[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]

Do you then propose that nama and rupa, abhidhana and abhideha are distinct

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 9:30 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>