[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A Post-Shankara Advaitin says 'anādi ajnāna, etc. are mithyā'

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

I apologize if my previous emails caused anyone any kind of distress. That
was not my intention.

You say 'SSS does not say kAraNa is abhAva! He and Sankaracharya say,
kAraNa/kArya are adhyasa only. '

That is exactly what the traditional acharyas are saying. So welcome to
traditional Shankara SampradAya.

I asked Gemini AI the below question and its answer does not correspond to
what you have said above. I leave it to you to reconcile the below with
your understanding.

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar

Question: Does Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS) accept a kAraNa
avidyA which is not abhAva in sleep?

Answer: No, Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS) does not accept a
kAraNa avidyA (causal ignorance) that is bhAvarUpa (a positive, substantive
entity) or a structural, unmanifest root entity (mUlAvidyA) existing in
deep sleep.  In fact, the systematic refutation of this exact concept is
the defining cornerstone of SSS's entire life's work—most famously detailed
in his masterpiece, mUlAvidyA-nirAsa (The Dissolution of Root Ignorance).

Here is a breakdown of SSS's specific stance regarding avidyA and deep
sleep:

1. Refutation of bhAvarUpa kAraNa avidyAThe post-Shankara commentarial
traditions (such as the Vivaraṇa and Bhāmatī schools) developed the theory
that avidyA is a positive entity (bhAvarUpa) that serves as a material
cause (kAraNa) of the universe, hiding the Self and projecting the
world.SSS directly argued against this, asserting that:

Purely Epistemological: According to SSS's reading of Adi Shankara, avidyA
is strictly a cognitive error—defined precisely as mutual superimposition
(adhyAsa) or a wrong notion (mithyA-jñAna).

Not an Entity: It is not an ontological, cosmic "substance" or a "positive
something" (bhAvarUpa) that exists independently of a thinking mind.

2. The Nature of Deep Sleep (Suṣupti)Traditional post-Shankara Advaita
holds that in deep sleep, a trace or causal form of individual ignorance
(kAraNa-sharIra or mUlAvidyA) persists in a latent, unmanifest state, which
is why we wake up again into duality.SSS fundamentally rejects this
interpretation:

No Ignorance in Sleep: SSS maintains that in deep sleep, there is absolute
absence of avidyA. Because avidyA is synonymous with adhyAsa (wrong
perception/misapprehension), and there is no mind or ego actively
misapprehending anything in deep sleep, avidyA cannot exist there.

Pure Brahman: In deep sleep, the jIva temporarily merges into its true
nature, which is pure Brahman, completely untouched by ignorance.

3. If there is no avidyA in sleep, why do we wake up?The natural question
that arises against SSS's view is: If there is no seed of ignorance left in
sleep, why doesn't a person wake up enlightened?

SSS resolves this using Shankara's method of AdhyAropa-Apavāda (deliberate
superimposition followed by negation):

When we wake up and retrospectively look back at sleep, we say, "I slept
soundly and knew nothing."

SSS argues that this "ignorance" (agrahaNa or non-perception) assigned to
sleep is actually a retrospective, waking superimposition.From the true,
transcendental standpoint (paramArtha), deep sleep is pristine and devoid
of any seed or cause.

The manifestation of the waking state is not caused by a latent bhAvarUpa
entity waiting in sleep, but is simply the re-emergence of the mind's
habitual projections (avidyA/adhyAsa) the moment the waking state begins.

Summary: SSS rejects mUlAvidyA entirely. For him, avidyA is nothing more
than subjective adhyAsa (misapprehension). Since there is no
misapprehension in deep sleep, there is no kAraNa avidyA—positive or
otherwise—present in that state.


