[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?

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Michael Chandra Cohen prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Thanks for asking this question and getting the reply.  With this I am sure we have one more follower of Sri SSS’s perspective and that is Chatgpt.  😊

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

On behalf of Bhaskar prabhuji, I asked Chatgpt, " as per the adhyAsa context explained in adhyAsa bhAshya during the flow of thoughts by this adhyAsa bhAshya writer, whether splitting the word ‘mithyAjnAna’  as mithya+ajnAna or mithyA+jnAna is more appropriate?"

In the context of **Adhyasa Bhashya** (a commentary on the concept of superimposition or adhyasa), the question of whether to split the term **mithyājnāna** as **mithyā + ajñāna** or **mithyā + jñāna** is crucial for understanding the nature of ignorance (avidya) in Advaita Vedanta.

### **Understanding the Splits**

1. **mithyā + ajñāna**:
   - **mithyā**: This means "false" or "illusory." It refers to something that is not real or not ultimately true but appears to have some form of existence.
   - **ajñāna**: This means "ignorance" or "lack of knowledge." It denotes a lack of true knowledge about reality.

   **mithyā + ajñāna** would imply that the ignorance (ajñāna) itself is false or illusory (mithyā). In other words, it characterizes ignorance as being of a false nature, implying that ignorance itself is an illusion or a mistaken perception.

2. **mithyā + jñāna**:
   - **mithyā**: Again, this means "false" or "illusory."
   - **jñāna**: This means "knowledge" or "awareness."

   **mithyā + jñāna** would suggest "false knowledge" or "illusory knowledge," implying that the knowledge we have is not true or correct.

### **Adhyasa Bhashya Perspective**

**Adhyasa Bhashya** is a commentary by Adi Shankaracharya that explains the concept of adhyasa, or superimposition. According to Shankaracharya's explanation:

- **Adhyasa (Superimposition)**: Adhyasa is the error of attributing properties of one thing to another. It is the mistaken perception of the world as separate from Brahman.

- **Mithyājnāna**: In this context, mithyājnāna is used to describe the nature of ignorance. Shankaracharya uses the term to denote the kind of knowledge that is not true. This indicates that ignorance (avidya) itself is not just a lack of knowledge but a false or mistaken form of knowledge that leads to erroneous perceptions and superimpositions.

**Which Split is More Appropriate?**

**mithyā + ajñāna** is more appropriate in this context. Here’s why:

- **Nature of Ignorance**: In Advaita Vedanta, ignorance (ajñāna) is not merely a passive lack of knowledge but is characterized as a mistaken perception or a false view of reality. This makes it **mithyā**, or illusory.

- **Superimposition**: The concept of adhyasa involves the projection of false attributes onto Brahman. Thus, the ignorance that causes this projection is itself seen as false or illusory. Therefore, **mithyā + ajñāna** effectively captures the idea that the ignorance responsible for superimposition is not merely a lack of true knowledge but is a form of mistaken or false knowledge.

- **Alignment with Shankara’s Commentary**: Shankaracharya’s analysis in Adhyasa Bhashya supports this view by explaining that ignorance leads to the illusion of duality and multiplicity. Ignorance is described as an active, erroneous force that causes the superimposition of unreal attributes onto the real Brahman.

### **Conclusion**

In the context of the **Adhyasa Bhashya** and traditional Advaita Vedanta, **mithyā + ajñāna** is the more appropriate split for understanding the nature of ignorance. This split emphasizes that ignorance (ajñāna) is itself a form of false or illusory knowledge (mithyā), aligning with Shankaracharya’s explanation of how ignorance functions as a mistaken perception that leads to the superimposition of false attributes onto the ultimate reality, Brahman.



On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 7:39 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelchandra108 at gmail.com<mailto:michaelchandra108 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Chatgpt is Artificial Intelligence! It has consulted translations of Brahma Sutra and classic Upanishads although I have not asked for specific citations. Exhaustive citations for the Brahma Sutras support Chatgpt's findings can be found in the link below from Hacker's study in Halbfas, Philology and Confrontation, chapter 4
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pCvQ-Y36h3xqii-JlcMtJxiAdO1FOMIV/view?usp=sharing

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 7:25 AM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com<mailto:bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>> wrote:
praNAms
Hare Krishna

Sorry, please bear with my ignorance.  What is this Chatgpt??  Who answered these queries??  What is the background of the scholar who is answering this query?? BTW, the answers / clarifications provided below OK with me 😊 the quotes and references conspicuously missing the quote from adhyAsa bhAshya which is the main source to some to prove bhAvarUpa avidyA and which is the material cause for adhyAsa.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

BHASKAR YR

From: Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelchandra108 at gmail.com<mailto:michaelchandra108 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 10:16 AM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org<mailto:advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>>; Advaitin <advaitin at googlegroups.com<mailto:advaitin at googlegroups.com>>
Cc: Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com<mailto:sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>>; Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com<mailto:bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>>
Subject: 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?

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook.
See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.
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.