Part 1 – (This will be a multi-part post.)

This is a topic that I addressed extensively in the second ‘Confusions’ book – ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Ignorance and its Removal’ (due out by Summer 2025). But it has appeared in various guises over the past 2 or 3 months on the Advaitin List. One particular member – Sudhanshu Shekhar – has been particularly vociferous in espousing the view that they are not equivalent. He is extremely knowledgeable, especially regarding the text ‘Advaita Siddhi’, by the 16^th-17^th Century author Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, which strongly supports this idea. In ‘Confusions 2’, I strongly advise against looking at many of these post-Śaṅkara authors on the grounds that a) they are extremely difficult, often verging on incomprehensible; and b) their views, ostensibly to ‘clarify’ the views of Śaṅkara, mostly seem to do nothing of the kind, instead adding merely academic, intellectual arguments that confuse the issues.

Be that as it may, a recent post by Sudhanshu apparently stated the issues clearly so that the arguments could be examined. Unfortunately, the post contained lots of Sanskrit and was not immediately comprehensible to me, whose Sanskrit knowledge is largely limited to interpreting the Devanagari script (very slowly) and looking words up in the dictionary. Accordingly, I decided to put the text to AI (ChatGPT) for interpretation. A very interesting ‘discussion’ followed, which actually opened my mind to an aspect that had not previously occurred to me and that slightly mitigates my previous, hardline stance.

Before beginning, it is worth noting that it can be very worthwhile interacting with ChatGPT when you wish clarification on subtle points in Advaita. Its explanations are lucid and polite – elements that are not always encountered in interactions with people! It breaks everything down with headings and bullet points so that it is easy to question specific aspects.

Three negative points must be borne in mind, however. 1) There is a tendency for it to agree with most of what you say, or to find arguments that tend in your direction. 2) Its ability to find quotations (for or against your proposals) is very good BUT citations of the sources, such as Scriptural text and verse, are very frequently wrong and translations of these citations are also very frequently wrong! (Often both at the same time.) 3. It will not tell you the source of its incorrect quotations, citing ‘interpretive texts’ or similar unhelpful words.

It is therefore necessary to check quotations yourself. I have had to spend ages using transliteration tools and Google Translate, followed by searches of hard copy texts, trying to track down the correct versions. ChatGPT apologizes profusely each time I complain, but does not seem to get any better as a result.

The conclusions of this discussion will be that some ‘lacks of knowledge’ have more ‘impact’ on us than others. It is those with more impact that tend to be identified with something correspondingly more serious, which we call ‘ignorance’. ‘Ignorance’, then, is not a real entity but simply the word that we use to differentiate these ‘impactful’ situations. What may happen in such situations is that we fail to cognize things clearly and end up with a mistaken understanding. The classic example, of course, is seeing a snake where there is actually only a rope. But there is much useful discussion before we get there.

First of all, here is the original post from Sudhanshu (1^st Dec. 2024), before I embark upon the ‘translation’ and discussion. (He has given permission for me to use it in this post.)  Don’t bother if you do not initially understand it – ChatGPT will explain!

Sudhanshu is in green text.

ChatGPT is in orange text.

And my queries and comments to ChatGPT are in blue.

I will continue to make my overall observations in black.

Sudhanshu:

One should also be clear about the relationship between ajnAna and jnAna-abhAva.

JnAna-abhAva is known by pramAtA through arthApatti-pramANa/vyatirekI-anumAna. Whereas ajnAna is sAkshi-bhAsya.

How do we know about jnAna-abhAva? By the following anumAna – यत्र यत्र अज्ञानं, तत्र तत्र ज्ञानाभाव:, यन्नैवं तन्नैवम्, यथा घटज्ञानवति (घटज्ञानाभावाभाववति) मयि घटाज्ञानं नास्ति (घटाज्ञान-अभाव: अस्ति).

Thus, ajnAna is an aparOksha-vishaya being sAkshi-bhAsya whereas jnAna-abhAva is a parOksha-vishaya being non-pratyaksha pramANa-gamya.

Such beautiful subtle distinction between jnAna-abhAva and ajnAna is missed by people. VivaraNa however clinches it —

एवमुत्थितस्य ज्ञानाभावपरामर्शोऽपि ज्ञानविरोधिनोऽज्ञानस्यानुभूततया स्मर्यमाणस्यानुपपत्त्यैव प्रमीयते नानुस्मर्यते।

So conceptually, so clearly the distinction between ajnAna and jnAna-abhAva is brought out. Sheer unfortunate that people are equating these two on account of not understanding the siddhAnta elucidated in sampradAya.

