Ajñāna as Upādāna in Sureśvara

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Critiques encouraged in the spirit of manana. Please take a quick look and offer comment🙏🙏🙏
43 pages with appendices: comprehensive survey of Sureswara corpus & translation of texts cited. 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/132bANSREDIyA1E2hn8gIZbE9W1B-h1-FXIw3X1joXpQ/edit?usp=sharing

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

Header of the note itself is incorrect. It is the claim of none that non-recognition is material cause.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Sudhanshu ji, 

I think you may have taken the title as attributing to positive-avidyā theory the claim that non-recognition is the material cause. That is not intended. The title points instead to Sureśvara’s own language, which requires explanation:

dvaitasya ca … sarvasyāpi svataḥsiddhādvitīyātmānavabodhamātropādānatvāt
“The entire dual order has mere non-recognition of the self-established nondual Self as its upādāna.”
—Naiṣkarmyasiddhi, opening prose

yasmād ātmānavabodhamātropādānāḥ pramātrādayas tasmāt
“The knower and the rest have mere non-recognition of the Self as their upādāna.”
—NS II, prose following II.105

ātmāgrahātirekeṇa tasyā rūpaṃ na vidyate
“Avidyā has no form apart from non-apprehension of the Self.”
—Taittirīyavārttika II.179

The paper asks whether this language requires a positive avidyā underlying non-recognition, or whether Sureśvara locates the causal ground in the Self itself as unknown.

Much time and thought went into this paper. I hope you can give it your much valued consideration

regards, mcihael

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

It is the claim of no one that avidyā is positive.

In fact, the meaning of the word "positive" is not clear.

Much thought and effort may go in. But unless the basic concepts are well-defined, all efforts are sure to go down the drain.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

It is the claim of no one that avidyā is positive.

• In this list itself it has been vehemently argued that avidyA is the solid thing like chair in a room, to prove that it has been argued that prakAsha abhAva ‘darkness’ is a Dravya padArtha not mere absence of light!!  Now I can expect the subsequent counter query is : what is Dravya?? What is padArtha??  Explain your understanding then I will clear your doubts from bhAva to abhAva to bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa etc.  😊

 

In fact, the meaning of the word "positive" is not clear.

• If anyone wants to know the meaning of ‘positive’ type of avidyA in clear terms, one can refer the vyAkhyAna on avidyA in later works of vyAkhyAnakAra-s, ofcourse it has to be free from obfuscating interpretations from ‘latest’ internet vyAkhyAnakAra-s 😊

 

@Michael Chandra Cohen  why this unnecessary effort to convince someone who is already overridden by mere dry logic 😊 I don’t think certification and endorsements from dry tArkika-s is required when these points are convincingly cleared by the Acharya-s who based their understanding on shruti-yukti-anubhava. 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

Reg  // The paper asks whether this language requires a positive avidyā underlying non-recognition, or whether Sureśvara locates the causal ground in the Self itself as unknown //,

Reference is to the three verses you have cited from Sureswaracharya immediately prior to the above statement. My understanding is in line with the latter as explained below which is also consistent with the Bhashya. Actually, the language in all the three citations clearly maintains that whatever is responsible for the non-recognition of  the Self/Chaitanya , through tAdAtmya with that very same Self/Chaitanya, constitutes what is called positive avidyA. Swami Sureswaracharya , in your terminology, locates the causal ground as the tAdAtmya between the Self and whatever makes the Self unknown.

The word *positive* in this context refers to the Reality/existential status of  avidyA, as defined above, in relation to the Self itself. If the Self is considered as *positive*, then avidyA also is *positive* though the level or order of that status could be different. If the *rope* in the rope-serpent illustration is considered *real/existent/positive*, then the rope-serpent is also of the same status, though to a lesser level/order. It differentiates from what the rope-serpent is called as *negative* concept or *nonexistent* order or just *imaginary*.

If you have promoted the survey or the author is known to you, you may like to check if his understanding  is the same while arriving at his conclusions. Please post his views also here for information.

Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

The word *positive* in this context refers to the Reality/existential status of  avidyA, as defined above, in relation to the Self itself. If the Self is considered as *positive*, then avidyA also is *positive* though the level or order of that status could be different. If the *rope* in the rope-serpent illustration is considered *real/existent/positive*, then the rope-serpent is also of the same status, though to a lesser level/order. It differentiates from what the rope-serpent is called as *negative* concept or *nonexistent* order or just *imaginary*.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I am finding it difficult to understand the essence of the above para especially the tAdAtmya (identity) between the existential status of avidyA with that of self itself!!??  AFAIK, as per Advaita self is considered as nitya, Shuddha, buddha, mukta svarUpa if we consider self like this then as per the above observation avidyA too would entertain the same status though there is a caution about latter’s low / lesser level of reality.  Then the rope serpent example, in AV rope is adhishtAna and serpent is adhyArOpita due to wrong knowledge of the rope…saying that rope is in identity with serpent or if rope is positive then serpent is also ‘positive’ then it definitely defeats with very purpose of this example.  IMO, the, Jnana Abhava or whatever type of avidyA presented here does not have any sort of tAdAtmya (identity) with the Self itself. As I said the elementary theoretical knowledge of the self is eternally pure, eternally blissh, eternally jnAna how  can this eternally pure / vishuddha Atman/self be identical to an absence of knowledge (jnAna abhAva) or as per the above positive avidyA (bhAva rUpa avidyA)!!  Is not serpa jnAna in rope mere bhrAnti jnAna or an illusion?? Instead of complicating the things like this, it would be better to understand “all types of avidyA” (we can add mUlAvidyA as well, if at all it has its own currency in Advaita jignAsa) has a false, superimposed (adhyAropita) relationship (adhyAsa) with the Self and it is witnessed by it.  Don’t you prabhuji-s argue that avidyA is like Vishaya like nAma rUpa ??  how can it strike a tAdAtmya with vishayi !!??  or am I missing something here??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste ALL, Yes, Bhavarupa avidya needs definition agreeable to all.  

The safest formulation is: bhāvarūpa avidyā means ignorance that is not a mere absence of knowledge. It has enough “presence” or efficacy to function as an explanatory principle: it can veil, project, persist causally, generate appearances, and be removed by knowledge. But it is not sat in the way Brahman is sat. Later Advaita therefore also calls it anirvacanīya—not determinable simply as existent or nonexistent. Citsukha is reported as making the point quite sharply: avidyā is called bhāva only in the sense that it is different from mere non-being, not because it is an ordinary positive existent.

So your darkness analogy is good if we qualify it. We can say: darkness is treated here not simply as “no light,” but as something phenomenally and explanatorily present. Likewise, bhāvarūpa avidyā is not a chair-like substance, yet neither is it the sheer nonoccurrence of knowledge. Traditional summaries explicitly describe it as beginningless, removable by knowledge, capable of āvaraṇa and vikṣepa, and in the Vivaraṇa line as functioning as a material cause of the world. 

  A dream is a thought modification—but what exactly is bhāvarūpa avidyā? 
  A thought (vṛtti) is a particular manifestation: “this is a snake,” “I am a man,” a dream elephant, a perception, a memory. Mūlāvidyā/bhāvarūpa avidyā is the underlying explanatory condition that makes such erroneous differentiation possible. In some later systems, particular errors are treated as modes or derivative forms (tūlāvidyā, avidyā-vṛtti) of the underlying ignorance. Prakāśātman’s Vivaraṇa line, for example, accepts one root ignorance but innumerable particular modes; the shell-silver error is one such derivative manifestation, while root ignorance remains until brahmajñāna.     

 the real question for the Sureśvara paper: How much of that structure is already present in Sureśvara when he calls ignorance an upādāna, and how much belongs to later theoretical articulation? 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

The tAdAtmya referred to is AdhyAsika. Not Real. AdhyAsa BhAshya itself not only admits but postulates it. Right in the first paragraph. I did not want to bringin other controversial terms like mUlAvidyA etc. I have just referred to the citations by Michael Ji in his post and offered my understanding so that it is easy to connectup the views.  In any case, let us await the reaction of Mchael Ji and hopefully that of the author of the survey before I respond to any other views.

Regards

--
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/AM7PR06MB6625A4A0F5FD07A1AF9894E084812%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

This whole discussion is funny. If a solid and positive pot, mountain, building etc. does not negate Advaita then why bother about a solid and positive ajnAna?

