[Advaita-l] [advaitin] T&D – Avidyā

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 12:18 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.
>
>
>>
>>
>>    - For us and as per bhAshyakAra the avidyA is nothing apart from
>>    agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya.  We don’t say there is a mother for
>>    all these types of avidyA and that is anirvachaneeya.
>>
>>
> You say that, true. But bhAshya says that!! False. See what BhAshya says
> - तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः.
> When there is AvaraNa (tAmas/timira-dOsha etc), there is perception of
> avidyA-traya. If you don't have this AvaraNa, there is no perception of
> avidyA-traya.
>

Namaste

The Bhāshyakāra gives an analogy for the above, in that very discussion:

 यथा करणे *चक्षुषि विपरीतग्राहकादिदोषस्य दर्शनात्** ।* न विपरीतादिग्रहणं
तन्निमित्तं वा तैमिरिकत्वादिदोषः ग्रहीतुः,
*चक्षुषः संस्कारेण तिमिरे अपनीते ग्रहीतुः अदर्शनात्* न ग्रहीतुर्धर्मः यथा ;
तथा
*सर्वत्रैव अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्ययास्तन्निमित्ताः करणस्यैव कस्यचित्
भवितुमर्हन्ति*
, न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य । संवेद्यत्वाच्च तेषां प्रदीपप्रकाशवत् न
ज्ञातृधर्मत्वम् — *संवेद्यत्वादेव स्वात्मव्यतिरिक्तसंवेद्यत्वम्* ; सर्व
करणवियोगे च कैवल्ये सर्ववादिभिः अविद्यादिदोषवत्त्वानभ्युपगमात् ।

Translation by A.G.Warrier:


https://archive.org/details/GEDy_bhagavad-gita-bhashya-of-shankaracharya-with-translation-by-dr.-a.-g-krishna-war/page/410/mode/2up

// In this context it may be held that nescience is an attribute of the
cognizer. It is not right. Flaws like blindness pertain to the eye, the
cognizer's instrument of cognition and not to the cognizer as the objector
maintains; so it cannot constitute the cognizer's transmigratory life. So
God alone is the kshetrajna and not the transmigrating Jiva. Your
contention that this is illogical is not correct. *The defect leading to
misapprehension, etc., exists in the eye, the instrument of cognition, and
not in the cognizer. When the eye is cured by right treatment, the
cognizer's vision ceases to be defective.* Similarly non-apprehension,
etc., are due to the defects of instruments of perception and not of the
field-knower who perceives. Besides, being objects of knowledge, these
defects cannot pertain to the perceiver in the way that light pertains to
the lamp*. Being knowable, these defects have to be cognised by a principle
other than themselves*; for, all disputants agree that in the state of
freedom or mukti, where instruments of cognition no longer exist, the
perceiver has no flaws like nescience, etc. If any attributes pertained to
the Self who is also the field-knower, as, for instance, heat does to the
fire, it would never be free from it. //

From the above it is crystal clear that: Avidya is basically Avaranātmika
which expresses itself as agrahana, viparita grahana and samshaya.
Shankara uses anvaya vyatireka logic to demonstrate that this Bhāvarupa
avidya is experienced when it is present and not experienced when it is
absent. The eye-defect analogy is so aptly handled by Shankara: When the
cataract is there, bhāvarupa, its effects such as not being able to
perceive an object, wrongly perceive the object and doubtful perception of
the object. When the cataract, bhāvarupa defect is treated by surgical
intervention, these problems with perception are no longer experienced.
Another proof of this defect being bhāvarupa is: that Shankara says, it is
observed, jneyatvaat.

Thus Shankara holds that Avarana to be the basic problem which expresses as
the three stated effects. The eye-defect analogy he uses to perfectly
demonstrate it. If something is observed, jneya, it cannot be abhāvarupa.

