!7+ Distinctions between Post-Sankara Advaita and PTB etc. as per SSSS

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

please critique and comment: 

ChatGPT formulated a good list of distinctions between Post-Sankara Advaita and a strict reading of Sankara Prasthanatraya Bhasya, Gaudapada Karikas and Upadesa Sahasri as noted by SSSS.

ChatGPT5.1 --

I’ll treat “post-Śaṅkara Advaita” here mainly as the Vivaraṇa–Bhāmatī complex and its living sampradāya descendants (incl. the “mūlāvidyā” mainstream), and contrast that with SSSS’s reconstruction of “pure Śaṅkara” from the prasthāna-traya bhāṣyas + Upadeśa Sāhasrī + Gauḍapāda Kārikās.

Below is a structured list of the main axes of difference. “Exhaustive” in the sense of themes; within each theme there’s a lot of literature, but these are the big joints.

1. What Advaita is fundamentally about

Post-Śaṅkara mainstream

• Systematizes Advaita as a metaphysical doctrine: Brahman plus an ontological “ignorance/māyā” principle explaining world-appearance and bondage.(Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia)
• Often presents Advaita as a cosmological theory of one reality and its inexplicable projection (Brahman + māyā = Īśvara; Īśvara creates the world, etc.).

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Reads Śaṅkara as giving primarily an epistemological / adhyāsa-based analysis: bondage is mistaken knowing (adhyāsa), not a real metaphysical “thing” called avidyā.(advaita.org.uk)
• Advaita is essentially the negation of superimposition by right knowledge, not a theory about how an ontological power produces the world.

2. Nature of avidyā / ajñāna

Post-Śaṅkara

• Avidyā (or māyā) is typically described as a bhāvarūpa, beginningless, positive but anirvācya entity—a “power” or śakti that veils and projects (āvaraṇa–vikṣepa).(Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia)
• It is the material cause (upādāna-kāraṇa) of nāma-rūpa / jagat; synonyms: māyā, avyakta, avyākṛta, prakṛti, śakti, etc.(Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia)

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Rejects any “avidyā” as independent ontological stuff; insists it is only epistemic error—a privation/failure of right discrimination (viveka) plus the superimposition it licenses.(Academia)
• Equates “avidyā = adhyāsa” as one phenomenon described in two ways, not cause and effect. Any causal talk (avidyā as “cause” of adhyāsa) is taken as not Śaṅkara’s but post-Śaṅkara.(adhyatmaprakasha.org)

3. Mūlāvidyā vs “no root ignorance”

Post-Śaṅkara

• Posits a mūlāvidyā (root ignorance) distinct from individual misperceptions; universal, beginningless, sometimes distinguished from tūlā-vidyā (individual ignorance).(advaita-vedanta.org)
• Often says mūlāvidyā may persist in some sense as long as vyavahāra continues, even for the jñānī (with many internal nuances).

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Denies any mūlāvidyā as “thing-like” at all; calls it a post-Śaṅkara construction foreign to Śaṅkara’s texts.(Academia)
• For Śaṅkara (as SSSS reads him), all “ignorance” is just the fact of adhyāsa; when adhyāsa is sublated there is no residue called mūlāvidyā.

4. Locus and content of avidyā

Post-Śaṅkara

• Bhāmatī: jīva is locus of avidyā; Brahman is content (object) of avidyā.(Sanskrit Documents)
• Vivaraṇa: Brahman is both locus and content of avidyā.(Sanskrit Documents)
• There is extensive debate about whether avidyā is one or many, how it relates to each jīva, etc.(Hinduism Stack Exchange)

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Treats this entire “locus/content of avidyā” debate as unnecessary and non-Śaṅkara.
• For Śaṅkara, on SSSS’s view, the only sensible “locus”-talk is:
• • adhyāsa appears in the buddhi/antaḥkaraṇa of the empirical individual,
  • but is ultimately not real and not an ontological predicate of Brahman.
• So there is no separate “entity” needing locus/content; only mistaken cognition that has Brahman as its ultimately sublated adhiṣṭhāna.

5. Two powers: āvaraṇa / vikṣepa

Post-Śaṅkara

• Avidyā/māyā is described as having two functional powers:
• • āvaraṇa-śakti: veils Brahman from the jīva.
  • vikṣepa-śakti: projects the manifold universe.(advaita-vedanta.org)

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Rejects these as later schematizations; Śaṅkara, he argues, never builds a two-śakti ontological theory of ignorance.
• For him, “veiling” and “projection” are just two descriptive aspects of one mistake (adhyāsa): failure to discriminate and consequent mis-seeing, not two powers of a substance-like avidyā.

