T&D – Avidyā

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

There has been an awful lot of discussion over the past year on various aspects relating to ‘ignorance’. If there were any non-advanced seekers attempting to follow these, it is almost certain that they would have given up on most of the posts. (I have to confess that so did I on many of them.)

For all of these readers (if any), here is an attempt to summarize the key aspects in simple terms – with strictly no Devanagari script and only a few Sanskrit terms (with links to those that have already been defined).

Avidyā: Unmasking the Primal Ignorance in Advaita Vedānta

In our pursuit of spiritual truth, we often find ourselves gripped by a subtle but persistent sense of dissatisfaction. Traditional Advaita Vedānta suggests that this entire predicament—known as saṃsāra—is rooted in a single, fundamental error: Self-ignorance, or avidyā. Grasping the nuances of this term is essential for any seeker, as it serves as the cornerstone for Advaitic metaphysics and epistemology.

The Meaning and Etymology of Not-Knowing

The word avidyā is a simple compound: the prefix ‘a’ (negation) added to ‘vidyā’ (knowledge). Literally, it translates as “not knowing” or “unwisdom”. However, in Advaita, it is not merely a lack of general information, such as being ignorant of a foreign language; it refers specifically to ignorance of our true nature as the non-dual reality, Brahman.

According to Ādi Śaṅkara, avidyā is characterized by three distinct features in the mind: non-perception of the truth (agrahaṇa), doubtful perception (saṃśaya), and wrong perception (viparīta). We are not only unaware that we are limitless Consciousness, but we also actively believe we are something else—a limited, suffering body-mind.

The Mechanics of Illusion: Avidyā and Superimposition

If avidyā is the underlying condition, adhyāsa [https://www.advaita-vision.org/adhyasa/] (superimposition) is its experiential result. Śaṅkara defines this as the “mixing up of the real and the unreal,” or the apprehension of one thing as something else.

The classic metaphor used to explain this is the rope and the snake. In dim light, a traveler sees a coiled rope and, failing to recognize it clearly, superimposes the image of a snake upon it. The fear and the urge to flee are real to the traveler, yet the snake has no objective reality. In this scenario, avidyā is the “darkness” or lack of clear sight, while the superimposition is the resulting “mistake” of seeing a snake.

The Two Powers of Ignorance

Post-Śaṅkara authors developed the theory that avidyā possesses two distinct “powers” (śakti) that maintain the world-illusion:

1. Āvaraṇa (The Veiling Power): This acts like a cloud covering the sun. It conceals the true nature of Brahman, making it appear as though the Self is non-existent or unknown.
2. Vikṣepa (The Projecting Power): This power projects the appearance of a dualistic universe, replete with objects and separate individuals, onto the veiled reality of Brahman.

While Śaṅkara himself did not explicitly categorize ignorance into these two powers, he acknowledged that we suffer from both a failure to see the truth and the active misapprehension of it.

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy (Root Ignorance)

One of the most extensive areas of confusion investigated in the Confusions series is the concept of mūlāvidyā, often termed “root” or “causal” ignorance. The Vivaraṇa school and many later commentators argue that ignorance must be a positively existing entity (bhāvarūpa) because a mere “nothing” could not have the power to conceal or project. They speak of mūlāvidyā as a beginningless, material cause of the world that exists even during deep sleep.

However, modern traditionalists such as Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSSS) argue that Śaṅkara never taught the existence of a “root ignorance” entity. SSSS maintained that ignorance is strictly epistemological—it is nothing more than a wrong notion in the mind of the individual (jīva), which is corrected as soon as Self-knowledge arises. In this view, calling ignorance a “positive entity” is merely an adhyāropa-apavāda [https://www.advaita-vision.org/adhyaropa-apavada-2/] device that must eventually be rescinded. If ignorance were a real, positive entity, it would imply a duality (Brahman plus ignorance) and would be impossible to destroy, thereby making liberation unattainable.

The Locus of Ignorance: Who is Ignorant?

One of the thorniest questions in Advaita is: Where does ignorance reside? If reality is non-dual, then there is only Brahman. How can Brahman be ignorant?

• The Jīva as Locus: Some argue that ignorance must reside in the individual self (jīva), as it is the jīva who experiences suffering and seeks liberation. However, this leads to a logical loop: the jīva is a product of ignorance, so how can it be the locus for its own cause?.
• Brahman as Locus: Others, including Śaṅkara in certain contexts, state that Brahman is the locus. Since there is nothing else in reality, ignorance must rest on Brahman, just as the illusory snake rests on the rope.

Śaṅkara often bypassed this academic knot by telling questioners that ignorance belongs to the one who perceives it. Once you realize your identity as Brahman, the question itself becomes irrelevant because the ignorance is seen never to have truly existed.

The Status of the World and Enlightenment

A major misconception is the belief that the physical world literally disappears for a realized person (jñānī). Traditional Advaita clarifies that what “disappears” on enlightenment is not the world itself, but the delusion that the world is an independent, separate reality.

Perception is a function of the mind and senses, which continue to operate until the prārabdha karma (the karma that initiated the current birth) is exhausted. Just as a person can know that a mirage is not real water while still seeing the image of water, a jñānī still perceives duality but knows it to be anirvacanīya [https://www.advaita-vision.org/anirvacaniya/]—a dependent appearance that is none other than Brahman.

Obstacles to Peace: Pratibandha-s and Manonāśa

A seeker may have “intellectual” Self-knowledge but still suffer from habitual emotional disturbances. These are attributed to pratibandha-s, or mental obstacles (such as deeply ingrained habits of identification) that require nididhyāsana (meditation/reflection) to fully consolidate the knowledge into a transformed life outlook.

Furthermore, the term manonāśa, often mistranslated as the “death of the mind,” actually refers to the resolution of the ego’s identification with the mind. A jñānī would not be able to move, eat, or teach without a mind. The mind remains as a useful instrument, but the dominion of attachments and aversions has been forever destroyed.

The Remedy: Knowledge Alone

If the problem is avidyā (ignorance), the only possible solution is jñāna (knowledge). Advaita is firm that action (karma) can never destroy ignorance because action is not opposed to it; you can perform a thousand rituals and still be ignorant of your true nature.

Just as light is the direct antidote to darkness, Self-knowledge is the direct antidote to avidyā. This knowledge is not the acquisition of a new “experience” or “state,” but the removal of a false idea. It is a mental event—an akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti—where the seeker finally recognizes the truth: “I am Brahman”.

Conclusion: Guidance for the Confused Seeker

The modern landscape of non-dual spiritual teaching, especially the style popularized as Neo-Advaita, often fails the seeker by denying the validity of the phenomenal world (vyavahāra). By claiming there is “no seeker and no path,” these movements risk inducing nihilism or confusion.

Traditional Advaita, by contrast, acknowledges the seeker’s experience and provides a proven methodology passed down through a teaching lineage (sampradāya). The complexity of the teaching serves a vital purpose: it is a necessary tool to dismantle the deeply ingrained illusion of duality. For the confused seeker, the path through the jungle is navigated by finding a teacher who is both enlightened (brahmaniṣṭha) and learned in the scriptures (śrotriya), capable of unfolding the truth that you are already the limitless, perfect Brahman.

 

Dennis

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji.

Lots of issues in your write-up.

One of the most extensive areas of confusion investigated in the Confusions series is the concept of mūlāvidyā, often termed “root” or “causal” ignorance. The Vivaraṇa school and many later commentators argue that ignorance must be a positively existing entity (bhāvarūpa) because a mere “nothing” could not have the power to conceal or project. They speak of mūlāvidyā as a beginningless, material cause of the world that exists even during deep sleep.

It is clarified that mulAvidyA is neither bhAva nor abhAva. It is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa, because there is presence of bAdhaka in postulating either bhAva-tva or abhAva-tva for avidyA. So, to present bhAvarupa as a "positively existing entity" is incorrect and shows that VivaraNa texts have not been properly understood. I also wonder why things are attributed to VivaraNa and other commentators without having studied them. What benefit is derived thereby? 

The following is the reference from Advaita SIddhi, which can be perused:  

न च – अभावविलक्षणाविद्यादौ भावविलक्षणत्वमसम्भवि, परस्परविरोधादिति – वाच्यम् ; भावत्वाभावत्वयोर्बाधकसत्त्वेन तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ परस्परविरहव्यापकत्वरूपविरोधासिद्धेः, परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वरूपस्तु विरोधो नैकविरहेणापरमाक्षिपति । न हि गोत्वविरहोऽश्वत्वमाक्षिपतीत्युक्तम् ।

Objection:  BhAva and abhAva are mutually contradictory. They have mutual-virodha. Therefore, it is not possible that avidyA which is abhAva-vilakshaNa has also bhAva-vilakshaNatA.

Answer: No. There is presence of bAdhaka in case avidyA is accepted as having either bhAvatva or abhAvatva.

bAdhaka for bhAvatva: avidyA is stated by Shruti to be jnAna-nivartya and vinAshI. If it were to be bhAva, then anything which is bhAva and vinAshI has to have sAditva. [विनाशिभावः सादि:, घटवत्] However, Shruti says avidyA to be anAdi. Hence, the rule – that vinAshI bhAva is with beginning – is the bAdhaka for bhAvatva of avidyA.

bAdhaka for abhAvatva of avidyA: avidyA is the upAdAna of the world. abhAva can never be upAdAna of anything. Hence, upAdAnatva is the bAdhaka for abhAvatva of avidyA.

Therefore, avidyA is accepted to be bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA.

Further, bhAvatva and abhAvatva are not paraspara-viraha-rUpa nor paraspara-viraha-vyApaka-rUpa. Rather, they are paraspara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa. 

Let us say, there are A and B:

Paraspara-viraha-rUpa:  

A = B-abhAva; B = A-abhAva.

Paraspara-viraha-vyApaka-rUpa:

A-abhAva (vyApya) => B (vyApaka); B-abhAva (vyApya) => A (vyApaka)

Paraspara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa:

A (vyApya) => B-abhAva (vyApaka); B (vyApya) => A-abhAva (vyApaka)

Since bhAvatva and abhAvatva are like cow-hood and horse-hood, and are paraspara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa, there is no impossibility of co-appearance of bhAva-vilakshaNatA and abhAva-vilakshaNatA just like cow-hood-abhAva and horse-hood-abhAva coexist in a camel.

Here, we should appreciate that bhAva includes both AtmA and avidyA-kArya whereas abhAva includes both asat and the four abhAva namely prAk-abhAva, pradhvansa-abhAva, anyonya-abhAva and atyanta-abhAva. avidyA is different from all of these. 

 

However, modern traditionalists such as Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSSS) argue that Śaṅkara never taught the existence of a “root ignorance” entity. SSSS maintained that ignorance is strictly epistemological—it is nothing more than a wrong notion in the mind of the individual (jīva), which is corrected as soon as Self-knowledge arises.