ChatGPT

Here’s a translation of the passage into comprehensible English:

—

It is important to understand the distinction between **ajñāna** (ignorance) and **jñāna-abhāva** (absence of knowledge).

– **Jñāna-abhāva** is known by the knower (pramātā) through reasoning (arthāpatti-pramāṇa, postulation) or deductive inference (vyatirekī-anumāna). 

– On the other hand, **ajñāna** is directly illumined by the witness-consciousness (sākṣī-bhāsya).

How do we recognize **jñāna-abhāva**? Through the following reasoning (anumāna): 

“Wherever there is ignorance (ajñāna), there is also the absence of knowledge (jñāna-abhāva). If this is not the case, then there is no ignorance either, as in the example of a pot.” 

For instance, in a person who has knowledge of a pot, there is no ignorance of the pot (because the absence of ignorance regarding the pot is present).

Thus: 

– **Ajnāna** is a direct experience (aparokṣa-viṣaya) because it is illumined by the witness-consciousness (sākṣī). 

– **Jñāna-abhāva** is indirect (parokṣa-viṣaya) because it is established through non-direct means (non-pratyakṣa pramāṇa).

This subtle but crucial distinction between **ajñāna** and **jñāna-abhāva** is often overlooked. The **Vivaraṇa** (a traditional commentary) clarifies this beautifully:

“Even the recognition of the absence of knowledge (**jñāna-abhāva**) arises only as a result of recalling the experienced ignorance (**ajñāna**) that opposes knowledge. Without such recollection, it is not logically valid.”

Thus, the tradition (sampradāya) has conceptually and clearly explained this distinction. It is unfortunate that many fail to grasp it and mistakenly equate **ajñāna** with **jñāna-abhāva**, due to a lack of understanding of the traditional teachings.

—

This translation preserves the technicality of the original while making it easier to follow for readers familiar with Advaita philosophy.

Dennis: Does it really establish a distinction or is it just playing with words?

AI: The distinction between **ajñāna** (ignorance) and **jñāna-abhāva** (absence of knowledge) is not just a play on words but a nuanced conceptual differentiation central to Advaita Vedanta’s epistemology. Here’s why:

1. **Contextual Significance

   – **Ajnāna** refers to ignorance as a positive entity—something that actively veils or obscures true knowledge. It is directly experienced (aparokṣa) and is illumined by the witness-consciousness (sākṣī). For instance, when one says, “I do not know this,” that ignorance is something felt directly.

   – **Jñāna-abhāva** refers to the absence or negation of knowledge, understood indirectly through reasoning or inference (parokṣa). It is more about the logical state of non-existence of knowledge in a given situation, rather than a felt or experienced presence of ignorance.

2. **Method of Knowing

   – **Ajnāna** is directly known by introspection or awareness because it presents itself as an experiential reality.

   – **Jñāna-abhāva**, however, requires reasoning. You infer the absence of knowledge when there is no evident manifestation of it in a particular context (e.g., “I don’t see a pot here, therefore there is no knowledge of a pot in this location”).

3. **Philosophical Implications

   – In Advaita Vedanta, these distinctions are crucial because they deal with the process of negating ignorance and attaining self-knowledge. Treating ignorance as an experiential reality allows for its removal through inquiry, while the absence of knowledge serves to delineate the boundaries of what needs to be resolved.

   – The absence of knowledge (**jñāna-abhāva**) is a conceptual gap, whereas ignorance (**ajñāna**) is a lived experience. This subtlety helps define how ignorance is destroyed in the presence of knowledge, a critical process in Advaita’s path to liberation.

4. **Avoiding Conceptual Collapse

   – If the two were equated, it could lead to confusion about how self-knowledge (ātma-jñāna) operates. Self-knowledge does not merely fill a void of ignorance (as in jñāna-abhāva) but actively removes the veil of ignorance (ajñāna), revealing the ever-present truth of the Self.

Why It Might Seem Like “Wordplay”

The distinction can appear semantic because both concepts deal with the absence or negation of knowledge. However:

– One is phenomenological (ajñāna) and deals with the immediate experience of ignorance.

– The other is epistemological (jñāna-abhāva) and addresses the logical condition of knowledge’s absence.

By making these distinctions, Advaita Vedanta ensures clarity in its method of inquiry and resolution of ignorance. It’s not merely playing with words but dissecting experience and reasoning with precision. That said, one could argue that, for a practitioner focused solely on self-realization, such intricate distinctions may feel excessive unless they directly aid in understanding the nature of the Self.

*** Go to Part 2 ***