ajnAna is different from jnAna-abhAva, mithyA-jnAna and mithyA-jnAna-samskAra

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

The lakshaNa of ajnAna have been explained by Chitsukhacharya as “अनादिभावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते। तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते॥”. Thus, ajnAna is bhAvarUpa, anAdi and is sublated by Atma-jnAna. Without such bhAvarUpa ajnAna, the vyavahAra “nAsti, na prakAshate” with respect to swaprakAsha-Brahman is not possible. VivaraNa explains - "अस्ति, प्रकाशते" इत्याद्यभिज्ञादिव्यवहारं प्रति पुष्कलकारणे सति--"नास्ति न प्रकाशते च" इति योऽयं आत्मतत्त्वालम्बनो व्यवहारः, सः भावरूपेण केनचित् आत्मनि आवरणमन्तरेण नोपपद्यते; सति पुष्कलकारणे असति च आवरणे, सन्निहिते घटे "प्रकाशते" इत्यादिव्यवहारदर्शनात्, अतो "नास्ति ब्रह्म, न प्रकाशते च" इति व्यवहारः अन्यथानुपपत्त्या भावरूपमज्ञानं गमयति इति अर्थापत्तिः अनुमानं वा समुदायार्थः।

ajnAna is different from jnAna-abhAva, mithyA-jnAna and mithyA-jnAna-samskAra

Opponent: The word ajnAna is made by combining नञ् with ज्ञान. If we take the meaning of नञ्  as abhAva, then ajnAna will refer to jnAna-abhAva. If we take the meaning of नञ्  as virOdhI, then ajnAna will refer to jnAna-virOdhI i.e. mithyA-jnAna. And if bheda is the meaning of नञ्, then ajnAna will refer to mithyA-jnAna-samskAra i.e. samskAra which gives rise to mithyA-jnAna. Either of the three can obstruct the illumination of Brahman and can ensure the vyavahAra "नास्ति न प्रकाशते च". Therefore, there is no need to imagine a bhAvarUpa-ajnAna. [VivaraNa Prameya Sangraha: page 71-72]. VivaraNa says -  ननु अग्रहण-मिथ्याज्ञान-तत्संस्कारेभ्यः अन्यत् अज्ञानं नाम न पश्यामः, त एव च जीवस्य स्वयंप्रकाशमानमपि ब्रह्मस्वरूपावभासं प्रतिबध्नन्ति इति. [VivaraNa uses the word अग्रहण which is same as jnAna-abhAva].

Answer: Not so. On account of the fact that there is non-illumination of Brahman in sushupti. 

Now, it cannot be said that just as there is non-illumination of purushAntara-jnAna to a purusha, similarly, there is non-illumination of self-luminous Brahman to jIva. This cannot be said because jIva and Brahman are one in sushupti. न तावत् सुषुप्तादौ स्वयम्प्रकाशब्रह्मस्वरूपानवभासः पुरुषान्तरसंवेदनवत् द्रष्टुर्भिन्नत्वात् इति शक्यं वक्तुम्; एकत्वश्रुतेः। 

Further, mithyA-jnAna cannot be pratibandhaka in illumination of Brahman in sushupti, because mithyA-jnAna itself is absent in sushupti. नापि मिथ्याज्ञानप्रतिबन्धात्; तत्र तस्य अभावात्।  

Further, mithyA-jnAna-samskAra just cannot be pratibandhaka, because mithyA-jnAna-samskAra is never an obstruction to tattva-avabhAsa. It is seen in the world that despite there being rajata-bhrama-samskAra, there is shuktikA-jnAna. नापि तत्संस्कारप्रतिबन्धात्; भ्रान्तिसंस्काराणां तत्त्वावभासप्रतिबन्धकत्वाभावात्, सत्स्वपि रजतभ्रमसंस्कारेषु शुक्तिकावबोधदर्शनात्.