What is "notion in mind"? Define. Is it a transformation of mind? Is ignorance a modification-of-mind? Is mind the material cause of ignorance? One cannot get away by using words such as "epistemological", "epistemic" etc. Define it.

SSSS ji sometimes calls avidyA as abhAva, sometimes as identical to adhyAsa (which is non-abhAva), sometimes "notion in mind" implying mind to be prior to avidyA etc and a material cause thereof. Clear coherent articulation is required for any sensible takeaway, which is lacking in SSSS ji's case. And there are self-contradictions galore.

In this view, calling ignorance a “positive entity” is merely an adhyāropa-apavāda [https://www.advaita-vision.org/adhyaropa-apavada-2/] device that must eventually be rescinded. If ignorance were a real, positive entity, it would imply a duality (Brahman plus ignorance) and would be impossible to destroy, thereby making liberation unattainable.

avidyA is not bhAva. It is bhAva-rUpa. Important to discern.

The Locus of Ignorance: Who is Ignorant?

One of the thorniest questions in Advaita is: Where does ignorance reside? If reality is non-dual, then there is only Brahman. How can Brahman be ignorant?

• The Jīva as Locus: Some argue that ignorance must reside in the individual self (jīva), as it is the jīva who experiences suffering and seeks liberation. However, this leads to a logical loop: the jīva is a product of ignorance, so how can it be the locus for its own cause?.
• Brahman as Locus: Others, including Śaṅkara in certain contexts, state that Brahman is the locus. Since there is nothing else in reality, ignorance must rest on Brahman, just as the illusory snake rests on the rope.

Śaṅkara often bypassed this academic knot by telling questioners that ignorance belongs to the one who perceives it. Once you realize your identity as Brahman, the question itself becomes irrelevant because the ignorance is seen never to have truly existed.

The locus of ignorance is shuddha chaitanya i.e. Brahman. However, since there is tAdAtmya-adhyAsa of ahamkAra with shuddha-chaitanya, avidyA appears to be located in ahamkAra. The feeling "I am ignorant" arises because ignorance, located in Brahman, appears to qualify ahamkAra on account of adhyAsa of ahamkAra with Brahman. Doing anuvAda of this adhyAsa, it is sometimes said that jIva is Ashraya of ignorance. The logical possibility is only with respect to Shuddha Chaitanya. 

Objection: But this pratIti of “अहम् अज्ञः” has ahamartha i.e. ahamkAra as the Ashraya. However, ahamkAra is ajnAna-kArya and hence cannot be the Ashraya of ajnAna. Therefore, ajnAna cannot be the vishaya of pratIti “अहम् अज्ञः”. The only option left is to accept that jnAna-abhAva is the vishaya of this pratIti.

Answer: Not so. Chaitanya is the Ashraya of ajnAna. And in that very chaitanya, where ajnAna is adhyasta, ahamartha also has tAdAtmya-adhyAsa with ajnAna as the avachchhedaka. On account of this tAdAtmya-adhyAsa, there is eka-Ashrayatva-sambandha. Thus, due to sAmAnAdhikaraNaya of ahamartha and ajnAna in chaitanya, ajnAna appears as connected to ahamartha. It should not be confused that ajnAna has ahamartha as the Ashraya.

Thus, there is no incongruity in ajnAna being the vishaya of “अहम् अज्ञः”, because ahamartha is not the Ashraya of ajnAna. BAlabOdhinI, p. 1118, says – यस्मिन्नेव चैतन्ये अज्ञानम्-अध्यस्तम्, अज्ञान-अवच्छेदेन तस्मिन्-एव चैतन्ये अहमर्थो-अपि अध्यस्तः। तथा च सामानाधिकरण्य-संबन्धेन अज्ञानम्-अहमर्थ-सम्बन्धितया भासते, न तु अज्ञानम्-अहमर्थ-आश्रितम्…उक्तञ्च विवरणे – एवम् अज्ञान-अन्तःकरण-योः एकात्म-सम्बन्धात् अहमज्ञ इति अवभासः न अन्तःकरणस्य-अज्ञान-सम्बन्धात् इति।   

 

The Status of the World and Enlightenment

A major misconception is the belief that the physical world literally disappears for a realized person (jñānī). Traditional Advaita clarifies that what “disappears” on enlightenment is not the world itself, but the delusion that the world is an independent, separate reality.

Perception is a function of the mind and senses, which continue to operate until the prārabdha karma (the karma that initiated the current birth) is exhausted. Just as a person can know that a mirage is not real water while still seeing the image of water, a jñānī still perceives duality but knows it to be anirvacanīya [https://www.advaita-vision.org/anirvacaniya/]—a dependent appearance that is none other than Brahman.

It is different in different models. In SDV, what you said is valid. However, it is invalid for DSV. In ajAtivAda, the question does not arise as perception of world itself is not admitted from pAramarthika-view. It is not correct to postulate other prakriyA, suitable for uttama adhikArI, as "misconception".

Obstacles to Peace: Pratibandha-s and Manonāśa

A seeker may have “intellectual” Self-knowledge but still suffer from habitual emotional disturbances. These are attributed to pratibandha-s, or mental obstacles (such as deeply ingrained habits of identification) that require nididhyāsana (meditation/reflection) to fully consolidate the knowledge into a transformed life outlook.

PratibandhakAs are three-fold, namely pramANa-gata-asambhAvanA, prameya-gata-asambhAvanA and viparIta-bhAvanA and they respectively require shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana.

Furthermore, the term manonāśa, often mistranslated as the “death of the mind,” actually refers to the resolution of the ego’s identification with the mind. A jñānī would not be able to move, eat, or teach without a mind. The mind remains as a useful instrument, but the dominion of attachments and aversions has been forever destroyed.

The term manOnAsha is defined in GUdhArtha DIpikA as under: तस्य नाशो नाम वृत्तिरूपपरिणामं परित्यज्य सर्ववृत्तिविरोधिना निरोधाकारेण परिणामः। (6.32)

Basically, the transformation of mind in asamprajnAta-samAdhi as AtmAkAra and samskAra-shesha, devoid of vritti is referred to be by the word manO-nAsha.  

The Remedy: Knowledge Alone

If the problem is avidyā (ignorance), the only possible solution is jñāna (knowledge). Advaita is firm that action (karma) can never destroy ignorance because action is not opposed to it; you can perform a thousand rituals and still be ignorant of your true nature.

True. 

Just as light is the direct antidote to darkness, Self-knowledge is the direct antidote to avidyā. This knowledge is not the acquisition of a new “experience” or “state,” but the removal of a false idea. It is a mental event—an akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti—where the seeker finally recognizes the truth: “I am Brahman”.

Ok.

 

Conclusion: Guidance for the Confused Seeker

The modern landscape of non-dual spiritual teaching, especially the style popularized as Neo-Advaita, often fails the seeker by denying the validity of the phenomenal world (vyavahāra). By claiming there is “no seeker and no path,” these movements risk inducing nihilism or confusion.

Traditional Advaita, by contrast, acknowledges the seeker’s experience and provides a proven methodology passed down through a teaching lineage (sampradāya). The complexity of the teaching serves a vital purpose: it is a necessary tool to dismantle the deeply ingrained illusion of duality. For the confused seeker, the path through the jungle is navigated by finding a teacher who is both enlightened (brahmaniṣṭha) and learned in the scriptures (śrotriya), capable of unfolding the truth that you are already the limitless, perfect Brahman.

It should be ensured that the teacher, in the name of sampradAya, is not churning out theories out of his own imagination and creating confusion (being himself confused) by rejecting time-tested texts of sampradAya. 

My personal opinion based on my own experience is that unless one goes through the texts such as VivaraNa, Advaita Siddhi, Chitsukhi, KhaNDana-KhaNDa-KhAdya etc, he will not gain enough humility. Little knowledge is often source of arrogance. When one sees the mind-boggling depth of the texts mentioned above, one understand his own little-ness. That he is absolutely nothing in comparison to the colossal AchAryAs of sampradAya. To even be able to understand these texts is a feat in itself. To say that they were confused, did not understand advaita -- without even having read and understood them -- is a profound error.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Sudhanshu-ji,

 

I knew in advance that you would respond in this vein because of your vast knowledge, of and affinity with, post-Śaṅkara philosophers.

 

First of all, if you recall my opening post announcing a series on ‘Terms and Definitions’, you will remember that I made it clear these were intended for beginner to intermediate students who were unable to follow the esoteric discussions of senior members of the group. I recently published an entire book on the confusions caused by the topic of ‘Ignorance’. There was no way that I was ever going to address all of these issues in a simple ‘definition’ post. This was an attempt simply to put the notion of ‘avidyā’ into the context of advaita.

 

Secondly, I have also made it clear on previous occasions that my own view is that most post-Śaṅkara authors, while they may claim that they are attempting to clarify complex issues and aiming to tell us what Śaṅkara was actually trying to teach, do precisely the opposite. They muddy issues with their nit-picking, logical analysis and, rather like most modern academic authors, make what should be a straightforward, reasonable subject into a totally unreadable and confusing mess.

 

Here is what I said in the introduction to ‘Confusions – Ignorance and Its Removal’:

 

“The premise with which I am operating is that Śaṅkara’s interpretation of the teaching methodology of Advaita is the most reasonable one and the one least likely to trip up the seeker as he/she endeavors to get from ‘ignorance’ to ‘knowledge’. Once there, the ‘ladder’ is discarded. The problem with most of the post-Śaṅkara authors is that they thought they could improve on Śaṅkara’s ladder and they have added extra rungs with twists and diversions almost guaranteed to divert the climber or even in some cases, make them fall off altogether!...

 

“As you will see below, many, mainly post-Śaṅkara writers have argued over the centuries without clearly reaching any conclusions about the precise nature of ignorance! Yet most of these are what may be termed ‘academic’. Not understanding the finer details will not provide an obstacle to enlightenment. The aim of this book is to highlight the areas of confusion and hopefully clarify them sufficiently to enable the reader to understand what is important and what can be safely ignored! I try to reveal Śaṅkara’s view of the matter and to show where other authors diverged from this. I openly admit at the outset that I will not be completely clarifying the topic (I suggest that this is impossible!), but I believe sufficient is explained to enable any seeker to follow Śaṅkara’s teaching on this subject — the other positions may be safely ignored.”

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:18 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

 

Namaste Dennis ji.

 

Lots of issues in your write-up.

 

------------------------------------

 

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC0g1MJL_YAtYG0RcmxeCm_wjPxozpOQ4uKEsJ2C0F4Wg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji.