With love and prayers,

Jaishankar 

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625A8CF8CCFCDDF8664187084812%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Jaishankar ji,

Amusing comment, nicely put, but I think it misses the distinction we are examining.

A pot or mountain is simply one object within the empirical order. Ajñāna, by contrast, is invoked as the explanatory ground of that entire order—capable of concealing, projecting, persisting causally, and being sublated by knowledge. So the question is not whether something “positive” can appear without defeating Advaita; obviously it can.

The question is what additional explanatory status is being assigned to ajñāna itself, and whether that status is already present in Sureśvara or belongs to a later development of Advaita theory. That is precisely the historical issue of the paper.🙏🙏🙏

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Your observation/conclusion is really very funny LOL 😊 Shruti does not saying for the avidyA brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa but for the jagat it does!!  Hope now you can make out how funny your statement is and how you are making mockery of brahman’s jagat kAraNatva which is shruti’s verdict. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

Namaste,

[Venkatraghavan S]

Please, this has become very boring now. Can we talk about something else. I have stopped posting in advaita forums online because this is all anyone wants to talk about.

Kind regards

Venkatraghavan S

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625A28681FE90998E42FCCD84802%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

kAryakAraNatA nityamAste ghatamrudayOryathA ‘tathaiva shruti yuktibhyAm prapanchabrahmaNoriha..

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

8. Verdict

The corpus-wide evidence decisively rejects a causally thin Sureśvara. His ignorance can be seed, power, material cause, and the source of transformation. It accounts for buddhi, duality, bondage, latency, and renewed manifestation. The positive-avidyā tradition preserves this side of the evidence and can claim genuine Sureśvarian ancestry.

But ancestry is not identity. TV II.178-180 permits the name avidyā to extend to what ignorance manifests while stating that it has no rūpa beyond non-apprehension of the Self. BUBV 4.3.1784 calls Self-ignorance a power, but 4.3.1787 concludes that the Self itself as unknown is called that power. NS III.7-8 answers the objection from causal efficacy through ajñāta Sat, not by declaring an independently positive ignorance-principle. BUBV 4.4.178-179 denies the need for another cause beyond the Self as unknown. Most importantly, BUBV 1.4.419-443 accepts the need for a cause of error while refusing to establish a distinctive intrinsic form of moha and grounding the empirical standing of ignorance and error in Sat.

These are not isolated concessions to be outweighed by counting causal predicates. They are Sureśvara's own answers when the proposed cause is pressed for a determinate nature or an existent ground. They therefore deserve interpretive priority.

The evidence favors Satchidanandendra on this precise but decisive point. Sureśvara repeatedly terminates the causal inquiry in non-recognition of the Self or in the Self and Reality as unknown. These expressions do not turn non-recognition into the bearer of properties; they prevent the causal description from separating itself from the Reality being misapprehended. The later positive-avidyā tradition is not thereby discredited. It develops possibilities that Sureśvara genuinely opened and gives them a phenomenal-causal, quasi-ontological articulation consistent with its own insistence that avidyā is anirvacanīya, neither sat nor asat. What it should not claim without further argument is simple identity between that developed structure and Sureśvara's own formulation.

The most accurate historical formula is therefore:

Sureśvara makes the empirical order causally intelligible through non-recognition; later Advaita increasingly gives ignorance phenomenal-causal, quasi-ontological articulation.

Sureśvara is a hinge not because he stands halfway between a noncausal theory of absence and a causal theory of positive ignorance. He already gives ignorance extensive causal density. He is a hinge because that density makes later systematization possible while his explicit analyses refuse to leave an ignorance-entity standing apart from non-apprehension and the unknown Self. PSA is right about causal inheritance. SSS is decidedly closer to Sureśvara's answer when the inherited causal language is pressed for its final meaning.

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625E64C6283136A22CE5DC984802%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji and others,

taking cue from what Venkatraghavan ji said, I am putting forth the following:

I am not interested in positive-avidya or negative-avidya discussion. I am not interested in discussing whether avidya is cause of bondage or not. 

I am interested in discussing causation.

My understanding of advaita vedanta shows me this -- causation itself is illusory. Even if avidya is accepted as cause of bondage, world, misery - it hardly matters - because even this cause-effect-relationship is illusory. It merely appears but it does not exist. Conducting affairs presuming causation is actually foolishness. Like taking dream-insulin to cure dream-diabetes under the strong belief that dream-insulin is the cause of removal of dream-diabetes.

