[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?

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji,

//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.//

You yourself made distinction right here. Nothing wrong in that. Hare's
horn and illusory snake are both non-existent. However, hare's horn does
not appear but illusory snake appears. Thus, there is some difference in
them. Not on count of existence, as both are non-existent. But only on the
count of appearance. One appears while the other does not.

And that is why they are addressed differently by using different words.
While hare's horn is termed as asat or tuchchha, illusory snake is termed
as mithyA. Both asat/tuchchha and mithyA are defined. But at the root of
the definition lies what you said -- asat does not appear while being
non-existent; mithyA appears while being non-existent.

Now, when you use the term abhAva, you should explain what do you mean? Do
you mean asat or mithyA? Both are non-existent. But what is it that you
mean?

When you say pot-abhAva, what do you mean, asat or mithyA?
When you say jnAna-abhAva, what do you mean, asat or mithyA?

To repeat the question, jnAna-abhAva, as per you, is non-existent
appearance (mithyA) OR non-existent non-appearance (asat)?

It is a very important discussion of which I never tire, because it is
these issues which had given me clarity. I used to hold ajnAna as
jnAna-abhAva without even properly knowing what exactly abhAva is.

Namaste Bhaskar ji, Acharya Sada ji,

//What is the common experience of everyone? Does the moola avidya differ
from avidya of the rope?//

MulA-avidyA is the cover-or of shuddha chaitanya. Generally, avidyA-of-rope
is considered to be cover-or of rope. However, rope being jaDa, cannot be
covered by avidyA as darkness is not covered by darkness. Only chaitanya is
covered by avidyA. Thus, in siddhAnta, what we mean by avidyA-of-rope is
basically rajju-avachchhinna-chaitanya-Avaraka-avidyA i.e. avidyA which
covers rajju-avachchhinna-chaitanya.

Now, the common experience says that mUlA-avidyA is different from this
rajju-avachchhinna-chaitanya-Avaraka-avidyA as by rope-jnAna,
rajju-avachchhinna-chaitanya-Avaraka-avidyA is seen to be destroyed but
mUlA-avidyA is seen to persist.

However, what exactly is siddhAnta here? I will expound that after first
presenting the prakriyA.

There are two prakriyA here:

(1) ajnAna is one and that is mUla-ajnAna. There are several avasthA of
this mUla-ajnAna which are called avasthA-ajnAna. These avasthA-ajnAna
cover rajju-avachchhinna-chaitanya. These avasthA-ajnAna are in tAdAtmya
with mUla-ajnAna.

mUla-ajnAna is defined as शुद्ध-ब्रह्म-आवरक-अज्ञानम्
avasthA-ajnAna is defined as आवरण-विक्षेप-शक्ति-द्वय-युक्तं
ब्रह्म-ज्ञान-अन्य-ज्ञान-नाश्यं मूलाज्ञानेन तादात्म्य-*आपन्नम् *अज्ञानम्

So, even when one avasthA-ajnAna is destroyed, there is no destruction of
mUla-ajnAna.

(2) ajnAna are many. While there is mUla-ajnAa which covers shuddha
chaitanya, there are different tUlA-ajnAna, which are not in tAdAtmya with
mUlA-ajnAna, which cover rajju-avachchhinna-chaitanya.

tUlA-ajnAna is defined as  आवरण-विक्षेप-शक्ति-द्वय-युक्तं
ब्रह्म-ज्ञान-अन्य-ज्ञान-नाश्यं मूलाज्ञानेन तादात्म्य-*अनापन्नम् *अज्ञानम्

So, even when one tUlA-ajnAna is destroyed, there is no harm to mUlA-ajnAna.

These are two prakriyA. However, at the heart of the advaita siddhAnta is
the following:-

ajnAna is one and that is mUla-ajnAna which covers shuddha chaitanya. The
vishaya of ajnAna is shuddha-chaitanya alone. However, this
ajnAna-vishayatA is not an intrinsic feature of shuddha chaitanya. Rather,
this ajnAna-vishayatA is also superimposed in shuddha chaitanya. Now, rajju
is also swarUpa-adhyasta in shuddha chaitanya and appears as an
avachchedaka of shuddha-chaitanya (like pot appears as an avachchhedaka of
space giving rise to pot-space. Similarly, rajju gives rise to
rajju-avachchhinna-chaitanya)

Now, since ajnAna-vishayatA is superimposed in shuddha chaitanya which is
delimited by rajju, rajju appears as an avachchedaka of ajnAna-vishayatA.
And hence the vyavahAra, "I don't know rajju".

Thus, rajju which is an avachchhedaka of chaitanya appears as an
avachchhedaka of ajnAna-vishayatA on account of adhyAsa of ajnAna-vishayatA
and chaitanya. And we think -- rajju is unknown.

The reality is -- it is the shuddha chaitanya which is the vishaya of
ajnAna and not rajju.

So, what exactly rajju-pramA does? Does it destroy AvaraNa which is
mUla-ajnAna?

The answer is -- No. There is AvaraNa-abhibhava and not AvaraNa-nAsha.
Rajju-pramA does not destroy AvaraNa.

It is the rajju-pramA-viraha-vishishTa-mUla-ajnAna, which gives rise to the
transaction -- "I don't know rajju". Rajju-pramA merely removes the
janakatA-avachchedaka i.e. rajju-pramA-viraha-vishishTa-tva of mUla-ajnAna
and hence such transaction -- I don't know rajju -- does not take place.

Thus, there is no destruction of AvaraNa or mUla-ajnAna, rather temporary
subduing of the capacity of mUla-ajnAna to produce its effect i.e. AvaraNa.
And that is on account of absence of avachchhedaka.

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.









On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 5:17 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> AUM, Sudhanshu ji, I'm not sure you noticed my reply to an earlier
> message:
>
> 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.
>
> --
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 4:28 PM <dwaite at advaita.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dear Michael,
>>
>>
>>
>> My point was that ChatGPT is only retrieving and summarizing the views of
>> others. It is not making any intelligent assessment of its own. (Although I
>> guess we could all be accused of doing exactly that!) And it is not itself
>> translating any Sanskrit, only taking the translations that it finds
>> online. If, for example, the majority of the material that exists online on
>> this subject has been written by followers of SSS, then it would not be
>> surprising to find that its conclusions coincide with those of SSS. Another
>> point is that many (most?) of the material written by sampradAya teachers
>> exists only in book form, so will not be available to ChatGPT. Even if it
>> has been (illegally?) programmed by scanning in all the books in print,
>> many of the truly authoritative ones will only be in Sanskrit and I have
>> grave doubts about its proficiency in that language!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* advaitin at googlegroups.com <advaitin at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf
>> Of *Michael Chandra Cohen
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2024 1:40 PM
>> *To:* advaitin at googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; Sudhanshu Shekhar <
>> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>; Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>; H
>> S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [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?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEEWpfFBKXi6vh3Q_gWh%2BttP3LWgVaCjhr02%3DevrhHwOA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEEWpfFBKXi6vh3Q_gWh%2BttP3LWgVaCjhr02%3DevrhHwOA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/005501dacd55%243170ef10%249452cd30%24%40advaita.org.uk
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/005501dacd55%243170ef10%249452cd30%24%40advaita.org.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com