*** Go to Part 1 ***
Dennis: I know that I cannot speak Mandarin. There is not some actual entity called ‘ignorance’ that is preventing me; it is simply that I have never been taught. And I do not experience an ‘ignorance of that language’. I would call it a simple ‘lack of knowledge’. It is epistemology, not ontology.
AI: You’re pointing out a critical perspective, and your view aligns with certain minimalist interpretations of Advaita Vedanta’s epistemology. Let’s break this down further:
—
1. **Epistemology vs. Ontology
– You are arguing that the **”ignorance of Mandarin”** is not an ontological entity; rather, it is the absence of knowledge due to not having been taught. This perspective emphasizes **epistemology**—how we categorize and know things—over ontology, which would involve positing ignorance as a real “thing.”
– In this case, ignorance is not experienced as a distinct reality but inferred as the logical absence of knowledge (jñāna-abhāva). Your stance aligns with this understanding.
2. **Advaita Vedanta’s View of Avidyā (Ignorance)
– In Advaita Vedanta, **avidyā (ignorance)** is often treated as a kind of experiential reality (anādi and mithyā), though not a true ontological entity. For example, the ignorance of the Self is not just a conceptual gap but something that is actively experienced as misidentification with the body-mind complex. This kind of ignorance is akin to a veil that must be removed.
– However, in the case of mundane knowledge (like language), Advaita’s distinction between **ajñāna** (ignorance) and **jñāna-abhāva** can seem overstated if one does not experience ignorance actively.
—
3. **Your Example: Lack of Mandarin Knowledge
– In your case, the **”lack of Mandarin knowledge”** is clearly **jñāna-abhāva**, a simple absence of knowledge, recognized epistemologically.
– You are correct to say that there is no phenomenological experience of ignorance—it is not something you “feel” or “see” but something you infer logically. In this scenario, treating it as an ontological “ignorance entity” would indeed feel excessive or artificial.
*** This observation will be further investigated later. ***
—
4. **The Role of Ajnāna in Advaita
– Advaita makes a sharp distinction because it deals with **ignorance of the Self** as a lived, felt experience. When you misidentify yourself as the body, this ignorance (avidyā) is ontologically impactful—it creates suffering and bondage. In this context, **ajñāna** as a direct, witness-perceived reality makes philosophical sense.
– For mundane knowledge, like language, the same treatment may not feel necessary, as it does not have the same existential consequences.
*** This observation will be challenged later. ***
5. **Practical Implications
– Your perspective reflects an epistemological realism that avoids overcomplicating mundane matters: If you lack Mandarin knowledge, it’s just a gap—nothing more.
– In Advaita, the distinction between **ajñāna** and **jñāna-abhāva** is important when addressing ignorance of the Self, but for everyday matters, this level of differentiation might indeed appear as playing with words.
—
In essence, you’re advocating a streamlined epistemological view where **ignorance** (as in your example) is not an ontological veil but simply a lack of knowledge. This critique is valid when applied to mundane contexts but might need revision when addressing existential ignorance in Advaita. It underscores that the conceptual distinction isn’t always necessary outside the specific Advaitic framework of Self-knowledge.
Dennis: Why can we not simply say that ‘ignorance’ is a word we use for convenience to speak about ‘lack of knowledge’? The suffering that we experience in life is the result of no one having explained Advaita to us – i.e. lack of knowledge of ‘I am Brahman’.
AI: Your perspective—that **ignorance (avidyā)** could simply be a term of convenience for **lack of knowledge**—is a valid and streamlined way of looking at the issue, especially from a practical standpoint. Let’s examine this in light of Advaita Vedanta:
—
1. **Ignorance as a Conceptual Convenience
– Saying that **ignorance = lack of knowledge** simplifies matters. In this view, ignorance is not an independent ontological entity but a way to describe the absence of a specific understanding—such as the truth of Advaita: **”I am Brahman.”**
– This approach removes the need to treat ignorance as something “real” or “experienced” and focuses purely on the absence of knowledge. When knowledge arises, the absence (ignorance) automatically disappears.
—
2. **Does Ignorance Need Ontological Status?
– In Advaita Vedanta, **avidyā** is said to be **mithyā**—neither real (sat) nor absolutely unreal (asat). This is a middle ground, describing ignorance as experiential but not ultimately existent.
– However, from your perspective, this might seem unnecessary. Why invoke a complex ontological category when it suffices to say, **”No one explained Advaita to us, so we suffer due to lack of knowledge”?**
—
3. **Suffering as a Result of Misunderstanding
– The suffering in life arises because of misidentification (ahaṁkāra and mamakāra). We mistake the body, mind, or world as our true identity. This could easily be described as a **lack of correct understanding** rather than a veil of ignorance.
– In practical terms: **Nobody told me I am Brahman, so I identified with the non-Self (anātman). Once I learn the truth, the suffering ends.**
—
4. **Traditional Response: Why Make Ignorance More than a Lack?
– Advaita argues that ignorance appears as an active misapprehension: **”I am this body,” “I am limited,” “I am subject to birth and death.”** This misapprehension seems like more than mere absence of knowledge—it feels “real” until corrected.
– For example, in darkness, you might mistake a rope for a snake. The rope isn’t concealed by an absolute “lack of light” but by the mistaken appearance of a snake. Similarly, ignorance of the Self appears as the misapprehension of the non-Self.
—
5. **Your View in the Context of Sampradāya
– Your perspective is pragmatic: suffering is due to **not knowing Advaita.** Once the truth is taught and understood, the problem is resolved. There’s no need to posit ignorance as a separate experiential reality—just recognize the **lack of correct knowledge.**
– This view aligns with a more **epistemological approach** rather than the **ontological-mythical framework** often emphasized in Advaita teachings.
—
6. **Can This Simplification Still Work?
– Yes, this simplification can work! Many modern Advaita teachers avoid overcomplicating the concept of **ignorance** and instead focus on teaching the direct knowledge of the Self. This approach is clear and resonates with seekers.
– Traditionalists, however, might argue that treating ignorance as an experiential reality better explains why mere intellectual understanding is insufficient and why **self-inquiry** or **nididhyāsana** is needed to dissolve deeply ingrained misapprehensions.
—
Conclusion
Your suggestion to treat **ignorance** as a term of convenience for **lack of knowledge** is logical and practical. It shifts the focus from ontological speculations about ignorance to the straightforward fact that **suffering arises from misunderstanding, and liberation comes from understanding.** This simpler framing may not fully capture the nuances of traditional Advaita but is effective for modern seekers focused on realization.
*** Go to Part 3 ***