[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?

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

> That is really some analysis...needs some deeper contemplation in the light of tarka to write anything meaningfully 😊  

> Whatever it is, asat is in my dictionary (atleast in one of the meanings of this term) is NOT atyanta abhAva instead I would like to look at it as per shankara's interpretation in taittireeya.  Here asat is what which changes its colour time and again, something existing but changing and not like shashavishANa or vaNdyAputra.  If we narrow the meaning of asat to kevala atyanta abhAva then asadvA edam agra Asit leads to shUnyavAda and satyamchaanrutaMcha satyamabhavat does not convey any meaningful position of asat at the beginning.

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

>  The pot abhAva means, earlier I have seen the pot on the table and after sometime it is not there, so on the table pot is not there now, it is called pot abhAva.  I have the knowledge of the pot (as I have see it earlier on the table) but physical existence of the pot is not there now, hence I say pot abhAva.  I don’t know how to name it.  

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

>  I don’t know anything about pot, not even something that can be called  as 'pot' it is called Pot ajnAna, when some one say there is an object called pot, I understand that there is a thing called pot and there is no corresponding vrutti in the shape of pot that would occur in my mind as I have absolutely no idea how pot looks!!.  This is the difference between absence of pot and absence of knowledge of pot.  Again I don’t know how to term this in technical terms.  

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

>  jnAna abhAva is just like above (should not be taken literally ) like in  :  abhAva of knowledge of pot....I don’t know whether there is rope, my first impression in mind also does not say there is abhAva jnAna of rope resulting in seeing the snake.  Instead of avidyA (jnAnAbhAva) adhyAsa itself first holds sway in our day to day transactions making me to see snake.  Is it not??  

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.

>  In short abhAva is simply lack of knowledge which I myself do not know during bhrAntikAla hence there is no corresponding chitta vrutti with regard to jnAnAbhAva hence it is called abhAva rUpa.  

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.

>  again here there is tAndava nrutya of tarka which is simply goes against our common / natural anubhava.  I am afraid the stretching of this example would ruin the very beauty of this analogy in the context of AtmAnAtma.  When bhAshyakAra giving these examples do you think he was just dealing with partial avidyA by keeping intact the mUlAvidyA??  Do you think he was just literally dealing with something like rope-snake to drive home the point satyAnruta mithuna which is exclusively restricted to second level avidyA i.e. tUlAvidyA??  Definitely I don’t think so.  Whatever we submit should be in line with shruti, yukti and anubhava.  And tarka should not be kevala shushka tarka it should sufficiently have the backup of shruti and lOkAnubhava.  If we see these analogies in the light of this, adhyAsa is quite natural to human mind and that is the main problem / obstacle to understand what exactly is there.  bhUta vastu yathArtha jnAna. 

>  Anyway, I must confess here I am not familiar in tarka shAstra to understand your big big nomenclatures on avidyA.  I would like to see these things on simple lOkAnubhava and shruti pratipAdita tarka for mananaM.  Sri SSS used to emphasize in his works that for manana part we should rely on lokAnubhava and shruti sammata tarka not mere intellectual curvatures😊 He also mentions that nowadays in Advaita manana means mere tarka and sAdhana means mere yOga sAdhana and no scope for shrutyanugraheeta tarka/manana and sAdhana.  Anyway would like to look into it with more detail and try to understand it.  If anything comes to my mind definitely I shall share with you.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar