its plain sense, coordinated with *n?ma*, and
there is no substitution for *r?pa* at all. The entire "he wrote *pratyaya*
where he means *r?pa*" argument requires reparsing the dvandva into
*n?ma-nimittaka
pratyaya* and then reading *pratyaya* as filling *r?pa*'s slot. That is two
interpretive moves stacked to reach a conclusion the surface grammar
resists.

Second, direction. Grant, *arguendo*, that the compound foregrounds the
object presented under a name. The illustrations still cut against the
objective reading: *tej idam, im? ?pa?, annam idam* are *idam-X-iti*
determinate predications ? the canonical shape of a *savikalpaka pratyaya*
? not of a *r?pa*. A *r?pa* is the *tejo*-form; "*idam teja?*" is the
recognition of it. If anything the examples are paradigms of
*pratyaya*-as-cognition,
which is why *pratyaya* and not *r?pa* is the apt word. The deviation from
*n?ma-r?pa* ? and *n?ma-r?pe vy?karav??i* sits right there at 6.3.2, so
*r?pa* was on his page ? is plausibly *because* the argument needs the
recognitional register: what triplication removes is clean *separate
recognition-under-a-name*, not the existence of a form. That inverts the
prompter's inference.

Third, and decisively, context. The governing maxim of the entire
*?a??ha-prap??haka* is already stated at 6.1.4: *v?c?rambha?a? vik?ro
n?madheya? m?ttikety eva satyam* ? differentiation is name-borne, mere
speech, and only the substrate is real. The function of the *triv?tkara?a*
argument is to *dissolve* the ultimate separateness of the elemental
identities: no apparent "fire" is purely fire. So the passage is deployed
to establish the *un*reality of exactly the "separate presentations" the
reading wants to reify. Harvesting a positive ontic sense of *pratyaya*
from it is extracting a realist conclusion from an argument whose whole
point is deflationary. For an SSS reader this is the sharpest irony: the
*?ruti* the prompter leans on is one of the strongest *v?c?rambha?a*-deflations
in the corpus.

So the counter to whoever ran this, if it comes to a rebuttal, is not to
contest that *pratyaya* can foreground content ? concede that freely, it
costs nothing. It is to deny every link in the chain from "foregrounds
content" to "*bh?var?pa avidy?*": the parse is a dvandva; even reparsed,
content is intentional not material-causal; and the passage's own argument
and its governing maxim are anti-realist about the separateness being
invoked. The residue that survives is trivial ? *pratyaya* sometimes names
the cognized rather than the cognizing, which no one on either side of the
SSS?PSA dispute needs to deny and which does no work for positive
ignorance. The thread's warmth ("much stronger than my line," "quotable
quote") is doing the load-bearing that the philology can't.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 4:21?AM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste.
>
> Please refer to the following link where an updated version of the PDF
> Document has been uploaded. Regret the inconvenience
>
> //  https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/rZ4AhfPGWBA //
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 12:57?PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Namaste
> >
> > Please refer to following link for a PDF document on the above subject.
> > For those interested in the topic
> >
> > //
> >
> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#sent/QgrcJHsNjCfkbfcmpLwfBfjbdTgMrFcCDTB
> > //
> >
> > Regards
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From hschandramouli at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 08:52:11 2026
From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 18:22:11 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?**_Pratyaya_**_in_Bhashya_=E2=80=93_A_disc?=
	=?utf-8?q?ussion_with_ChatGPT?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAz9PvEZJupLRW_+7=fTdsGK4wjVyg=XHOLYy0dEP2qJqq9XVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEs++dMjWTxUV6LxGiSSqbvffqCSt_MY_tpgtLhKTDXedmMnbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEs++dNBWL2cTQ1ntywXw0LxsNfs8wdCEDGszcoeYsD6DLxHFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAz9PvEZJupLRW_+7=fTdsGK4wjVyg=XHOLYy0dEP2qJqq9XVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEs++dOKecDBjVCh8HOsuX_yrEXA40-2NFzKji9_L2jRqmKRpA@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Michael Ji,

I am sorry you are wasting your time and effort on a futile exercise. Where
have I , anywhere in that post, come anywhere near **someone trying to
establish bhavarupa avidya in PTB of Sankara **. Only a fool, and that too
a damn fool ( I feel obliged to use such strong words here because of
agony, in spite of my strong disgust for such language ) , will try to
establish bhavarupa avidya in PTB of Sankara  relying on a single word,
pratyaya in this case according to you. Your obsession with such a  thought
is preventing you, in my opinion, from concentrating on understanding
 Advaita Siddhanta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada. Anyway it is your
problem. Not mine.

