[Advaita-l] Asked of Chatgpt: "Are there any definitions or descriptions that depict a positive ignorance in Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras or classic 10 Upanishads whether in context or otherwise?

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Adi Shankaracharya's commentaries on the **Brahma Sutras** and the
**classic Upanishads** are pivotal in understanding his view on **avidya**
(ignorance). The notion of avidya as positive ignorance versus a mere
absence of knowledge is a significant interpretative issue. To address your
question, let's delve into the definitions and descriptions of avidya in
Shankaracharya’s works, focusing on whether they depict avidya as a
positive ignorance.

### Analysis of Avidya in Shankaracharya’s Commentaries

#### **1. Brahma Sutras**

**Brahma Sutras (Brahmasutras) Commentary:**
- **Sutra 1.1.1**: The Brahma Sutras start with "Athato Brahma Jijnasa,"
which translates to "Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman."
Shankaracharya’s commentary here emphasizes the need to understand Brahman,
the ultimate reality, and addresses the role of avidya in obscuring this
knowledge.
- **Role of Avidya**: In his commentary, Shankaracharya typically describes
avidya in terms of its effects, such as causing mistaken identity and
suffering, rather than as a positive entity. For example, he describes
avidya as leading to the false perception of duality but does not always
characterize it as an active, positive force.
- **Non-Duality**: Shankaracharya emphasizes that Brahman is the only
reality and avidya is simply the veil over this truth. The focus is on
dispelling ignorance through knowledge rather than combating an independent
force of ignorance.

#### **2. Classic Upanishads**

**Chandogya Upanishad Commentary:**
- **Chapter 6, Section 1**: Shankaracharya explains the concept of avidya
as the cause of mistaken identity. He describes how individuals mistake
themselves for the body and mind rather than recognizing their true nature
as Brahman.
- **Positive Ignorance**: Shankaracharya’s commentary here does not
typically depict avidya as an active, positive force but rather as the
absence of knowledge about the true nature of the Self. The focus is on
removing this ignorance to reveal the ever-present reality of Brahman.

**Mandukya Upanishad Commentary:**
- **The Three States**: In his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad,
Shankaracharya discusses the states of consciousness (waking, dreaming, and
deep sleep) and the ultimate reality (Turiya). He uses the concept of
avidya to explain how the Self is obscured in these states but does not
present avidya as an active force.
- **Avidya’s Role**: Avidya is discussed as the source of ignorance about
the Self’s true nature, leading to the mistaken perception of the world.
Again, the treatment focuses on the lack of knowledge rather than an
independent force.

**Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Commentary:**
- **Chapter 4, Section 3**: Shankaracharya discusses the nature of Brahman
and how ignorance leads to misunderstanding. He describes avidya as
obscuring the true knowledge of Brahman but does not elaborate it as a
positive ignorance.
- **Avidya’s Nature**: In this commentary, avidya is addressed as the lack
of true knowledge, rather than as a positive entity causing illusions.

### Summary

In Shankaracharya’s commentaries on the **Brahma Sutras** and the **classic
Upanishads**, **avidya** is primarily described in terms of its
effects—such as leading to mistaken identity and the perception of
duality—rather than as a substantive, positive force. The general approach
in these texts is to emphasize the removal of ignorance through direct
knowledge of the Self (Atman) and Brahman.

#### **Key Points:**
- **Absence of Positive Ignorance**: Shankaracharya does not typically
define avidya as a positive, active force. Instead, he characterizes it
more as a lack or veil over the true knowledge of Brahman.
- **Focus on Knowledge**: The primary solution offered in Shankaracharya’s
commentaries is to gain true knowledge (atma-jnana) to dispel avidya, which
aligns with the idea that avidya is not a positive ignorance but rather a
lack of understanding.

Thus, **Shankaracharya’s position**, based on the commentaries on these
texts, supports the interpretation of avidya as an absence of knowledge
rather than as a positive ignorance. This interpretation aligns with the
perspective of Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, who also emphasizes that
avidya is best understood as the lack of true knowledge rather than an
independently existing positive force.