Such is our life. Strongly based on reality of causation, it falls apart when causation is questioned. 

And when causation is given up, we at once situate as the seer, which we really are. The penchant for acquisition of advaita-jnana too falls apart as our penchant for advaita-jnana is under the belief in reality of causation - "advaita-jnana is cause of removal of ignorance."

So, causation itself drops off and our self-shining glory, even manifesting, shines forth.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFkFuUzHr7-qC7DpmuSm1yDSEzVxK3oL8ued9GGNXhUSg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Commissioner of Income-tax,
Delhi.

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namastre Sudhanshuji, 

Fine response - we agree at the paramārthika level that causation is ultimately unreal and “merely appears.”

But that immediately raises the question: what is it that merely appears?

Is there an appearing ignorance-principle that functions as a causal factor, or is the Self itself misapprehended under superimposed distinctions? This is a comprehensive study of Śaṅkara and Sureśvara's vast corpus adn it clearly favors the latter: That is why simply saying “causation is unreal” does not yet answer the question posed by Sureśvara’s use of upādāna. We still have to ask what explanatory work that term is doing. If the apparent cause is nothing over and above misapprehension of the Self, then Sureśvara’s causal language has a very different force from a later theory in which avidyā is given a more articulated causal status.

I would also still qualify “when causation is given up, we at once situate as the seer.” The seer-position remains relational, since seer implies seen. Advaita finally rescinds even that distinction.

Best, MIchael

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCLmVvgfgDQM1PykGJYP5mXXR%2B-KcH7AdehNuHy2ZS2JQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

On Fri, 25 Sept 2026, 20:49 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am interested in discussing causation.

My understanding of advaita vedanta shows me this -- causation itself is illusory.

Your statements above reminded me of the kAraNatva adhikaraNa (1.4.14) of the brahmasUtra. Here, there is a discussion on why there is a difference between various Upanishads in the specific order in which creation is said to have occurred. 

Shankaracharya states the problem first.

कार्यविषयं तु विगानं दृश्यते — 

With respect to effects, though, there is difference within the Upanishads themselves in the stated order of creation. 

क्वचिदाकाशादिका सृष्टिः क्वचित्तेजआदिकेत्येवंजातीयकम् । 

In some places, the Upanishads speak of space as the first element created, and some others speak of fire as the first created etc.

न च कार्यविषयेण विगानेन कारणमपि ब्रह्म सर्ववेदान्तेष्वविगीतमधिगम्यमानमविवक्षितं भवितुमर्हतीति शक्यते वक्तुम् , अतिप्रसङ्गात् । 

Just because there is difference in the order in which effects have been created, it does not follow that there must be difference in the cause also, and therefore it cannot be said that Brahman is not the central message of the Upanishads, for that would be an overextension.

समाधास्यति चाचार्यः कार्यविषयमपि विगानम् ‘न वियदश्रुतेः’ (ब्र. सू. २ । ३ । १) इत्यारभ्य । 

The contradiction in the teaching of the effects will also be remedied by the teacher starting from the sUtra "Space is not created, as that is not said in the Upanishads" (in the third and fourth pAdas of the second chapter).

Then he explains that it is possible for there to be a difference in the specific sequence by which effects come into being.

भवेदपि कार्यस्य विगीतत्वमप्रतिपाद्यत्वात् । 

It is possible for there to be difference in effects, for they are not meant to be the teaching.

And here is the important point - 

न ह्ययं सृष्ट्यादिप्रपञ्चः प्रतिपिपादयिषितः । 

The intent of the shruti is not to talk of creation at all.

न हि तत्प्रतिबद्धः कश्चित्पुरुषार्थो दृश्यते श्रूयते वा । 

Nor is there any benefit in knowing about creation - for such a benefit is neither seen (experienced) or heard (stated in the shruti).

न च कल्पयितुं शक्यते, उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां तत्र तत्र ब्रह्मविषयैर्वाक्यैः साकमेकवाक्यताया गम्यमानत्वात् । 

Nor can one imagine that there would be a benefit in knowing about creation, for (sentences about creation) wherever they are present in the beginning or end of passages, have ekavAkyatA with sentences that have come to reveal about Brahman. (ie their purpose is to reveal Brahman, not talk about creation per se).

