[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.


> Hare's horn and rope/snake are equally non-existent. Snake does not appear
> - rope is all that appears. Thus rope/snake and hare's horn are imagined
> concepts intended to falsify reified appearance.
>

Mere rope does not and cannot appear as snake. It is rope+ajnAna which
appears as snake. Rope is incapable of appearance as snake. That is why it
is the ajnAna which covers rajju-avachchhinna-chaitanya is accepted to
appear as snake.

The distinction between hare's horn and illusory snake is only on count of
appearance. That is why Advaita Siddhi says -- सर्वत्र
त्रैकालिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वं यद्यपि तुच्छानिर्वाच्ययोः साधारणम् ; तथापि
क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वम् अत्यन्तासत्त्वम् , शूक्तिरूप्ये
प्रपञ्चे च बाधात् पूर्वं नास्त्येवेति न तुच्छत्वापत्तिः । This is common
sense also.


> Neither form exists and there is no distinction in non-existence.
>

You yourself made distinction in non-existence on the count of appearance.
That is everyone's experience also.


> If you wish to argue that snake does appear well, so does hare and so does
> horn though not in union just like rope and snake are not in union.
>

There is nothing to be made complicated here. I ask you simple question --
have you seen illusory snake? Have you seen hare's horn? The answers are
obvious.


> Any apparent union is only imagined and no different from the imagined
> example of the union of hare and horn.
>

Here it is the issue of appearance.


> Creating a third category in addition to sat and asat is not supported in
> sruti, bhasya or reason and confuses the intended purpose of the
> drstanta to falsify appearance,  it seems to me.
>

BhAshya clearly distinguishes world from hare's horn. World is not Brahman
either as it is changeable. So, a third category is obvious, which is
neither horns of hare nor Brahman.

It is clearly in accordance with Shruti. Please check NAsadIya SUkta of
Rigveda which holds the following:-

नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् |...

तम आसीत्तमसा गूहळमग्रे प्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वाऽइदम् |

It says that then there was neither sat nor asat. And yet, tamas (darkness,
ajnAna) was there. This proves that ajnAna is neither sat nor asat. This is
Shruti pramANa. This is quoted in SampradAya also.

When such Shruti PramANa in the form of Rigveda is present, it is really
sad that there are people who hold the contrary view and propagate their
illogical views in the name of Shruti.