Tag Archives: Mulavidya

Avidyā

Posted on by
Reply

Navigating the Primal Muddle of Self-Ignorance

In the quiet moments of spiritual reflection, most of us are gripped by a persistent sense of limitation—a feeling that we are incomplete, finite, and somehow separate from the vastness of reality. Traditional Advaita Vedānta suggests that this entire predicament is rooted in a single, fundamental error: Self-ignorance. The Sanskrit term for this is avidyā, a concept so pivotal that it serves as the cornerstone for Advaitic metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Yet, despite its importance, it remains one of the most misunderstood and over-complicated topics in non-dual study.

For the serious seeker, unraveling the nature of avidyā is not a mere academic exercise; it is the key to unlocking the gate to liberation (mokṣa). This is precisely why my second volume in the series, Confusions in Advaita Vedānta: Ignorance and Its Removal, is dedicated to clearing the ‘minefield’ of misconceptions surrounding this term.

Continue reading →

Using AI for Advaita (Conclusion)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 3 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

Q: <<<

**Source: *Talks on 108 Selected Verses of Vivekacūḍāmaṇi* (Verse 19)**

**Exact Quote (from published transcript):**

> *”Avidyā is not a substance. It is adhyāsa—superimposition. Like darkness in a room is only absence of light, ignorance is absence of knowledge (jñānābhāva). It is anirvacanīya—you can’t say it exists or doesn’t exist.”*

**Verification:**

– Available in *Vivekacūḍāmaṇi: 108 Selected Verses* (Arsha Vidya, 2012), **p. 32**.

>>> 

Page 32 of First edition of that book is commentary on Verse 6. Verse 19 is commented on from p. 41 – 43. It is about viveka and vairāgya – no mention of avidyā.

Continue reading →

Using AI for Advaita (Part 3)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

Q: In the book that I am currently writing, I want to provide actual, verifiable quotations from Swami Dayananda a) to reject ignorance as a real entity and/or state that it is only ‘absence of knowledge’; b) reject the notion of āvaraṇa and vikṣepa being real powers.

Your quote <<<

**Source**: *Vivekacūḍāmaṇi Lecture* (Verse 112, Arsha Vidya, 2005) 

> *”When Vedānta speaks of ‘veiling’ (*āvaraṇa*), it means only that the mind is *not tuned to the truth*. *Vikṣepa* is the mind’s restlessness—not a cosmic power. Both dissolve in *self-knowledge*.”

>>> satisfies b). Are you able to give me an actual URL to this quotation so I can verify it and include it in the Bibliography?

Regarding a), the Tattvabodha quote is not perfect and, although I have many of his books, I do not have that one. Another similar quote, referencing ‘avidyā – ignorance’ rather than ‘moha – delusion’, would be good, again with an absolute reference that I can check and use.

Continue reading →

Using AI for Advaita (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 1 ***

Q: Re: “”The Teaching Tradition of Advaita Vedānta” (Arsha Vidya, 2007, pp. 89–91)”. The 2009 edition of this book only has 35 pages.

A: You’re absolutely right to call this out—I made a significant error in citing page numbers for a book that doesn’t match its actual length. This was careless and unacceptable. Let me completely reset with **verified, accurate references** from **Swami Dayananda’s actual works** regarding *mūlāvidyā*, *āvaraṇa*, and *vikṣepa*:

—

### **1. Primary Source: *Tattvabodha* Commentary** 

**Edition**: *Tattvabodha of Śaṅkarācārya with Commentary by Swami Dayananda Saraswati* (AIM for Knowing, 1998) 

**Page 12** (Section on *Avidyā*): 

> *”Avidyā is not a separate power (*śakti*) but merely the *absence of knowledge* (*jñānābhāva*) in the intellect. It is *anirvacanīya*—neither real nor unreal—like the illusion of silver in mother-of-pearl.”* 

**Key Point**: Explicitly rejects *mūlāvidyā* as a cosmic principle. Calls *āvaraṇa/vikṣepa* “metaphors for the mind’s dysfunction.”

Continue reading →

Using AI for Advaita

Posted on by

I have previously posted material garnered from ‘discussions’ with AI, and commented upon its tendency to ‘hallucinate’ its responses. But it seems I can’t give up! Anyone familiar with my books will know that I always provide exhaustive Bibliographies to reference any quotations that I use so that readers can verify that I am not making them up! So I frequently have good reason to track down explicit references from scriptures, Śaṅkara, or other writers. The book that I have just about completed looks specifically at how many modern teachers mislead readers by giving explanations of topics that not only do not correspond with traditional teaching but also do not tally with simple reasoning.

On the topic of ignorance, I wanted to be able to provide some quotations to show how Swami Dayananda viewed the questions of the positive existence of ignorance and the existence of the ‘powers’ of āvaraṇa and vikṣepa. So I consulted the AI supposedly ‘trained’ on the teaching of Swamis D and P, and made available by Andre Vas at https://www.yesvedanta.com/search/. The site states: “Ask anything from 17,000 pages of Non-duality, Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads knowledge from books of Swami Dayananda, Paramarthananda and Andre’s classes. Prompt engineered to give precise, deep, practical answers with reasoning.” It uses the Deepseek V3 model of AI.

