Shankara’s Ignorance

The most successful philosophical placeholder in Indian Philosophy

By the druid Finn

1. Śaṅkara’s starting point: ignorance as the fact of misidentification

Śaṅkara opens his entire philosophical corpus — the Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya — with his famous Adhyāsa Bhāṣya, the “Prologue on Superimposition.”
There he defines the basic condition of the human being as:

“Ātmani anātma adhyāsaḥ, tad-viparyayena ca anātmany ātma adhyāsaḥ”
“The superimposition of the non-Self upon the Self, and of the Self upon the non-Self.”

This double confusion (adhyāsa) — taking the body, mind, and ego to be the Self, and attributing the Self’s reality to them — is ignorance.

In short:

· Ignorance is not the absence of knowledge (abhāva-jñāna).

· It is misplaced knowledge — wrong seeing, a cognitive error built into perception itself.
It is the condition that makes the empirical world appear separate and oneself appear bound.

Śaṅkara calls this beginningless (anādi) and universal (sarva-jana-sādhāraṇa).

2. His implicit “definition” of ignorance

He does not define avidyā as a positive entity or substance but as indefinable (anirvacanīya) — neither real (sat) nor unreal (asat).
Why?

Because:

· If ignorance were real, it could never be destroyed by knowledge.

· If it were unreal, it would never appear at all.
So it must occupy an ambiguous ontological zone: apparently real until knowledge arises, then vanishing like darkness before light.

Thus, Śaṅkara defines ignorance functionally:

“Avidyā nāma anyathā-grahaṇam” —
“Ignorance is grasping a thing otherwise than what it is.”
(Commentary on Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.5)

3. Does Śaṅkara specify its source or cause?

This is where his silence becomes deliberate.

· Source: He calls ignorance anādi — beginningless. There is no prior cause, because any cause would have to lie within ignorance’s own domain.

“Ignorance has no beginning, for there is no knowledge prior to it that could remove it.” (BSBh II.1.35)

· Cause: When pressed, Śaṅkara dodges the question. The only “cause” of ignorance is ignorance itself. It is the default condition of embodied beings — a metaphysical tautology. He compares it to the darkness that obscures a rope and makes it look like a snake.

· Seat or locus: Later commentators debate this (is ignorance located in Brahman, or in the individual jīva?). Śaṅkara himself uses both expressions at different places, suggesting that for the ignorant, avidyā is experienced “in the individual mind,” but from the enlightened perspective, it never truly existed.

So avidyā is causeless, beginningless, and non-real, yet functionally potent — a philosophical paradox deliberately left unresolved.

4. Its function: to enable the world to appear

Śaṅkara treats ignorance as the necessary condition for empirical experience.
Without avidyā, there would be no plurality, no perception, no moral action, and no path to liberation. It is both the veil and the stage upon which the drama of existence unfolds.

He uses analogies:

· Rope–snake: ignorance projects a snake where there is a rope.

· Dream: the dream-world functions while it lasts but collapses at waking.

· Reflection: one sun appears as many because of many reflecting pools.

Functionally, then, avidyā is cosmic imagination (māyā) — the mechanism by which the one consciousness seems to diversify. But Śaṅkara is careful never to equate the two words; māyā describes the effect of ignorance, avidyā the cause-condition that makes the effect possible.

5. Why Śaṅkara refuses to define it clearly

Śaṅkara walks a tightrope:

· If he defines ignorance too sharply, it becomes real, violating non-duality.

· If he denies it altogether, the world, karma, and salvation collapse.

So he calls it:

“Mithyā” — neither real nor unreal,
“Tuccha” — indescribable,
“Anirvacanīya” — indefinable.

This non-definition is itself his definition.
He maintains control of the discourse by making ignorance a conceptual placeholder that explains everything while being immune to explanation.

6. In summary

Aspect	Śaṅkara’s Position	Comment
Definition	Misapprehension — taking the non-Self as Self	Functional, not ontic
Ontological status	Neither real nor unreal (anirvacanīya)	Makes it immune to critique
Source / cause	Beginningless (anādi), self-sustaining	Convenient tautology
Locus	In the individual mind (antaḥkaraṇa) from the empirical view	Ambiguous to preserve flexibility
Function	Produces the appearance of multiplicity	Explains the world without compromising monism
Removal	Destroyed only by knowledge (jñāna)	Hence the guru–Veda monopoly

7. Finn’s reinterpretation

From the perspective of Procedure Monism, Śaṅkara’s avidyā functions as a semantic device to rescue a static monism from the dynamics of emergence.
Where Śaṅkara says, “the world appears through ignorance,” Finn says, “the world emerges through iteration.”
Ignorance is not an ontic flaw but a local boundary condition necessary for distinctness.
Difference is not delusion but the procedure of realness itself.

In brief

Śaṅkara’s avidyā is the most successful philosophical placeholder in Indian thought — a darkness that defines itself by what it hides.
He does not explain its origin because its function is precisely to make explanation possible.
Without ignorance, there would be no knower, no known, and therefore no need for Vedānta — a thought the priest-politician was careful never to pursue to its logical end.

Granny sees a cow

Home