Secondly, I have also made it clear on previous occasions that my own view is that most post-Śaṅkara authors, while they may claim that they are attempting to clarify complex issues and aiming to tell us what Śaṅkara was actually trying to teach, do precisely the opposite. They muddy issues with their nit-picking, logical analysis and, rather like most modern academic authors, make what should be a straightforward, reasonable subject into a totally unreadable and confusing mess.

We need to see the crux of what the AchAryAs are saying. Unambiguous communication requires precise usage of words. That sometimes needs a formal set of words and mechanism of usage. Like Mathematics. We need Calculus, Trigonometry etc. Once understood, they appear intuitive. Prior thereto, they appear formidable.

Theories of relativity, after understanding, appear intuitive. Prior thereto, they are formidable. Needing precise communication, their mathematical representation is formidable. And they are dealing with most basic human perceptions, say falling of an apple. 

Tell me, how intuitive is it that 

1. apple is not falling, 

2. it is stationary in space, 

3. but moving on geodesic in curved spacetime, and 

4. it is actually the earth which is accelerating upwards!!!

So, your claim/premises that post-Shankara AchAryAs made an unreadable and confusing mess is demonstrative of lack of sustained application of mind in understanding the precise language (Navya NyAya) which they (and others of their times) used and diligent hard work for understanding the meaning thereof. It is like a student deciding not to learn Calculus and trying to understand general theory of relativity, and then claiming -- Einstein has made a confusing mess to explain something so straightforward as falling of an apple.

I desist from writing more. I respect you, but I cannot disregard the absence of due respect towards the colossal AchAryAs of sampradAya. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Hi Sudhanshu-ji,

 

I understand what you are saying and respect your view. I suppose my attitude is that what is important is to know not to stand under the tree when the apples are falling…

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 6:14 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

 

Namaste Dennis ji.

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBKkyZ2KeO44P_zk4w%3DZZnHN120tNE62YWX4SLvMUM1PA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

However, this move is purely stipulative and depends entirely on a prior
reification of avidyā.

It just shows that there is no logical inaccuracy in postulating bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa entity. 

The need for a “third ontological category” arises
only if avidyā is first treated as a positive explanatory entity requiring
metaphysical classification.

It is not a third ontological category. This is the point which has been mentioned umpteen times. Ontologically, the bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa avidyA is non-existent. Period. 

Non-existence does not and cannot prohibit appearance. There are umpteen examples in daily life viz. Illusory snake.

Once that assumption is questioned—as in
Śaṅkara’s strictly epistemic treatment of ignorance as mere
non-apprehension or error—the dilemma itself dissolves.

"Epistemic", "error" need to be rigorously defined for any meaningful discussion. 

Epistemic and error require a mind upfront. So, is the opponent saying that ignorance pre-requires mind?

If so, then entire VedAnta stands refuted because mind being nAma-rUpa, is a product of ignorance.

Ignorance is not a
candidate for ontological taxonomy at all, and thus need not be located
within or outside the bhāva/abhāva schema.

Why not? Illusory snake and horns of hare are both non-existent. Yet, one appears and the other doesn't. So, a distinction is required to be made for clear communication.

Accordingly, the appeal to “paraspara-viraha-vyāpya” does not solve an
independent problem; it merely accommodates a problem generated by the
prior hypostatization of avidyā.

It merely refutes the objection of the opponent who claims that it is not possible to have bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA avidyA.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji, 

//Ontologically, the bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa avidyA is non-existent. Period. Non-existence does not and cannot prohibit appearance.//

I believe you mean to say, non-existence like snake appears but non-existence like hare's horn does not appear. And, I get the third category - sat/asat and phenomenological.

But, both snake and horn are asat - they are both errors and sublatable - one seen, the other not seen.  The point of bhasya is that neither are real, both are illusion. period. .

Prātibhāsika is not taught as some separate quasi-epistemological, class of provisional entity. It is simply misperception (adhyāsa). What appears is only the substratum, wrongly cognized. -a cognitive error.

Indeed, the entire triad—seer, seen, and seeing—belongs to avidyā alone without distinction. By positing a distinct prātibhāsika level, the theory covertly treats illusion as something positively produced, 
as though error required a subtle material manifestation. This mistakes misapprehension for creation. Illusion is not produced; it is only falsely attributed.

The result is a violation of the law of excluded middle: what is neither sat nor asat is granted a quasi-status. But for strict Advaita there is no third category. The real alone is unsublatable; everything else is simply unreal.

What has happened in this departure from PTB is this elaborate construction explaining and inadvertently reifying creation. The distinction between DSV adn SDV are only further constructions - mula and tula ajnana - vivarana and vishepa shakti - bhava-abhava vilakshana - on and on - all constructions not found in PTB.  Sankara wasn't interested in building explanation only dismissing the superimposition

//Epistemic and error require a mind upfront. So, is the opponent saying that ignorance pre-requires mind? 
If so, then entire VedAnta stands refuted because mind being nAma-rUpa, is a product of ignorance.//

“Epistemic” in this context does not imply a pre-existing mind as a substance; it simply denies that ignorance is an ontological principle.
 Mind, ignorance, and error all belong to the same empirical explanatory framework and are jointly sublated. 
 The idea of one who is in ignorance and one who becomes free from ignorance, is a serious distortion of Sankara's PTB. 🙏🙏🙏

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC1Qfg5vG86wgGbiio-cAJi2JuZs%2BKqq6%2BRGqg_tiZA5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

<< The result is a violation of the law of excluded middle >>

Quick question: Is there anything wrong if the siddhanta does not conform to the law of excluded middle? Is the non-alignment a logical fallacy or a sign of an internal inconsistency?

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvG_6dwS7KzJyHTeRCOAPynSvE0A8GTbrgSPZ2_QwffFAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Vikram ji,

The law of excluded middle applies to things which are binary - either true or false, is / is not, etc.

Can such a law apply where you are saying an animal is neither horse nor cow? No, because horses and cows are not the only types of animals. So this rule does not have universal application.

Applying this framework as categories of things which exist or not, is incorrect because mithya is neither that which 1) exists and doesn't exist, nor 2) neither exists nor doesn't exist. Rather, both mithyA and asat do not exist - So those who reject mithyA as a separate category need to prove that advaitins insist on mithyA is one of 1 or 2 - which we do not.

Neither sat nor asat is sublatable. Asat because there is no mistaking it for sat, for it to be sublatable. Sat isnt sublatable either, because that is axiomatically true. Mithya, on the other hand, is mistaken to exist, requiring sublation.

In that way if one does want to apply the framework of the excluded middle, apply it thus - that which is sublated, and that which isn't. The postulate of mithya fits such a conception, into the latter.

Regards

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdmuMGrFLLKSYFV07ryhS9uiLTD4rFjbGb%3DQaSznMqAUw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Typographical error in the last sentence.

mithyA fits into the former, not the latter. That which is sublatable.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

mithyA fits into the former, not the latter. That which is sublatable.

• How can that which is already determined as mithya can also be anirvachaneeya (something which is neither sat nor asat !!) can a mithya vastu deserved to be called as Yes shankara explains mAyA as anirvachaneeya (tattvaanyatvaabhyAm anirvachaneeya) because it cannot be defined to be identical with Ishwara or brahman or quite distinct from brahman.  But mithya is that which is not existing, a Kalpita jneya due to vipareeta jnAna (adhyAsa) in the antaHkaraNa like sarpa on the rope, which is really non-existent..how can this mithya vastu can be an anirvachaneeya i.e. it is something neither true nor false?? Is it not just sublatable mithyA jnAna ??

Hari  Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

You have explained as clearly as one can. And I am sure that any person of ordinary prudence and ordinary cognitive capacity will understand what you said.

Advaita says:

1. Only sat exists. Both mithyA and asat are non-existent.

2. MithyA is sublatable. Both sat and asat are non-sublatable.

This is the clear Advaitic siddhAnta. 

I don't understand how law of excluded middle is stated to be violated.

Namaste Michael ji.

//I believe you mean to say, non-existence like snake appears but non-existence like hare's horn does not appear. And, I get the third category - sat/asat and phenomenological.//

True.

//But, both snake and horn are asat - they are both errors and sublatable - one seen, the other not seen. The point of bhasya is that neither are real, both are illusion. period.//

Illusory snake and hare's born are both non-existent. However, while the former is termed mithyaa, the later is termed as asat. That is just a definition issue. 

It is not correct to say that hare's born is error and sublatable. No one mistakes anything for horns of hare. So, when there is no error, naturally it is not sublated either.

//Prātibhāsika is not taught as some separate quasi-epistemological, class of provisional entity. It is simply misperception (adhyāsa). What appears is only the substratum, wrongly cognized. -a cognitive error.//

Cognitive error requires mind. You cannot err without mind, can you? And this mind is not the substratum. Mind itself is prAtibhAsika. "Simply an error" needs to be explained. You have accepted mind when you say it to be "simply an error". 

//Indeed, the entire triad—seer, seen, and seeing—belongs to avidyā alone without distinction. By positing a distinct prātibhāsika level, the theory covertly treats illusion as something positively produced, 

as though error required a subtle material manifestation. This mistakes misapprehension for creation. Illusion is not produced; it is only falsely attributed.//

Sir, from the frame of reference, one is logically constrained to accept modification. It is a fact of our life. You have to dwell on misapprehension.

Tell me:

1. Does misapprehension require mind?

2. Is mind misapprehension?

Answer pointedly.

//The result is a violation of the law of excluded middle: what is neither sat nor asat is granted a quasi-status. But for strict Advaita there is no third category. The real alone is unsublatable; everything else is simply unreal.//

As explained by Venkat ji which can be understood by any person of ordinary cognitive capacity. 

//What has happened in this departure from PTB is this elaborate construction explaining and inadvertently reifying creation. The distinction between DSV adn SDV are only further constructions - mula and tula ajnana - vivarana and vishepa shakti - bhava-abhava vilakshana - on and on - all constructions not found in PTB. Sankara wasn't interested in building explanation only dismissing the superimposition//

Irrelevant imagination liable to be ignored. Instead, there is Shruti pramANa of NAsadIya Sukta, which says -- there was neither sat, nor asat.. tamas was there. This clearly explains that tamas is sat-asat-vilakshaNa. The omniscient SAyaNAchArya clearly explains that bhAvarUpa ajnAna is the meaning of tamas. 

//“Epistemic” in this context does not imply a pre-existing mind as a substance; it simply denies that ignorance is an ontological principle.//

Useless stuff. You need to define epistemic.

//Mind, ignorance, and error all belong to the same empirical explanatory framework and are jointly sublated.//

Sir, if you hold ignorance is cognitive error, you ipso facto accept that mind is a pre-requisite of ignorance.

//The idea of one who is in ignorance and one who becomes free from ignorance, is a serious distortion of Sankara's PTB. 🙏🙏🙏//

The absence of sAdhaka and sAdhya is certainly true from pAramArthika view. But to deny their appearance from the frame of reference of avidyA is useless and self-defeating. Whoever proposes this has no idea what PTB says.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--

Commissioner of Income-tax,
Delhi.