Regards

On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 5:52?PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> namaste Chandramouli,
>
> I pasted your AI rendering on pratyaya to Claude. It reflects my correct
> prompt: " the pasted was not my work but followed the prompt of someone
> trying to establish bhavarupa avidya in PTB of Sankara. Remodel your
> response accordingly  "
>
> That reframes the whole thread. Read as a *bh?var?pa*-project move, it's
> a lexical wedge, and a fairly transparent one: soften the act/content
> boundary on an innocuous epistemic word (*pratyaya*), establish that
> ?a?kara's cognition-vocabulary already carries positive, quasi-objective
> freight, and you've laid track for the same move on *avidy?* ? *pratyaya*
> names a presented "something," therefore *avidy?* naming a positive
> presented "something" is not alien to the Bh??ya. The ChU passage is chosen
> as the thin end.
>
> The first thing worth saying is that the maneuver mostly failed on its own
> terms, and the transcript records the failure. The prompter wanted
> "ontological sense"; the AI kept *downgrading* it ? first to "objective
> determinateness," then to "intentional content," and finally to the
> mnemonic *prat?yam?nam iti pratyaya?*, "that which stands presented."
> *Prat?yam?na* is content, not *bh?va*. As a deliverable for a
> positive-entity avidy?, "the presented content of cognition" gives you
> nothing: intentional content is object-*of*-cognition, not a *up?d?na*
> that is the material cause of cognition-and-world. The equivocation the
> whole thread runs on is exactly this ? sliding (a) *pratyaya*-as-what-is-cognized
> toward (b) *pratyaya*-as-a-positive-stuff-that-produces-cognition ? and
> the AI, to its credit, never let (b) close. *Bh?var?pa avidy?* is a claim
> of category (b). Nothing here touches it.
>
> But the more instructive point is what the exercise *did* deposit, which
> is the real tell. The AI's "level 2" ? "not merely the subjective act, not
> yet an independently existing entity, but an intermediate objective
> determinateness" ? is the *sadasadvilak?a?a* silhouette drawn freehand.
> Neither *sat* nor *asat*, a tertium quid available to cognition: that is
> the exact grammar of *anirvacan?ya* / *m?l?vidy?*. So the transcript is a
> rehearsal. It practices, on *pratyaya*, the manufacture of a middle ontic
> grade, so that the grade feels native to the Bh??ya before it is ever
> applied to *avidy?*. The refutation is not to quibble the *pratyaya*
> reading but to refuse the grade: ?a?kara's *adhy?sa* diagnosis is
> constructed precisely to make that intermediate region unnecessary.
> *Anyath?-graha?a*, *mithy?-j??na*, *atasmi?s tad-buddhi?* ? these explain
> how a *n?ma-r?pa* object presents in a *pratyaya* without positing any
> third thing between knower and known. The felt need for a *bh?var?pa*
> intermediate is the *ava?ya-kalpya* reflex; the diagnosis exists to
> forestall it.
>
> Now the passage itself, which is the weakest possible ground the prompter
> could have chosen, for three independent reasons.
>
> Parsing first. *p?tha?-n?ma-pratyaya-l?bha?* most naturally reads *n?ma
> ca pratyaya? ca* ? a dvandva, "separate names and cognitions" ? which is
> exactly how Gambh?r?nanda renders it ("names and ideas"). On that parse
> *pratyaya* is cognition in its plain sense, coordinated with *n?ma*, and
> there is no substitution for *r?pa* at all. The entire "he wrote
> *pratyaya* where he means *r?pa*" argument requires reparsing the dvandva
> into *n?ma-nimittaka pratyaya* and then reading *pratyaya* as filling
> *r?pa*'s slot. That is two interpretive moves stacked to reach a
> conclusion the surface grammar resists.
>
> Second, direction. Grant, *arguendo*, that the compound foregrounds the
> object presented under a name. The illustrations still cut against the
> objective reading: *tej idam, im? ?pa?, annam idam* are *idam-X-iti*
> determinate predications ? the canonical shape of a *savikalpaka pratyaya*
> ? not of a *r?pa*. A *r?pa* is the *tejo*-form; "*idam teja?*" is the
> recognition of it. If anything the examples are paradigms of *pratyaya*-as-cognition,
> which is why *pratyaya* and not *r?pa* is the apt word. The deviation
> from *n?ma-r?pa* ? and *n?ma-r?pe vy?karav??i* sits right there at 6.3.2,
> so *r?pa* was on his page ? is plausibly *because* the argument needs the
> recognitional register: what triplication removes is clean *separate
> recognition-under-a-name*, not the existence of a form. That inverts the
> prompter's inference.
>
> Third, and decisively, context. The governing maxim of the entire
> *?a??ha-prap??haka* is already stated at 6.1.4: *v?c?rambha?a? vik?ro
> n?madheya? m?ttikety eva satyam* ? differentiation is name-borne, mere
> speech, and only the substrate is real. The function of the *triv?tkara?a*
> argument is to *dissolve* the ultimate separateness of the elemental
> identities: no apparent "fire" is purely fire. So the passage is deployed
> to establish the *un*reality of exactly the "separate presentations" the
> reading wants to reify. Harvesting a positive ontic sense of *pratyaya*
> from it is extracting a realist conclusion from an argument whose whole
> point is deflationary. For an SSS reader this is the sharpest irony: the
> *?ruti* the prompter leans on is one of the strongest *v?c?rambha?a*-deflations
> in the corpus.
>
> So the counter to whoever ran this, if it comes to a rebuttal, is not to
> contest that *pratyaya* can foreground content ? concede that freely, it
> costs nothing. It is to deny every link in the chain from "foregrounds
> content" to "*bh?var?pa avidy?*": the parse is a dvandva; even reparsed,
> content is intentional not material-causal; and the passage's own argument
> and its governing maxim are anti-realist about the separateness being
> invoked. The residue that survives is trivial ? *pratyaya* sometimes
> names the cognized rather than the cognizing, which no one on either side
> of the SSS?PSA dispute needs to deny and which does no work for positive
> ignorance. The thread's warmth ("much stronger than my line," "quotable
> quote") is doing the load-bearing that the philology can't.
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 4:21?AM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste.
>>
>> Please refer to the following link where an updated version of the PDF
>> Document has been uploaded. Regret the inconvenience
>>
>> //  https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/rZ4AhfPGWBA //
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 12:57?PM H S Chandramouli <
>> hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Namaste
>> >
>> > Please refer to following link for a PDF document on the above subject.
>> > For those interested in the topic
>> >
>> > //
>> >
>> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#sent/QgrcJHsNjCfkbfcmpLwfBfjbdTgMrFcCDTB
>> > //
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>

From r.hariharakrishnan at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 11:00:44 2026
From: r.hariharakrishnan at gmail.com (Hari R)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 20:30:44 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Where are Brahmanas to be found?
Message-ID: <CAPMxN_Px8kaN0f2PFw9Pz-AvETMU01YCebNVpTtBwA7JfUPfaQ@mail.gmail.com>

In the celebrated Raikvopakhyanam of the Chhandogya Upanishath, the Raja
Janasruti sends his Kshatta to seek the Rshi Raikva. The Kshatta initially
returns unable to locate the Rshi. Then the Raja again sends him, advising
him to look at places where the "Braahmanas are to found".

Sankara Bhagavatpada elaborates on this point:

??????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ????
???????????????????

Seek out a Br?hma?a, a knower of Brahman, in a solitary place?such as a
forest, a riverbank, or some such secluded spot.

Rgds,
Hari

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 13:33:44 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 23:03:44 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Where are Brahmanas to be found?
In-Reply-To: <CAPMxN_Px8kaN0f2PFw9Pz-AvETMU01YCebNVpTtBwA7JfUPfaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPMxN_Px8kaN0f2PFw9Pz-AvETMU01YCebNVpTtBwA7JfUPfaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te2Fn+qioaEnwyHLUko=nbtf6gXq=GWeaGic5R62DCVUnw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Hari,

Thank you for sharing this nice observation.

The Bhagavadgita also states that seeking a secluded spot is a means to
Brahma jnana. Furthermore, the Jnani spends time in such spots to savor the
bliss of the Jnana-attainment.

Best regards,

V Subrahmanian


On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 8:31?PM Hari R via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> In the celebrated Raikvopakhyanam of the Chhandogya Upanishath, the Raja
> Janasruti sends his Kshatta to seek the Rshi Raikva. The Kshatta initially
> returns unable to locate the Rshi. Then the Raja again sends him, advising
> him to look at places where the "Braahmanas are to found".
>
> Sankara Bhagavatpada elaborates on this point:
>
> ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ????
> ???????????????????
>
> Seek out a Br?hma?a, a knower of Brahman, in a solitary place?such as a
> forest, a riverbank, or some such secluded spot.
>
> Rgds,
> Hari
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com  Tue Jul  7 23:23:04 2026
From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 03:23:04 +0000
Subject: [Advaita-l] Where are Brahmanas to be found?
In-Reply-To: <CAKk0Te2Fn+qioaEnwyHLUko=nbtf6gXq=GWeaGic5R62DCVUnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPMxN_Px8kaN0f2PFw9Pz-AvETMU01YCebNVpTtBwA7JfUPfaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKk0Te2Fn+qioaEnwyHLUko=nbtf6gXq=GWeaGic5R62DCVUnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AM7PR06MB6625D5CA10126540B845CE4184FF2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

praNAms
Hare Krishna

The Bhagavadgita also states that seeking a secluded spot is a means to Brahma jnana. Furthermore, the Jnani spends time in such spots to savor the bliss of the Jnana-attainment.

>  If I remember right that story, Raikva was living under bullock cart is it not??  I reckon 'secluded spots' would carry more philosophical meaning than its literal meaning as bhagavadpaada himself gives the example of dharmavyAdha, vidhura, janaka etc. who were very much living in the society.  More often resting in shAnta, mouna state of mind amidst the cacophonies of loukika jagat may depict the secluded spots within ourselves.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskarf



From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 12:29:01 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 21:59:01 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Turiya Gayatri
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te0b7cSP5btNQQgtno3OjJma4uaRy0LqqKUeqM28ai9Bqw@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste

Does anyone know a practitioner of the Turiya Gayatri, a mantra that is
said to help one progress on the spiritual path?

Regards
subbu

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 05:23:36 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 14:53:36 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?=22MATTER=2C_MIND_=26_Consciousness_=7C_Fi?=
	=?utf-8?q?fth_Dialogue_between_Scientists_and_=C5=9A=C4=81str?=
	=?utf-8?b?xIFqw7FhIHwgOXRoIEp1bHkgMjAyNiB8Ig==?=
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te3kX3ra-twXq4fAGd4-sZq9bGUqjJn2x44ddc0oHxZuAg@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.youtube.com/live/J3jFWfnEGR0?si=rirjko4lSoCx1g-L

From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 21:26:55 2026
From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 06:56:55 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?xIBjxIFyeWEgdGVhY2hpbmcgdGhyb3VnaCDFmmFi?=
	=?utf-8?q?da_pram=C4=81=E1=B9=87a_idea_in_the_vedic_mantra_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?4bmBaGl0xIE=?=
Message-ID: <CABWcbR1mF4EHAHPseXE2ALEnRownOfbUqif22B9nE2Q=eKcj-A@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste

We have the famous

?c?ryav?n puru?o veda (ch?ndogya up. 6.14.2 )

(The one who had a teacher, knows.)

emphasising the importance of a teacher to teach ?tm?-j??nam through
ved?nta ?abda pram??a.

Rig Veda 10.32.7 (from the mantra-sa?hit? portion itself) is another famous
Vedic verse about the value of seeking guidance and knowledge from an
expert, revealed to the ??i kava?a ailu?a.

The original Sanskrit text transliterates as:

ak?etravit k?etravida? hyapr?? sa praiti k?etravid?nu?i??a? | etad vai
bhadram anu??sanasyota ?ruti? vindaty-a?jas?n?m ||

Translation:

"The traveler who knows not the path inquires of one who knows it. Taught
by the knowledgeable one, he journeys onward. This is the great benefit of
instruction; he finds the true and straight path?

Whenever someone claims to directly ?figure out? the entire prasth?natraya
meanings by directly translating the verses to suit their own theology, we
get various sectarian vai??ava theologies like r?m?nuja or modern
m?m?msakas like ?rya s?m?j etc.

And when prasth?natraya with bh??ya is studied without the traditional
paramp?ra, people tend to misrepresent post-?a?kara advaitins - the same
mistake is committed again. Because even the awareness of the basic idea of
adhy?ropa-apav?da is insufficient to avoid the mistakes born of the
psychological pressure to claim originality and innovation in
interpretation, in the name of adherence to a putative original older
interpretation.

Om

Raghav

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 04:08:24 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:38:24 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] "A Jnani Is God Himself #ramanamaharshi
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te39ceAuBOtUraYD6Z2fXK7fHMi0o=f-94A-b_2Ty3nBog@mail.gmail.com>

https://youtube.com/shorts/r_JaqFhMyLM?si=3j4ngmL2N0oODmcM

From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com  Fri Jul 10 05:01:21 2026
From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:01:21 +0000
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] "A Jnani Is God Himself #ramanamaharshi
In-Reply-To: <CAKk0Te39ceAuBOtUraYD6Z2fXK7fHMi0o=f-94A-b_2Ty3nBog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te39ceAuBOtUraYD6Z2fXK7fHMi0o=f-94A-b_2Ty3nBog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AM7PR06MB6625638624B1FC4AF87BCAF484FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Yes, paramArtha jnAni is Bhagavan (god) himself, when he has the realization that he is himself that secondless brahman why not he is God!!??  Interestingly, we address Sri Ramana maharshi as bhagavAn Shri Ramana maharshi whereas while addressing Sri Shankarachaarya we say " 'bhagavatpAda' shankarachaarya.  Let it be anything, the someone's view point is that since we are addressing the 'jnAni' by pointing our fingers to some individual, that individual jnAni must be in 'his' individual BMI, as a result he is not brahman but jnAni mAtra and still carrying the avidyAlesha and under the influence of his own prArabdha karma phala.  Note, as per them, it is not just in the eyes of bystanders but it is the real fate of that jnAni.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com  Fri Jul 10 05:18:06 2026
From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:18:06 +0000
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
 =?utf-8?b?xIBjxIFyeWEgdGVhY2hpbmcgdGhyb3VnaCDFmmFi?=
 =?utf-8?q?da_pram=C4=81=E1=B9=87a_idea_in_the_vedic_mantra_sa=E1=B9=81hit?=
 =?utf-8?b?xIE=?=
In-Reply-To: <CABWcbR1mF4EHAHPseXE2ALEnRownOfbUqif22B9nE2Q=eKcj-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABWcbR1mF4EHAHPseXE2ALEnRownOfbUqif22B9nE2Q=eKcj-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AM7PR06MB66253C19455BC2C5819C3B3684FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

emphasising the importance of a teacher to teach ?tm?-j??nam through ved?nta ?abda pram??a.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Surprise  to see this emphasization on shAstra, sampradaya, Acharya etc. from the desk of advanced students of Advaita ? As per them, Ishwaraanugraha, shAstra prAmANya, Acharya upadesha, puNya saMchayana, pApa kshaya etc. etc. are mere bAlisha theory meant for only tyros in Advaita jnAna mArga, when they elevate themselves to second tier of higher level of understanding, these things are mere concocted theories in the conditioned mind of jeeva..Ishwara, Ishwara srushti, Acharya his upadesha, dharma-karma, pApa-puNya, pramANa, pramANa janita jnAna, sampradaya etc. etc. hardly find a place in the post-graduation studies of Advaita vedAnta.  Their sincere advice to the beginners is that : grow-up, realize that everything is mind game, cross that delusion that you need Ishwara kAruNya, guru upadesha as per sampradaya etc.  use your sharp logical mind to arrive at the truth that everything is bhrAnti and all these are your bhrAnti drushti / srushti  only nothing else!!  And their final warning is : even at this advanced stage of studies if you are still seeking IshvarAnugraha it is as good as trying to take bath in mirage water ? 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

From swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 07:30:39 2026
From: swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com (Swagata Chowdhury)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 17:30:39 +0600
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?Request_for_Scholarly_Sources_Regarding_th?=
	=?utf-8?q?e_Kudali=E2=80=93Sringeri_Historical_Debate?=
Message-ID: <CAMxaFCxOJamNNYgR=0xSzYzyvGbnaHRpAqSmWRoKgQztHfyvgg@mail.gmail.com>

Respected Sir

I hope you are doing well.

I am currently looking for scholarly resources?such as books, research
papers, academic articles, or well-researched blog posts?that refute or
examine the claim that the Kudali Sringeri Matha is the original Sringeri
Sharada Peetham.

Why I am talking abt this? due to the ongoing legal dispute between 71st
and 72nd pontiffs of the Kudali Sringeri Matha and the question of the
legitimate *Uttaradhikari,* some followers of both the Kudali(they are
follower 72nd) and Kanchi traditions(Not talking abt the matha but some
followers r unbearable)  have begun attacking specially X and Facebook that
the widely recognized Sringeri Sharada Peetham is not the original matha.
They have also started criticizing those who express respect for the
present-day Sringeri Sharada Peetham.Their principal argument is that Adi
Shankaracharya's references to the Tungabhadra River indicate that the
original Sringeri Matha must have been located at Kudali, which lies at the
confluence of the Tunga and Bhadra rivers, rather than at the present-day
Sringeri, which is situated on the Tunga River alone.I am interested in
studying this issue from a historical and academic perspective. Therefore,
I would greatly appreciate any pdfs credible books, peer-reviewed research
papers, epigraphical studies, historical analyses, or well-documented
articles or internet blogs that critically evaluate or challenge this claim.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your
recommendations.