Further, jnAna-abhAva i.e. agrahaNa can never be pratibandhanka. Because, if swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva is meant by jnAna-abhAva, then swarUpa-jnAna being nitya, there can never be its abhAva. And if jnAna-abhAva other than swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva is meant by jnAna-abhAva, then that is not capable of obstructing swaprakAsha-Brahma-tattva-avabhAsa. Otherwise, there would be contingency of obstruction even in mukti. VivaraNa Prameya Sangraha says on page 73-न तावत् स्वरूपज्ञानस्य नित्यस्य अभावः संभवति। अन्यज्ञानाभावस्तु न स्वयंप्रकाश-ब्रह्मतत्त्व-अवभास-प्रतिबन्ध-क्षमः अन्यथा मुक्तौ-अपि प्रतिबन्धप्रसङ्गात्। VivaraNa says on page 63 - नापि अग्रहणप्रतिबन्धात्; स्वरूपग्रहणस्य नित्यत्वात्, स्वयंप्रकाशमाने संवेदने तद्विषयकादाचित्काग्रहणस्य अप्रतिबन्धकत्वात्. RijuvivaraNa explains - “अग्रहणमि”ति स्वरूपग्रहणाभाव:? कदाचिद् ग्रहणाभावो वा? इति विकल्प्य प्रथमपक्षं दूषयति - स्वरूपग्रहणस्य इति। न द्वितीय इति आह - स्वयंप्रकाशमान इति। तद्विषय-अग्रहणे विद्यमाने अपि स्वरूप-ग्रहण-प्रयुक्त-व्यवहार-दर्शनात् इति भावः। The logic adduced is as follows - agrahaNa can be either swarUpa-grahaNa-abhAva or kadAchid-grahaNa-abhAva. The former is impossible on account of swarUpa-jnAna being nitya. The latter is not possible either. This is so because even when there is agrahaNa of vishaya-of-swaprakAsha-Brahman i.e. objects, there is vyavahAra arising on account of swarUpa-grahaNa. This is the example of vyavahAra in mukti. kadAchid-agrahaNa is common to mukti and sushupti. In mukti, despite there being swarUpa-grahaNa-prayukta-vyavahAra, there is grahaNa-abhAva of vishaya-of-swaprakAsha-Brahman. If mere kadAchid-grahaNa-abhAva were to be the pratibandhaka of swaprakAsha-Brahman, then in mukti also, like sushupti, there would have been non-illumination. But it is seen that there is swarUpa-grahaNa in mukti. Hence, kadAchid-grahaNa-abhAva cannot be pratibandhaka either. VivaraNa-upanyAsa says on page 50 - ननु अज्ञानप्रयुक्तमावरणमस्तु, अज्ञानं तु अग्रहण-मिथ्याज्ञान-तत्संस्कार-कर्मभ्योऽन्यद् न पश्याम इति चेद् ? न । सुषुप्तावात्माऽनवभासानुपपत्तेः; न हि स्वयम्प्रकाशस्यात्मनो जडाया मनोवृत्तेर्ग्रहणशब्दिताया अभावेन अनवभासो युक्तः, खद्योताभावेनेव सवितुः । न सुषुप्तौ भ्रान्तिरस्ति । नापि संस्कारः आवरकः, भ्रान्तिसंस्कारे सत्यपि शुक्तितत्त्वावभासदर्शनात्। The logic adduced is as under - grahaNa word is used to refer jaDa manO-vritti. By agrahNa, it would mean manO-vritti-abhAva. By such abhAva, the non-illumination of Brahman is not possible. It is akin to saying that there is non-illumination of sun on account of absence of fireflies.

