[Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 at 10:49 AM, Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Venkat ji.
>
> You have explained as clearly as one can. And I am sure that any person of
> ordinary prudence and ordinary cognitive capacity will understand what you
> said.
>
> Advaita says:
>
> 1. Only sat exists. Both mithyA and asat are non-existent.
>
> 2. MithyA is sublatable. Both sat and asat are non-sublatable.
>
> This is the clear Advaitic siddhAnta.
>
> I don't understand how law of excluded middle is stated to be violated.
>
> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> //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.//
>
> True.
>
> //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.//
>
> Illusory snake and hare's born are both non-existent. However, while the
> former is termed mithyaa, the later is termed as asat. That is just a
> definition issue.
>
> It is not correct to say that hare's born is error and sublatable. No one
> mistakes anything for horns of hare. So, when there is no error, naturally
> it is not sublated either.
>
> //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.//
>
> Cognitive error requires mind. You cannot err without mind, can you? And
> this mind is not the substratum. Mind itself is prAtibhAsika. "Simply an
> error" needs to be explained. You have accepted mind when you say it to be
> "simply an 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.//
>
> Sir, from the frame of reference, one is logically constrained to accept
> modification. It is a fact of our life. You have to dwell on
> misapprehension.
>
> Tell me:
> 1. Does misapprehension require mind?
> 2. Is mind misapprehension?
>
> Answer pointedly.
>
> //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.//
>
> As explained by Venkat ji which can be understood by any person of ordinary
> cognitive capacity.
>
> //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//
>
> Irrelevant imagination liable to be ignored. Instead, there is Shruti
> pramANa of NAsadIya Sukta, which says -- there was neither sat, nor asat..
> tamas was there. This clearly explains that tamas is sat-asat-vilakshaNa.
> The omniscient SAyaNAchArya clearly explains that bhAvarUpa ajnAna is the
> meaning of tamas.
>
>
> //“Epistemic” in this context does not imply a pre-existing mind as a
> substance; it simply denies that ignorance is an ontological principle.//


This is incredible. “Epistemic” does not require a mind?

>
>
> Useless stuff. You need to define epistemic.
>
> //Mind, ignorance, and error all belong to the same empirical explanatory
> framework and are jointly sublated.//
>
> Sir, if you hold ignorance is cognitive error, you ipso facto accept that
> mind is a pre-requisite of ignorance.
>
> //The idea of one who is in ignorance and one who becomes free from
> ignorance, is a serious distortion of Sankara's PTB. 🙏🙏🙏//
>
> The absence of sAdhaka and sAdhya is certainly true from pAramArthika view.
> But to deny their appearance from the frame of reference of avidyA is
> useless and self-defeating. Whoever proposes this has no idea what PTB
> says.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
>
> --
> Commissioner of Income-tax,
> Delhi.
>
> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>