दर्शयति च सृष्ट्यादिप्रपञ्चस्य ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्त्यर्थताम् — ‘अन्नेन सोम्य शुङ्गेनापो मूलमन्विच्छाद्भिः सोम्य शुङ्गेन तेजो मूलमन्विच्छ तेजसा सोम्य शुङ्गेन सन्मूलमन्विच्छ’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ । ४) इति ।

It is directly revealed in the Chandogya upaniShad that sentences about creation are mentioned for the purpose of revealing Brahman - "Oh dear one, from the effect that is earth, discover its cause, water. From the effect that is water, discover its cause, fire. From the effect that is fire, discover its cause, Brahman". 

मृदादिदृष्टान्तैश्च कार्यस्य कारणेनाभेदं वदितुं सृष्ट्यादिप्रपञ्चः श्राव्यत इति गम्यते । 

It follows that with the help of examples of clay etc, sentences about creation say that the effects are non-different from the cause.

तथा च सम्प्रदायविदो वदन्ति — ‘मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा । उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथञ्चन’ (मा. का. ३ । १५) इति । 

So say the knowers of tradition (Gaudapadacharya) - "The creation that is spoken of in different ways, through the examples of clay, iron, sparks of fire etc, their purpose is in revealing Brahman - therefore, there is no contradiction whatsoever between various sentences of the Upanishads."

ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तिप्रतिबद्धं तु फलं श्रूयते — ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (तै. उ. २ । १ । १) ‘तरति शोकमात्मवित्’ (छा. उ. ७ । १ । ३) ‘तमेव विदित्वाति मृत्युमेति’ (श्वे. उ. ३ । ८) इति । 

Whereas, the benefit of knowing Brahman is heard - "The knower of Brahman attains the supreme.", "The knower of the Atma crosses sorrow", "By knowing that alone, one transcends death".

प्रत्यक्षावगमं चेदं फलम् , ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यसंसार्यात्मत्वप्रतिपत्तौ सत्यां संसार्यात्मत्वव्यावृत्तेः ॥ १४ ॥

This result is directly experienced when one is freed from the notion of being trapped in samsAra, because one's nature is as an asamsAri, as known through sentences such as "You are that". 

From the above, Shankara  makes the important point that the purpose of the revelation of creation is not to talk of creation per se, rather it is to reveal the creator. He gives two reasons for this

1) unanimity in what the kAraNa is, vigAna (difference) in the kArya - If the revelation of creation was the intent of the shruti there would have been unanimity on how that creation had occurred. 

2) phala - The knowledge of Brahman has a stated phala, benefit (moksha) whereas the knowledge of creation has no benefit stated. phala is a very important tAtparya linga  (indicator of the central teaching of a passage). If the shruti states a particular benefit from knowing one thing (Brahman) but stays silent on the benefit of knowing something else (creation) it follows that the former is what the shruti intends to reveal, not the latter. Further, such a benefit is a matter of practical experience, for the knowledge of Brahman leads to the cessation of samsAra. 

Therefore, it behooves the serious seeker to use the statements of creation as intended - an instrument through which one knows Brahman - सन्मूलमन्विच्छ - see their cause, the Sat.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 11:41 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

kAryakAraNatA nityamAste ghatamrudayOryathA ‘tathaiva shruti yuktibhyAm prapanchabrahmaNoriha..

 

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/AM7PR06MB6625E64C6283136A22CE5DC984802%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.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/CAAz9PvFkFuUzHr7-qC7DpmuSm1yDSEzVxK3oL8ued9GGNXhUSg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

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%2BBCLmVvgfgDQM1PykGJYP5mXXR%2B-KcH7AdehNuHy2ZS2JQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Venkatraghavan, 

Though not addressed to me specifically, I thought my reply might provide insight on the issue of causation and Sankara's call of it as a teaching device. Yes, I agree with your central point that Śaṅkara does not present creation as an independently important truth. In BSBh 1.4.14 he says plainly that the sṛṣṭyādi-prapañca is not what śruti intends to teach; creation passages are subordinate to the disclosure of Brahman and to showing the non-difference of effect from cause. At the final level, causation is withdrawn.

