Tag Archives: Knowledge

Pratiyogin

Posted on by
6

In connection with my recent series of posts on the topic of whether ignorance is a separately existent entity or simply means ‘absence of knowledge’ (https://www.advaita-vision.org/ignorance-or-absence-of-knowledge/), I am posting the result of my further discussions with ChatGPT on the related topic of ‘pratiyogin’.

You may well never have heard the word before and my view is that this should not overly concern you! It probably means that you have never (attempted to) read anything written by Madhusūdana. The text for which he is probably best known is Advaita Siddhi, which I have mentioned in the Confusions books as being virtually incomprehensible. I recently purchased his commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā (called Gūḍhārtha Dīpikā) because he translates every word prior to his comments. And I was dismayed to find, as early as his commentary on 2.16, the opening:

The asat, unreal is that which is delimited by time (kāla), space (deśa) and matter (vastu); as for instance a pot, which is subject to origin and destruction, is delimited by the (two) times, the before and the after (of its period of existence), it (pot) being a counter-correlative of its antecedent nonexistence (prāgabhāva) and nonexistence after destruction (dhvaṃsābhāva). And so on…

At least Swami Gambhirananda has the grace to translate this translation:

That is to say, the pot does not exist before production and after destruction.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 16

Posted on by
Reply

Part 15

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-2 Aitareya Upanishad
6-2-1 Aitareya 1.3.13 and 1.3.14
Ai 1.3.12 in chapter 5 has described the entry of Brahman in the body of jivA. The embodied Brahman is jivAtmA. The sentient jivA is a combination of consciousness (AtmA) and mind-body. And AtmA is not different from Brahman. It is an Upanishadic Great Statement ( Mahavakya). A jivA however forgets this fact due to the veiling power of mAyA. It is Self-ignorance. Sometimes, a jivA because of his punyAs earned in previous lives and the current life can get a qualified teacher who out of compassion imparts Brahm-knowledge. The student realizes Brahman as ‘id’ meaning ‘this’, i.e., his Self. The Upanishad calls the knowledge Idandra. As an adorable entity is not called by its direct name, the Upanishad uses the name Indra (not the deity Indra). The message is that by performing virtuous deeds as per scriptural injunctions, a jivA will one day develop mental maturity to know the futility of worldly goals and turn to spirituality and get Self-knowledge with the blessing of a teacher.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 7 (Final)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 6 ***

The following question is concerned with the notion that ‘absence of a thing’ is an existent entity (another strange notion of post-Śaṅkara texts). This also formed an aspect of the discussions on the Advaitin List. It begins with my asking ChatGPT to translate the Devanagari text that formed part of the post by Sudhanshu on 6th Dec. 2024.

Dennis: Could you translate this argument into understandable English, please:

चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।

AI: Here’s a simplified translation of the argument in understandable English:

We are discussing four types of “absence” (*abhāva*), starting with **mutual absence** (*itaretara-abhāva*). For example, the absence of a pot (*ghata*) is not the same as the pot itself. The absence of a pot is something else entirely, like a cloth (*paṭa*) or another object. In other words, the absence of the pot is not the nature of the pot itself—it is identified with something else, like the presence of the cloth.

Continue reading →

Upadesha SahAsri Chapter 19 Conversation between AtmA and the mind (Part 1)

Posted on by
2

Introduction It is a ‘dialogue’ between AtmA and the mind. AtmA is free from action. As such the dialogue is figurative. Nevertheless, it is a unique method of nidhidhyAsanA which is the third phase of jnAna yoga after sravan and manan. The aspirant has clear knowledge of AtmA and he needs to assimilate it to make it a living knowledge. The aspirant knows that his essential nature is consciousness which is different from the mind. The locus of knowledge is the mind. It is a peculiar situation where the mind tells itself that the real nature of the aspirant is consciousness which is different from the mind. The mind has to further tell itself that consciousness is changeless and eternal whereas the mind is mithya. It is as though the mind splits in two parts, one part takes the role of AtmA, the subject and the other part is the mind, the object. AtmA uses the mind to talk to the mind and while talking, considers Itself different from the mind. There are Upanishad’s sayings that a knower of Brahman is Brahman and AtmA is Brahman. A Self-realized person and AtmA are used interchangeably. In some verses, there are repetitions of the same idea. Repetition is not a defect when the teachings are complex and are to be assimilated.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 6

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 5 ***

Dennis: You said earlier that:

<< 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. >>

But, no – I do not ‘infer’ that I do not speak Mandarin. I know that I do not have knowledge of Mandarin – it is as simple as that.

AI: Thank you for clarifying! Let’s address this with precision.