Swagata Chowdhury

From swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 07:35:59 2026
From: swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com (Swagata Chowdhury)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 17:35:59 +0600
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?q?Request_for_Scholarly_Sources_Regarding_th?=
	=?utf-8?q?e_Kudali=E2=80=93Sringeri_Historical_Debate?=
In-Reply-To: <CAMxaFCxOJamNNYgR=0xSzYzyvGbnaHRpAqSmWRoKgQztHfyvgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMxaFCxOJamNNYgR=0xSzYzyvGbnaHRpAqSmWRoKgQztHfyvgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMxaFCwjsc5Ap0Szhouq6dFwWc+taJVK3GtUoxyVk5dhj53EMA@mail.gmail.com>

*Present day Sringeri I meant that we know and believe Original Sringeri
matha.

swagata

On Fri, 10 Jul 2026, 5:30?pm Swagata Chowdhury, <
swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Respected Sir
>
> I hope you are doing well.
>
> I am currently looking for scholarly resources?such as books, research
> papers, academic articles, or well-researched blog posts?that refute or
> examine the claim that the Kudali Sringeri Matha is the original Sringeri
> Sharada Peetham.
>
> Why I am talking abt this? due to the ongoing legal dispute between 71st
> and 72nd pontiffs of the Kudali Sringeri Matha and the question of the
> legitimate *Uttaradhikari,* some followers of both the Kudali(they are
> follower 72nd) and Kanchi traditions(Not talking abt the matha but some
> followers r unbearable)  have begun attacking specially X and Facebook that
> the widely recognized Sringeri Sharada Peetham is not the original matha.
> They have also started criticizing those who express respect for the
> present-day Sringeri Sharada Peetham.Their principal argument is that Adi
> Shankaracharya's references to the Tungabhadra River indicate that the
> original Sringeri Matha must have been located at Kudali, which lies at the
> confluence of the Tunga and Bhadra rivers, rather than at the present-day
> Sringeri, which is situated on the Tunga River alone.I am interested in
> studying this issue from a historical and academic perspective. Therefore,
> I would greatly appreciate any pdfs credible books, peer-reviewed research
> papers, epigraphical studies, historical analyses, or well-documented
> articles or internet blogs that critically evaluate or challenge this claim.
>
> Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your
> recommendations.
>
> Swagata Chowdhury
>

From rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 10 09:47:06 2026
From: rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com (Raja Krishnamurti)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:47:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] "A Jnani Is God Himself #ramanamaharshi
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR06MB6625638624B1FC4AF87BCAF484FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAKk0Te39ceAuBOtUraYD6Z2fXK7fHMi0o=f-94A-b_2Ty3nBog@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM7PR06MB6625638624B1FC4AF87BCAF484FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <419231807.100549.1783691226603@mail.yahoo.com>

Hari Om, Bhaskar. What you say is true. On the other hand, that you are pointing out the differences in how others indicate a Jnoani, shows the shankar in us more than that Jnani. Even a jnani need learn to discard this duality in opinions, people and everything else. This comes only through constant internal practice shravanam and nithidyaasa and not writing or teaching philosophy. Absolutely no point one jnani from another as first of all we don?t even what a jnani is, how he/she lives and their thoughts. For that one needs lot more inner practice. While it might get some external support from scriptures the path is indeed arduous and has to be walked alone.A jnani is not affected due to what others think of him/her or the actions done by others. He is least bit affected or disaffected as he/she is beyond both.With Om and Prem,Raja Krishnamurti


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, July 10, 2026, 2:01 AM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Yes, paramArtha jnAni is Bhagavan (god) himself, when he has the realization that he is himself that secondless brahman why not he is God!!??? Interestingly, we address Sri Ramana maharshi as bhagavAn Shri Ramana maharshi whereas while addressing Sri Shankarachaarya we say " 'bhagavatpAda' shankarachaarya.? Let it be anything, the someone's view point is that since we are addressing the 'jnAni' by pointing our fingers to some individual, that individual jnAni must be in 'his' individual BMI, as a result he is not brahman but jnAni mAtra and still carrying the avidyAlesha and under the influence of his own prArabdha karma phala.? Note, as per them, it is not just in the eyes of bystanders but it is the real fate of that jnAni.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
_______________________________________________
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




From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 22:43:25 2026
From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:13:25 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A__=C4=80c=C4=81rya_teaching_through_?=
	=?utf-8?q?=C5=9Aabda_pram=C4=81=E1=B9=87a_idea_in_the_vedic_mantra?=
	=?utf-8?b?IHNh4bmBaGl0xIE=?=
In-Reply-To: <CABWcbR20R09uF3ne70LP7GqNS5OXCW1ZRWZDXJj9AiCJa7FzzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABWcbR1mF4EHAHPseXE2ALEnRownOfbUqif22B9nE2Q=eKcj-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM7PR06MB66253C19455BC2C5819C3B3684FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABWcbR20R09uF3ne70LP7GqNS5OXCW1ZRWZDXJj9AiCJa7FzzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABWcbR2h-aA_D8cPfrTxT5c=6AXUA_Rb3R_fNKTz+8W2kqjRhA@mail.gmail.com>

Namaskara Bhaskar avare


It?s needs ??var?nugraha to realize that all this is a dream.

But sure, I do understand your perspective and thank you for sharing it?..
you feel DSV invalidates ??vara-bhakti and ??vara-anugraha. That?s because
of out-of-context citations of DSV verses.

Did know you that Madhusudana Sarasvat? who strongly asserts DSV and would
perhaps come across as a b?te noire for those who don?t connect with DSV,
also composed the well-known verse on ?r? K???a, the ?supreme personality
of ?Godhead?? -

???????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????? ?
???????????????????????????????????
??????????? ????? ????????? ? ???? ?

*va???-vibh??ita-kar?n nava-n?rad?bh?t*
*p?t?mbar?d aru?a-bimba-phal?dharau??h?t |*
*p?r?endu-sundara-mukh?d aravinda-netr?t*
*k????t para? kim api tattvam aha? na j?ne ||*
*(G?t?-g??h?rtha-d?pik? on ?r?mad Bhagavad-g?t?: 15.20; c**ited in the
S?r?rtha-var?i??-??k? on ?r?mad Bhagavad-g?t?: 15.18)*

And in the introduction to his G???rtha D?pik? commentary on the Bhagavad
Gita, Madhusudana Saraswati expresses profound humility by comparing his
own limited intellect to the vast, sky-like commentary of Adi
Shankaracharya. He uses the poetic device of vi?am?la?k?ra, specifically
mentioning the contrast between a "dull-witted" self and the "cosmic space"
of the Bhashya to emphasize this profound gap in knowledge and wisdom, ?kva
bh??ya? gagan?bhoga? kva c?ha? manda-kautuka??, to express reverence and
humility towards Shankaracharya's vast work and his own limited capacity.

Now for those who truly understand DSV, they see no dissonance with
fostering  ??vara-bhakti and guru-bhakti while at the same time holding DSV
to be a valid prakriy? to arrive at ?tm?-j??nam.