The historical issue becomes more serious with Madhusūdana. By his time the causal account is not merely fuller in detail. Avidyā has acquired a coordinated explanatory structure: it can serve as upādāna, possess covering and projecting functions, stand in determinate relation to sākṣin, have locus and object, persist causally, and even possess state-specific vṛttis. In deep sleep, for example, the theory no longer stops with “differentiation is absent and the causal conditions for waking remain.” It gives an internal account of what is present in the state and how the later waking report is possible

That changes what bondage itself means. In Śaṅkara and, I would argue, fundamentally in Sureśvara, the central problem is the present misapprehension of the self-established Self—the superimposition of Self and not-Self. In the mature Madhusūdana structure, that misapprehension is increasingly explained through a persisting causal principle with its own powers and modes. The error is no longer merely described and rescinded; it is theoretically generated.

māyāvidyānirvācyam anṛtaṃ tattva-jñāna-nivartyaṃ cājñānam eva sva-parādhyāse kāraṇam.

“Ignorance itself—indescribable as māyā/avidyā, unreal, and removable by knowledge of Reality—is the cause of the superimposition of itself and of what is other than itself.” Siddhantabindu

And that inevitably changes the account of liberation as well. If avidyā is principally misapprehension, knowledge corrects the mistake about what is already the case. If avidyā is a structured causal veil, then one must explain precisely how knowledge opposes, removes, or terminates that structure, while accounting for what remains at the empirical level. Hence the need for distinctions involving āvaraṇa, vikṣepa, avidyā-vṛtti, avidyā-leśa, and so forth.

So I would no longer describe the later development as merely “more explanation.” The paramārthika conclusion remains the same: no real creation, no real bondage, no second thing apart from Brahman. But the vyāvahārika theory through which bondage, world-appearance, sleep, and liberation are understood has changed substantially.

That is why saying “causation is ultimately unreal” does not settle the issue. A theory may be ultimately sublated and still reshape the entire understanding of what the problem is, how appearance occurs, what persists in ignorance, and what knowledge is said to remove.

Regards, 🙏🙏🙏

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DnjbpKV%2BcgCh3Q9dWpJm5CyDwK-_L9D0Oa1EfL51kBYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for explaining your interest in the topic. As I said, I would rather direct attention towards Brahman and away from ignorance and its effects. Therein lies liberation.

Regards

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHzNRQO_tRmsh5dFmWWCk41cH%2B0J_3gCb2ASTpgC7f%2B6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

Nice excerpt and equally beautiful English translation.

One thing I would like to highlight, which puts everything in absolutely incredible perspective (for me).

That Brahman which is taught as the entity to be known is not some far-off entity. It is saakshaat aparoksha. Even as we discuss, it is shining. That shining, everything else shines. It is the most immediate entity. It is my very being, my very self. It is not the other, sitting there, to be known then... It is right now, right here. All I have to do is to give up all identification with everything which is not-my-being. To know Brahman is to just be it. And to be it, nothing needs to be done. Giving up is not doing something. Giving up is not-doing. To be it, I have to do nothing. Doing nothing whatsoever is being my self.

There is no penchant for removal of some ignorance then. I am not bothered about removal of a mirage. I am what I am. Why would I care for non-me. Ignorance is seen, or not seen, it does not matter.

So, whether the akhanda-ananda-swarupata of myself is shining forth or not - I am not concerned. Seen-mirage is being seen, and I have no interest therein. I am not analysing. I am not evaluating, I am not comparing knowing fully when that this time itself is illusory and seen. 

So, denying causation, time and seen-world, I am in this moment. I don't care whether I know some Brahman or not. I don't care whether some positive or negative ignorance is being seen or not being seen. I am in this moment without any concern whatsoever for what appears to have passed, or what may seem to happen in future. I don't care whethere akhanda-ananda-swarupata is shining or not.

I am in this moment. And that is the end of all pursuits.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I am in this moment. And that is the end of all pursuits.