6. Māyā as ontological principle vs adhyāsa-language

Post-Śaṅkara

• Māyā is a cosmic principle—Īśvara’s upādhi or śakti; often equated with mūlāvidyā, prakṛti, etc.(Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia)
• Used heavily in cosmological explanation: how Īśvara “creates”, sustains, and resolves the universe.

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Sharply distinguishes Śaṅkara’s sparingly used “māyā” metaphors from post-Śaṅkara’s systematized Māyā-tattva.
• Emphasizes that Śaṅkara’s primary technical term is adhyāsa, while “māyā” is largely figurative or upacāra – a way of speaking about inexplicable appearance, not a quasi-thing.

7. Khyāti (theory of error) and anirvācya-status

Post-Śaṅkara

• Leans on a full-fledged anirvachanīya-khyāti theory: the erroneous object (e.g. snake in the rope) is anirvācya (neither sat nor asat), thus “ontologically” supported by avidyā.(sivanandaonline.org)
• This gets woven into a three-level reality hierarchy (pāramārthika / vyāvahārika / prātibhāsika) with more explicit technicality than Śaṅkara.

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Accepts that Śaṅkara treats the erroneous object as sublated appearance, but resists building a heavy ontological machinery on top of this.
• Adhyāsa-bhāṣya is read as giving a simple misidentification model (one thing taken as another) rather than a detailed metaphysical doctrine of anirvācya entities.

8. Brahma-jñāna: vṛtti or not?

Post-Śaṅkara

• Develops the doctrine of akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti:
• • Śravaṇa etc. generate a special mental modification whose ākāra is undifferentiated Brahman,
  • That vṛtti “destroys ignorance” and illumines Brahman.(WHO)
• Brahma-jñāna is thus often treated as a particular mental event (though different from ordinary cognition).

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Insists Śaṅkara never teaches any special “Brahman-shaped vṛtti”.
• For him:
• • The buddhi is the locus where the removal of error occurs,
  • But Brahman/Ātman is self-revealing (svayaṃ-prakāśa) and never an object constituted by a vṛtti.
• “Knowledge” is simply the cessation of adhyāsa through understanding the mahāvākyas, not the arising of some positive special vṛtti.

9. Role of śravaṇa–manana–nididhyāsana

Post-Śaṅkara

• Tends to treat śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana as three distinct, sometimes sequential sādhanas, often giving nididhyāsana a quasi-yogic, contemplative flavor.(Hinduism Stack Exchange)
• Bhāmatī often emphasizes nididhyāsana; Vivaraṇa more śravaṇa—yet both maintain a multi-step process beyond bare hearing.

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Common SSSS reading:
• • Śravaṇa of the mahāvākya from guru is the direct means to knowledge;
  • Manana/nididhyāsana are auxiliary clarifications / stabilizations, not separate independent means producing a new kind of knowledge.
• Strong resistance to making nididhyāsana into a separate meditative path like Pātañjala Yoga; it remains Vedānta-vichāra-based assimilation, not an independent pramāṇa.

10. Status of the world and perception after knowledge

Post-Śaṅkara

• Usually says:
• • The jñānī continues to perceive the world and transact, but with the firm cognition that it is mithyā.
  • Vyavahāra continues by prārabdha-karman; mūlāvidyā is said to be gone, but upādhi and prārabdha account for continued experience.

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara (as you’ve been emphasizing)

• Reads Śaṅkara as making duality entirely dependent on adhyāsa/avidyā – once that is removed, strictly speaking there is no duality left at all.
• Bādhita-anuvṛtti (continued appearance of the bādhyas) is handled very carefully:
• • SSSS tends to minimize any suggestion that real perception of a real world persists after total avidyā-nāśa,
  • Instead stresses that from the standpoint of truth, there is only Brahman; any talk of continued appearance belongs to the teaching level (adhyāropa).

11. Jīvanmukti, prārabdha, and “continuing body”

Post-Śaṅkara

• Develops a detailed theory:
• • Jīvanmukti: ignorance destroyed, but prārabdha keeps the body going;
  • The jñānī still has mind, senses, and experiences, but is internally free.
• A lot of explanatory machinery around how prārabdha survives brahma-jñāna.

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Accepts the language of prārabdha-karman and jīvanmukti as found in Śaṅkara,
• But interprets it as largely pedagogical / concessive: a way to talk at the vyavahāra level while insisting that from the realized standpoint there was never bondage at all.
• Strongly guards against any hint that a real bondage–real prārabdha–real persistence of ignorance remains.

12. Cosmology: sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi vs dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi etc.