For others, DSV implies a blind and out-of-context denunciation of all
bhakti etc. it does not. Context is all-important. They cannot fathom ?r?
Madhus?dana Sarasvat??s devotion in actions and conduct sharing space in
the same person  with defending DSV as a prakriy? to land on ?p?ram?rthika
satya? Brahma aham asmi?.

The same problem was experienced by r?m?nuja and madhva who could not
fathom how ?r? ?a?kara could defend Advaita while composing hymns to
Bhagav?n Vi??u and ?iva.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

Warm regards
Raghav





On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 at 2:48?PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> emphasising the importance of a teacher to teach ?tm?-j??nam through
> ved?nta ?abda pram??a.
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Surprise  to see this emphasization on shAstra, sampradaya, Acharya etc.
> from the desk of advanced students of Advaita ? As per them,
> Ishwaraanugraha, shAstra prAmANya, Acharya upadesha, puNya saMchayana, pApa
> kshaya etc. etc. are mere bAlisha theory meant for only tyros in Advaita
> jnAna mArga, when they elevate themselves to second tier of higher level of
> understanding, these things are mere concocted theories in the conditioned
> mind of jeeva..Ishwara, Ishwara srushti, Acharya his upadesha,
> dharma-karma, pApa-puNya, pramANa, pramANa janita jnAna, sampradaya etc.
> etc. hardly find a place in the post-graduation studies of Advaita
> vedAnta.  Their sincere advice to the beginners is that : grow-up, realize
> that everything is mind game, cross that delusion that you need Ishwara
> kAruNya, guru upadesha as per sampradaya etc.  use your sharp logical mind
> to arrive at the truth that everything is bhrAnti and all these are your
> bhrAnti drushti / srushti  only nothing else!!  And their final warning is
> : even at this advanced stage of studies if you are still seeking
> IshvarAnugraha it is as good as trying to take bath in mirage water ?
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 01:07:52 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 10:37:52 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] "Seminar on Wonders of Consciousness vis-a-vis Marvels
 of AI | 11 July 2026" Live now
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te3QRekcyBjrkndHFKxitN9h0+SAbPdFm2KVacmAk8871w@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.youtube.com/live/fz-fFbQCdoY?si=zPzdc1bGmWuRV5hA

From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 03:18:37 2026
From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 12:48:37 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?b?xIBjxIFyeWEgdGVhY2hpbmcgdGhyb3VnaCDFmmFi?=
	=?utf-8?q?da_pram=C4=81=E1=B9=87a_idea_in_the_vedic_mantra_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?4bmBaGl0xIE=?=
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR06MB6625E7CE1D6B3FEA2367703B84FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABWcbR1mF4EHAHPseXE2ALEnRownOfbUqif22B9nE2Q=eKcj-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM7PR06MB66253C19455BC2C5819C3B3684FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABWcbR20R09uF3ne70LP7GqNS5OXCW1ZRWZDXJj9AiCJa7FzzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM7PR06MB6625E7CE1D6B3FEA2367703B84FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CABWcbR1=NrP8ex0M1e3dRja9AhtUyc5w8xSZaGBmfd=ZBV2jKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste Bhaskar ji

On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 at 4:09?PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> praNAms Sri Raghava prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Perhaps you may have to read Sri SudhAnshu prabhuji?s dissertations about
> his DSV perspective in more detail with attentiveness. As per him SDV is
> just maNda buddhi sAdhakas whereas in next step sAdhana, sAdhaka has to
> realize Ishwara, IshwarAnugraha, Acharya etc. are his own imaginations and
> there is nothing outside of this avidyA kshetra.  I don?t know what Sri MS
> said about all these when he himself a strong propagator of mind all game
> like buddhist.  My inquisitive mind simply asking if the advanced student
> firmly have the conviction in his mind that it is all avidyA bhrAnti of his
> own mind, how can he have the shraddha bhakti in guru vAkya and how can he
> seek IshwarAnugraha when there is no such characters exist apart from his
> imaginary world!!??
>
Indeed how is it that many PSA held to DSV and still professed great bhakti
towards Guru and ??vara?  That is s point to ponder.

Basic question to reiterate is - does professing DSV as a valid prakriy? to
arrive at Advaita j??nam preclude ??vara bhakti?

The answer is - there is no incompatibility. Because whether we use ?two
orders of reality pedagogy? or ?three orders of reality? pedagogy, the same
question you raised can be asked. Because in both prakriy?s there is
sublation (b?dha) of vy?vah?rika Satt?. And only p?ram?rthika satt? is
real.

You objection holds


Does it not mean he is simply trying to drink water from mirage??  If he
> still talking about IshwarAnugraha, Acharya upadesha, sampradaya, pramANa
> vyavahAra etc. does it not mean it is just his hypocrisy!!??
>
There is no hypocrisy in holding DSV as valid and ??vara bhakti.
Your question can be raised for any prakriy? involving b?dha
sam?n?dhikara?am including even SDV, since there is b?dha of vyavah?rika
satt? in any valid prakriy?.

>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
>

Om

Raghav

> Bhaskar
>
>
>
> PS:  you directly replied to me without addressing it to the list, hence I
> too directly replying to you.
>

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 03:52:09 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 13:22:09 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] A crisp message on Karma yoga
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te1PY33ue4wSbj+ovm4NTx=kEBnvzpTC-LD9zj3FgA5vhw@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.instagram.com/p/Daev5shAQ1P/?img_index=5&igsh=MWZpYXVvbWMzeDVqbw==

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 03:52:58 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 13:22:58 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] The worm in the river
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te0dXi2RxmfH=G98bsF=a7DWsvPS2nzb9bqkRpUx=cA8Kg@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.instagram.com/p/Dajv_2bAQRY/?igsh=MXJvbGtmYW5wazN4NQ==

From michaelchandra108 at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 06:04:43 2026
From: michaelchandra108 at gmail.com (Michael Chandra Cohen)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 06:04:43 -0400
Subject: [Advaita-l] Adhyasa Bhasya and DSV
Message-ID: <CAAz9PvF8ptpHDJXL41FbuDYXg=9hXSQSpbTvTMRXysYvR7NyRA@mail.gmail.com>

Namaste,

I would like to share a summary of a conference paper I have been working
on, in the hope of receiving the list's corrections and criticism before it
goes further. Members here have discussed the m?l?vidy? question with far
more depth and for far longer than any academic venue, and both the
traditional commentarial position and Sv?mi Saccid?nandendra Sarasvat?'s
(SSS's) position have their able defenders on this list. I have tried to
write in a way that is fair to both, and I welcome being shown where I have
failed.

THE QUESTION

The paper compares two texts: ?a?kara's Adhy?sa Bh??ya (AB), read through
SSS's interpretation, and Madhus?dana Sarasvat?'s Siddh?ntabindu (SB). The
question is a structural one. At SB ?76 (??str?'s paragraph numbering,
which I follow throughout), Madhus?dana writes:

mukhyo ved?ntasiddh?nta ekaj?vav?d?khya?; imam eva ca d???i-s???i-v?dam
?cak?ate

"The principal Ved?nta siddh?nta is that called ekaj?va-v?da; this very
doctrine they also call d???i-s???i-v?da." The j?va, through his own
aj??na, is both up?d?na and nimitta of the world; everything seen is
pr?t?tika; plurality of j?vas is delusion born of difference of bodies.

The paper asks: is the explanatory machinery SB installs to articulate this
siddh?nta contained in, or required by, the Adhy?sa Bh??ya as SSS reads it?

AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT AT THE OUTSET

The paper takes SSS's reading of AB as its interpretive baseline. It does
not argue that SSS's reading is correct, and it does not adjudicate between
SSS and the traditional commentarial line descending from the Pa?cap?dik?.
Members who hold the traditional view will rightly note that on Padmap?da's
reading of the opening compound ? mithy? ca tad aj??na? ca mithy?j??nam, a
positive ignorance serving as up?d?na of adhy?sa ? the machinery is already
present in AB's first sentence, and the paper's question is answered before
it is asked. I acknowledge this squarely: the finding is conditional on the
baseline. What I hope even traditional members may find useful is that the
inventory below specifies, item by item, exactly where the two readings of
AB must part company ? it is a map of the viv?da, not a verdict in it.

AB'S ARCHITECTURE ON SSS'S READING

On SSS's reading, AB's account is exhausted by itaretar?dhy?sa ? the
reciprocal superimposition of self and not-self. ?a?kara says: tam etam
eva?lak?a?am adhy?sa? pa??it? avidyeti manyante ? the learned regard this
very superimposition as avidy?. Avidy? is not a second principle behind
adhy?sa; adhy?sa itself is what is called avidy?. The closing
characterization carries the full weight:

evam ayam an?dir ananto naisargiko 'dhy?so mithy?pratyayar?pa?
kart?tva-bhokt?tva-pravartaka? sarva-loka-pratyak?a?

Agency and enjoyership ? the whole of sa?s?ra ? derive directly from mutual
misidentification. On SSS's reading (Sugam?), an?di and naisargika are
terms of restraint: an?dir ananta? means k?l?dy-anavacchinna?, since time
itself is superimposed, so the demand for a beginningless cause behind
adhy?sa cannot even be formulated. No ?akti-dvaya is analyzed, no
up?d?na-relation between avidy? and cognition asserted, no residual
principle invoked.

WHAT SB INSTALLS: A SEVEN-ITEM INVENTORY

Against that baseline, the paper traces seven commitments in SB (and, for
the last, the Advaitasiddhi):

   1.

   The designation of DSV/ekaj?va-v?da as mukhya ved?nta-siddh?nta at ?76 ?
   siddh?nta, not prakriy? ? coupled with full metaphysical specification.
   2.

   At ?55, avidy? receives its own epistemic registration: na j?n?m?ti
   s?k?i-prat?ti-siddham anirvacyam aj??nam ? ignorance established in
   witness-awareness, prior to any particular superimposition.
   3.

   At ?67, ??vara and j?va are derived as aj??nopahita and buddhy-upahita
   consciousness respectively ? both nodes within an already
   ignorance-mediated field.
   4.

   At ?57, the anta?kara?a is placed downstream of avidy?: it cannot be the
   cause of the bhrama "I am a man" ? taj-janyatv?t, because it is itself a
   product of nescience. AB's horizontal grammar of mutual attribution becomes
   a vertical grammar of derivation.
   5.

   At ?151, asked whether the mind or avidy? itself transforms into the
   appearing object, Madhus?dana rules for the second: avidy?y? eva
   sarvatr?rth?dhy?sa-j??n?dhy?sa-up?d?natvena kalpitatv?t ? avidy? alone is
   everywhere the up?d?na of both object-superimposition and
   cognition-superimposition. Bh?var?pa avidy? as the form-bearing factor in
   illusion.
   6.

   At ?84, avidy? is formalized as ?vara?a-vik?epa-?akti-dvayavat?, with
   ?99 further distinguishing asattv?p?daka from abh?n?p?daka ?vara?a ? the
   first removable by ordinary pram??a, the second only by brahm?k?ra-v?tti.
   7.

   In the Advaitasiddhi, avidy?-le?a ? the subtle residual state of
   ignorance ? grounds the continued appearance of body and world in
   j?vanmukti: tasm?d avidy?le??nuv?tty? j?vanmuktir upapannatar?.

The compressed claim: SB awards mukhya status to a v?da ? a settled
doctrine carried by an apparatus of ignorance. AB, on SSS's reading,
installs no such doctrine; it sets up superimposition in order to remove
it. SB keeps the superimposition and builds on it.

THREE DEFENSES OF CONTINUITY, BRIEFLY

The paper considers three ways of denying that this contrast matters.

The prakriy? defense: DSV is one teaching method among several, and ?76's
designation is pedagogical ordering. Reply: the term at ?76 is siddh?nta,
not prakriy?, and it comes coupled with a full account of j?va, causality,
and appearance. Even granting that DSV is up?yic ? deployed for advanced
adhik?rins ? the up?ya itself presupposes the seven items above in order to
teach what it teaches. The question is not whether DSV is pedagogical but
whether the pedagogy remains continuous with AB's.

The vy?vah?rika-scaffold defense: the whole apparatus is erected within the
conditioned standpoint and dissolves at liberation, so AB is followed where
it matters. Reply: Madhus?dana develops the machinery systematically ?
differentiating concealments, calibrating which pram??as remove which
?vara?a, grounding gradations of mukti in le?a ? rather than retracting it
in the adhy?ropa-apav?da manner SSS finds in ?a?kara. Followed in ultimate
statement, yes; in explanatory architecture, no.

The doxographic defense: these are standard post-?a?kara doctrines, so
their absence from AB is trivial. Reply: agreed that the inventory is not
news at the level of tradition. The paper's claim is descriptive ? that two
different explanatory architectures are in view, and the difference can be
stated item by item. Whether the tradition was right to build the second
architecture is bracketed.

WHAT THE PAPER DOES NOT CLAIM

It does not claim SSS's reading of AB is correct. It does not claim
Madhus?dana departed from ?a?kara's corpus as a whole ? only from AB as SSS
reads it; the Gau?ap?da-K?rik?-Bh??ya, whose aj?ti and dream figures come
nearest to DSV, is explicitly flagged as the necessary next test. And it
does not claim the mukhya question rises to a membership challenge within
Advaita Ved?nta ? nothing here questions Madhus?dana's standing as an
Advaitin.

THREE OPEN QUESTIONS

   1.

   Is the shift from reciprocal superimposition to derivation-from-avidy?
   clarification, systematic completion, or departure?
   2.

   Is DSV's philosophical gain ? binding world and subjectivity within a
   single avidy?-conditioned standpoint, so that nothing seen stands
   independently of the seeing ? worth the cost of leaving AB's economy?
   3.

   Is its account of liberation ? ?vara?a removed at knowledge, vik?epa
   persisting until videhamukti ? preferable to the remainderless removal AB
   offers on SSS's reading? Put experientially: does the j??n? see the world?