This is also explained by BhagvAn BhAshyakAra when He says in GItA 13.2 - तामसो हि प्रत्ययः, आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः, संशयोपस्थापको वा, अग्रहणात्मको वा ; विवेकप्रकाशभावे तदभावात् , तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः ॥ When there is a defect in the nature of tAmasika-AvaraNa such as timira-etc-defect, then there is perception of three types of avidyA namely agrahNa, samshaya-upasthApaka and viparIta-grAhaka. That is to say, when there is AvaraNa, then there is agrahaNa, viparIta-jnAna and samshaya-jnAna. This clearly shows that AvaraNAtmaka-ajnAna is different from agrahaNa, mithyA-jnAna and its samskAra. It is like blindfolding a person. When he is so blindfolded, he cannot see (agrahaNa/jnAna-abhAva), he can doubt a coconut tree for a palm tree (samshaya-jnAna) or even take a palm tree for coconut tree (viparIta-jnAna). avidyA stands here for blindfold-cloth which results in jnAna-abhAva, viparIta-jnAna and samshaya-jnAna. 

Therefore, by the reasoning adduced hereinabove, it is clear that ajnAna is bhAvarUpa and is different from jnAna-abhAva (agrahaNa), mithyA-jnAna and mithyA-jnAna-samskAra. Thus, the opponent, who is a sarva-sankara-vAdI, is refuted.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, and wow! Too much for me to fathom but I am sure I would ultimately disagree :) So, I asked Chat for a summary, translation, and refutation. Even if you choose not to respond to Chat, perhaps others will find reason to reflect on what is said ... or at least, understand what is said. 

Summary

The entry discusses the lakshaNa (definition) of ajnAna (ignorance) as presented by Chitsukhacharya and defended in Advaita Vedanta, particularly in the Vivaraṇa school. The central claim is that ajnAna is bhAvarUpa (a positive entity), distinct from jnAna-abhAva (absence of knowledge), mithyA-jnAna (false knowledge), and mithyA-jnAna-samskAra (impressions leading to false knowledge). The following points are addressed:

1. Chitsukhacharya’s Definition:

   • AjnAna is described as anAdi (beginningless) and bhAvarUpa, and it is sublated by Atma-jnAna (self-knowledge).
   • Without such bhAvarUpa ajnAna, the practical experiences (vyavahAra) like "nAsti" (non-existence) and "na prakAshate" (non-illumination) about Brahman would not be possible.

2. Opponent's View:

   • The opponent argues that ajnAna can be explained as:
     • jnAna-abhAva (absence of knowledge),
     • mithyA-jnAna (false knowledge), or
     • mithyA-jnAna-samskAra (false-knowledge impressions).
   • These alone can account for the non-illumination of Brahman and do not necessitate positing a bhAvarUpa ajnAna.

3. Rebuttal by Vivaraṇa:

   • The non-illumination of Brahman in deep sleep (sushupti) cannot be due to:
     • MithyA-jnAna, as it is absent in sushupti.
     • MithyA-jnAna-samskAra, as such samskAras do not obstruct self-revealing Brahman.
     • JnAna-abhAva, since swarUpa-jnAna (self-knowledge) is eternal and cannot have an absence.
   • AjnAna must be bhAvarUpa, akin to an AvaraNa (veiling force), which obstructs the realization of Brahman despite its self-luminosity.

4. Analogy and Support:

   • Just as a blindfold (avidyA) leads to three effects—agrahaNa (non-perception), viparIta-jnAna (misperception), and samshaya (doubt)—bhAvarUpa ajnAna is required to explain the experiences of ignorance.

5. Conclusion:

   • BhAvarUpa ajnAna is necessary and distinct from jnAna-abhAva, mithyA-jnAna, and its samskAra. This refutes the opponent's interpretation of ajnAna.

---

Translation

Chitsukhacharya defines ajnAna as:

अनादिभावरूपं यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते। तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते॥

"That which is beginningless, of the nature of existence, and is dissolved by knowledge—this is defined as ajnAna by the wise."

