[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Advaita in capsule form - Chatgpt. Nice one

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbuji & Aravinda ji,
Chatgpt has produced a rich study. I find it valuable to forensically
discover lurking bhavarupa avidya assumptions. I started to respond to
issues, mithya definition etc. and then I thought why not ask Chatgpt 5.0
to refute Subbuji's Chat with strict adherence to Prasthanatraya Bhasya,
Upadesha Sahasri, Gaudapada Karikas and Sureswara's writings. .

The effort taught me some things - machine learning :) -- Perhaps of
interest to others.

Nice — good, careful summary you pasted. I’ll *refute / correct* it
strictly from how the *Prasthānatrayī* bhasya tradition actually treats
these points (Śaṅkara’s *Prasthāna-trayī-bhāṣya*, *Upadeśa-sāhasrī*), plus
Gaudapāda’s *Māṇḍūkya-kārikā* and Śaṅkara’s pupil Sureśvara (
*Naiṣkarmya-siddhi*). I’ll keep this tightly documentary: state the
oversimplification or error, then give the corrective (with the classical
justification). I’ll mark the *load-bearing claims* and cite the primary
sources right after each corrected point.
------------------------------
0 — Quick headline of the refutation

Your summary reads like a good *introductory* textbook version of Advaita. *But
it repeatedly moves from descriptive to ontological claims the traditional
texts explicitly avoid or treat with much more caution.* The main errors
are (a) turning epistemic/grammatical tools into ontological statements,
(b) presenting *māyā/avidyā* as an identifiable causal power in Brahman,
and (c) treating “vivarta” and “mithyā” as simple, univocal categories
rather than technical, context-sensitive doctrines (anirvacanīya-khyāti /
adhyāsa / ajātivāda). These are precisely the issues Shankara, Gaudapāda
and Sureśvara wrestle with. (vedantastudents.com
<https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
Shlokam <https://shlokam.org/mandukya-karika/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>, Tom
Das
<https://tomdas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/naiskarmya-siddhi-by-sri-suresvara-aj-alston-translation.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
)
------------------------------
1 — “Mithyā = ‘neither sat nor asat’” — true but incomplete and misleading

*What you said (oversimplified):* jagat is mithyā because it is neither
absolutely real (sat) nor absolutely non-existent (asat).

*What the texts say (correction):* Śaṅkara and the early Advaita tradition
indeed use a middle category, but they *technicalize* it: the world is
called *anirvacanīya / mithyā* because it *cannot be strictly described
ontologically* in the twofold vocabulary *sat*/*asat* — and because its
status must be explained in terms of *levels of truth* and *error theory
(khyāti/adhyāsa)*, not by simply saying “dependent on ignorance.”
Shankara’s introduction (Adhyāsa-bhashya) treats the problem as primarily
epistemological: *we* superimpose, and therefore the world’s status is
indeterminate from the absolute standpoint. The point is not merely
“neither-nor” as an ontological classification but a *methodological* and
epistemic claim about how knowledge and negation work. (vedantastudents.com
<https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
)
------------------------------
2 — “The world depends on ignorance (avidyā) for its being” — illicit
ontologizing of avidyā

*What you said (oversimplified):* the world “depends on Brahman and on
ignorance (avidyā) for its being” — i.e., avidyā is a causal projector.

*Textual correction:* Śaṅkara uses the rope–snake image and *adhyāsa* to
explain how the world is *experienced*, but he (and especially Sureśvara)
are very careful *not* to make avidyā into a standard ontological cause
that exists in Brahman as a property (for that raises the paradox of how
ignorance can be in the absolutely luminous Brahman). Instead, *avidyā* is
characterized as *anirvacanīya* (indescribable / neither real nor unreal)
and as an epistemic condition — beginningless in empirical experience and
removable by jñāna — not a *real* power that produces the world in the way
prakṛti produces effects in Sāṃkhya. Sureśvara develops this point:
mithyā/avidyā cannot be treated as an ordinary causal entity (that would
contradict Brahman’s purity). The correct classical wording is cautious:
the world is experientially dependent on Brahman as substratum, and *avidyā*
is the *explanans* of misapprehension, not a positive ontic production
within Brahman. (vedantastudents.com
<https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
Tom Das
<https://tomdas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/naiskarmya-siddhi-by-sri-suresvara-aj-alston-translation.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
)
------------------------------
3 — “Vivarta = apparent modification of Brahman” — Shankara avoids
committing to a metaphysical transformation language

*What you said (oversimplified):* Advaita “posits vivarta (apparent
modification) — Brahman appears as the manifold world.”