You are absolutely right: in your case, **knowing that you do not speak Mandarin** is a direct cognition, not an inference. This does not involve any need to postulate a hidden ignorance or make an inferential leap. It is simply a recognition of the absence of knowledge—a direct awareness of what you lack.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 15

Posted on by
Reply

Part 14

 

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha

6-2 Aitareya Upanishad

6-2-1 Aitareya 1.3.13 and 1.3.14
1.3.12 in chapter 5 has described the entry of Brahman in the body of jivA. The embodied Brahman is jivAtmA. The sentient jivA is a combination of consciousness (Atma) and mind-body. And Atma is not different from Paramatma (God). It is an Upanishadic Great Statement ( mahAvAkya). A jivA however forgets this fact due to the veiling power of mAyA. It is Self-ignorance. Sometimes, because of his punyAs earned in previous lives and the current life, a jivA can get a qualified teacher who out of compassion imparts Brahm-knowledge. The student realizes Brahman as ‘id’ meaning ‘this’, i.e., his Self. The Upanishad calls the knowledge IdAndra. As an adorable entity is not called by its direct name, the Upanishad uses the name Indra (not the deity Indra). The message is that by performing virtuous deeds as per scriptural injunctions, a jivA will one day develop mental maturity to know the futility of worldly goals and turn to spirituality and get Self-knowledge with the blessing of a teacher.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 5

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 4 ***

Dennis: Does Śaṅkara actually state that adhyāsa is the effect of causal avidyā in his Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.2? If so, what are his actual words and the translation?

AI: In his commentary (*Bhāṣya*) on Gauḍapāda’s *Māṇḍūkya Kārikā* 1.2, Śaṅkara indeed connects **adhyāsa** with **avidyā** as its cause. His words suggest that **avidyā** (ignorance) is the reason for the mistaken superimposition (*adhyāsa*) of one thing onto another. Let’s examine this carefully with the original text and its meaning.

—

### **Text from Śaṅkara’s Bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda Kārikā 1.2**

The verse from Gauḍapāda’s *Kārikā* reads:

> **अद्वयम् अस्पृष्टं वचसामगोचरं। अज्ञानात् सर्वजीवेषु व्यापारोऽयम् अनादि:।** 

> (*Advayam aspṛṣṭaṁ vacasām agocaraṁ. Ajñānāt sarvajīveṣu vyāpāro ’yam anādiḥ.*) 

**Translation of the verse:** 

“The non-dual (Brahman) is untouched, beyond the reach of speech. Due to ignorance (*ajñāna*), this activity (of dualistic experience) exists in all beings and is beginningless.”

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 4

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 3 ***

Dennis: But surely adhyāsa is the result of lack of knowledge and there is no need to postulate an existent entity called ‘ignorance. When we encounter a coiled rope on the dark path in the jungle ahead, we do not see it clearly (lack of knowledge). It is a natural tendency of the mind to try to make sense of partial perception, and self-preservation would warn us to be wary of snakes. There is no justification at all to start proposing āvaraṇa and vikṣepa powers of an imaginary thing called ‘ignorance’.

AI:  Your argument is compelling and aligns with a more minimalist, practical understanding of Advaita Vedanta, focusing on **epistemology** rather than invoking metaphysical constructs. Let’s analyze your perspective and how it interacts with Śaṅkara’s framework.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 3

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 2 ***

Dennis: You say that treating ignorance as a term of convenience for lack of knowledge “may not fully capture the nuances of traditional Advaita”. Did Śaṅkara make a clear distinction?

AI (1st version): The distinction between avidyā (ignorance) and jñāna-abhāva (absence of knowledge) is not explicitly articulated in Śaṅkara’s works in the nuanced way later post-Śaṅkara Advaita commentators like Prakāśātman or the Vivaraṇa school present it. Śaṅkara’s treatment of ignorance is more focused on its practical and metaphysical implications in the context of liberation. Here’s a closer look:

Śaṅkara’s Treatment of Avidyā

    Ignorance as the Root Cause of Bondage

        Śaṅkara consistently identifies avidyā (ignorance) as the root of saṃsāra (the cycle of birth and death). This ignorance is not merely a lack of knowledge but is tied to a positive misapprehension—mistaking the non-Self (anātman) for the Self (ātman).

        For example, in his commentary on the Brahma Sūtra (1.1.4), Śaṅkara writes:

            “Ignorance is the superimposition (adhyāsa) of the qualities of the non-Self (anātman) on the Self (ātman).”

        Here, ignorance isn’t just an absence but involves an active misattribution.

Continue reading →

Ignorance or Absence of Knowledge? – 2

Posted on by
Reply

*** 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.

Continue reading →