Vivaraṇa elaborates:

Without the presence of bhAvarUpa ajnAna, practical experiences such as "Brahman does not exist or is not illumined" are not possible. For instance, the obstruction caused by ajnAna is akin to the veiling of an object by darkness. Without this positive obstruction (AvaraNa), Brahman would naturally reveal itself as self-luminous.

---

Refutation

The arguments posited for bhAvarUpa ajnAna can be systematically refuted as follows:

1. Conceptual Ambiguity of BhAvarUpa AjnAna:

   • Claiming ajnAna to be bhAvarUpa (a positive entity) contradicts the Advaita principle that Brahman is the sole reality and all else is mithyA (illusory). A real, positive entity of ajnAna would undermine the non-dual nature of Brahman.
   • If ajnAna is bhAvarUpa and real, how is it sublated (removed) by jnAna, which is mithyA in nature under Advaita?

2. Sushupti and AjnAna:

   • The non-illumination of Brahman in deep sleep (sushupti) can be better explained as jnAna-abhAva (absence of cognition) rather than positing a new positive entity (bhAvarUpa ajnAna). The mind, being absent in sushupti, simply fails to recognize Brahman due to lack of mental activity.
   • The analogy of a blindfold fails because it assumes Brahman’s luminosity needs an external factor to manifest. However, self-luminous Brahman does not depend on anything else for illumination.

3. AvaraNa (Veiling) and Advaita:

   • AvaraNa as a distinct entity goes against Advaita's ontological framework. AjnAna, if described as anAdi-bhAvarUpa, assumes an inexplicable nature (anirvachanIya) but gives it undue ontological status, which dilutes the non-dual premise of Advaita.

4. SamskAra and VyavahAra:

   • The claim that samskAras cannot obstruct tattva (truth) is inconsistent with the theory of mental impressions in Advaita. SamskAras do influence vyavahAra and can explain Brahman’s non-illumination in the waking and dream states.
   • The Vivaraṇa's argument dismissing samskAras as non-obstructive lacks substantiation, as samskAras are known to influence perception and cognition.

5. Logical Issues in AjnAna as BhAvarUpa:

   • If ajnAna is a positive entity (bhAvarUpa), then its relationship with Brahman must be clarified. Is it an ontological reality? If yes, Advaita collapses into duality. If it is mithyA, it cannot act as a substantive veil.

6. Gītā Reference Misinterpretation:

   • The Gītā’s reference to avidyA being tamasika and leading to effects like agrahaNa or viparIta-jnAna does not necessitate bhAvarUpa ajnAna. These effects can arise from the absence of clarity (jnAna-abhAva) within the prakṛti-based framework.

---

Conclusion

The necessity of positing a bhAvarUpa ajnAna is logically untenable within Advaita Vedanta's framework. The non-illumination of Brahman in sushupti and vyavahAra can be adequately explained by jnAna-abhAva, samskAras, or mithyA-jnAna without requiring a distinct, positive entity. The opponent's simpler explanations are sufficient and do not introduce unnecessary ontological complications. 

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCBDH4mVPc9%2B3W9aP3K55j-ju-N835xFoodD%2BtwkSs0PQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

//Too much for me to fathom but I am sure I would ultimately disagree :) So, I asked Chat for a summary, translation, and refutation. Even if you choose not to respond to Chat, perhaps others will find reason to reflect on what is said ... or at least, understand what is said.//

Please ask ChatGPT for a refutation of its own answer. And then refutation of that answer. And then refutation of that further answer. And then..

Please go through impartially all of these four-five answers by ChatGPT. And then decide which one appeals to you. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

Conclusion

The necessity of positing a bhAvarUpa ajnAna is logically untenable within Advaita Vedanta's framework. The non-illumination of Brahman in sushupti and vyavahAra can be adequately explained by jnAna-abhAva, samskAras, or mithyA-jnAna without requiring a distinct, positive entity. The opponent's simpler explanations are sufficient and do not introduce unnecessary ontological complications. 