*Textual correction:* Gaudapāda and later Advaitins develop *vivarta*-language,
but *Śaṅkara’s chief move is methodological*: he explains the appearance by
*adhyāsa* (superimposition) and classifies the world as anirvacanīya. He
avoids, in many places, a blunt metaphysical claim that “Brahman becomes
the world” (which would be parināma). Gaudapāda’s *Māṇḍūkya-kārikā* pushes
the doctrine further with the *ajātivāda* thesis (non-origination): the
world is ultimately not even born — what appears is never a real
production. This is stronger than “vivarta” understood naïvely. So the
proper scriptural posture is: *Gaudapāda: non-origination;* *Śaṅkara: error
theory / adhyāsa / anirvacanīya* — do not simply translate this into
“Brahman appears as world” without the technical qualifications. (Shlokam
<https://shlokam.org/mandukya-karika/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
vedantastudents.com
<https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
)
------------------------------
4 — Levels of truth: not just a tidy three-box taxonomy

*What you said (oversimplified):* “Paramārthika / Vyavahārika (and
pratibhāsika)” — mithyā belongs to empirical level.

*Textual correction:* Yes, the two/three levels taxonomy is used, but its
*function* in Śaṅkara is to *explain the pragmatics of soteriology and
scriptural statements*, not to give a flat ontology. Shankara treats
*mithyā* as *anirvacanīya* relative to *paramārtha* and meaningful in
*vyavahāra*; Gaudapāda’s and Śaṅkara’s usage of *pratibhāsika* (illusory)
is technical. In other words: the texts insist you must keep *standpoint*
(drishti) in view — epistemic posture determines which predicates apply.
Simply saying “mithyā belongs to the empirical level” loses the emphasis
the texts place on how *negation* operates at the higher level (sublation,
not destruction). (vedantastudents.com
<https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
Shlokam <https://shlokam.org/mandukya-karika/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>)
------------------------------
5 — Causality and empirical efficacy: the subtleties Sureśvara exposes

*What you said (oversimplified):* The jagat “appears and causes effects” —
so it can’t be asat.

*Textual correction:* Sureśvara (and Śaṅkara) concede empirical efficacy,
but they *carefully argue* about the status of causal proof from
anirvacanīya appearances. In *Naiṣkarmya-siddhi* Sureśvara analyses whether
a mithyā entity can serve as a pramāṇa (evidence) or kāraṇa in the ordinary
sense; he shows the need to distinguish *levels*: mithyā can have
*vyavahārika* causal efficacy (i.e., it functions within transactional
reality), yet it cannot serve as an ontologically primary cause in the
paramārthika sense. Suresvara’s treatment is technical: one cannot
cavalierly move from “works empirically” to “is ontologically real” without
destroying the central thesis that Brahman is the sole absolute. So your
summary is right about empirical efficacy but omits Suresvara’s careful
qualifications. (Tom Das
<https://tomdas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/naiskarmya-siddhi-by-sri-suresvara-aj-alston-translation.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
vedantastudents.com
<https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/19-Naishkarmya-Siddhi-Volume-19.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
)
------------------------------
6 — The rope–snake and dream analogies — correct but partial

*What you said:* rope–snake, dream, mirage examples show mithyā.

*Textual correction:* Śaṅkara uses all these analogies, but the *function*
of the analogies in his bhasya is to illustrate *the epistemic dynamics of
error and the method of negation (adhyāropa-apavāda)*. Gaudapāda’s argument
from dream to jagat is deployed to show *ajātivāda* (non-birth) and to
defend the claim that the waking world is not ultimately produced. So the
analogies are not merely pedagogical — they anchor technical claims about
non-origination and the limits of empirical inference. The summary’s casual
analogy-use understates how those analogies feed into formal arguments in
the *Prasthānatrayī* tradition. (vedantastudents.com
<https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
Shlokam <https://shlokam.org/mandukya-karika/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>)
------------------------------
7 — On moral/ethical consequences and soteriology — stronger emphasis in
the texts

*What you said (objection reply):* “At empirical level karma still
operates, so not nihilism.”

*Textual correction:* Śaṅkara and *Upadeśa-sāhasrī* give much stronger,
methodical reasons: *ethical life (dharma), karma, and sādhanā are
indispensable* because they purify the mind to make jñāna possible. The
texts don’t merely patch moral practice onto an ontological theory; they
embed ethical practice into the epistemic prerequisites for liberation.
Presenting the moral reply as an afterthought (i.e., “it’s okay because
empirical laws still operate”) understates the central textual claim that
ethical and ritual disciplines are necessary in the vyavahāra domain to
prepare for paramārthika realization. (Internet Archive
<https://archive.org/details/upadesa-sahasri-with-english-translation-swami-jagadananda-1949-rkm?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
)
------------------------------
8 — Two technical pitfalls your summary slides into (and the strict
text-based corrections)

   1.

