Swami Sureswaracharya and avidyA

[H S Chandramouli]

Hello all,

It is not my intention to reopen discussion on a topic which has been done endlessly. But was pleasantly surprised when Gemini AI agreed with my understanding after some discussion held recently. I thought I should share the same here. I am attaching a PDF copy of the discussion.

For whoever might be interested.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste.

Just a word of caution. 

avidyā is not a positive entity either, as the AI in the write-up erroneously concludes.

avidyā is bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣaṇa. 

So, avidyā is an entity which is:

1. neither Brahman (sat)
2. nor vyāvahārika-bhāvātmaka-avidyā-kārya (mithyā vastu such as table/chair);
3. nor prātibhāsika-bhāvātmaka-avidyā-kārya (mithyā vastu such as illusory snake, illusory table conjured by magician)
4. nor asat i.e. tuccha (horns of hare);
5. nor vyavahārika-abhāvātmaka-avidyā-kārya (mithyā vastu such as pot-abhāva on ground);
6. nor prātibhāsika-abhāvātmaka-avidyā-kārya (mithyā vastu such as illusory pot-abhāva when pot is present on ground)

When avidyā is stated as bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣana, the word bhāva includes 1,2 and 3, whereas the word abhāva includes 4,5 and 6.

So, in my humble opinion, the usage of the word "positive" is incorrect.

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/CAEs%2B%2BdOrGwu29STT2jGXBvpiK6SA%3DUQu5UY88TCOF1HsnOcT4w%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Commissioner of Income-tax,
Delhi.

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

//  On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 8:56 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste.

Just a word of caution. 

avidyā is not a positive entity either, as the AI in the write-up erroneously concludes.

avidyā is bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣaṇa. 

So, avidyā is an entity which is:

1. neither Brahman (sat)
2. nor vyāvahārika-bhāvātmaka-avidyā-kārya (mithyā vastu such as table/chair);
3. nor prātibhāsika-bhāvātmaka-avidyā-kārya (mithyā vastu such as illusory snake, illusory table conjured by magician)
4. nor asat i.e. tuccha (horns of hare);
5. nor vyavahārika-abhāvātmaka-avidyā-kārya (mithyā vastu such as pot-abhāva on ground);
6. nor prātibhāsika-abhāvātmaka-avidyā-kārya (mithyā vastu such as illusory pot-abhāva when pot is present on ground)

When avidyā is stated as bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣana, the word bhāva includes 1,2 and 3, whereas the word abhāva includes 4,5 and 6.

So, in my humble opinion, the usage of the word "positive" is incorrect  //.

It is clear from the PDF document that the above is in contradiction to BUBV portion cited and discussed by AI. Verses have been cited from BUBV which clearly state avidyA to be the material cause of everything in Creation which obviously includes table/chair/pot etc.As also rope-snake etc. And *material cause* is considered as *positive*.

It would help if Sudhanshu Ji confirms that his views as above are in accordance with the SiddhAnta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada and elaborated upon by Swami Sureswaracharya. At least the readers would be sure that we are talking with reference to the same SiddhAnta.

Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

It is clear from the PDF document that the above is in contradiction to BUBV portion cited and discussed by AI.

This position that avidyā is bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣaṇa is in harmony with BUBV.

Verses have been cited from BUBV which clearly state avidyA to be the material cause of everything in Creation which obviously includes table/chair/pot etc.As also rope-snake etc.

This is fine.

And *material cause* is considered as *positive*.

This is not correct. Material causality of avidyā only implies that avidyā is abhāva-vilakṣaṇa. It does not imply that avidyā is bhāva. 

It would help if Sudhanshu Ji confirms that his views as above are in accordance with the SiddhAnta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada and elaborated upon by Swami Sureswaracharya. At least the readers would be sure that we are talking with reference to the same SiddhAnta.

Yes, of course what I am saying is the well-accepted advaita siddhānta.