I would be grateful for corrections on any of the Sanskrit citations (all
?-references follow ??str?'s translation of Siddh?ntabindu; Sanskrit
checked against Divanji's edition), and especially for responses from
members who hold the traditional reading ? the paper can only be improved
by the strongest form of the objections. The full paper is available on
request.

pra??ms, Michael Chandra

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 06:11:52 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 15:41:52 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] 
	=?utf-8?b?xIBjxIFyeWEgdGVhY2hpbmcgdGhyb3VnaCDFmmFi?=
	=?utf-8?q?da_pram=C4=81=E1=B9=87a_idea_in_the_vedic_mantra_sa?=
	=?utf-8?b?4bmBaGl0xIE=?=
In-Reply-To: <CABWcbR1=NrP8ex0M1e3dRja9AhtUyc5w8xSZaGBmfd=ZBV2jKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABWcbR1mF4EHAHPseXE2ALEnRownOfbUqif22B9nE2Q=eKcj-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM7PR06MB66253C19455BC2C5819C3B3684FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABWcbR20R09uF3ne70LP7GqNS5OXCW1ZRWZDXJj9AiCJa7FzzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM7PR06MB6625E7CE1D6B3FEA2367703B84FD2@AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABWcbR1=NrP8ex0M1e3dRja9AhtUyc5w8xSZaGBmfd=ZBV2jKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te0bgrDqi7tXKZtnn7W6AK_8n_cZUbTKkJNdO=geQN1zMA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Raghav ji,

I think the following is relevant to this discussion:

In the Srimadbhagavatam is this famous verse:

???????????? ????? ??????????? ????????????? ?????????????????
????????????????? ??????????? 1/6/19

There are those sages who are completely absorbed in the Atman and are free
of any bondage (free of any books).  Even such exalted ones are devoted to
Bhagavan for no reason whatsoever. Such is the magnetic nature of the Lord.

Of course a Jnani can engage in a bhakti with the 'bheda' bhava fully
conscious of it.  ?????? ?????? ????????????, ???? ??? ???????? ???????
??????? ?????????? ????????  are said to be the words of Sri Madhusudana
Saraswati.

['dvaita', duality, is what bondage is, before ?tmajn?na. However, when
there is realization, that duality that is imagined by the Jnani for the
purpose of p?j?, is a matter of revelry and surpasses even the beauty of
advaita.]

Warm regards
subbu


On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 12:49?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar ji
>
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 at 4:09?PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
> wrote:
>
> > praNAms Sri Raghava prabhuji
> >
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you may have to read Sri SudhAnshu prabhuji?s dissertations about
> > his DSV perspective in more detail with attentiveness. As per him SDV is
> > just maNda buddhi sAdhakas whereas in next step sAdhana, sAdhaka has to
> > realize Ishwara, IshwarAnugraha, Acharya etc. are his own imaginations
> and
> > there is nothing outside of this avidyA kshetra.  I don?t know what Sri
> MS
> > said about all these when he himself a strong propagator of mind all game
> > like buddhist.  My inquisitive mind simply asking if the advanced student
> > firmly have the conviction in his mind that it is all avidyA bhrAnti of
> his
> > own mind, how can he have the shraddha bhakti in guru vAkya and how can
> he
> > seek IshwarAnugraha when there is no such characters exist apart from his
> > imaginary world!!??
> >
> Indeed how is it that many PSA held to DSV and still professed great bhakti
> towards Guru and ??vara?  That is s point to ponder.
>
> Basic question to reiterate is - does professing DSV as a valid prakriy? to
> arrive at Advaita j??nam preclude ??vara bhakti?
>
> The answer is - there is no incompatibility. Because whether we use ?two
> orders of reality pedagogy? or ?three orders of reality? pedagogy, the same
> question you raised can be asked. Because in both prakriy?s there is
> sublation (b?dha) of vy?vah?rika Satt?. And only p?ram?rthika satt? is
> real.
>
> You objection holds
>
>
> Does it not mean he is simply trying to drink water from mirage??  If he
> > still talking about IshwarAnugraha, Acharya upadesha, sampradaya, pramANa
> > vyavahAra etc. does it not mean it is just his hypocrisy!!??
> >
> There is no hypocrisy in holding DSV as valid and ??vara bhakti.
> Your question can be raised for any prakriy? involving b?dha
> sam?n?dhikara?am including even SDV, since there is b?dha of vyavah?rika
> satt? in any valid prakriy?.
>
> >
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
> >
>
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
> > Bhaskar
> >
> >
> >
> > PS:  you directly replied to me without addressing it to the list, hence
> I
> > too directly replying to you.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 12:08:24 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 21:38:24 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Hariharapura Mutt gets a successor designate
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te2QWgqb=9dRGMwRM=sxutA_b247ejo8d4bj9dtPfmtVFg@mail.gmail.com>

https://youtu.be/P7BmE6eq0m4?si=NAhVf-OvCMvUSGo3

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 13:23:20 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 22:53:20 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Daily class in Kannada on Rudradhyaya with Sayana
 and Bhattabhaskara Bhashya
In-Reply-To: <CAKk0Te2+WKaJcMxjLbP8Q3pKGaVRH9ODeyEiPXRr4AG2C2O=vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te2+WKaJcMxjLbP8Q3pKGaVRH9ODeyEiPXRr4AG2C2O=vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te0+gss_NZRLWioMRvSY7_SY0geL=h7KCFGNTsysSLQwjw@mail.gmail.com>

See image here:  https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/ozsCxcOpUBU

Vidwan Vachaspati Shastri Joshi will be doing this.

https://www.youtube.com/@VACHASPATISHASTRIJOSHI

Daily class on Rudradhyaya with Sayana and Bhattabhaskara Bhashya, in
Kannada

From rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 11 16:04:58 2026
From: rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com (Raja Krishnamurti)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 20:04:58 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Advaita-l] "Seminar on Wonders of Consciousness vis-a-vis
 Marvels of AI | 11 July 2026" Live now
In-Reply-To: <CAKk0Te3QRekcyBjrkndHFKxitN9h0+SAbPdFm2KVacmAk8871w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te3QRekcyBjrkndHFKxitN9h0+SAbPdFm2KVacmAk8871w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <731055549.320599.1783800298952@mail.yahoo.com>

Hari Om.?Good morning.?Mr. Subramanian. When I try to access, it says Video is Private.Best Regards,Raja Krishnamurti?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, July 10, 2026, 10:08 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/live/fz-fFbQCdoY?si=zPzdc1bGmWuRV5hA
_______________________________________________
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




From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 02:32:06 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 12:02:06 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] "Seminar on Wonders of Consciousness
 vis-a-vis Marvels of AI | 11 July 2026" Live now
In-Reply-To: <CAKqm3-rMp3xfv7eiUR=6U-J7K72eX4EWEH+B1tw+udDxh2q6AQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKk0Te3QRekcyBjrkndHFKxitN9h0+SAbPdFm2KVacmAk8871w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKqm3-qBpG6pXm2ZRSRhKtgqZd-8gHr5ybz2cjpFFjA2LZb+NQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMxaFCzc1rqMADjXEcNndMgOy+6jfmpDRinHvJGcj3MBfkPYMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKqm3-qdgCJRSUjkN8B7Us=vfoNOuQi_=2aHE7HSuHFoPaomMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKqm3-oDmPxrC+PSxa8UNWuPAHhs9k+Dq0=GkFCn9nqHD_HFDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKqm3-rMp3xfv7eiUR=6U-J7K72eX4EWEH+B1tw+udDxh2q6AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te3SBHhES_O-ZsuwYQH8uJTzrt2P8yuuhADESYAwRj9Gqw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Putran ji,

Yes, Swamiji alludes to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Bhashyam,
which discuss Chaitanyam and how it can't be pointed out, like saying,
'this is a cow.' The only method, therefore, is 'neti neti'?excluding
everything that is not Chaitanyam.

Then he dwells upon how Shankara incorporated this method alone in many of
his other texts like Dashashloki and Ekashloki.