 

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

It is really unfortunate that even AI could understand these simple things but real intelligence cannot!!  Perhaps this is due to over dependence on dry logic as against simple day to day  experience.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

Shankara accepts Avidya lesha in at least two places: BSB and BGB

Shankara says in the BSB 4.1.15:

बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत्संस्कारवशात्कंचित्कालमनुवर्तत एव ।

(The mithyAjnana, the false ignorance, even though is sublated by right knowledge, will indeed continue for a period of time, like the perception of double-moon, owing to latent impressions - samskara.)  

A corollary to the above bhashya wordings:  Since Shankara accepts that the mithyAjnana, false ignorance, is bAdhita, sublated by right knowledge, it follows that for Shankara avidya / ajnAna is a mithyA vastu, like the superimposed snake on the rope-substratum. Only that which is unreal, superimposed, can be sublated by right knowledge. Thus, the term 'mithyAjnAna' occurring in the AdhyAsa bhAshya is decidedly to be parsed as 'mithyA cha tadajnAnam cha' (ajnAnam that is mithyA) and not 'mithyA cha tat jnAnam cha' (wrong knowledge / erroneous knowledge).  

Ratnaprabha: 4.1.15 commentary glosses the word 'samskara' - latent impression - of the Bhashya as 'avidyA-lesha')

विक्षेपकाविद्यालेश एव तत्संस्कारः ।   (The projecting power, vikshepaka shakti, avidyAlesha alone is that samskara)

Thus, the claim that Shankara does not say or accept avidyalesha, is baseless as the gloss points out that the concept of avidyAlesha is expressed by the term 'samskara' by Shankara.

In the Siddhanta lesha sangraha,  Sri Appayya Dikshitendra lists a few views/definitions of the term avidyAlesha, from the works of various Advaita Acharyas:

अथ कोऽयमविद्यालेशः, यदनुवृत्त्या जीवन्मुक्तिः ?

आवरणविक्षेपशक्तिमत्या मूलाविद्यायाः प्रारब्धकर्मवर्तमानदेहाद्यनुवृत्तिप्रयोजको विक्षेपशक्त्यंश इति केचित् ।

क्षालितलशुनभाण्डानुवृत्तलशुनवासनाकल्पोऽविद्यासंस्कार इति − अन्ये ।

दग्धपटन्यायेनानुवृत्ता मूलाविद्यैवेति − अपरे ।

सर्वज्ञात्मगुरवस्तु − विरोधिसाक्षात्कारोदये लेशतोऽप्यविद्यानुवृत्त्यसम्भवात् जीवन्मुक्तिशास्त्रं श्रवणादिविध्यर्थवादमात्रम् , शास्त्रस्य जीवन्मुक्तिप्रतिपादने प्रयोजनाभावात् । अतः कृतनिदिध्यासनस्य ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारोदयमात्रेण सविलासवासनाविद्यानिवृत्तिः – इत्यपि कञ्चित् पक्षमाहुः ।

The Sankshepa shariraka takes the view that jivanmukti is only an arthavada, eulogy, for the shravana vidhi. 

Avidya lesha in the Bh.Gita bhashya:   5.13:

सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्यास्ते सुखं वशी ।

नवद्वारे पुरे देही नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन् ॥ १३ ॥

(The embodied man of self-control, having given up all actions mentally, continues happily in the town of nine gates, without doing or causing (others) to do anything at all.)

The relevant part of the Bhashya:

उत्पन्नविवेकज्ञानस्य सर्वकर्मसंन्यासिनोऽपि गेहे इव देहे एव नवद्वारे पुरे आसनम् प्रारब्धफलकर्मसंस्कारशेषानुवृत्त्या देह एव विशेषविज्ञानोत्पत्तेः । 

Even in the case of one in whom has arisen discriminating wisdom and who has renounced all actions, there can be, like staying in a house, the continuance in the body itself-the town with nine gates-as a consequence of the persistence of the remnants of the results of past actions which have started bearing fruit, because the awareness of being distinct (from the body) arises while one is in the body itself. 