Point is this:

1. Material causality of avidyā implies that it is abhāva-vilakṣaṇa.

2. The fact that avidyā is anādi but vināśī implies that avidyā is bhāva-vilakṣaṇa. If avidyā were to be bhāva, then by the anumāna "vināśi-bhāvaḥ sādi, ghaṭavat", its śruti-siddha anāditva would be jeopardized. Hence, avidyā is held to be bhāva-vilakṣaṇa.

Hence, avidyā is bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣaṇa.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

I think we are mixingup english and sanskrit terms. The term *material cause* is accepted as *positive* in all advaitic texts in english language. I have not come across any instance to the contrary. I have come across many texts in sanskrit, as well as same text, terming  the word *vastu* to refer to Brahman as well as chair/table etc depending upon context. Similarly I am very familiar with sanskrit texts referring to chair/table etc as bhAvarUpa as well as *bhAva* in some contexts. I am quite comfortable in terming *material cause* as *positive*. To me it means *not absence* in such discussions where  *avidyA* is understood as *ignorance* / *absence *. I leave it to the members to understand the way they like.

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/CAH9%3D%2BBCOh0o2UkPXs8K0UoSH4SN-0WfoX6vKY0RyVa7bGJGBbw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

I think we are mixingup english and sanskrit terms.

May be. That is why I am skeptical of the usage of words such as "positive" etc. As long as we both agree to avidyā being bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣaṇa, it is fine.

The term *material cause* is accepted as *positive* in all advaitic texts in english language.

I really don't know what is meant by positive.

I have not come across any instance to the contrary. I have come across many texts in sanskrit, as well as same text, terming  the word *vastu* to refer to Brahman as well as chair/table etc depending upon context. Similarly I am very familiar with sanskrit texts referring to chair/table etc as bhAvarUpa as well as *bhAva* in some contexts. I am quite comfortable in terming *material cause* as *positive*. To me it means *not absence* in such discussions where  *avidyA* is understood as *ignorance* / *absence *. I leave it to the members to understand the way they like.

My understanding is based on this extremely conceptual portion from Laghucandrikā (please check highlighted portion). For more on this, please check Bālabodhini, page - 1097.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  //  That is why I am skeptical of the usage of words such as "positive" etc. As long as we both agree to avidyā being bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣaṇa, it is fine //,

No Sir. I am not in agreement with this view. But I dont intend debating this.

Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I am not addressing any points raised in this discussion by prabhuji-s, as I don’t think I would find time to address those individual points / observations if they reply.  Overall as per Sri SSS, indescribable avidyA, it’s capability to cover brahman itself and projecting something else, it’s upAdAnatvat (material cause) it’s bhAva rUpatva etc. are later inventions by vyAkhyAnakAra-s and these theories never found a place either in PTB nor in vArtika.  At some place Sri SSS explains in vArtika though there is mention about upAdAnatva it is used in the sense jnAna agrahaNa and it is definitely not implied to propagate notorious theory of mUlAvidyA.  Sri Chandramouli prabhuji must be aware of it as he is familiar with Sri SSS’s works. 

 

First of all, I am really surprised, how a logically inclined mind/s in this group, blindly accepting some vyAkhyA just it is saying avidyA is bhAvAbhAva vilakshana and at the same time it is a solid thing like chair and table and to prove this they have gone to the extent that even darkness (prakAsha abhAva) is also a solid thing like table and chair in a room!!?? Don’t they want to use their logical brain to find out any logical fallacies in these theories!!??  Moreover,  there is another theory we heard that this avidyA is sAkshisiddhA to establish that it is an existing ‘thing’ (vastu).  If these theories are questioned then they resort to this theory of anirvachaneeyatva 😊  They justify their stand by saying : No, no, this avidyA which is the material cause for nAma, rUpa, adhyAsa etc. is neither sat nor asat nor sadasat, nor it is bhinna nor abhinna, nor bhinnaabhinna, nor sAvayava (having parts/components) nor niravayava (not having parts) nor ubhayAtmaka etc. etc. Over all to KISS :  they assert it is simply an anirvachaneeya and there is no ‘edamittham’ explanation for it.  Even though there is neither any support for this in PTB nor any support of any yukti (logical explanation) or anubhava.  There is absolutely no illustration to assert that there is some bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa avidyA has transformed itself in the form of world.  The snake in the rope is mere bhrAnti jnAna and it is anubhavAtmaka/loka prasiddha (so says bhAshyakAra), nowhere it can be established that in the rope, a mysterious ‘snake’ which is bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa (or anirvachaneeya) has been produced 😊 Hence this anirvachaneeya avidya or bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa avidyA is shruti / yukti / bhAshya / anubhava viruddha to be discarded without any hesitation. 