Swamiji says: If science can arrive at the existence of Chaitanyam through
computers and AI, the great benefit would be also that all who consider
science the leading domain would walk the path of righteousness.  He bases
this on the Taittiriya statement: "asan eva sa bhavati, asad brahmeti veda
chet."  He who denies God/Ishwara/Chaitanyam, himself becomes non-existent,
in the sense that he does not follow the path of purushartha. Conversely,
if one accepts Chaitanyam, they attain the supreme.

Swamiji is very positive and open to the role of Science and AI in arriving
at the existence of Consciousness.

Warm regards
subbu

On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 9:01?AM putran M <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2:13:20 - "Today modern neuroscience .. relies on a few theoretical
> frameworks to explain how brain activity gives rise to subjective
> experience."
>
> 2:24:30 - "Neuroscience views consciousness [as] a global network
> phenomenon that is required to report, act upon, and consolidate in the
> explicit memory."
>
> 2:27:30: Swami referring to someone's claim, "With drugs even higher
> states of consciousness can be induced ... samadhi can be induced through
> drugs, that's what he says ..."
>
> 2:31:00 This swami who speaks from computer science background compares
> and distinguishes the viewpoints of computer science vs Vedanta.
>
> 3:00:00 the shankaracharya talks in Sanskrit. Can Subbu-ji or someone give
> the essential translation? I think he emphasizes that the "san" path shown
> in Upanishads to "Consciousness" is neti-neti (not AI?), and this is to be
> followed.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 6:44?PM putran M <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://youtu.be/ageOqPUYZR4?is=Q_ocsjSh_Wg-DuR1
>>
>> I knew I was not reasoning based on pramanas :)
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Jul, 2026, 2:16?pm putran M, <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Jul, 2026, 11:42?am Swagata Chowdhury, <
>>> swagatachowdhury024 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaskar,
>>>> Sadly the video is private currently. Because of that I cann't watch it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Likely this is from youtube's AI flagging them for talking too much on
>>> AI: machine determining and man following. I don't see why RKM will make
>>> the video private.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Swagata
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
> 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/CAKqm3-rMp3xfv7eiUR%3D6U-J7K72eX4EWEH%2BB1tw%2BudDxh2q6AQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rMp3xfv7eiUR%3D6U-J7K72eX4EWEH%2BB1tw%2BudDxh2q6AQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com  Sun Jul 12 02:39:36 2026
From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 12:09:36 +0530
Subject: [Advaita-l] World is mind alone: Shankara (sharing an old post) in
 the Mundakopanishad bhashya
Message-ID: <CAKk0Te2Od7-7xCYEGZvFioiTGKq89O2N_+tc_D8Bp4k9=F1XQA@mail.gmail.com>

It's interesting that Shankara says this in the context of Ishwara creating
the world.

World is mind alone: Shankara
Inbox
V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Jul 29, 2017, 4:10?AM
to A, Advaitin
World is mind alone: Shankara

In the Mundakopanishad 2.1 is this mantra:

????????????? ??????? ???????????? ???? ???????? ????????????? ????? ?
????? ?????? ????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????????????????? ? ? ?

4 The heavens are His head; the sun and moon, His eyes; the quarters, His
ears; the revealed Vedas, His speech; the wind is His breath; the universe,
His heart. From his feet is produced the earth. He is, indeed, the inner
self of all beings (pancha bh?ta-s).

While explaining the part h?dayam vi?vam asya (the world is his 'heart'),
Shankara says:

?????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ???????????? ? ?????
?????????????????? ???? , ??????? ???????? ????????????? ; ?????????? ??
???????????????????????????????????? ?

//His h?dayam = anta?kara?am (inner organ, mind) , vi?vam = the entire
universe. For, the entire world is a modification of the mind, inasmuch as
it is seen to merge in the mind during deep sleep, and even during the
waking state it is seen to emerge out of it, like sparks out of fire, to
exist.//

The important points to be noted in the above bh??yam are:

   1. The mantra is about the cosmic person
   2. It is an imagery where the cosmos is spoken of as various body-parts
   of this person
   3. The mind of this person is said to be the universe in the mantra
   4. Shankara alludes the human experience to make this point no.3
   5. He says that the world is a vik?ra, modification, of the mind
   6. The reason he gives is: since it is seen, experienced, to merge in
   the mind during deep sleep.
   7. It is a norm in Vedanta that the layasth?nam is the up?d?na k?ra?am,
   for example, the pot, a product of clay, returns to clay when destroyed and
   hence is the material cause
   8. vik?ra in the context of creation in Vedanta is vivarta
   9. It is on this basis the utpatti, sthiti and laya of the universe are
   taught to be Brahman
   10. The world emerges from the mind, upon waking
   11. The emerging of the multifarious world is akin to sparks flying out
   of a burning fire
   12. Incidentally this analogy of 'sparks flying out of fire' used in
   creation shruti in the Br.up. and the Mundaka itself, is regarded as an
   instance of the shruti admitting yugapat s???i (simultaneous creation) as
   different from 'krama s???i', sequential creation, as for example in
   'ak???t v?yu?...' of the Taittiriya upanishad.

It is evident that the above is an instance of jiva, who is
anta?kara??vacchinnam chaitanyam (consciousness delimited by the mind),
being the cause of the experienced world. In the Mandukya k?rik? 2.32
bh??ya Shankara says:

? ?? ????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ????? ???????????? ; ? ?
???? ????????????????????? ?????? ??, ? ?????? ?? ? ???
???????????????????????? ? ? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ;
??? ????????????????? ????????? ??????? ?

// There is no origination and destruction of the rope-snake (which is just
a mental concoction) in the rope. Nor is there its origination and
destruction in the mind. Even so, dvaita (dvaita prapancha) is
non-different from the mind. For, in the mind controlled (by meditation) or
during deep sleep one does not experience dvaita (dvaita prapancha).
Therefore it stands established that dvaita (dvaita prapancha) is only a
mental concoction.

This mandukya bh??ya is subsumed by the mundaka bhashya where Shankara
gives the deep sleep, when the mind is dissolved, as the layasth?nam of the
world, prapancha, jagat. Gaudap?da and Shankara offer reiteration of the
above idea in 3.31 with the help of a syllogism:

???????????? ?????? ??????????????????? ?
???? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ? ?? ?

???????????????????????? ?????????? ?? ???????????? ? ???? ??? ??????????,
??????????????????????????? ? ???? ? ??? ?? ???? ?????????????
?????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?????????, ??????? ?????? ??????
???????? ? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????????????????????????????
?????????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?????????????
???????????????????????? ?

It has been stated that the mind alone takes the form of the concocted
dvaita just as the rope-snake is concocted. What is the basis, pram??a, for
this? It is the anum?na, inference, of the form of anvaya-vyatireka. How?
The pratij??, claim is: the entire dvaitam is experienced as a concoction
of the mind and therefore dvaitam is mind. Since in the presence of the
mind, dvaitam is present and in the absence of the mind, dvaitam is absent.
When the mind has been controlled by effort (in meditation) owing to
discrimination and practice, just as the imagined snake merges in the rope,
or during deep sleep, dvaitam is never experienced. Thus, by its absence
(during meditation and deep sleep), the non-existence, asattvam, of dvaitam
is established.

In the Brahmasutra bhashya commentary, the Ratnaprabh? summarizes the
Ved?nta siddh?nta thus: ???????????????????? ??? = perception is creation,
and non-perception is destruction.

The Mundaka and the Mandukya bh??yam cited above demonstrate this siddh?nta
eminently.

Om Tat Sat

