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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbuji,
"All the above prove unequivocally that proponents of the concept of
Mūlāvidyā do not consider it a real entity apart from Brahman."

Devil is in the details. If Brahman alone is, then even the proposal of a
perception that has an "indescribable ontological status" or is sadasat
vilakshana presents perception as other than Brahman.  Indetermnable is
doing ontological work - something is there that can't be determined. The
idea of a 'real entity' is disguised in the need to find a cause of
perception with the weighty construct of avarana, vikshepa shakti, mula and
tula avidya, and the need to posit a remainder following jnana termed
paramamukti.

 Whereas mere error simply depends on the miscomprehension of 'Brahman
alone is'.  I don't wish to get into a debate here - just a clarification
of a "real entity"

Siddhanta Bindu,
*dṛśyatvād vināśitvāc ca paricchinnāpy avidyā nirvacanīyatvena vicārāsahā
āvaraṇa-vikṣepa-śakti-dvayavatī sarvagataṃ cidātmānam āvṛṇoti, aṅgulir iva
nayana-puraḥsthitā sūrya-maṇḍalam* —
“because it is seen and perishes, ignorance, though limited, is indefinable
and incapable of withstanding inquiry; possessed of the two powers of
concealment and projection, it covers the all-pervading conscious Self,
like a finger held before the eye covers the disk of the sun.”

On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 7:32 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sri Achyutakrishnānanda Tirtha (17th–18th Century CE), who admits
> mūlāvidyā, also wrote a commentary on Sri Appayya Dikshita's Siddhantaleśa
> Saṅgraha.  In his commentary, Vanamālā, on the Taittiriya Upanishad
> Bhashya, he says:
>
> एतेनानाद्यज्ञानादेरपि मिथ्यात्वं व्याख्यातम् , अज्ञानादेरपि चैतन्ये
> कादाचित्कत्वात् । न च हेत्वसिद्धिः, अज्ञानतत्सम्बन्धजीवत्वादीनां विद्यया
> निवृत्तिश्रवणादित्यन्यत्र विस्तरः ।
>
> "By this, the *mithyātva *(illusoriness) of *beginningless ignorance
> (anādi-ajñāna)* and the like has also been explained, since ignorance and
> the like are only occasional (kādācitka) in Consciousness (Chaitanya).
>
> Nor is the reason (hetu) unestablished (asiddha), because the scriptures
> declare that ignorance, its connection (with the Self), jīva-hood, and the
> like are removed by knowledge (vidyā). A more detailed discussion of this
> is given elsewhere."
>
> Recently we saw another Post Shankara Advaitin also hold that avidya,
> etc. are mithya.
>
> Swami Vidyaranya, in his Anubhuti Prakasha has said:
>
> अविद्यादिनिवृत्तिश्च चैतन्यव्यतिरेकतः ।
>
> नास्तीत्येवमभिप्राय एवकारेण सूच्यते ॥ १८.२६९॥
>
> The cessation of anādi Avidya, etc. is also not distinct from Brahman.
>
> Here too the appearance/superimposition of Avidya, etc., on Brahman is
> admitted to be non-different from Brahman. This implies that Avidya, etc.
> are only appearances in Brahman.
>
> All the above prove unequivocally that proponents of the concept of Mūlāvidyā
> do not consider it a real entity apart from Brahman. In other words,
> admitting Mulavidya does not render Brahman un-Advaitic, meaning it doesn't
> introduce a second entity.
>
> Warm regards
>
> subbu
>
> --
> 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/CAKk0Te3PVa_FXqD%2BKtU8tTjdwTdrXxDEnhz-e0yup%3DbJGW8v8A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3PVa_FXqD%2BKtU8tTjdwTdrXxDEnhz-e0yup%3DbJGW8v8A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>