On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 17:08, Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Jaishankar,
>
> Please know I excuse your arrogant, rude and intolerant comments not as a
> your own personality affliction but as the product of an entrenched
> intransigence whose face is so close to the book that the eyes can't see
> the words.  Your seven point attempt to assail SSS was very capably
> refuted, imo, months ago in my series of 47 pages of AI assisted responses.
> You ignored them - behavior again excused as per the above. They need
> editing and perhaps in time I will re-post
>
> My only immediate reply addresses your comment as shown in this exchange:
>
> //you say, //Śaṅkara's avidyā is neither a bare abhāva nor a
> bhāva-padārtha; it is atasmiṃs tad-buddhiḥ
>
>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>>
>> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings.
>> So what is the difference, do you suggest?
>>
>
> Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa.
> You absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all
> means of knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa
> somehow manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abhāva nor a
> bhāva-padārtha!//
>
> ---SSS does not say kAraNa is abhAva! He and Sankaracharya say,
> kAraNa/kArya are adhyasa only. This is a basic SSS correction. You are a
> worthy pundit, please read up on SSS.
>
> Respectfully, Michael Chandra
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 11:38 PM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste,
>>
>> See below.
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 at 17:15, Michael Chandra Cohen <
>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Jaishankar,
>>> I find it disappointing that you only present scant response to my
>>> critical assessments.
>>>
>>
>> Jai: I have already written an entire paper refuting your arguments which
>> was shared a few years back for which there is no refutation from your
>> side. So this is facetious for you to say.
>>
>> I understand, Bhasyakara is difficult to refute when he is understood as
>>> SSS sees him. Nevertheless
>>>
>>
>> Jai: It is so absurd that there is nothing to refute really.
>>
>>
>>> you say, //Śaṅkara's avidyā is neither a bare abhāva nor a
>>> bhāva-padārtha; it is atasmiṃs tad-buddhiḥ
>>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.//
>>>
>>> Yes, quite interesting and too easily conflates the two understandings.
>>> So what is the difference, do you suggest?
>>>
>>
>> Jai: Only difference is we assign the same reality to kArya and kAraNa.
>> You absurdly and stubbornly hold kAraNa is abhAva which is against all
>> means of knowledge and BhashyakAra. Further you say this abhAva kAraNa
>> somehow manifests a kArya which is neither a bare abhāva nor a
>> bhāva-padārtha!
>>
>>
>>> // bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only if the bIja is moolAvidya.
>>> //
>>> You are asserting, not arguing. The analogy simply presents a
>>> beginningless causation. To say the analogy *requires* a positive
>>> substance is to smuggle in the conclusion as a premise!!
>>>
>>
>> Jai: I am not smuggling anything. Everything I state is from the BhAshya
>> unlike your concoctions which are kapola-kalpita. See the following
>>
>> eka eva parameśvaraḥ kūṭasthanityo vijñānadhāturavidyayā, māyayā
>> māyāvivat , anekadhā vibhāvyate, nānyo vijñānadhāturastīti । B.S.Bh.
>> 1.3.19
>>
>> vidyayā tasyā bījaśakterdāhāt । avidyātmikā hi
>> bījaśaktiravyaktaśabdanirdeśyā parameśvarāśrayā māyāmayī mahāsuṣuptiḥ,
>> yasyāṃ svarūpapratibodharahitāḥ śerate saṃsāriṇo jīvāḥ
>> ... avyaktā hi sā māyā, tattvānyatvanirūpaṇasyāśakyatvāt ।
>> ... avidyā hyavyaktam; । B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3
>>
>>
>>> Accusing SSS of postulating an abhavarupa ontic as seed, is a
>>> superficial reading:
>>> "But 'Ignorance' in the form of failure to apprehend the Self is only a
>>> precondition
>>> for misconceiving it: it may be referred to metaphorically as a seed,
>>> but it is
>>> not a substance (dravya) having a po\ver (saleti) in any concrete sense.
>>> As S~kara puts
>>> it, 'The "seed" is only failure to apprehend the real'
>>> (tattva-apratibodha-matram eva hi
>>> bijam, G.K.Bh. 1.11). If it \vere anything else it would be real, and
>>> then it \vould be
>>> impossible to cancel it through metaphysical knowledge. SSS, Heart of
>>> Sri Samkara p212
>>>
>>>
>> Jai: All these fancy words like Ontic or epistemic are irrelevant. The
>> kArikA you quote is given below
>>
>> kāryakāraṇabaddhau tāviṣyete viśvataijasau ।
>> prājñaḥ kāraṇabaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyataḥ ॥ 1.11 ॥
>>
>> The BhAshya is
>> kāryaṃ kriyata iti phalabhāvaḥ, kāraṇaṃ karotīti bījabhāvaḥ ।
>> tattvāgrahaṇānyathāgrahaṇābhyāṃ bījaphalabhāvābhyāṃ tau yathoktau
>> viśvataijasau baddhau saṅgṛhītau iṣyete । prājñastu bījabhāvenaiva baddhaḥ
>> । tattvāpratibodhamātrameva hi bījaṃ prājñatve nimittam । tataḥ dvau tau
>> bījaphalabhāvau tattvāgrahaṇānyathāgrahaṇe turīye na sidhyataḥ na vidyete,
>> na sambhavata ityarthaḥ ॥
>>
>> It is very clear from the above the tattvāpratibodha is kAraNa which can
>> never be abhAva as then the kArya anyathāgrahaṇa will be from
>> abhAva-kAraNa which will make Shankara and GaudapAda as saying abhAvAt