It is worth noting that the Gita bhashya, just like the Brahma Sutra bhashya cited above, has the word 'samskara' in connection with the continuance of the Jnani to be in the body post-Jnanam. 

Another similarity between the two Bhashyams is on this count:

The BSB 4.1.15 has the statement that the Jnani continues to be aware of 'being in the body'.  The BGB 5.13 too has the statement that the Jnani is conscious of being in the body.  

Thus we conclude that the concept of 'avidyAlesha' (samskara - the word used by Shankara) is explicitly admitted by Shankara in at least these two instances in the Prasthana traya bhashya. What is significant is that the term 'avidyAlesha' is what corresponds to the term 'samskara' as explained by a post-Shankara Advaitin.  This proves that the concept of 'avidyAlesha' is not something introduced by post-Shankara Advaitins but very much there in the Bhashya itself, although denoted by a different technical term 'samskAra'.  

warm regards

subbu

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Ramana Maharshi says:

'The scriptures say that jnana is the fire which burns away all karma (sarvakarmani). Sarva (all) is interpreted in two ways: (1) to include prarabdha and (2) to exclude it. In the first way: if a man with three wives dies, it is asked. “can two of them be called widows and the third not?” All are widows. So it is with prarabdha, agami and sanchita. When there is no karta none of them can hold out any longer.

The second explanation is, however, given only to satisfy the enquirer. It is said that all karma is burnt away leaving prarabdha alone. The body is said to continue in the functions for which it has taken its birth. That is prarabdha. But from the jnani’s point of view there is only the Self which manifests in such variety. There is no body or karma apart from the Self, so that the actions do not affect him.'

Akilesh Ayyar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te18RbxWo7nn-45hoUf4%2BPawrCRCY7hL2B5yyDoA%3DKo1Rg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Shankara accepts Avidya lesha in at least two places: BSB and BGB

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

We have dealt with these bhAshya references umpteen times.  It has been well proven that the originator of terms like avidyAlesha, avidyAcchaye, avidyAgandha, avidyAvAsane, avidyAsaMskAra is adhyAsOpadAna vAdins i.e. mUlAvidyAvAdins.  jnAni is krutakrutya and he is brahman, brhama vidA brahmaiva bhavati.  If we want to paste any avidyAlesha to HIM then it is as good as pasting the avidyA lesha to parabrahman itself.  In all these bhAshya vAkya-s what we should understand is, by paramArtha jnAna the socalled avidyA will be completely eradicated that means there was / is / never be avidyA and ONLY Atma tattva is there and that is avidyA rahita paripUrNa / Samyak jnAna.  In this there is no question about existence of avidyA and its traces. 

[Bhaskar YR]

The second explanation is, however, given only to satisfy the enquirer. It is said that all karma is burnt away leaving prarabdha alone. The body is said to continue in the functions for which it has taken its birth. That is prarabdha. But from the jnani’s point of view there is only the Self which manifests in such variety. There is no body or karma apart from the Self, so that the actions do not affect him.'

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, answers like this aimed at those who still identifying the jnAni with his shareera and asking / doubting about his activities.  But jnAni himself knows or has the realization that ashareeratvaM is his svAbhAvika svarUpaM and he was / is / never will be kartru-bhoktru and there was never ever existence of avidyA in his svarUpa jnAna.  But still some would ask the question how jnAni can continue in HIS body, how he can ACT, how he can do bhikshAcharya etc.  for that bhAshyakAra standing in their own platform answers :  akatrAtmabodhOpi hi mithyAjnAnabAdhanena karmANyucchinatti, bAdhitAmapi tu mithyAjnAnaM dvichandrajnAnavat saMskAravashAt kanchitkAlaM anuvartata eva.  By the way it is really really very strage that those who are giving ontological status to avidyA talking about these things and at the same time arguing about Kalpita prapancha/shareera etc. by throwing the questions like do you have shareera in dream or deep sleep etc. 😊 very funny indeed. 