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

I don't quite understand your question. You ask:

"How can that which is already determined as mithya can also be anirvachaneeya (something which is neither sat nor asat !!)"

and then go on to say

"how can this mithya vastu can be an anirvachaneeya i.e. it is something neither true nor false??"

I didn't define sat to be true nor asat to be false in the first place.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66255000697DFAFB505B91318491A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I was bit hurried as I was in tight official schedule 😊 My question is very simple, is the mithyA vastu deserved to be called as anirvachaneeya ( IOW an exception to law of excluded middle).  For the anirvachaneeyatvaM shankara gives the example of foam / water, can this be compared with Kalpita jneya vastu due to adhyAsa?? Further to explain this : anirvachaneeyatva occurs only when both the kAraNa and the kArya are simultaneously perceived (like mrudghata) either by direct perception or through the shAstra. On the other hand mithyA is related to the wrong perception of an object. During the bhrAnti samaya we have a deterministic knowledge that it is satya (though it is bhrAnti jnAna) and after realizing the existing thing we realize that it was just our mithyA jnAna.  At what stage do we think that there was / is / will be an anirvachaneeya vastu existing ??  that too when it is proven that it was just mere Kalpita jneya vastu due to adhyAsa.  Neither dviteeya Chandra nor sarpa exist to explain it as a sadasadanirvachaneeya mithyA vastu just coz. sarpa and dviteeya Chandra mithyA jnAna is sublated. 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

"is the mithyA vastu deserved to be called as anirvachaneeya ( IOW an exception to law of excluded middle)"

I think you have misunderstood. I did not say it was an exception to the law of the excluded middle. 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625A57311B3D7164545CFD38491A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji and all, 

//It is not correct to say that hare's born is error and sublatable. No one mistakes anything for horns of hare. So, when there is no error, naturally it is not sublated either.//

if you cite hare's horn, it can be sublated - I am trying my best to sublate!  Both are errors - one seen, the other, not. 

//Cognitive error requires mind. //
Again,, that is distinguishing two illusions as well as reifying time, mind pre-exists error. The whole phenomena is adhyasa. All namarupa is adhyasa. 

The law of excluded middle (LEM) says: for any well-formed proposition P, either P is true or not-P is true—there is no third truth-value. In classical Indian logic this maps cleanly onto the idea that a cognition (jñāna) is either veridical (yathārtha) or non-veridical (ayathārtha); there isn’t a third truth-status that is neither.

ON THE LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE/LEM -with ChatGPT:
What gets interesting in Advaita is that people sometimes try to use prātibhāsika-sattā (illusory/appearing reality) as if it were a third truth-value—“not true, but not false either.” That is exactly where LEM becomes clarifying: prātibhāsika is not a third logical status; it is a different mode of appearing,
***and it can be analyzed without violating LEM.*** (- law of parsimony rules)

The pressure toward “third status” typically comes from this hidden premise:
(H) Non-being (asat) cannot appear / cannot be cognized.

If you accept (H), then since illusion appears, it cannot be asat; therefore it must be “neither sat nor asat” (a third ontological kind). 
LEM helps diagnose this mistake: (H) is not a logical truth; it is a metaphysical assumption. And it is empirically false even at the mundane level:

🙏🙏🙏

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmRnW_TM%3DESrofvU1cmj6ms_6ZhLRfkE_gCCM41XMLHag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram,

Completely aligned with Venkatraghavan ji, Sudhanshu ji, and Raghav ji. My question was directed to Michael ji because he had mentioned a possible violation of the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM). It is fairly common for other sampradayas to invoke LEM while critiquing Advaita, but I find it surprising when Advaitins themselves treat it as a concern.

In my view, there is no need to bring LEM into a discussion of mithya. Mathematically speaking, LEM applies only when the alternatives are both mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. In several real-world examples (as noted earlier), that framing simply does not apply. When the criteria are not met, it is neither a fallacy nor a “violation” to avoid forcing the issue into an LEM-shaped binary.

Further, as already shown above, Advaita does satisfy LEM in contexts where the criteria do apply, for example: sublation vs. non-sublation, and the paramarthika standpoint with respect to sat and asat.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGsQM2PyE1wc%2BOWwzCsN9J7LY7qrS1k1rre6DJniRE_3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Vikram ji.

It is fairly common for other sampradayas to invoke LEM while critiquing Advaita, but I find it surprising when Advaitins themselves treat it as a concern.

I am curious to know as to how they explain their own theory of MAyA (and not avidyA) being anirvachanIya? Isn't LEM violated by them the way they seek to explain.

SSSS ji brings in concepts of Dvaita VedAnta into his version of Advaita. Concepts such as the following are from Dvaita:

1. ajnAna defined as jnAna-abhAva (rather than jnAna-abhAva being a product of ajnAna).

2. MithyA and asat are identical. (This too is Dvaita which is negated by Advaita).

In Advaita Siddhi, while giving Shruti pramANa for avidyA, Madhusudan Saraswati says the following while discussing NAsadIya SUkta:

'नासदासीन्नोसदासी'दित्यनेन पारमार्थिकत्वतुच्छत्वयोर्निषेधेन व्यावहारिकसत्त्वपरत्वात् 

This is as clear as it can get. 

But alas, in the zeal to concoct swa-kalpanA-prasUta-theories, one is ready to give up even NAsadIya SUkta.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I am curious to know as to how they explain their own theory of MAyA (and not avidyA) being anirvachanIya?

 

• For us and as per bhAshyakAra the avidyA is nothing apart from agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.  We don’t say there is a mother for all these types of avidyA and that is anirvachaneeya.  So there is no problem or headache for us to come out with the concocted theory like sadasadvilakshaNa, bhAvaabhAva vilakshaNa anirvachaneeya avidyA.  For us it is nirvachaneeya. 
• And also for us avidyA is NOT mAya and mAya has been explained as tatva – anyatvAbhyAM anirvachaneeya ( sutra bhashya).  This expression anirvachaneeya has been explained by bhAshyakAra by giving the example of foan, waves, bubbles which are not quite the same as water but yet not different from water.  (you can refer US & bruhad bhAshya for this). 
• And in the divine alignment of Ishwara and his shakti/mAya (which is ofcourse not palatable Vedanta siddhAnta to dry logicians) mAyA is A-vyakta, that is defying any unambiguous description whether it belongs to Brahman (tatva) or is different from It (anyatva).  It is the nAma-rUpa which cannot be described unambiguously whether they are brahman/Ishwara or different from It, the unmanifest but to be manifested later.  I am not saying this bhAshyakAra himself saying this in IkshatyadhikaraNa in sUtra. 

 

 

Isn't LEM violated by them the way they seek to explain.

SSSS ji brings in concepts of Dvaita VedAnta into his version of Advaita. Concepts such as the following are from Dvaita:

 

Ø     You can enjoy your own hallucinations (ofcourse with the clapping crowd around you) about Sri SSS’s interpretation on each and everything.  Frankly I don’t have time to ‘educate’ you, I know how you miserably failed to understand the context of NS3.1 and Sri SSS’s clarification in mUlAvidyA nirAsa about Ashraya and Vishaya of avidya😊 If time permits I will handle it in a separate post. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

 

 

• For us and as per bhAshyakAra the avidyA is nothing apart from agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.  We don’t say there is a mother for all these types of avidyA and that is anirvachaneeya. 

You say that, true. But bhAshya says that!! False. See what BhAshya says - तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः. When there is AvaraNa (tAmas/timira-dOsha etc), there is perception of avidyA-traya. If you don't have this AvaraNa, there is no perception of avidyA-traya.

Sir, you cannot negate this bhAshya-vAkya. And if you do, then you cannot claim allegiance to bhAshya. What is said is very clear -- there is an AvaraNa different from avidyA-traya. Only when this AvaraNa is present, there is avidyA-traya.

This AvaraNa is what is mUlAvidyA. Those who hold that avidyA is nothing other than avidyA-traya, need to explain what is this AvaraNa, the presence whereof is stated by bhAshya to be the cause of avidyA-traya.

 

• So there is no problem or headache for us to come out with the concocted theory like sadasadvilakshaNa, bhAvaabhAva vilakshaNa anirvachaneeya avidyA.  For us it is nirvachaneeya. 

Sir, sat-asat-vilakshaNa is not concocted. It is the very mantra of NAsadIya SUkta, which says -- na sat aaseet, na asat aaseet.. tama aaseet.

• And also for us avidyA is NOT mAya

And then SSSS ji would equate Maya and avidyA without any issues in MANDUkya Rahasya Vivriti 3.10 -- आत्मन: माया अविद्या.

[https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=sanskrit&book_id=006&pagenum=1b0266#page/419/mode/1up]

 

• and mAya has been explained as tatva – anyatvAbhyAM anirvachaneeya ( sutra bhashya).  This expression anirvachaneeya has been explained by bhAshyakAra by giving the example of foan, waves, bubbles which are not quite the same as water but yet not different from water.  (you can refer US & bruhad bhAshya for this). 

True. The question was however regarding LEM.

• And in the divine alignment of Ishwara and his shakti/mAya (which is ofcourse not palatable Vedanta siddhAnta to dry logicians) mAyA is A-vyakta, that is defying any unambiguous description whether it belongs to Brahman (tatva) or is different from It (anyatva).  It is the nAma-rUpa which cannot be described unambiguously whether they are brahman/Ishwara or different from It, the unmanifest but to be manifested later.  I am not saying this bhAshyakAra himself saying this in IkshatyadhikaraNa in sUtra. 

 

Isn't LEM violated by them the way they seek to explain.

I was interested in response to LEM violation by SSSS ji. I am aware of what BhAshya is saying. 

 SSSS ji brings in concepts of Dvaita VedAnta into his version of Advaita. Concepts such as the following are from Dvaita:

 

Ø     You can enjoy your own hallucinations (ofcourse with the clapping crowd around you) about Sri SSS’s interpretation on each and everything. 

It is an open knowledge Bhaskar ji. NyAyAmrita holds ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva. That is rejected in Advaita Siddhi with lots of arguments. 

 

Frankly I don’t have time to ‘educate’ you, I know how you miserably failed to understand the context of NS3.1 and Sri SSS’s clarification in mUlAvidyA nirAsa about Ashraya and Vishaya of avidya😊 If time permits I will handle it in a separate post. 

I read what is written in black and white. In NS, SSSS ji nowhere mentions chidAbhAsa as the Ashraya and vishaya of avidyA. Of course, NS does not say that either. In MUlAvidyA-nirAsah, SSSS ji writes chidAbhasa as the Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna. What am I to understand? 