   *Pitfall — Saying “avidyā projects the world” (as if avidyā is a causal
   power):*
   *Correction:* The bhasyas treat avidyā as *anirvacanīya* and epistemic —
   not an ordinary ontological generator. If you make it a real causal power
   you create a dualism (Brahman + real ignorance) the texts explicitly try to
   avoid. (vedantastudents.com
   <https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
   Tom Das
   <https://tomdas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/naiskarmya-siddhi-by-sri-suresvara-aj-alston-translation.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
   )
   2.

   *Pitfall — Presenting vivarta/parināma as simple alternatives:*
   *Correction:* Gaudapāda’s *ajātivāda*, Śaṅkara’s adhyāsa +
   anirvacanīya-khyāti, and Sureśvara’s technical analysis are *not* simple
   synonyms of “apparent transformation.” Each carries different argumentative
   weight: *ajātivāda* → absolute non-birth; *adhyāsa / anirvacanīya* →
   error-theory with staged negation; *vivarta* language appears but is
   tightly regulated by the other two. You can’t reduce all three to “Brahman
   appears as the world.” (Shlokam
   <https://shlokam.org/mandukya-karika/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
   vedantastudents.com
   <https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
   )

------------------------------
9 — Short, corrective synthesis (how to re-phrase your short answer
strictly per the texts)

Write it like this to match *Śaṅkara / Gaudapāda / Sureśvara*:

The jagat is *anirvacanīya / mithyā*: epistemically effective in the
vyavahāra (transactional) standpoint but not sat in the paramārthika sense.
Its apparent reality is explained by *adhyāsa* (superimposition) — the
cognitive misattribution that depends on avidyā — while Gaudapāda’s
*ajātivāda* insists no true ontological origination occurs. *Avidyā* itself
is treated as beginningless and *anirvacanīya* (not a positive ontic power
in Brahman), and Sureśvara shows how these distinctions preserve both
empirical efficacy and the sole absoluteness of Brahman. (
vedantastudents.com
<https://vedantastudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/06-Adhyasa-Bhashyam.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>,
Shlokam <https://shlokam.org/mandukya-karika/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>, Tom
Das
<https://tomdas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/naiskarmya-siddhi-by-sri-suresvara-aj-alston-translation.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
)

------------------------------
10 — Offer / next step

If you want, I’ll do one of these next (pick one and I’ll deliver it
immediately):

   -

   *A. Line-by-line scriptural corrections:* show the actual short passages
   from Śaṅkara’s *Adhyāsa-bhashya* / *Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya*, Gaudapāda’s
   *Māṇḍūkya-kārikā* (key kārikās + gloss), *Upadeśa-sāhasrī* extracts, and
   Sureśvara’s *Naiṣkarmya-siddhi* passages that justify each correction —
   with brief one-line explanations. (I’ll cite the exact passages.)
   -

   *B. A tight rewriten “one-paragraph” version of your whole summary that
   is strictly faithful to those texts’ vocabulary and caveats.*
   -

   *C. A point-by-point line-refutation that quotes the relevant
   sutra/verse and gives the exact place in the bhasya where the text
   contradicts each sentence in your original summary.*

Which of A / B / C would you like? (If you pick A or C I’ll show the
passages + precise citations right away.)



On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 7:40 AM Aravinda Rao <karavind09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Very nice Subbu ji,
> It is good for a presentation. Recently, I made a query asking AI to
> compare Madhu brahmanam of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Buddhist
> doctrine pratitya samutpada. I did not expect it to give any answer but it
> gave a very cogent essay. I am realizing that we can use AI, though with
> caution.
> Regards,
> Aravinda Rao
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 8:26 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6895610531a48191b926b465b4e8bbdf
>>
>> https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6895662111b481919b3eb48e4185fb2f
>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1MPrh3BXQec_vO%3DV9bsQiiVydVbKjmTcvH7iv8JkSyRg%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1MPrh3BXQec_vO%3DV9bsQiiVydVbKjmTcvH7iv8JkSyRg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAGwUMpT%3DvTW-HAD1iPxhe2nvYY_60uX35%2Bd2uUpkNkkBxi636Q%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAGwUMpT%3DvTW-HAD1iPxhe2nvYY_60uX35%2Bd2uUpkNkkBxi636Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>