[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]

Sudhanshuji, One citation doesn't counterbalance so many alternative
references that indicate abhava rupa being the intended meaning of avidya
in Sankara's or Sureswara's bhasya. There are better interlocutors of
Sanskrit and bhasya than myself if you wish to dive into specific examples.
I only wished to determine if your one example conclusively pointed to
Suresvara's understanding of avidya as bhavarupa. Chatgpt helped by somehow
surveying his entire corpus of texts for his usage of avidya and concluded
that abhavarupa was the sage's intended teaching. My efforts with Chatgpt
should be repeatable by anyone even more decisively with returning further
specific examples. It seems to me, that's how this issue should and can be
resolved if indeed Chatgpt returns an ample list of the term's uses. Then
specific Sanskrit verses can be examined and a conclusion drawn. Of course,
I am naive to think this issue would be resolved so easily. Perhaps the
value is not to resolve but only to investigate and inquire.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 2:40 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>