Actually, it is hilarious BhAskar ji. Mirror is the Ashraya of AbhAsa. AbhAsa cannot be the Ashraya of mirror. Of course, SureshwarachArya clearly says in VArtika that ajnAna is the Ashraya of chidAbhAsa. So, SSSS ji saying the opposite that chidAbhAsa is Ashraya/vishaya of ajnAna is actually diametrically opposite to Sureshwaracharya. But how does it matter!! Or does it?

For reference: VArtika 4.3.416 - चिदाभासाश्रयाज्ञानात्कार्यसंगतिहेतुतः | स्वाभासान्तः परोऽप्यात्मा ध्यायतीवेति वीक्ष्यते || ४१६ ||

And if you hold that ajnAna cannot be the mirror because it is abhAva (as per you), then you need to check VArtika 4.3.355 which says :

आत्माज्ञानमतः प्रत्यक्चैतन्याभासवत्सदा | आत्मनः कारणत्वादेः प्रयोदजकमिहेष्यते || ३५५ ||

ajnAna of AtmA is always coupled with the AbhAsa of inner-consciousness. And this ignorance alone is accepted as the reason of kAraNa-tva of Atman.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 12:18 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

 

 

• For us and as per bhAshyakAra the avidyA is nothing apart from agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.  We don’t say there is a mother for all these types of avidyA and that is anirvachaneeya. 

You say that, true. But bhAshya says that!! False. See what BhAshya says - तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः. When there is AvaraNa (tAmas/timira-dOsha etc), there is perception of avidyA-traya. If you don't have this AvaraNa, there is no perception of avidyA-traya.

Namaste

The Bhāshyakāra gives an analogy for the above, in that very discussion:

 यथा करणे चक्षुषि विपरीतग्राहकादिदोषस्य दर्शनात् । न विपरीतादिग्रहणं तन्निमित्तं वा तैमिरिकत्वादिदोषः ग्रहीतुः, चक्षुषः संस्कारेण तिमिरे अपनीते ग्रहीतुः अदर्शनात् न ग्रहीतुर्धर्मः यथा ; तथा सर्वत्रैव अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्ययास्तन्निमित्ताः करणस्यैव कस्यचित् भवितुमर्हन्ति, न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य । संवेद्यत्वाच्च तेषां प्रदीपप्रकाशवत् न ज्ञातृधर्मत्वम् — संवेद्यत्वादेव स्वात्मव्यतिरिक्तसंवेद्यत्वम् ; सर्वकरणवियोगे च कैवल्ये सर्ववादिभिः अविद्यादिदोषवत्त्वानभ्युपगमात् ।   

Translation by A.G.Warrier:


https://archive.org/details/GEDy_bhagavad-gita-bhashya-of-shankaracharya-with-translation-by-dr.-a.-g-krishna-war/page/410/mode/2up

// In this context it may be held that nescience is an attribute of the cognizer. It is not right. Flaws like blindness pertain to the eye, the cognizer's instrument of cognition and not to the cognizer as the objector maintains; so it cannot constitute the cognizer's transmigratory life. So God alone is the kshetrajna and not the transmigrating Jiva. Your contention that this is illogical is not correct. The defect leading to misapprehension, etc., exists in the eye, the instrument of cognition, and not in the cognizer. When the eye is cured by right treatment, the cognizer's vision ceases to be defective. Similarly non-apprehension, etc., are due to the defects of instruments of perception and not of the field-knower who perceives. Besides, being objects of knowledge, these defects cannot pertain to the perceiver in the way that light pertains to the lamp. Being knowable, these defects have to be cognised by a principle other than themselves; for, all disputants agree that in the state of freedom or mukti, where instruments of cognition no longer exist, the perceiver has no flaws like nescience, etc. If any attributes pertained to the Self who is also the field-knower, as, for instance, heat does to the fire, it would never be free from it. //

From the above it is crystal clear that: Avidya is basically Avaranātmika which expresses itself as agrahana, viparita grahana and samshaya.  Shankara uses anvaya vyatireka logic to demonstrate that this Bhāvarupa avidya is experienced when it is present and not experienced when it is absent. The eye-defect analogy is so aptly handled by Shankara: When the cataract is there, bhāvarupa, its effects such as not being able to perceive an object, wrongly perceive the object and doubtful perception of the object. When the cataract, bhāvarupa defect is treated by surgical intervention, these problems with perception are no longer experienced.  Another proof of this defect being bhāvarupa is: that Shankara says, it is observed, jneyatvaat.  

Thus Shankara holds that Avarana to be the basic problem which expresses as the three stated effects. The eye-defect analogy he uses to perfectly demonstrate it. If something is observed, jneya, it cannot be abhāvarupa. 

warm regards

subbu  

Sir, you cannot negate this bhAshya-vAkya. And if you do, then you cannot claim allegiance to bhAshya. What is said is very clear -- there is an AvaraNa different from avidyA-traya. Only when this AvaraNa is present, there is avidyA-traya.

This AvaraNa is what is mUlAvidyA. Those who hold that avidyA is nothing other than avidyA-traya, need to explain what is this AvaraNa, the presence whereof is stated by bhAshya to be the cause of avidyA-traya.

 

• So there is no problem or headache for us to come out with the concocted theory like sadasadvilakshaNa, bhAvaabhAva vilakshaNa anirvachaneeya avidyA.  For us it is nirvachaneeya. 

Sir, sat-asat-vilakshaNa is not concocted. It is the very mantra of NAsadIya SUkta, which says -- na sat aaseet, na asat aaseet.. tama aaseet.

• And also for us avidyA is NOT mAya

And then SSSS ji would equate Maya and avidyA without any issues in MANDUkya Rahasya Vivriti 3.10 -- आत्मन: माया अविद्या.

[https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=sanskrit&book_id=006&pagenum=1b0266#page/419/mode/1up]

 

• and mAya has been explained as tatva – anyatvAbhyAM anirvachaneeya ( sutra bhashya).  This expression anirvachaneeya has been explained by bhAshyakAra by giving the example of foan, waves, bubbles which are not quite the same as water but yet not different from water.  (you can refer US & bruhad bhAshya for this). 

True. The question was however regarding LEM.

• And in the divine alignment of Ishwara and his shakti/mAya (which is ofcourse not palatable Vedanta siddhAnta to dry logicians) mAyA is A-vyakta, that is defying any unambiguous description whether it belongs to Brahman (tatva) or is different from It (anyatva).  It is the nAma-rUpa which cannot be described unambiguously whether they are brahman/Ishwara or different from It, the unmanifest but to be manifested later.  I am not saying this bhAshyakAra himself saying this in IkshatyadhikaraNa in sUtra. 

 

Isn't LEM violated by them the way they seek to explain.

I was interested in response to LEM violation by SSSS ji. I am aware of what BhAshya is saying. 

 SSSS ji brings in concepts of Dvaita VedAnta into his version of Advaita. Concepts such as the following are from Dvaita:

 

Ø     You can enjoy your own hallucinations (ofcourse with the clapping crowd around you) about Sri SSS’s interpretation on each and everything. 

It is an open knowledge Bhaskar ji. NyAyAmrita holds ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva. That is rejected in Advaita Siddhi with lots of arguments. 

 

Frankly I don’t have time to ‘educate’ you, I know how you miserably failed to understand the context of NS3.1 and Sri SSS’s clarification in mUlAvidyA nirAsa about Ashraya and Vishaya of avidya😊 If time permits I will handle it in a separate post. 

I read what is written in black and white. In NS, SSSS ji nowhere mentions chidAbhAsa as the Ashraya and vishaya of avidyA. Of course, NS does not say that either. In MUlAvidyA-nirAsah, SSSS ji writes chidAbhasa as the Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna. What am I to understand? 

Actually, it is hilarious BhAskar ji. Mirror is the Ashraya of AbhAsa. AbhAsa cannot be the Ashraya of mirror. Of course, SureshwarachArya clearly says in VArtika that ajnAna is the Ashraya of chidAbhAsa. So, SSSS ji saying the opposite that chidAbhAsa is Ashraya/vishaya of ajnAna is actually diametrically opposite to Sureshwaracharya. But how does it matter!! Or does it?

For reference: VArtika 4.3.416 - चिदाभासाश्रयाज्ञानात्कार्यसंगतिहेतुतः | स्वाभासान्तः परोऽप्यात्मा ध्यायतीवेति वीक्ष्यते || ४१६ ||

And if you hold that ajnAna cannot be the mirror because it is abhAva (as per you), then you need to check VArtika 4.3.355 which says :

आत्माज्ञानमतः प्रत्यक्चैतन्याभासवत्सदा | आत्मनः कारणत्वादेः प्रयोदजकमिहेष्यते || ३५५ ||

ajnAna of AtmA is always coupled with the AbhAsa of inner-consciousness. And this ignorance alone is accepted as the reason of kAraNa-tva of Atman.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDhsmFpjURzZSRiw1TqXpZggCjw72M_yPxnjoKk83nfLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

The defect leading to misapprehension, etc., exists in the eye, the instrument of cognition, and not in the cognizer. When the eye is cured by right treatment, the cognizer's vision ceases to be defective. Similarly non-apprehension, etc., are due to the defects of instruments of perception and not of the field-knower who perceives.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

This has been quoted umpteen times to clarify why we should not say that the ignorance pertains to the self and why should we understand that the ignorance pertains to the mind / antaHkaraNa!!  A dead man’s antaHkaraNa cannot see, so it is shAreeri who sees the dviteeya Chandra due to defect of this karaNa.  There is no discussion of how karaNa has come into picture before avidyA!!  In taittireeya bhAshya also it has been explained.  This bhAshya clearly says the defect of avidyA pertains to the instrument that shAreeri using and not to the ‘user’ of the instrument.  By this shankara clarifies and confirms that the knower who is the kshetrajna whose nature is pure consciousness, for him there is no dealing such as vidyAvidya.  He is absolute consciousness.  From the vyAvahArika drushti the ignorance pertains to the mind alone and that should be as it is without any fabricated additional avidyA in the form of brahmAshrita mUlAvidyA. evamanAdiH anantaH naisagikaH adhyAsaH ‘mithyApratyayarUpaH, kartrutva bhOktrutva pravartakaH sarvalOka pratyakshaH.  This argument presented by bhAshyakAra based on the common experience of life and shows that the knower has to ignorance.  NS 3.1 which argues Chaitanya is the Ashraya for the avidyA should be understood with this backdrop not to erroneously conclude nirvishesha, nitya Shuddha buddha mukta kUtastha parabrahman is the Ashraya for the anishta called avidyA.  And this is what Sri SSS emphasized while clarifying in his mulAvidyAnirAsa.  Noway we should understand this bhAshya vAkya like avidyA is a solid thing like cataract that literally covers the eye sight of seer and due to ‘pre-existing’ of this cataract in the form of mUlAvidyA and it is going to give birth to all other three types of avidya i.e. abhAva, saMshaya and vipareeta grahaNa…

