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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

This argument that upAdAnakAraNa (material cause) being 'positive' and a
second reality to Brahman is specious and born out of 19th century
scientific understanding and logic, which considered space-time to be
absolute and objective world to be real. I think SSS got influenced by this
and concocted his prakariya which is a mockery of Shankara Bhashyas.

upAdAna-kArana is defined as follows in different traditional texts

1.       कार्याभिन्नकारणं – The cause which is non-different from the
effect like even the clay is non-different from clay-pot.

2.       कार्यान्वितम् कारणं - The cause which inheres in the effect like
even the clay inheres in the clay-pot.

3.       कार्याधारत्वे सति कार्यजनिहेतुः – that which becomes the cause for
the production / creation of the effect being the support / foundation /
basis of the effect.

Now in all these definitions there is no mention of whether upAdAna is a
material like solid, liquid, gas, plasma etc. It is the cause which is
found wherever the effect is found. In fact, the effect cannot even be
cognised without cognising the upAdAna-kAranA. Even modern science says
that matter can be both wave and particle (anirvachanIya) and also matter
and energy are interchangeable. So, in reality a cause need not be a
material in the sense we normally understand at the macro level, which is
all only an appearance / Maya.

Generally, upAdAna-kArana is translated as ‘Material Cause’ which can be
confusing as people then think it should be a tangible substance. According
to our Shastra, Maya is the upAdAna-kAranA for the entire jagat / universe
and it is not a tangible substance as it avyakta (unmanifest) and sookshma
(subtle). Even Modern Science says that sub atomic particles or quarks are
the building blocks of quantum systems and a quantum system itself can
spread as a transcendental wave, which is not tangible and needs to be
collapsed by an observer.  Some translators use ‘Proximate Cause’ for
upAdAna-kArana, which is better.

Even if upAdAna is material, it does not matter as all that is drishya are
mithyA which is the traditional teaching. If the vyakta mithyA jagat does
not affect the advaya status of brahman how can avyakta mithya mAyA or
mithyA mulAvidyA can affect advaita? mulAvidya is drishya as it is
sAkshi-bhAsya and so it is mithyA.


Further if atasmin tad-buddhih (erroneous cognition which is adhyAsa) alone
is avidyA, then it cannot be called naisargika by bhAshyakAra. This
erroneous cognition is not there in deep sleep and it is there once you
wake up. So it is created every time a samsAri wakes up.  So only mulAvidyA
is really naisargika and it is there wherever and whenever subject-object
duality is perceived which makes it the upAdAna-kAraNa of the entire
objective world.

This entire prakriya is against all established means of knowledge.
BhAshyakAra says अभावाद्भावोत्पत्तिरिति सर्वप्रमाणव्याकोप इति -
abhāvādbhāvotpattiriti
sarvapramāṇavyākopa iti in Taittiriya Sambandha Bhashya but SSS and his
followers claim that from jnAna-abhAva in sleep a samsAri is born in waking
which is completely against Shankara's siddanta. What is the difference
between absence of knoweldge and absence any other thing like gagabugan?
Absence cannot have any visheshaNa so what is so special about
jnAna-abhAva.

Further in the same Taittiriya Sambandha bhashya अभावस्य
विशेषाभावाद्विकल्पमात्रमेतत् । भावप्रतियोगी ह्यभावः ...  न ह्यभाव
उत्पलादिवद्विशेषणसहभावी । विशेषणवत्त्वे भाव एव स्यात् । - abhāvasya
viśeṣābhāvādvikalpamātrametat । bhāvapratiyogī hyabhāvaḥ ... na hyabhāva
utpalādivadviśeṣaṇasahabhāvī । viśeṣaṇavattve bhāva eva syāt ।

If abhAva has any qualities then it is bhAva only.

Further they also twist the adhyAropa-apavAda and also claim falsely as
though it was invented by SSS. In fact they claim that adhyAropa should not
be explanatory as though it is a dosha or defect. Actually it is adhyAropa
only for the advaitins and not for others. So adhyAropa also should explain
the vyavahAra properly and it should be beyond logic and not illogical. SSS
followers frequently use adhyAropa itself as an excuse to paper over their
illogical arguments.

Finally this prakriya leads to anirmoksha prasanga (moksha is not
possible). All the proponents of this prakriya, with whom I have interacted
for over 30 years now, are either waiting for dvaita perception to end or
to become 'projections' of ignorant masses' - as otherwise they cannot be
jnAnis. One senior follower even claimed Shankara himself never claimed
himself to be a jnAni. The greatest casualty of this prakriya is that they
deny the svAnubhava of a jnAni as a jnAni.

So mumukshus should shun such prakriyas which lead to anirmoksha-prasanga.
They should not be mislead by academics who are only motivated by their
livelihood and status.

with love and prayers.

Jaishankar

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 02:37, Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji,
>
> The accusation of a second thing in addition to Brahman stems from
> mulavidya vada demanding a material cause.
> Padmapada:
> [" Mithyajnana nimitta iti
> " 23—that which is mithya
> (erroneous) and at the same time, ajnana (nescience) is mithyajnana.]
> The word ' mithya ' means * inexpressible ' (anirvacanlya),
> and by the word * ajnana ' is meant the potency of avidya which
> is of the nature of insentience and is the negation of jnana. And
> ' tannimitta ' means * having that (viz., mithyajnana) as the
> material cause.'
>
> Siddhantabindu:
>
> *§57* नापि भ्रमसंशयतत्संस्कारपरम्पराऽरूपम्, अपरोक्षत्वात्,
> अतीतानागतभ्रमसंशयतत्संस्काराणां चापरोक्षत्वेन ज्ञातुम् अशक्यत्वात्,
> आवरणात्मकत्वात्, भ्रमाद्युत्पादनत्वाच् च । आत्मनो निर्विकारत्वात्,
> अन्तःकरणादेश् च तज्जन्यत्वात् ।
>
> This nescience cannot be of the nature of delusion, doubt or a succession
> of mental impressions caused by delusion or doubt, because it is directly
> experienced. Delusions, doubts and their impressions which relate to the
> past or to the future cannot be experienced directly at the present time.
> This
> nescience cannot be mere negation because it is something which covers or
> hides (the atman) and is the material cause of the delusion in the form ‘I
> am a man, etc’. The self cannot be the cause of this delusion because it is
> immutable. Nor can the mind, etc., be the cause of the delusion, because
> they are themselves products of nescience.
>
>