 

Moreover there is an extensive discussion in this group about The Law of Excluded Middle by MCC prabhuji,  that a thing must either exist or not exist; there is no third, mysterious ontological category. But as per mulAvidyAvAdins this anirvachaneeya avidyA is an ontological one.  Defining this avidyA an ontological one and at the same time neither existing nor non-existing makes it logically impossible to comprehend.

 

Moreover, one important thing that we have to contemplate is if avidya is argued in such a way that it has the power of covering the brahman itself (a positive veil (avarana)) and also has the potency to produce nAma rUpa jagat (avidyA shakti which is the material cause of the jagat and adhyAsa) then it must be an actual, objective entity (like clouds blocking the sun or chair in the room). If it is a real entity, it cannot be defined merely as something "inexplicable” or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa. 

 

From all these it is once again quite evident that this theory of bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa, anirvachaneeya avidyA is just an alien theory which hardly finds a place in shankara’s PTB. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

One more point I have forgotten to mention, in this group there was an argument that brahman’s ‘sva-bhaava’ is avidyA though it is not ‘sva-rupa’ of brahman 😊 and if this avidyA is strictly bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa then according to them, the slogan must be brahman’s ‘sva-bhaava’ is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa avidyA 😊

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste RK Garu.

Thanks for the suggestion. I am entirely in agreement. I do come across many textual portions, during the course of mananam, which have the potential of supplying the answer to my doubts. But not all of them have additional commentaries which could help. Even when available, they remain unknown or inaccessible. More often than not, the commentaries are mutually contradictory. I have now found that there is a way out, by way of discussions with AI. In these discussions, I dont take a definite stand nor do I go by any declarations by AI. On the otherhand, I take upon myself a dual role, of a Purva Pakshin as well as as a SiddhAntin. And seek The contrarian views from AI for both with references from authoritative commentaries. That helps in taking a final view. This is what I did the results of which I posted in the PDF. It has been greatly helpful.

When I decided to post the PDF for possible benefit to other readers, I was concerned that many may not even look into it, being weary recollecting the sustained unending debate recently witnessed on the same topic. Hence I wrote that it was not my intention to restart or continue with the same debate. Purpose was different. If it  naturally gets people thinking and sparks new conversations, well that would indeed be great !!. 

Regards

  

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 10:54 PM Raja Krishnamurti <rajakris...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Mr. Chandramouli Garu,

Thanks so much for sharing your discussion with Gemini AI and the link to the PDF! That sounds like a really unique and interesting way to explore these complex topics, and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention.

You mentioned not wanting to reopen the discussion, but it's funny how just sharing insights like this often naturally gets people thinking and sparks new conversations, isn't it? It's often the nature of a vibrant forum like ours!

If your main aim is to delve into these subjects for deeper personal understanding, without the back-and-forth of a group discussion, then practices like *mananam* (introspection) and *niddhidhyaasam* (meditation) are indeed incredibly powerful tools for that kind of individual spiritual journey. They offer a wonderful path for really internalizing and contemplating these ideas on a very personal level.

Just a friendly thought from my side!

Warm regards,

Raja Krishnamurti

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Sunday, May 24, 2026, 8:19 AM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Hello all.

It is not my intention to reopen discussion on a topic which has been done

endlessly. But was pleasantly surprised when Gemini AI agreed with my

understanding after some discussion held recently. I thought I should share

the same here. I have prepared a PDF copy of the discussion. Since I cannot

attach the same here, I am furnishing below the link ID for accessing the

same.