[Bhaskar YR]

Thus Shankara holds that Avarana to be the basic problem which expresses as the three stated effects.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The nature of avidyA categorically explained by bhAshyakAra, so at the first place it is not anirvachaneeya, if it is anirvachaneeya you (mulAvidyAvAdins) cannot announce/explain that there is brahmAshrita avidyA, it has AvaraNa, vikshepa shakti, capable enough to cover the brahmA capable to project non-brahman, exists in sushupti without the support of upAdhi etc. By holding it is anirvachaneeya you are making it more explicit and clearly describable concept😊 BTW, brahmAshrita avidyA is an alien theory to shankara’s prasthAna traya bhAshya, nowhere bhAshyakAra eulogizes the avidyA and says it has super powers like AvaraNa and vikshepa.  The word avaraNatmakatvAt in geeta does not warrant to introduce the special force called mUlAvidyA, shankara explains this tAmasO hi pratyaya pertaining to the intellect /antaHkaraNa alone, by any stretch of our grand imagination we cannot paste this AvaraNa to brahman or the self (kshetrajna/vijnAnAtma).  Atleast those who are giving the quotes with regard to avidyA from geeta bhAshya should know the background of giving the example of cataract which hinders the eyesight and not the seer. 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 1:50 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Thus Shankara holds that Avarana to be the basic problem which expresses as the three stated effects.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The nature of avidyA categorically explained by bhAshyakAra, so at the first place it is not anirvachaneeya, if it is anirvachaneeya you (mulAvidyAvAdins) cannot announce/explain that there is brahmAshrita avidyA, it has AvaraNa, vikshepa shakti, capable enough to cover the brahmA capable to project non-brahman, exists in sushupti without the support of upAdhi etc. By holding it is anirvachaneeya you are making it more explicit and clearly describable concept😊

It is anirvachaniya because: 1. it is experienced, and hence not asat like shashavishana. 2. It is bAdhita by vidya and so it is not sat like Brahman. Shankara himself says in that very bhashya, with anvaya vyatireka logic that avidya is there when the instrument manas is there and when the manas is not there in mukti, avidya and its products are not there. 

By enumerating 3 products of avidya Shankara categorically holds it to be bhAvarupa. By giving the cataract example, Shankara makes it even more emphatic: chikitsA is not done on a non-existent cataract. Similarly vidya will not eradicate a non-existent avidya. na hi dRShTE anupapannam nAma says Shankara elsewhere to say: when the effect is experienced, there is no way the cause is denied. 

regards

subbu

 

BTW, brahmAshrita avidyA is an alien theory to shankara’s prasthAna traya bhAshya, nowhere bhAshyakAra eulogizes the avidyA and says it has super powers like AvaraNa and vikshepa.  The word avaraNatmakatvAt in geeta does not warrant to introduce the special force called mUlAvidyA, shankara explains this tAmasO hi pratyaya pertaining to the intellect /antaHkaraNa alone, by any stretch of our grand imagination we cannot paste this AvaraNa to brahman or the self (kshetrajna/vijnAnAtma).  Atleast those who are giving the quotes with regard to avidyA from geeta bhAshya should know the background of giving the example of cataract which hinders the eyesight and not the seer. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625F93245D21902171CE074849EA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

BrahmAshritA avidya is established by Shankara through a dialogue in the Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10 aham brahmasmi bhashya. He raises the question: how can Brahman have avidya? and answers 'since avidya can be there only for a sentient entity and since there is no sentient entity other than Brahman, we have to admit avidya to Brahman alone. The  very shruti endorses that as it says: Even before realizing Aham brahmasmi and become sarvAtma, it was Brahman.  Tat = napumsaka linga Brahman, AtmAnam Eva avEt aham Brahmasmi it.. Brahman alone realized itself as I am Brahman.  

The logic is clear:  Avidya obstructed Brahman's knowledge of Itself. So, the aashraya and vishaya of avidya is Brahman alone. 

regards

subbu 

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

I am not actually following the thread (which for some reason still has as its ‘subject’ my initial post, even though the thread no longer has anything to do with it!) But your statement below does raise several questions.

 

1. If ‘avidyA obstructed Brahman’s knowledge of itself’, would not that mean that there were at least 2 things in reality, and therefore contradict Advaita?
2. I thought that Brahman could not ‘do’ or ‘know’ anything, being beyond time and space, so you would not expect it to know itself, would you?
3. If intending this statement to refer to vyavahAra, rather than paramArtha, isn’t Brahman (Ishvara) sarvaj~na? Knowing everything, how can it not know itself?
4. If the Ashraya and viShaya of avidyA is Brahman, does that not make avidyA mithyA? And, in reality, mean that Brahman is obstructing its own knowledge? Which takes us back to 1.

 

I am not actually asking or expecting you to answer these questions; just pointing out that one can indulge in endless arguments about this stuff! It is why I wrote the book on the subject to try to look at all of the aspects to see clearly what matters and what doesn’t. Advaita according to Śaṅkara really isn’t as difficult and complicated as some post-Śaṅkara authors would have you believe!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Dennisji,

The prime avidya is forgetting that there was no creation in the beginning and there will be nothing at the  end. The world is impermanent. A scientist will say the world came with a Bang". In short, the only permanent entity is 'Brahman'.

Regards.

SunilKB

On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 10:28 AM <dwa...@advaita.org.uk> wrote:

There has been an awful lot of discussion over the past year on various aspects relating to ‘ignorance’. If there were any non-advanced seekers attempting to follow these, it is almost certain that they would have given up on most of the posts. (I have to confess that so did I on many of them.)

For all of these readers (if any), here is an attempt to summarize the key aspects in simple terms – with strictly no Devanagari script and only a few Sanskrit terms (with links to those that have already been defined).

Avidyā: Unmasking the Primal Ignorance in Advaita Vedānta

In our pursuit of spiritual truth, we often find ourselves gripped by a subtle but persistent sense of dissatisfaction. Traditional Advaita Vedānta suggests that this entire predicament—known as saṃsāra—is rooted in a single, fundamental error: Self-ignorance, or avidyā. Grasping the nuances of this term is essential for any seeker, as it serves as the cornerstone for Advaitic metaphysics and epistemology.

The Meaning and Etymology of Not-Knowing

The word avidyā is a simple compound: the prefix ‘a’ (negation) added to ‘vidyā’ (knowledge). Literally, it translates as “not knowing” or “unwisdom”. However, in Advaita, it is not merely a lack of general information, such as being ignorant of a foreign language; it refers specifically to ignorance of our true nature as the non-dual reality, Brahman.

According to Ādi Śaṅkara, avidyā is characterized by three distinct features in the mind: non-perception of the truth (agrahaṇa), doubtful perception (saṃśaya), and wrong perception (viparīta). We are not only unaware that we are limitless Consciousness, but we also actively believe we are something else—a limited, suffering body-mind.

The Mechanics of Illusion: Avidyā and Superimposition

If avidyā is the underlying condition, adhyāsa [https://www.advaita-vision.org/adhyasa/] (superimposition) is its experiential result. Śaṅkara defines this as the “mixing up of the real and the unreal,” or the apprehension of one thing as something else.

The classic metaphor used to explain this is the rope and the snake. In dim light, a traveler sees a coiled rope and, failing to recognize it clearly, superimposes the image of a snake upon it. The fear and the urge to flee are real to the traveler, yet the snake has no objective reality. In this scenario, avidyā is the “darkness” or lack of clear sight, while the superimposition is the resulting “mistake” of seeing a snake.

The Two Powers of Ignorance

Post-Śaṅkara authors developed the theory that avidyā possesses two distinct “powers” (śakti) that maintain the world-illusion:

1. Āvaraṇa (The Veiling Power): This acts like a cloud covering the sun. It conceals the true nature of Brahman, making it appear as though the Self is non-existent or unknown.
2. Vikṣepa (The Projecting Power): This power projects the appearance of a dualistic universe, replete with objects and separate individuals, onto the veiled reality of Brahman.

While Śaṅkara himself did not explicitly categorize ignorance into these two powers, he acknowledged that we suffer from both a failure to see the truth and the active misapprehension of it.

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy (Root Ignorance)

One of the most extensive areas of confusion investigated in the Confusions series is the concept of mūlāvidyā, often termed “root” or “causal” ignorance. The Vivaraṇa school and many later commentators argue that ignorance must be a positively existing entity (bhāvarūpa) because a mere “nothing” could not have the power to conceal or project. They speak of mūlāvidyā as a beginningless, material cause of the world that exists even during deep sleep.

However, modern traditionalists such as Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSSS) argue that Śaṅkara never taught the existence of a “root ignorance” entity. SSSS maintained that ignorance is strictly epistemological—it is nothing more than a wrong notion in the mind of the individual (jīva), which is corrected as soon as Self-knowledge arises. In this view, calling ignorance a “positive entity” is merely an adhyāropa-apavāda [https://www.advaita-vision.org/adhyaropa-apavada-2/] device that must eventually be rescinded. If ignorance were a real, positive entity, it would imply a duality (Brahman plus ignorance) and would be impossible to destroy, thereby making liberation unattainable.

The Locus of Ignorance: Who is Ignorant?

One of the thorniest questions in Advaita is: Where does ignorance reside? If reality is non-dual, then there is only Brahman. How can Brahman be ignorant?

• The Jīva as Locus: Some argue that ignorance must reside in the individual self (jīva), as it is the jīva who experiences suffering and seeks liberation. However, this leads to a logical loop: the jīva is a product of ignorance, so how can it be the locus for its own cause?.
• Brahman as Locus: Others, including Śaṅkara in certain contexts, state that Brahman is the locus. Since there is nothing else in reality, ignorance must rest on Brahman, just as the illusory snake rests on the rope.

Śaṅkara often bypassed this academic knot by telling questioners that ignorance belongs to the one who perceives it. Once you realize your identity as Brahman, the question itself becomes irrelevant because the ignorance is seen never to have truly existed.

The Status of the World and Enlightenment

A major misconception is the belief that the physical world literally disappears for a realized person (jñānī). Traditional Advaita clarifies that what “disappears” on enlightenment is not the world itself, but the delusion that the world is an independent, separate reality.

Perception is a function of the mind and senses, which continue to operate until the prārabdha karma (the karma that initiated the current birth) is exhausted. Just as a person can know that a mirage is not real water while still seeing the image of water, a jñānī still perceives duality but knows it to be anirvacanīya [https://www.advaita-vision.org/anirvacaniya/]—a dependent appearance that is none other than Brahman.

Obstacles to Peace: Pratibandha-s and Manonāśa

A seeker may have “intellectual” Self-knowledge but still suffer from habitual emotional disturbances. These are attributed to pratibandha-s, or mental obstacles (such as deeply ingrained habits of identification) that require nididhyāsana (meditation/reflection) to fully consolidate the knowledge into a transformed life outlook.