 

Ø     Beautiful, the ultimate realization of the paramArtha jnAni….But unfortunately, atleast in this group, there are still bhAskara, Sri  sudhAnshu prabhuji and other advaitins, a group, discussion on non-existential avidyA, and during the discussion appreciation of something and belittling something else!!  Now bhAskara thinks that Sri SudhAnshu now realized his svarUpa, living happily with present moment,  but bhAskara still not!!  bhAskara is still as pramAtru and jnAtru,  seeing Sri sudhAnshu prabhuji not a realized soul but as a formidable tArkika who is firm expounder of bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa avidyA and so on 😊 So as per bhAskara this show still has to move-on with or without tArkika Sri SudhAnshu prabhuji.  But, frankly, I am happy to see someone reached the pinnacle of Advaita jnAna through the sAdhana. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Nothing which is seen is me. The thoughts, the mind - nothing is me. The "I" also is not me.

My real being does not have an iota of I-ness. "I" and "you" are both illusory appearances.

The same underlying reality is present beneath "Bhaskar" and "Sudhanshu" and "Venkat" and "Brahma" and "Vishnu". The Bhaskar-ness, Sudhanshu-ness, Vishnu-ness are all illusory mirages.

That is the real being. 

यस्य बोधोदये तावत्स्वप्नवद्भवति भ्रमः। तस्मै सुखैकरूपाय नमः शान्ताय तेजसे॥ [Ashtavakra Gita]

Salutations to that peaceful Effulgence (pure consciousness) which is the embodiment of pure joy—upon whose awakening, all illusion disappears like a dream.

समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम् । विनश्यत्स्वविनश्यन्तं य: पश्यति स पश्यति ॥ [Bhagvad-Gita]

One who sees the Supreme Lord dwelling equally in all beings, imperishable within the perishable—he alone sees.

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/AM7PR06MB66254901C04B5D33949470BE848F2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Lovely thoughts, always nice to hear. One challenge however, "Giving up is not doing something. Giving up is not-doing. To be it, I have to do nothing. Doing nothing whatsoever is being my self."
What do you mean by giving up is NOT doing?  Doing nothing is still doing, no?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBaLqt88usbOhxAzXQ_Umtud%3D4UK0wnRraiNesa-q2dUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji,

 

What do you mean by giving up is NOT doing?  Doing nothing is still doing, no?

Doing is not the swarupa, not my being. Not-doing is my swarupa, my very being. This not-doing appears as "seeing" from the viewpoint of seen. From its own perspective, it is not-doing.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

Lovely thoughts. There is really nothing left to be done. Whatever time is left for the body and the mind can be spent in reveling in that consciousness which shines through unceasingly.

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/CAH9%3D%2BBBx_Tue9v1g8D1MCd29r1F%3DpzPh7iReW14QETV%3DgWkE7w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

The same underlying reality is present beneath "Bhaskar" and "Sudhanshu" and "Venkat" and "Brahma" and "Vishnu". The Bhaskar-ness, Sudhanshu-ness, Vishnu-ness are all illusory mirages.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Again profound declaration from the peak of realization.  Now I have the fresh doubt can an illusionary character speak with some other illusionary character OR can an illusion speak with another illusion😊

Don’t know but seems to be the answer is ‘yes’ coz. hearing illusionary nature of everything from the illusionary character like Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji who is jnAni to another illusionary character ajnAni bhAskar. And jnAni sudhAnshu knows jnAni sudhAnshu, ajnAni bhAskar and talk about illusion itself is a big illusion 😊

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2026 11:27 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] RE: Ajñāna as Upādāna in Sureśvara

 

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 Viva Engage for more security information.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBaLqt88usbOhxAzXQ_Umtud%3D4UK0wnRraiNesa-q2dUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Akilesh Ayyar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662539350CCE503998F0250F848F2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

When we are seeing (pratyaksha) the tree at our own backyard, falling of it and that sound and hearer of sound etc. themselves a big illusion then what to say about something happening at a remote location 😊 bhrAntivAdins saying is something like this!!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

Akilesh Ayyar

 

 

[Akilesh Ayyar]

The question I asked has nothing to do with remoteness or nearness. It has everything to do with the meaning of illusion. What does it mean to say that the sound and hearer of sound are a big illusion? The answer is contained in the question I asked.

