[Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

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

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

prostrations,
Vikram


On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 6:40 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
> //Ontologically, the bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa avidyA is non-existent.
> Period. Non-existence does not and cannot prohibit appearance.//
> I believe you mean to say, non-existence like snake appears but
> non-existence like hare's horn does not appear. And, I get the third category
> - sat/asat and phenomenological.
> But, both snake and horn are asat - they are both errors and sublatable -
> one seen, the other not seen.  The point of bhasya is that neither are
> real, both are illusion. period. .
>
> *Prātibhāsika* is not taught as some separate quasi-epistemological,
> class of provisional entity. It is simply *misperception* (*adhyāsa*).
> What appears is only the substratum, wrongly cognized. -a *cognitive
> error*.
>
> Indeed, the entire triad—seer, seen, and seeing—belongs to avidyā alone
> without distinction. By positing a distinct *prātibhāsika level*, the
> theory covertly treats illusion as something positively produced,
> as though error required a subtle material manifestation. This mistakes
> misapprehension for creation. Illusion is not produced; it is only falsely
> attributed.
>
> The result is a violation of the law of excluded middle: what is neither
> sat nor asat is granted a quasi-status. But for strict Advaita there is no
> third category. The real alone is unsublatable; everything else is simply
> unreal.
>
> What has happened in this departure from PTB is this elaborate
> construction explaining and inadvertently reifying creation. The
> distinction between DSV adn SDV are only further constructions - mula and
> tula ajnana - vivarana and vishepa shakti - bhava-abhava vilakshana - on
> and on - all constructions not found in PTB.  Sankara wasn't interested in
> building explanation only dismissing the superimposition
>
> //Epistemic and error require a mind upfront. So, is the opponent saying
> that ignorance pre-requires mind?
> If so, then entire VedAnta stands refuted because mind being nAma-rUpa,
> is a product of ignorance.//
> “Epistemic” in this context does not imply a pre-existing mind as a
> substance; it simply denies that ignorance is an ontological principle.
>  Mind, ignorance, and error all belong to the same empirical explanatory
> framework and are jointly sublated.
>  The idea of one who is in ignorance and one who becomes free from
> ignorance, is a serious distortion of Sankara's PTB. 🙏🙏🙏
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 8:47 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Michael ji.
>>
>>>
>> However, this move is purely stipulative and depends entirely on a prior
>>> reification of avidyā.
>>
>>
>> It just shows that there is no logical inaccuracy in postulating
>> bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa entity.
>>
>> The need for a “third ontological category” arises
>>> only if avidyā is first treated as a positive explanatory entity
>>> requiring
>>> metaphysical classification.
>>
>>
>> It is not a third ontological category. This is the point which has been
>> mentioned umpteen times. Ontologically, the bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa avidyA
>> is non-existent. Period.
>>
>> Non-existence does not and cannot prohibit appearance. There are umpteen
>> examples in daily life viz. Illusory snake.
>>
>>
>> Once that assumption is questioned—as in
>>> Śaṅkara’s strictly epistemic treatment of ignorance as mere
>>> non-apprehension or error—the dilemma itself dissolves.
>>
>>
>> "Epistemic", "error" need to be rigorously defined for any meaningful
>> discussion.
>>
>> Epistemic and error require a mind upfront. So, is the opponent saying
>> that ignorance pre-requires mind?
>>
>> If so, then entire VedAnta stands refuted because mind being nAma-rUpa,
>> is a product of ignorance.
>>
>> Ignorance is not a
>>> candidate for ontological taxonomy at all, and thus need not be located
>>> within or outside the bhāva/abhāva schema.
>>>
>>
>> Why not? Illusory snake and horns of hare are both non-existent. Yet, one
>> appears and the other doesn't. So, a distinction is required to be made for
>> clear communication.
>>
>> Accordingly, the appeal to “paraspara-viraha-vyāpya” does not solve an
>>> independent problem; it merely accommodates a problem generated by the
>>> prior hypostatization of avidyā.
>>>
>>
>> It merely refutes the objection of the opponent who claims that it is not
>> possible to have bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA avidyA.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC1Qfg5vG86wgGbiio-cAJi2JuZs%2BKqq6%2BRGqg_tiZA5w%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC1Qfg5vG86wgGbiio-cAJi2JuZs%2BKqq6%2BRGqg_tiZA5w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvG_6dwS7KzJyHTeRCOAPynSvE0A8GTbrgSPZ2_QwffFAw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvG_6dwS7KzJyHTeRCOAPynSvE0A8GTbrgSPZ2_QwffFAw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>