Furthermore, the term manonāśa, often mistranslated as the “death of the mind,” actually refers to the resolution of the ego’s identification with the mind. A jñānī would not be able to move, eat, or teach without a mind. The mind remains as a useful instrument, but the dominion of attachments and aversions has been forever destroyed.

The Remedy: Knowledge Alone

If the problem is avidyā (ignorance), the only possible solution is jñāna (knowledge). Advaita is firm that action (karma) can never destroy ignorance because action is not opposed to it; you can perform a thousand rituals and still be ignorant of your true nature.

Just as light is the direct antidote to darkness, Self-knowledge is the direct antidote to avidyā. This knowledge is not the acquisition of a new “experience” or “state,” but the removal of a false idea. It is a mental event—an akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti—where the seeker finally recognizes the truth: “I am Brahman”.

Conclusion: Guidance for the Confused Seeker

The modern landscape of non-dual spiritual teaching, especially the style popularized as Neo-Advaita, often fails the seeker by denying the validity of the phenomenal world (vyavahāra). By claiming there is “no seeker and no path,” these movements risk inducing nihilism or confusion.

Traditional Advaita, by contrast, acknowledges the seeker’s experience and provides a proven methodology passed down through a teaching lineage (sampradāya). The complexity of the teaching serves a vital purpose: it is a necessary tool to dismantle the deeply ingrained illusion of duality. For the confused seeker, the path through the jungle is navigated by finding a teacher who is both enlightened (brahmaniṣṭha) and learned in the scriptures (śrotriya), capable of unfolding the truth that you are already the limitless, perfect Brahman.

 

Dennis

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/003901dc8d5f%243c31d2e0%24b49578a0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 8:50 PM <dwa...@advaita.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

I am not actually following the thread (which for some reason still has as its ‘subject’ my initial post, even though the thread no longer has anything to do with it!) But your statement below does raise several questions.

Dear Dennis ji,  

 

1. If ‘avidyA obstructed Brahman’s knowledge of itself’, would not that mean that there were at least 2 things in reality, and therefore contradict Advaita?

As you propose below, since Avidya is mithya, there is no contradiction of Advaita. 

1. I thought that Brahman could not ‘do’ or ‘know’ anything, being beyond time and space, so you would not expect it to know itself, would you?

In that Br.Up.1.4.10 and Bhashya, that Brahman, only thru becoming a jiva, realizes itself. 

2. If intending this statement to refer to vyavahAra, rather than paramArtha, isn’t Brahman (Ishvara) sarvaj~na? Knowing everything, how can it not know itself?

In this bhashya, there is no role for Ishwara. It's NB that is the subject matter here.  

2. If the Ashraya and viShaya of avidyA is Brahman, does that not make avidyA mithyA? And, in reality, mean that Brahman is obstructing its own knowledge? Which takes us back to 1.

Yes, avidya is always mithya. There is a verse in the Vivekachudamani which gives the analogy of the  cloud produced by the Sun (thru evaporation process), obstructing the vision of the man who looks at the Sun.   

 

I am not actually asking or expecting you to answer these questions; just pointing out that one can indulge in endless arguments about this stuff! It is why I wrote the book on the subject to try to look at all of the aspects to see clearly what matters and what doesn’t. Advaita according to Śaṅkara really isn’t as difficult and complicated as some post-Śaṅkara authors would have you believe!

I agree Dennis ji, that the header of your original post is now hijacked 🙂 

warm regards

subbu 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of V Subrahmanian
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:32 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

 

The logic is clear:  Avidya obstructed Brahman's knowledge of Itself. So, the aashraya and vishaya of avidya is Brahman alone. 

 

regards

subbu 

 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004b01dc9132%24ca610320%245f230960%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji

On Fri, 30 Jan 2026, 02:06 V Subrahmanian, <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. If ‘avidyA obstructed Brahman’s knowledge of itself’, would not that mean that there were at least 2 things in reality, and therefore contradict Advaita?

As you propose below, since Avidya is mithya, there is no contradiction of Advaita.

Further, and by the same token, the shruti Br Up 1.4.10 says tadAtmAnam Avet aham brahmAsmIti - It knew itself thus "I am Brahman".

This means there are two things - Brahman and the knowledge of Brahman. Does that not contradict Advaita? Clearly not - because that knowledge - ie jnAna is mithyA This much even Dennis ji would have to admit. 

If so, the same answer applies to those who hold ajnAna to be not of the nature of absence, ie ajnAna is mithyA.

 

1. I thought that Brahman could not ‘do’ or ‘know’ anything, being beyond time and space, so you would not expect it to know itself, would you?

Well it is the shruti says that Brahman came to know itself. How else does one explain it?

In that Br.Up.1.4.10 and Bhashya, that Brahman, only thru becoming a jiva, realizes itself. 

1. If intending this statement to refer to vyavahAra, rather than paramArtha, isn’t Brahman (Ishvara) sarvaj~na? Knowing everything, how can it not know itself?

Yes it is vyavahAra but clearly the shruti does not refer to a sarvajna Ishvara because such an eventuality would be untenable for Ishvara. 

It cannot refer to NirguNa Brahman because as Dennis ji says, It is not capable of knowing anything. 

It cannot refer to the world, which is inert and cannot know anything.

So who else can the shruti be referring to as Brahman which came to know itself?

1. If the Ashraya and viShaya of avidyA is Brahman, does that not make avidyA mithyA? And, in reality, mean that Brahman is obstructing its own knowledge? Which takes us back to 1.

Yes, avidyA is mithyA, but I fail to see how this implies that Brahman is obstructing its own knowledge. In reality, ie paramArtha, there is neither the obstruction of knowledge nor knowledge itself. 

Rather what the shruti is referring to is in vyavahAra.

I am not actually asking or expecting you to answer these questions; just pointing out that one can indulge in endless arguments about this stuff!

Indeed, one can argue ad infinitum, but one has to then - at some point - judge which arguments hold merit and which do not.

It is why I wrote the book on the subject to try to look at all of the aspects to see clearly what matters and what doesn’t. Advaita according to Śaṅkara really isn’t as difficult and complicated as some post-Śaṅkara authors would have you believe!

No post Sankara author makes a claim about the difficulty of advaita - rather it is the shruti itself which makes the claim - "kshurasya dhArA nishitA duratyayA durgam pathastatkavayo vadanti" says the kaTha shruti, which Shankara himself endorses "jneyasya atisUkshmatvAt tadviShayasya jnAnamArgasya dussampAdyatvam vadanti iti abhiprAyah".

Therefore while I am glad Dennis ji finds Shankara bhAShya to be simple, his claim that post Shankara authors make it complex appears without merit.

Kind regards

Venkatraghavan

I agree Dennis ji, that the header of your original post is now hijacked 🙂 

warm regards

subbu 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of V Subrahmanian
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:32 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

 

The logic is clear:  Avidya obstructed Brahman's knowledge of Itself. So, the aashraya and vishaya of avidya is Brahman alone. 

 

regards

subbu 

 

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004b01dc9132%24ca610320%245f230960%24%40advaita.org.uk.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1_%3DyeUmYUMr2HcojRuCDGODHir4iwgXLKyS4Jdfqactg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

........ his claim that post Shankara authors make it complex appears without merit.

True. 

Further to add, I find that a lot of deep factual statements have been made by post-Shankara AchAryAs with great courage, without emotional bias and without any ambiguity. That clarity of assertion is unsettling for many. It was so for me. But then, it is better to be unsettled for truth, than be settled in falsity.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes it is vyavahAra but clearly the shruti does not refer to a sarvajna Ishvara because such an eventuality would be untenable for Ishvara. 

 

• Yes Ishwara is avidyA vinirmukta, nitya Shuddha buddha mukta svarUpa..So he cannot be the custodian of avidyA. 

 

It cannot refer to NirguNa Brahman because as Dennis ji says, It is not capable of knowing anything. 

 

• Yes again it is nishkriya, niravayava and nirvishesha…NO vidyA-avidyA vyavahAra in the absolute non-dual brahman. 

 

It cannot refer to the world, which is inert and cannot know anything.

 

• Oh Yes prabhuji, a chair, a table, a ghata cannot have the avidyA like abhaava, adhyAsa, samshaya and there is no chance for the jnAnOtpatti in the jada vastu either. 

 

So who else can the shruti be referring to as Brahman which came to know itself?,

 

• If we see the bhAshya vAkya carefully it is not explicitly saying it is parabrahman who is having avidyA here, if that is the case bhAshyakAra says paramAtman would become sadviteeya..So who is having the vidyA here??  As you know, same question has been dealt by bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya and says it is ‘you’ who is asking this question and further clarifies if you realize that you are brahman / Ishwara then there is no avidyA to whomsoever!!  So in vyavahAra where we accept pramAtru, pramANa, prameya, bhrama-prama etc.  We have to accept that there is shAreeri who naturally identifies himself with antaHkaraNa (upAdhi) and takes himself as kartru-bhOktru etc. And this shAreeri is called jignAsu, mumukshu, this shAreeri is nArada who says that I know all the mantra-s but I donot know my svarUpa that NS kAra quotes in 3.1, this shAreeri is shwetaketu (deserved to be called tvaM) who was getting the clarification from uddAlaka about ‘tat’ padArtha, this shAreeri is arjuna getting the geetOpadesha from Lord and for this shAreeri only bhAshyakAra written the shAreerika mImAmsa.  So in this scheme of things we cannot ignore this jeevAtma and argue there exists only nirguNa brahma, jada-jagat and mAyA vishishta Ishwara.  Here jeeva is also Chetana, the owner of his own body, who is having the prANa…jeevO hi nAma chetanaH shareeraadhyakshaH prANAnAm dhArayitA…And it is this jeeva with his close association with karaNa identifies himself as karta and bhOkta and suffers from this mithyA jnAna and he is definitely different from parameshwara / parabrahman during avidyA dasha and he has to approach shrotreeya-brahmanishTa guru, he has to do shravaNAdi sAdhana to know his sva-svarUpa.  Till that time there is difference between shAreera and parameshwara that is what bhAshyakAra too clarifies in sUtra bhAshya :  visheshO hi bhavati shAreera-parameshwarayOH, ekaH kartA bhOktA, dharmAdharmasAdhaNaH sukhaduHkhAdimAmscha..ekaH (parameshwara) tad vipareetaH..apahatapApmAdiguNaH…And in chAndOgya bhAshyakAra clarifies when the Atman is mentioned without any prefixes or suffixes it is addressed to kshetrajna / pratyagAtma / vijnAnAtma only and it is not strictly about kUtastha parishuddha Chaitanya. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 10:35 AM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DnePaM7URNv9%3DSy-tT%3D8-yU2G26n9w36abX8TnTKMW1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

• And in chAndOgya bhAshyakAra clarifies when the Atman is mentioned without any prefixes or suffixes it is addressed to kshetrajna / pratyagAtma / vijnAnAtma only and it is not strictly about kUtastha parishuddha Chaitanya.