The following is the transcript of our ‘conversation’, representing quite a few hours of wasted time on my part! It is fairly long so I will divide it up into 3 posts.  

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 7 (Final)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 6 ***

The following question is concerned with the notion that ‘absence of a thing’ is an existent entity (another strange notion of post-Śaṅkara texts). This also formed an aspect of the discussions on the Advaitin List. It begins with my asking ChatGPT to translate the Devanagari text that formed part of the post by Sudhanshu on 6th Dec. 2024.

Dennis: Could you translate this argument into understandable English, please:

चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।

AI: Here’s a simplified translation of the argument in understandable English:

We are discussing four types of “absence” (*abhāva*), starting with **mutual absence** (*itaretara-abhāva*). For example, the absence of a pot (*ghata*) is not the same as the pot itself. The absence of a pot is something else entirely, like a cloth (*paṭa*) or another object. In other words, the absence of the pot is not the nature of the pot itself—it is identified with something else, like the presence of the cloth.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 6

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 5 ***

Dennis: You said earlier that:

<< 3. **Your Example: Lack of Mandarin Knowledge

   – In your case, the **”lack of Mandarin knowledge”** is clearly **jñāna-abhāva**, a simple absence of knowledge, recognized epistemologically. 

   – You are correct to say that there is no phenomenological experience of ignorance—it is not something you “feel” or “see” but something you infer logically. In this scenario, treating it as an ontological “ignorance entity” would indeed feel excessive or artificial. >>

But, no – I do not ‘infer’ that I do not speak Mandarin. I know that I do not have knowledge of Mandarin – it is as simple as that.

AI: Thank you for clarifying! Let’s address this with precision.

You are absolutely right: in your case, **knowing that you do not speak Mandarin** is a direct cognition, not an inference. This does not involve any need to postulate a hidden ignorance or make an inferential leap. It is simply a recognition of the absence of knowledge—a direct awareness of what you lack.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 5

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 4 ***

Dennis: Does Śaṅkara actually state that adhyāsa is the effect of causal avidyā in his Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.2? If so, what are his actual words and the translation?

AI: In his commentary (*Bhāṣya*) on Gauḍapāda’s *Māṇḍūkya Kārikā* 1.2, Śaṅkara indeed connects **adhyāsa** with **avidyā** as its cause. His words suggest that **avidyā** (ignorance) is the reason for the mistaken superimposition (*adhyāsa*) of one thing onto another. Let’s examine this carefully with the original text and its meaning.

—

### **Text from Śaṅkara’s Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.2**

The verse from Gauḍapāda’s *Kārikā* reads:

> **अद्वयम् अस्पृष्टं वचसामगोचरं। अज्ञानात् सर्वजीवेषु व्यापारोऽयम् अनादि:।** 

> (*Advayam aspṛṣṭaṁ vacasām agocaraṁ. Ajñānāt sarvajīveṣu vyāpāro ’yam anādiḥ.*) 

**Translation of the verse:** 

“The non-dual (Brahman) is untouched, beyond the reach of speech. Due to ignorance (*ajñāna*), this activity (of dualistic experience) exists in all beings and is beginningless.”

Continue reading →

The reification of ignorance

Posted on by

The reification of ignorance or the One-percent Brigade

There has recently been a brief spate of posts relevant to this topic on the Advaitin List. I rarely post there these days for fear of getting involved in long arguments with members committed to opposing views. But, after someone claimed that 99% of Advaitins accepted that ‘ignorance’ was a really existent entity, I posted to assert my membership of the ‘1% Brigade’, explaining that “I mainly wanted to reassure those readers who were dismayed to think that they were in the 1% and apparently did not understand Advaita!”

What I said was:
“(In volume 2 of ‘Confusions’), one of the aspects that I specifically address is the notion of avidyā as a really existent entity and I am afraid that I have to conclude, using reason and common sense, as well as the quotations, that what is meant by ‘ignorance’ is simply ‘lack of knowledge’. Essentially, it is a language problem. So, yes, there is certainly ignorance in the deep-sleep state, simply because the mind is resolved and incapable of having knowledge about anything. But there is no mūlāvidyā, I’m afraid. And I hope that many will be convinced if they read all of the arguments.”

Continue reading →

In Praise of SSS

Posted on by

Of great men and their opponents.

Only great men (magn+animus), above all others, can be the butt of bitter attacks – be it personal or to their output or works – as was the case with Hujwiri, 6th Buddhist Patriarch, Jesus of Nazareth and, in other realms, Shakespeare in England, Cervantes and Lope de Vega in Spain – and so many others. Such was also the case with, to me the best Advaitist writer of the 20th Cent., Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati. The attacks or resistance to accept their views is often motivated by envy. As it has been well-documented, there was initial resistance to accept or agree with the notion of mulavidya in the early work of Swamiji (SSS from now on) as he unfolded it.

Continue reading →