[Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste all,
Unabashedly and with all due respect, I present ChatGPT's response to my
prompt to "clarify and REFUTE" Sudhanshuji's classic apologia for Bhavarupa
Avidya. Desire 'refute' as an obvious bias, I think the response speaks for
itself:


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

The claim that *bhāva* and *abhāva* are “not paraspara-viraha-vyāpaka but
paraspara-viraha-vyāpya” hinges on a technical logical distinction.

Literally, the expression means:

“Bhāva-ness and abhāva-ness are not mutually exclusive pervaders (i.e., not
jointly exhaustive contraries), but mutually exclusive pervadeds (i.e.,
limited subclasses).”

In other words, the author denies that presence (*bhāva*) and absence (
*abhāva*) form a strict binary that exhausts all possibilities. Instead,
they are treated as only partial or bounded categories. They exclude one
another where they apply, but they do not cover the whole field of being.
This logical maneuver creates conceptual space for a third option—something
that is neither *bhāva* nor *abhāva*—thereby allowing avidyā to be
described as *bhāva-abhāva-vilakṣaṇa* (“different from both”).

However, this move is purely stipulative and depends entirely on a prior
reification of avidyā. The need for a “third ontological category” arises
only if avidyā is first treated as a positive explanatory entity requiring
metaphysical classification. Once that assumption is questioned—as in
Śaṅkara’s strictly epistemic treatment of ignorance as mere
non-apprehension or error—the dilemma itself dissolves. Ignorance is not a
candidate for ontological taxonomy at all, and thus need not be located
within or outside the bhāva/abhāva schema.

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.
------------------------------



On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:17 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
> I don’t think people are comfortable with the idea that binary logic is not
> always applicable.
>
> Dennis ji and also SSSS followers may not be able to follow that it’s
> possible for avidyā to be neither bhAva nor abhAva.
>
> Just as most people will not be able to appreciation that an electron is
> neither a particle nor a wave.
>
> People like to think in binary terms and use superficial devices like “the
> law of the excluded middle” etc., even where it is not applicable.
>
> People naively think abhAva means non-existent (asat) and bhAva means
> existent (sat). As was explained in earlier threads,  sat (existent) and
> asat (non-existent) are NOT the same as the words bhAva (present) and
> abhAva (absent).
>
> When it is clarified by all the commentators that they *are not saying*
> that avidyā is bhAva because it would imply that avidyā is sādi (it began
> at a point in time), yet Denis ji naively misrepresents these commentators
> and says
> “many later commentators argue that ignorance must be a *positively
> existing entity*”.
>
> No they do not say that for chrissake!
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 at 2:48 PM, Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>