>> bhAva-utpattih which is against all means of knowledge. This tattvāpratibodha
>> is bījaśakti as quoted above in B.S.Bh  B.S. 1.4.3. It is AvaraNa as
>> mentioned in B.G 5.15. BhAshyakAra also uses the timira-DrishtAnta
>> (cataract analogy) to point out the AvaraNa shakti of avidyA. You cannot
>> get out of jail by simply saying all of this is figurative or metaphorical.
>> If it is so then bhAshyakAra would have definitely mentioned it ,but he
>> does not. Further figurative or metaphorical meaning can only be
>> considered if the direct meaning does not make any sense. In this case the
>> direct meaning makes immense sense and your metaphorical reading will make
>> bhAshyakAra into a Buddhist.
>>
>> I have written this reply knowing very well that it will not make any
>> difference to you. I hope other sincere mumukshus do not get confused by
>> such faulty prakriyas and for their sake the above has been stated.
>>
>> with love and prayers,
>> Jaishankar
>>
>>
>>> Regards, Michael
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:56 AM Jaishankar Narayanan <jai1971 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste,
>>>>
>>>> You claim
>>>>
>>>> Śaṅkara's avidyā is neither a bare abhāva nor a bhāva-padārtha; it is
>>>> atasmiṃs tad-buddhiḥ
>>>>
>>>> That is the definition of bhAvarupa which you have given, which is the
>>>> same for moolAvidya as for viparyaya jnAna.
>>>>
>>>> Further you are talking about bijAnkura nyAya which is appropriate only
>>>> if the bIja is moolAvidya. The bIja cannot be abhAva in which case you are
>>>> closer to Buddhists than Shankara who clearly talks about a bIja which is
>>>> bhAvarupa and which needs to be burned by the fire of knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> I think enough has been said about these topics.
>>>>
>>>> With love and prayers,
>>>> Jaishankar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun, 2026, 4:45 pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste Jaishankarji,
>>>>>
>>>>> You are quite right and I easily forget satkaryavada. Your 3
>>>>> definitions
>>>>> are helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is how does SSS warrant the accusation of reifying a second
>>>>> entity onto PSA? It is more subtle than just upAdAnakAraNa. There is
>>>>> always
>>>>> an implication of ‘something’ that is not Brahman with the notion of
>>>>> mulavidya. Calling it anirvacaniya, maya or ‘not a tangible substance
>>>>> as it
>>>>> avyakta (unmanifest) and sookshma (subtle),’ only disguises by implying
>>>>> there is something which is avyakta, sookshma, or indefinable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “mulAvidya is drishya as it is sAkshi-bhAsya and so it is mithyA.” –
>>>>> reifying by way of both standpoint and explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> “So it is created every time a samsAri wakes up.” – the mere idea of
>>>>> creation, of a samsAri ‘waking up’,  is the subtle second thing SSS
>>>>> refers
>>>>> to in all the above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, none of this applies to simple error – adhyasa. Why add a
>>>>> cause to
>>>>> adhyasa and all sorts of weighty explanation to that which is to be
>>>>> sublated in the end anyway? Instead, simply recognize Sankara’s words
>>>>> that
>>>>> adhyasa is prasiddha, anadi, naisargika – no cause necessary to prove
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Claude responds to the remainder of your attack:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the Taittirīya maxim you turn against us — abhāvād bhāvotpattiḥ
>>>>> sarvapramāṇavyākopaḥ — charging that we breed the waking saṃsārin from
>>>>> the
>>>>> jñāna-abhāva of suṣupti. But we assert no utpatti. The whole force of
>>>>> "naisargiko 'yaṃ loka-vyavahāraḥ" is anāditva: the saṃsāra is
>>>>> unoriginated.
>>>>> Where nothing is produced, a maxim against production-from-absence has
>>>>> no
>>>>> purchase. It binds precisely whoever needs a positive upādāna for an
>>>>> arisen
>>>>> effect — i.e., the bhāvarūpa account. The pramāṇa tells against the
>>>>> side
>>>>> that requires a bhāva, not against ours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, the abhāva/bhāva pincer — "viśeṣaṇavattve bhāva eva syāt." A
>>>>> false
>>>>> dilemma. Śaṅkara's avidyā is neither a bare abhāva nor a
>>>>> bhāva-padārtha; it
>>>>> is atasmiṃs tad-buddhiḥ — viparyaya-jñāna, erroneous cognition. A
>>>>> cognition
>>>>> may be false and still be a cognition, bearing its phenomenal features
>>>>> without being reified into insentient stuff. The abhāva-horn is not
>>>>> ours to
>>>>> hold. It is mūlāvidyā that must be at once positive (bhāvarūpa),
>>>>> insentient
>>>>> (jaḍa), and the negation of knowledge — Padmapāda's own gloss — and it
>>>>> is
>>>>> that composite which strains the very logic you cite.
>>>>>
>>>>> On naisargikatva: occurrent superimpositions do recur on each waking;
>>>>> granted. But beginninglessness belongs to the series
>>>>> (bīja-aṅkura-nyāya),
>>>>> not to a continuant dozing through suṣupti. To read a persisting
>>>>> positive
>>>>> substrate out of the recurrence is to assume the reification under
>>>>> dispute
>>>>> — no differently than inferring a stored homunculus from the daily
>>>>> return
>>>>> of waking.
>>>>>
>>>>> @advaita-vedanta.org <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>>>>>
>>>>