[Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

[Venkatraghavan S]

Typographical error in the last sentence.

mithyA fits into the former, not the latter. That which is sublatable.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2026, 12:24 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Vikram ji,
>
> The law of excluded middle applies to things which are binary - either
> true or false, is / is not, etc.
>
> Can such a law apply where you are saying an animal is neither horse nor
> cow? No, because horses and cows are not the only types of animals. So this
> rule does not have universal application.
>
> Applying this framework as categories of things which exist or not, is
> incorrect because mithya is neither that which 1) exists and doesn't exist,
> nor 2) neither exists nor doesn't exist. Rather, both mithyA and asat do
> not exist - So those who reject mithyA as a separate category need to prove
> that advaitins insist on mithyA is one of 1 or 2 - which we do not.
>
> Neither sat nor asat is sublatable. Asat because there is no mistaking it
> for sat, for it to be sublatable. Sat isnt sublatable either, because that
> is axiomatically true. Mithya, on the other hand, is mistaken to exist,
> requiring sublation.
>
> In that way if one does want to apply the framework of the excluded
> middle, apply it thus - that which is sublated, and that which isn't. The
> postulate of mithya fits such a conception, into the latter.
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2026, 12:00 Vikram Jagannathan, <vikkyjagan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CAM7AOLdmuMGrFLLKSYFV07ryhS9uiLTD4rFjbGb%3DQaSznMqAUw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdmuMGrFLLKSYFV07ryhS9uiLTD4rFjbGb%3DQaSznMqAUw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>