warm regards
subbu

>
> Sir, you cannot negate this bhAshya-vAkya. And if you do, then you cannot
> claim allegiance to bhAshya. What is said is very clear -- there is an
> AvaraNa different from avidyA-traya. Only when this AvaraNa is present,
> there is avidyA-traya.
>
> This AvaraNa is what is mUlAvidyA. Those who hold that avidyA is nothing
> other than avidyA-traya, need to explain what is this AvaraNa, the presence
> whereof is stated by bhAshya to be the cause of avidyA-traya.
>
>
>
>>
>>    - So there is no problem or headache for us to come out with the
>>    concocted theory like sadasadvilakshaNa, bhAvaabhAva vilakshaNa
>>    anirvachaneeya avidyA.  For us it is nirvachaneeya.
>>
>>
> Sir, sat-asat-vilakshaNa is not concocted. It is the very mantra of
> NAsadIya SUkta, which says -- na sat aaseet, na asat aaseet.. tama aaseet.
>
>
>
>>    - And also for us avidyA is NOT mAya
>>
>>
> And then SSSS ji would equate Maya and avidyA without any issues in
> MANDUkya Rahasya Vivriti 3.10 -- आत्मन: माया अविद्या.
>
> [
> https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=sanskrit&book_id=006&pagenum=1b0266#page/419/mode/1up
> ]
>
>
>>
>>    - and mAya has been explained as tatva – anyatvAbhyAM anirvachaneeya
>>    ( sutra bhashya).  This expression anirvachaneeya has been explained by
>>    bhAshyakAra by giving the example of foan, waves, bubbles which are not
>>    quite the same as water but yet not different from water.  (you can refer
>>    US & bruhad bhAshya for this).
>>
>>
> True. The question was however regarding LEM.
>
>
>>    - And in the divine alignment of Ishwara and his shakti/mAya (which
>>    is ofcourse not palatable Vedanta siddhAnta to dry logicians) mAyA is
>>    A-vyakta, that is defying any unambiguous description whether it belongs to
>>    Brahman (tatva) or is different from It (anyatva).  It is the nAma-rUpa
>>    which cannot be described unambiguously whether they are brahman/Ishwara or
>>    different from It, the unmanifest but to be manifested later.  I am not
>>    saying this bhAshyakAra himself saying this in IkshatyadhikaraNa in sUtra.
>>
>>
>>
>> Isn't LEM violated by them the way they seek to explain.
>>
>
> I was interested in response to LEM violation by SSSS ji. I am aware of
> what BhAshya is saying.
>
>  SSSS ji brings in concepts of Dvaita VedAnta into his version of Advaita.
>> Concepts such as the following are from Dvaita:
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø     You can enjoy your own hallucinations (ofcourse with the clapping
>> crowd around you) about Sri SSS’s interpretation on each and everything.
>>
>
> It is an open knowledge Bhaskar ji. NyAyAmrita holds ajnAna as
> jnAna-abhAva. That is rejected in Advaita Siddhi with lots of arguments.
>
>
>> Frankly I don’t have time to ‘educate’ you, I know how you miserably
>> failed to understand the context of NS3.1 and Sri SSS’s clarification in
>> mUlAvidyA nirAsa about Ashraya and Vishaya of avidya😊 If time permits I
>> will handle it in a separate post.
>>
>
> I read what is written in black and white. In NS, SSSS ji nowhere mentions
> chidAbhAsa as the Ashraya and vishaya of avidyA. Of course, NS does not say
> that either. In MUlAvidyA-nirAsah, SSSS ji writes chidAbhasa as the Ashraya
> and vishaya of ajnAna. What am I to understand?
>
> Actually, it is hilarious BhAskar ji. Mirror is the Ashraya of AbhAsa.
> AbhAsa cannot be the Ashraya of mirror. Of course, SureshwarachArya clearly
> says in VArtika that ajnAna is the Ashraya of chidAbhAsa. So, SSSS ji
> saying the opposite that chidAbhAsa is Ashraya/vishaya of ajnAna is
> actually diametrically opposite to Sureshwaracharya. But how does it
> matter!! Or does it?
>
> For reference: VArtika 4.3.416 - चिदाभासाश्रयाज्ञानात्कार्यसंगतिहेतुतः |
> स्वाभासान्तः परोऽप्यात्मा ध्यायतीवेति वीक्ष्यते || ४१६ ||
>
> And if you hold that ajnAna cannot be the mirror because it is abhAva (as
> per you), then you need to check VArtika 4.3.355 which says :
>
> आत्माज्ञानमतः प्रत्यक्चैतन्याभासवत्सदा | आत्मनः कारणत्वादेः
> प्रयोदजकमिहेष्यते || ३५५ ||
>
> ajnAna of AtmA is always coupled with the AbhAsa of inner-consciousness.
> And this ignorance alone is accepted as the reason of kAraNa-tva of Atman.
>
> 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%2BBDhsmFpjURzZSRiw1TqXpZggCjw72M_yPxnjoKk83nfLw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDhsmFpjURzZSRiw1TqXpZggCjw72M_yPxnjoKk83nfLw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>