Akilesh Ayyar

--

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/AM7PR06MB662581D0F2CA6E15ABCFC518848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Bit elaboration would help the dull wits like me.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

The question I asked has nothing to do with remoteness or nearness. It has everything to do with the meaning of illusion. What does it mean to say that the sound and hearer of sound are a big illusion? The answer is contained in the question I asked.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2026 at 9:15 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

//  So, denying causation, time and seen-world, I am in this moment. I don't care whether I know some Brahman or not. I don't care whether some positive or negative ignorance is being seen or not being seen  //,

BSB 2-3-48  // देहादिरयं सङ्घातोऽहमेव — इत्यात्मनि विपरीतप्रत्ययोत्पत्तिः । दृष्टा च सा सर्वप्राणिनाम् — अहं गच्छामि अहमागच्छामि, अहमन्धः अहमनन्धः, अहं मूढः अहममूढः इत्येवमात्मिका । न हि अस्याः सम्यग्दर्शनादन्यन्निवारकमस्ति । प्राक्तु सम्यग्दर्शनात्प्रततैषा भ्रान्तिः सर्वजन्तुषु । तदेवमविद्यानिमित्तदेहाद्युपाधिसम्बन्धकृताद्विशेषादैकात्म्याभ्युपगमेऽप्यनुज्ञापरिहाराववकल्पेते ।//

BSB 2-3-48  // dehAdirayaM sa~NghAto.ahameva — ityAtmani viparItapratyayotpattiH | dRRiShTA cha sA sarvaprANinAm — ahaM gachChAmi ahamAgachChAmi, ahamandhaH ahamanandhaH, ahaM mUDhaH ahamamUDhaH ityevamAtmikA | na hi asyAH samyagdarshanAdanyannivArakamasti | prAktu samyagdarshanAtpratataiShA bhrAntiH sarvajantuShu | tadevamavidyAnimittadehAdyupAdhisambandhakRRitAdvisheShAdaikAtmyAbhyupagame.apyanuj~nAparihArAvavakalpete | //

Tanslation (Swami Gambhiranda )  // It consists in a rise of a perverse idea to the effect , ‘This aggregate of body etc. is but myself. This is seen to exist in all creatures and to take such forms as ; ‘I go”, ‘I come’, ‘I am blind’, ;I am not blind’, ‘I am dull’, and so on.There is nothing else apart from full enlightenment that can eradicate this. Before the dawn of that enlightenment, this error permeates all creatures. In this way , even though the Self is admitted to be one, still injunction and prohibition can find scope owing to the distinction created through the association with the limiting adjuncts like the body etc., conjured up by ignorance //.

Same sentiment is expressed in the verse from Ashtavakra Gita cited by sudhanshu Ji, copied below for ready reference

Ashtavakra Gita  // यस्य बोधोदये तावत्स्वप्नवद्भवति भ्रमः। तस्मै सुखैकरूपाय नमः शान्ताय तेजसे॥ [Ashtavakra Gita]

// Salutations to that peaceful Effulgence (pure consciousness) which is the embodiment of pure joy—upon whose awakening, all illusion disappears like a dream //.

Notice the statement *यस्य बोधोदये ताव* (upon whose awakening) *.

Both BSB and Ashtavakra Gita cited above confirm the need for aparOkshajnAna  for the type of intuitive understanding  stated by Sudhanshu Ji quoted in the beginning of this post and which alone (aparOkshajnAna) can lead to Liberation/Realization/mOksha. . In the absence of aparOkshajnAna, they are at best the result of parOkshajnAna which itself is achieved through extraordinary sAdhanas. And by itself they do not lead to Liberation or mOksha. In fact if the sAdhaka stops continuing with his sAdhanAs at this stage and takes interest in enjoying the phala, he is led astray and misses out on the desired phala of mOksha.

Regards

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBaLqt88usbOhxAzXQ_Umtud%3D4UK0wnRraiNesa-q2dUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

There is an analogy being made. Think about the question being asked. If a tree falls in the forest, but there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? In ordinary common sense, what is this asking? Is it asking about sound waves? Or about something else? It is asking about experience, is it not? Does experience exist without an experiencer?

Similarly, what does it mean to say that the world is an illusion? It means to ask the question: does the world exist if there is no one there to experience it? Can that question exist if there is no one there to ask it?  

We need to resist the urge to put a simple answer to these questions and note what they are pointing at.

Akilesh Ayyar

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625A6DB863B6E2185287367848D2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.