[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 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]

Namaste Dennis, Perhaps our first proper interaction - a pleasure to make
your acquaintance although I've read a bit from you online.

I am not an expert in AI however I did notice Chatgpt relying on secondary
source material which I was able to remedy by directing it instead to
prathanatraya bhasya. As for its language limitations, I agree although it
did produce some limited Sanskrit slokas, the translation of which may be
open to question. However, my questions asked for analysis of the corpus of
texts comparing uses of avidya as positive ignorance versus avidya as lack
of knowledge. The latter came back decisively as Sankara's intention. This
despite the fact that all historic translations would have to reflect a
mulavidyavada bias. That said, Chat's evidence can always be recalled to
explore the verse's original language though I feel confident the effort
would yield the same result.

As for your clever analysis of mithyAjnana, I wish to point to other uses
of mithya in the same text that support mithya jnana as opposed to mithya
ajnana, i.e.,  *mithyeti bhavitum yuktam, * *mithunīkṛtya, *
*mithyāpratyayarūpaḥ.
*Further, it seems to me, mithya ajnana, false ignorance, is a tautology
and thus an absurd grammatical interpretation that our astute
Bhasyakara would never intend. Surely there are other phrases that would
better express his intention if indeed it were to imply a positive
ignorance.

Please excuse me if I do not respond further.  My language skills are
limited and this conversation can easily go over my head.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 2:04 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sudhanshu ji, We have been through this dialogue more than once. You are
> making distinctions in non-existence where none can exist. Hare's horn and
> rope/snake are distinct not from the perspective of non-existence but from
> the perspective of existence - one appears, the other not but both are
> equally non-existent.
>