//

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/QgrcJHsHmbdDcmsxKTbScSmKMGBWXNNcjCg?compose=CllgCKCGmbHkSfjGbvTxMNXmfFWQghQHpRPCczmZPSxQMWGBfdSSlvLgFdSWdDDpKqVHLFgjtnV

//.

Regards

_______________________________________________

Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:

listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Kr̥ṣṇa Bhaskar prabhuji.

Overall as per Sri SSS, indescribable avidyA, it’s capability to cover brahman itself and projecting something else, it’s upAdAnatvat (material cause) it’s bhAva rUpatva etc. are later inventions by vyAkhyAnakAra-s and these theories never found a place either in PTB nor in vArtika.

Yes, SSSS ji does hold so. But he chose to ignore the direct words of Bhāṣya at such occasions. For example, when creation of snake in rope is stated in Māṇḍūkya 1.6, he did not controvert it. Rather, he accepted it. You can check page 85 of Vivr̥ti which is as under - सृष्टेः प्राक्सर्वस्यापि बीजात्मनैव सत्त्वमित्यत्र श्रुतयः तत्रैवं यथा रज्ज्वां प्राक् सर्पोत्पत्ते रज्ज्वात्मनैव सर्पस्य सत्त्वम्, एवं सर्वभावानामुत्पत्तेः प्राक् प्राणबीजात्मनैव सत्त्वम् इत्यतः श्रुतिरपि वक्त ब्रह्मैवेदम् (मुं. २ २ ११) इति । यदिदं सर्वतो दृश्यमानं व्याकृतनामरूपं विश्वम्, तद् ब्रह्मैव । ब्रह्मरूपेणैव सदित्यर्थः | एवम् आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत् (ऐ. १ - १ ) इत्यादिश्रुतिरपि व्याख्यातव्या | अत्र भाष्ये आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत् (बृ. १-४ -१ ) इति

So, on the one hand he held that there is no anirvarvacanīya-sarpa and on the other hand, he accepted creation of snake. There are several such instances. I don't want to go into those.

The idea is this. There is no contradiction between post-Śankara ācāryās and bhāṣya. 

 

At some place Sri SSS explains in vArtika though there is mention about upAdAnatva it is used in the sense jnAna agrahaNa and it is definitely not implied to propagate notorious theory of mUlAvidyA.  Sri Chandramouli prabhuji must be aware of it as he is familiar with Sri SSS’s works. 

These are all useless stuff. If something is not fitting to an asapradāyika theory, you cannot change the meaning of the word upādāna-kāraṇa. BUBV 1.4.अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् ।।अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुत्यते ।। ३७१ ।।

There is no instance anywhere that upādāna-kāraṇa has been explained in any other manner than material cause. So, SSSS ji's views are plain wrong.

 

First of all, I am really surprised, how a logically inclined mind/s in this group, blindly accepting some vyAkhyA just it is saying avidyA is bhAvAbhAva vilakshana and at the same time it is a solid thing like chair and table and to prove this they have gone to the extent that even darkness (prakAsha abhAva) is also a solid thing like table and chair in a room!!??

There is no blind acceptance sir. There is threadbare analysis. The reasons have already been discussed in other posts. 

Don’t they want to use their logical brain to find out any logical fallacies in these theories!!?? 

People who are after truth don't waste their time in finding faults. They want to learn.

Moreover,  there is another theory we heard that this avidyA is sAkshisiddhA to establish that it is an existing ‘thing’ (vastu).  If these theories are questioned then they resort to this theory of anirvachaneeyatva 😊  They justify their stand by saying : No, no, this avidyA which is the material cause for nAma, rUpa, adhyAsa etc. is neither sat nor asat nor sadasat, nor it is bhinna nor abhinna, nor bhinnaabhinna, nor sAvayava (having parts/components) nor niravayava (not having parts) nor ubhayAtmaka etc. etc. Over all to KISS :  they assert it is simply an anirvachaneeya and there is no ‘edamittham’ explanation for it.  Even though there is neither any support for this in PTB nor any support of any yukti (logical explanation) or anubhava.  There is absolutely no illustration to assert that there is some bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa avidyA has transformed itself in the form of world.  The snake in the rope is mere bhrAnti jnAna and it is anubhavAtmaka/loka prasiddha (so says bhAshyakAra), nowhere it can be established that in the rope, a mysterious ‘snake’ which is bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa (or anirvachaneeya) has been produced 😊 Hence this anirvachaneeya avidya or bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa avidyA is shruti / yukti / bhAshya / anubhava viruddha to be discarded without any hesitation. 