 

Hari Hari hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 11:13 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please ask ChatGPT for a refutation of its own answer. And then refutation of that answer. And then refutation of that further answer.

Exactly what I meant in the past two posts "quoting AI". AI is just a tool meant to serve the questioner, based on how the Q is formatted. It searches appropriate translations to cook up the dish serving it's sentient master, the questioner. I hope the truly neutral party reading such posts doesn't get carried away by such biased AI posts being called as neutral. They are anything but neutral. They borrow the mind of the questioner, so to say, clouding themselves. That was the purpose of my sending AI posts as reply to these. 

Kind rgds,

--Ananta Chaitanya

/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna

To be frank with you I too have my own doubts about the credentials of this AI's answers / observations and conclusions. Is the answer/conclusion by AI based on how we frame our question, or it is the neutral outcome of all pro-against view points stored into it. Suppose if you pose a question like : Please show me the shankara bhAshya references where bhAva rUpa avidyA substantiated and adhyAsa upAdAna kAraNa explained, instead of framing questions like doubting these very stands?? I am having these doubts as I don’t know how it operates and I don’t know how it can be used effectively to come to any meaningful conclusions by exclusively depending on outcome of these answers.

Anyway as a matter of fact we don’t have to depend on these modern technologies as we have the opinion of real intelligence which did the comprehensive studies of all possible pre, post and mUla works of bhAshyakAra.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

It is very evident that those who oppose mulavidya, avidyalesha, etc. will never ever be successful in explaining the usage of 'samskara' by Shankara. It is a thorn in their flesh. While the term samskara has been equated to avidyalesha, what other meaning can be given for the term samskara?  This term used by the bhashyakara for explaining/accounting for the jnani continuing to live has become problematic for them.

warm regards

subbu   

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66256B53EAE7A270F4FA57FC84042%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

It is very evident that those who oppose mulavidya, avidyalesha, etc. will never ever be successful in explaining the usage of 'samskara' by Shankara.

 

• As already clarified no need to read between the lines here to give the special status to avidyA saMskAra and push the theory of avidyA lesha which is an alien theory introduced by adhyAsaupAdAna vAdins. 

 

It is a thorn in their flesh.

 

 

• mulAvidyA is a dangerous tumor in shankara’s parishuddha Advaita vedAnta, it should be nipped in bud. 

 

While the term samskara has been equated to avidyalesha, what other meaning can be given for the term samskara?  This term used by the bhashyakara for explaining/accounting for the jnani continuing to live has become problematic for them.

 

Ø     Those who read and understand the samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya would clearly understand jnAni’s embodiedness (sashareeratvaM) and his individuality even after realizing his paripUrNata. 

 

• Anyway we both discussed all these things with different perspectives N’ number of times.  Let us stop our charvita charvaNa 😊

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji, Sudhanshuji, et/ al

i agree - Chat's conclusion is subjectively influenced by the question. However, the point of my Chatgpt post was not to broadcast Chat as sure fire proof of premise but only to decipher and stimulate reflection.

Personally, I think Chat's 8 points of refutation are pretty well taken; however if serious defense of these objections are demanded, I suggest the only, best responses require consultation of SSSS's many texts in Sanskrit, Kannada and English. Otherwise, Chat says it better, more completely and with a bit of repeated instruction, better researched and argued than my humble self. 

Regards, Michael

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625A1F5CF1E7EAE21ED78B484042%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

i agree - Chat's conclusion is subjectively influenced by the question.

That is why I request you to put in effort to understand the reply by Chatgpt or whatever is your source, and then present your understanding in your own words. That would also display seriousness and respect towards the person with whom you are conversing on a topic which is the summum bonum of life, namely Brahma-VidyA. Doing a cut-paste shows a casual approach. 