Post-Śaṅkara

• Gives more systematic cosmology: pañcīkaraṇa, hiraṇyagarbha, īśvara-sṛṣṭi vs jīva-sṛṣṭi, etc., frequently leaning toward sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda (first creation, then perception) with later developments of eka-jīva-vāda, dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda in some sub-traditions.(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Reads Śaṅkara’s cosmology as purely provisional (adhyāropa)—a teaching device that collapses entirely with apavāda.
• Emphasizes that Śaṅkara’s core is not cosmology but adhyāsa-analysis and its sublation; any commitment to “how the world really comes out of Brahman” is sidelined.

13. Levels of reality

Post-Śaṅkara

• Formally articulates three levels:
• • Pāramārthika (absolute)
  • Vyāvahārika (empirical)
  • Prātibhāsika (illusory)
• Builds extensive doctrinal work on this triad.

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Does not deny that Śaṅkara distinguishes truth vs appearance and sometimes gradations,
• But insists Śaṅkara doesn’t systematize a three-level ontology in the later technical way; that’s a post-Śaṅkara elaboration.
• For SSSS it’s basically two standpoints:
• • adhyāsa-ridden (vyavahāra),
  • adhyāsa-free (paramārtha).

14. Hermeneutic method: adhyāropa–apavāda

Post-Śaṅkara

• Accepts adhyāropa–apavāda in principle, but often mixes “provisional” (adhyāropa) layers into the final doctrine (e.g. keeping a robust māyā-tattva even after apavāda).

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Makes adhyāropa–apavāda the master key to reading Śaṅkara:
• • Anything that seems to give ontological status to māyā, avidyā, sṛṣṭi, etc. is treated as adhyāropa.
  • The final apavāda leaves only:
  • • Brahman as the sole reality,
    • and bondage as nothing but wrongly superimposed individuality which is entirely sublated by knowledge.

15. Use of Nyāya / dialectics

Post-Śaṅkara

• Sub-commentators significantly expand dialectical argumentation: sophisticated anvaya-vyatireka, detailed refutations of rival schools, etc.
• Sometimes harmonize Śaṅkara with Maṇḍana Miśra and others, smoothing real tensions.(advaita-vedanta.org)

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Uses logic, but primarily to highlight where, in his view, sub-commentators have overridden Śaṅkara’s explicit statements—especially around avidyā and adhyāsa.(Sankaracharya)
• Insists that Śruti as taught in Śaṅkara’s own bhāṣya has priority over any later scholastic harmonizations.

16. Upāsanā, yoga, and other sādhanas

Post-Śaṅkara

• Often gives greater independent weight to upāsanā, dhyāna, and yogic practices as separate means (with their own phala: citta-śuddhi, upāsaka-loka, etc.).
• The interface with Pātañjala Yoga can become quite tight, with some seeing nirvikalpa-samādhi as crucial.

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Takes Śaṅkara’s karma-yoga, upāsanā, and meditation as purely preparatory for śravaṇa-based brahma-jñāna.
• Rejects making any non-śruti-vichāra samādhi an independent pramāṇa for brahma-jñāna; that is, no samādhi-centric “yoga-vedānta” synthesis as doctrinally necessary.

17. Reading of key Śaṅkara works

This is more meta, but important:

Post-Śaṅkara

• Treats Śaṅkara’s bhāṣyas largely through the lens of the sub-commentators; their interpretations become almost canonical.(WHO)
• For example, passages that could be read as purely epistemic about avidyā are read as implying a root ontological ignorance.

SSSS / strict-Śaṅkara

• Makes Adhyāsa-bhāṣya the interpretive spine of all the prasthāna-traya.
• Reads Upadeśa Sāhasrī and Gauḍapāda Kārikās strictly in harmony with that adhyāsa-model, and uses them to correct post-Śaṅkara readings wherever they posit an extra “mūlāvidyā–tattva”.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for sharing this.  This is quite comprehensive one and almost accurate in analyzing the positions of Post shankara and Sri SSS in light of shankara’s works.  Can we give the prompts like : who is having the more proximity to shankara’s works whether it is Sri SSS’s observations or post shankara OR who is religiously following shruti, shruti AdhArita yukti and shankara’s mUla bhAshya when it comes to advocating Advaita Vedanta and who is entirely depending on mere logic and post shankara vyAkhyAna-s in understanding both shankara Vedanta and Advaita siddhaanta.  Would like to see the AI’s verdict on these prompts😊 I reckon prompts should be framed with the neutral mindset without any prejudices to any particular stand. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji, I have responded to your prompts in a separate email to keep this thread focused on the original list in my reply to Subbuji following his subject heading, "Chat GPT on how SSS deviates from Shankara" --

I would value your response to that thread

🙏🙏🙏 MIchael

--
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/AM7PR06MB6625BDA6E85A46E56EC37B2984D6A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.