You are free to discard it Bhaskar ji. However, what is your methodology to reject? Do you intend replying to the arguments adduced by post-Śankara ācāryās? If not, then it is mere pratijñā at your end. The sākṣi-pratykṣa of bhavarūpa avidyā has been explained in great details.

Even SSSS ji also accepts it. There is actually no other way because you cannot know ajñāna by a pramāṇa. It has to be by sākṣī. 
 

 Moreover there is an extensive discussion in this group about The Law of Excluded Middle by MCC prabhuji,  that a thing must either exist or not exist; there is no third, mysterious ontological category. But as per mulAvidyAvAdins this anirvachaneeya avidyA is an ontological one.  Defining this avidyA an ontological one and at the same time neither existing nor non-existing makes it logically impossible to comprehend.

These are all germinating due to not understanding what the other party is saying. Nobody is proclaiming existence to ajñāna. It is non-existent. It has to be due to some serious lack of cognitive capacity that despite such clear statements, one keeps on repeating law of excluded middle.

 Moreover, one important thing that we have to contemplate is if avidya is argued in such a way that it has the power of covering the brahman itself (a positive veil (avarana)) and also has the potency to produce nAma rUpa jagat (avidyA shakti which is the material cause of the jagat and adhyAsa) then it must be an actual, objective entity (like clouds blocking the sun or chair in the room).

Nahi bhaiya. It only proves that it is abhāva-vilakṣaṇa. It is your incorrect inference that abhāva-vilakṣaṇa must be bhāva. 

 

If it is a real entity, it cannot be defined merely as something "inexplicable” or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa. 

Again, useless stuff born out of not listening to other party. Who is saying that ajñāna is real!!

 From all these it is once again quite evident that this theory of bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa, anirvachaneeya avidyA is just an alien theory which hardly finds a place in shankara’s PTB. 

Gazab analysis hai aapkee.. 😀😀

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Most of the authoritative commentaries on advaita including from Sureswaracharya,Padmapadacharya,Prakashatman (VivaraNa), Vachaspati Mishra etc relate to the period prior to the formulation of Navya NyAya. This originated in 13^th Century and refined over a long period then on. This refined Navya NyAya presents a completely different definitions of the concepts of bhAva, Existence etc as compared to the older school of NyAya, prAchIna nyAya. Thus the meaning of terms like Existence, bhAva etc found in the earlier advaitic texts referred to above relate to their definitions as per prAchIna nyAya. With the evolution of navya nyAya with all the refinements gaining ground, the logicians presented a challenge to the advaitins to defend their vAda with reference to the newer definitions. The later advaitic commentators like Madhusudana Saraswati (Advaita Siddhi), Gowda Brahmananda ( Laghu Chandrika ) etc were obliged to redefine their use of terms like Existence, bhAva, avidyA  etc to meet this challenge. These definitions often bore no resemblance to their definitions as found in the earlier advaitic texts referred to above.

As such conflicting views expressed in recent posts concerning bhAva abhAva vilakshaNa, Orders of Existence etc based on earlier commentaries vis a vis  later ones like Laghuchandrika etc and continuing seemingly endless debates appear  to me to be invalid as the definitions themselves for these terms are entirely different.

In my view, the simpler definitions adopted in the earlier commentaries are more than adequate for understanding the SiddhAnta. The later commentaries like Laghuchandrika etc responding to challenges posed by navya nyAya protagonists may satisfy intellectual curiosity, but definitely neither essential nor suitable for those more interested in Siddhanta rather than strict logic or grammer.

But one thing is clear. Debates mixing up the two are certainly invalid.

My understanding.

Regards