Just to understand you better, let me state the following.  

MUlAvidyAnirAsah, page 153 (section 125), clearly says that chidAbhAsa, wrongly understood as AtmA due to avidyA, is the Ashraya and vishaya of avidyA. (विद्यत एव च अविद्यागृहीतो मायात्मा चिदाभासो ज्ञानाज्ञानोभयाश्रयः....तस्मात् अविद्यया आत्मत्वेन गृहीत: आत्माभासो अध्यासाश्रायो विषयः च)

So, when you use the words above like Kshetrajna/pratyagAtmA/vijnAnAtmA, you mean chidAbhAsa. Right?

But isn't chidAbhAsa itself is the AbhAsa of pratyagAtmA? Is pratayagAtmA itself chit-AbhAsa?

And also, this AbhAsa is in which medium?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

1. If ‘avidyA obstructed Brahman’s knowledge of itself’, would not that mean that there were at least 2 things in reality, and therefore contradict Advaita?

 

Ø     Yes as per mUlAvidyAvAdins, there exists a jada vastu (like chair, table etc. hence they say even darkness is also a solid thing like chair it is not just prakAsha abhAva!!) which has the power of concealing (avaraNa) the brahman itself and projecting the something else (vikshepa). And this jada shakti is existing in brahman itself well before any jeeva-jagat notion…it is the prime ignorance (brahmAshrita bhAva rUpa avidyA having Ashraya in brahman itself) which have the off-springs like jnAna abhAva, vipareeta grahaNa and saMshaya as well at jeeva level and it is the upAdAna kAraNa for the adhyAsa as well.  So obviously it contradicts the ekatvaM of brahman which shruti asserts without any ambiguous terms.  Sri SSS somewhere observes that if we advocate and accept the existence of avidyA like this then vishishtAdvaitin’s (rAmAjuna’s) 7 great untenable cannot be convincingly refuted by Advaita. He also observes since this MV is conspicuous by its absence in PTB better to be eliminated from shankara siddhAnta. 

 

 

2. I thought that Brahman could not ‘do’ or ‘know’ anything, being beyond time and space, so you would not expect it to know itself, would you?

 

• If someone says brahman acquired avidyA and become jeeva and then this jeeva did the sAdhana and become brahman means there is action of doing, knowing, becoming etc. well before the jeeva bhAva, so braman is having karaNa (instrument) kriya (action) etc. according to them.  It may be noted as per them it is not mere adhyAsa due to which we are saying this, it is due to mUlAvidyA, well before jeeva-bhAva, the brahman is afflicted and later realizes after becoming jeeva, after sAdhana that it was indeed brahman!! Like it sits on its own shoulders after effort 😊

 

3. If intending this statement to refer to vyavahAra, rather than paramArtha, isn’t Brahman (Ishvara) sarvaj~na? Knowing everything, how can it not know itself?

 

Ø     If we see the jeeva svarUpa in sushupti we will get the answer to this..why jeeva does not know himself that he is brahman in sushupti??  bhAshyakAra clarifies it is because of ekatvaM (non-duality). 

[Bhaskar YR]

MUlAvidyAnirAsah, page 153 (section 125), clearly says that chidAbhAsa, wrongly understood as AtmA due to avidyA, is the Ashraya and vishaya of avidyA. (विद्यत एव च अविद्यागृहीतो मायात्मा चिदाभासो ज्ञानाज्ञानोभयाश्रयः....तस्मात् अविद्यया आत्मत्वेन गृहीत: आत्माभासो अध्यासाश्रायो विषयः च)

 

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Have you not seen there itself Sri SSS clarification with regard to this!!??  And why we should not ask the kAraNa for the maNah in this context?? 

[Bhaskar YR]

And also, this AbhAsa is in which medium?

 

praNAms

Hare krishna

 

chidAbhAsa refers to the antarAtma ( the knower of kshetra) its svarUpa is paramAtma and this chidAbhAsa needs to be understood as the individual soul (vaiyuktika jeeva), representing or reflection of the innermost, witnessing consciousness (sAkshi Chaitanya) and it exists within the BMI hence he is shAreera (shAreera eti sharere bhavaH etyarthaH), but Ishwara/paramAtma not only in shareera  he is like AkAshavat sarvagatashcha nityaH…but jeevastu shareere ‘eva’ bhavati clarifies bhagavatpAda. It is the "I" that observes the body, mind, and the absence or presence of the world, it is that I due to mithyA jnAna (adhyAsa) about itself takes himself as kartru, bhOktru etc., it is that I that is striving to know / realize its sva-svarUpa, it is that I that does the shravaNAdi sAdhana to have the ‘darshana’ of paramAtma 😊  In siddhAnta, in avidyA vyavahAra where pramAtru-prameya-pramANa hold sway, this is the consciousness (Chetana / Atma) that shines within the satyasya satya paramAtma. 

 

I am really surprised to receive these type of trifle queries from the scholar like you 😊

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

I am really surprised to receive these type of trifle queries from the scholar like you 😊

No question is a trifle Prabhuji. It is a significant question as to what is the medium in which there is AbhAsa.

I did not get clear answers.

Two questions:

1. Is pratayagAtmA same as chidAbhAsa as per SSSS ji because he says chidAbhAsa is Ashraya/vishaya of ajnAna and you say that pratyagAtmA is Ashraya/vishaya.

2. What is the medium in which the AbhAsa arises? And this AbhAsa is of what?

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

No question is a trifle Prabhuji. It is a significant question as to what is the medium in which there is AbhAsa.

 

Ø     What is the definition of chidAbhAsa as per you, please explain then I will try to explain its medium. 

 

I did not get clear answers.

 

Ø     When one is enjoying just asking questions they would never get clear answers 😊

 

Two questions:

 

1. Is pratayagAtmA same as chidAbhAsa as per SSSS ji because he says chidAbhAsa is Ashraya/vishaya of ajnAna and you say that pratyagAtmA is Ashraya/vishaya.

• I would like to hear from you the complete definitions for the terms like : chidAbhAsa, pratyagAtma, paramAtma like their similarities, differences and contextual usage of these terms in PTB etc.  Afterwards, we will take and discuss Sri SSS’s take and my take on this 😊

 

2. What is the medium in which the AbhAsa arises? And this AbhAsa is of what?

• I know you would be happy if I say it is in avidyA this AbhAsa arises 😊 don’t you??  Anyway let me first have your own clarification on the above terms, if time permits we will take it further from there.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--

Commissioner of Income-tax,
Delhi.

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC5haUMm0DVLPjK%2B%2B7PeFkTA%2BFjb1akaKM7yHGZk9y%2B%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

On Fri, 30 Jan 2026, 17:07 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

So who else can the shruti be referring to as Brahman which came to know itself?,

 

• If we see the bhAshya vAkya carefully it is not explicitly saying it is parabrahman who is having avidyA here, if that is the case bhAshyakAra says paramAtman would become sadviteeya..So who is having the vidyA [sic] here??  

 

Well here is the entire section from the bhAShya of Br 1.4.10 - 

brahmaNi avidyAnupapattiriti cet, na, brahmaNi vidyAvidhAnAt. na hi shuktikAyAm rajatAdhyaropaNe asati shuktikAtvam jnApyate cakshurgocarApannAyAm - iyam shuktikA na rajatamiti. 

tathA "sadevedam sarvam", "brahmaivedam sarvam", "Atmaivedam sarvam", "nedam dvaitamastyabrahma" iti brahmaNyekatvavijnAnam na vidhAtavyam, brahmaNyavidyAdhyAropaNamAstAyAm.

na brUmah - shuktikAyAmiva brahmaNyataddharmAdhyAropaNA nAstIti; kim tarhi? na brahma svAtmanyataddharmAdhyAropanimittam avidyAkartR ceti.

Bhavatyevam nAvdiyAkartR bhrAntam ca brahma. kintu naiva abrahma avidyAkartA cetano bhrAnto'nyo iShyate - "nanyo'to'osti vijnAtA", "nAnyadato'sti vijnAtR", "tattvamasi", "AtmAnAmevAvet ahambrahmAsmIti", "anyo'sAvanyo'hamasmIti na sa veda" ityAdishrutibhyah.

Translation (my own, italicised):

"If it is argued that ignorance cannot be present in Brahman, we say no, because it is Brahman whose knowledge is taught.  For, if there was no superimposition of silver onto a shell, no one needs to reveal its shellness by saying "this is a shell actually, not silver. 

Thus if ignorance wasn't present in Brahman, the teaching of Brahman being the only entity in existence need not be conveyed with the words "It is Sat alone which is all this", "It is Brahman alone which is all this", "It is the Atma alone which is all this", "This duality cannot exist as non Brahman".

The opponent - We are not saying that there is no superimposition on Brahman, of attributes not belonging to it, like in the case of the shell. Rather, we say that Brahman cannot be the cause of this ignorance or be deluded in any sense.

The siddhAntin - Ok, so let Brahman not be the creator of ignorance or be deluded. But it is also taught that there is no other conscious entity other than Brahman who can be the cause of ignorance or be deluded. See texts like "there is no other knower but Him", "there is no other knower but This", "you are That", "it knew only itself, as I am 'Brahman' ", "He who thinks 'He and I are two different entities', he is ignorant" so say the shrutis.

So, Shankara asks - who else can possess ignorance, when there is only one conscious entity. You tell me, who is that?

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhuji.

What is the definition of chidAbhAsa as per you, please explain then I will try to explain its medium. 

As per my understanding, chidAbhAsa is semblance (AbhAsa) of shuddha-chaitanya in ajnAna or in antah-karaNa. It is a mithyA-vastu.

• I would like to hear from you the complete definitions for the terms like : chidAbhAsa, pratyagAtma, paramAtma like their similarities, differences and contextual usage of these terms in PTB etc.  Afterwards, we will take and discuss Sri SSS’s take and my take on this 😊

Chit-AbhAsa -- as stated above.

Pratyak-AtmA -- Atma-swarUpa obtained after removing the upAdhi from chit-AbhAsa. Identical with shuddha-chaitanya. It is not mithyA. It is different from chit-AbhAsa. Chit-AbhAsa is AbhAsa of pratyak-AtmA in ajnAna/antah-karaNa. Chit-AbhAsa is confused to be pratyak-AtmA during avidyA-dashA. 

ParamAtmA -- Shuddha Chaitanya. Identical with pratyak-AtmA. 

The words pratyak and param are used because they refer to shOdhita-tvam-padArtha and shOdhita-tat-padArtha respectively. They are, however, identical and refer to shuddha-chaitanya alone.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.