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Chat is certainly impersonal but that's the irony - it responds far more seriously than most individual responses and it respects the topic with more categoric responses. You and I and others have discussed these same topics over and over, round and around - I guess that's a kind of respect. But truly, with the greatest respect, I need Chat to foster appropriate replies to your thoughtful and studied challenges. Without better access to SSSS texts, depending upon my own reasoning and knowledge does not do justice to the argument. Chat helps

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:24 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Chat is certainly impersonal but that's the irony - it responds far more seriously than most individual responses and it respects the topic with more categoric responses. You and I and others have discussed these same topics over and over, round and around - I guess that's a kind of respect. But truly, with the greatest respect, I need Chat to foster appropriate replies to your thoughtful and studied challenges. Without better access to SSSS texts, depending upon my own reasoning and knowledge does not do justice to the argument. Chat helps

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBgPMFd%3D0z5rNXFW%2BqcFMooo4yX0UVcgr49gVo617V38Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bandaru Viswanath]

Namaste,

I asked chatgpt - 

Propose and refute akhyativada according to Bhamati

It started -

In Shankaracharya’s commentary Bhāmatī on the Brahma Sutras, he addresses and refutes various views that attempt to explain the nature of reality.

So, I see no reason to trust it as of now. It may improve, but it needs more training.

If we train it as much as we need it, aren't we doing exact opposite of what is required of ourselves ? We want moksha for us, not for chatgpt, right ?

May be, it gets the moksha and then thats the apocalypse.

Thanks,

Viswanath

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 8:02 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Chat is certainly impersonal but that's the irony - it responds far more seriously than most individual responses and it respects the topic with more categoric responses. You and I and others have discussed these same topics over and over, round and around - I guess that's a kind of respect. But truly, with the greatest respect, I need Chat to foster appropriate replies to your thoughtful and studied challenges. Without better access to SSSS texts, depending upon my own reasoning and knowledge does not do justice to the argument. Chat helps

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:24 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Chat is certainly impersonal but that's the irony - it responds far more seriously than most individual responses and it respects the topic with more categoric responses. You and I and others have discussed these same topics over and over, round and around - I guess that's a kind of respect. But truly, with the greatest respect, I need Chat to foster appropriate replies to your thoughtful and studied challenges. Without better access to SSSS texts, depending upon my own reasoning and knowledge does not do justice to the argument. Chat helps

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 8:37 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Michael ji.

i agree - Chat's conclusion is subjectively influenced by the question.

That is why I request you to put in effort to understand the reply by Chatgpt or whatever is your source, and then present your understanding in your own words. That would also display seriousness and respect towards the person with whom you are conversing on a topic which is the summum bonum of life, namely Brahma-VidyA. Doing a cut-paste shows a casual approach. 

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBgPMFd%3D0z5rNXFW%2BqcFMooo4yX0UVcgr49gVo617V38Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFFnh9PMoytd3B7DpTT8VtjzLE8hL92yeUNAmOK%3DFiisg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Vishwanath ji,

On Sat, Dec 21, 2024, 11:51 AM Bandaru Viswanath <tripu...@gmail.com> wrote:

It started -

In Shankaracharya’s commentary Bhāmatī on the Brahma Sutras, he addresses and refutes various views that attempt to explain the nature of reality.

So, I see no reason to trust it as of now. It may improve, but it needs more training.

If it cannot make out the author in English, how can it make sense of shAstrIya Sanskrit constructs! Someone was making mindmaps of Gita, etc, and to help him out, couple of days back i tried something off AI by giving Anandagiri TIkA in Sanskrit from Ishavasya 1 & 2. It ended up chalking out a mindma with jnAnakarmasamucchaya! :)

If we train it as much as we need it, aren't we doing exact opposite of what is required of ourselves ? We want moksha for us, not for chatgpt, right ?

This is precisely what I was telling someone offline the very first time AI was quoted here!