[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Asked of Chatgpt: "Are there any definitions or descriptions that depict a positive ignorance in Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras or classic 10 Upanishads whether in context or otherwise?

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Micheal ji.

Do you then propose that nama and rupa, abhidhana and abhideha are distinct.
>

I don't understand whence this question is coming and what is the relevance
of this question to the discussion. Please explain.

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

//Whatever it is, asat is in my dictionary (atleast in one of the meanings
of this term) is NOT atyanta abhAva instead I would like to look at it as
per shankara's interpretation in taittireeya.  Here asat is what which
changes its colour time and again, something existing but changing and not
like shashavishANa or vaNdyAputra. //

You are putting words in BhAshyakAra's mouth. What changes - is termed by
Shankara - as asatya, not asat. Please check TaittirIya.

See what Shankara has to say about asat --

न असतः अविद्यमानस्य शीतोष्णादेः सकारणस्य न विद्यते नास्ति भावो भवनम्
अस्तिता ॥

सत् विद्यमानम् , असत् च यत्र नास्ति इति बुद्धिः ;

असत् अविद्यमानं रज्जुसर्पवद्विकल्पितं वस्तु जागरिते दृष्ट्वा

These show that asat is avidyamAna. It does not exist.

BhagvadgItA in 2.16 clearly says that that which is asat does not have any
existence. Na asatah vidyate bhAvah. So, to say that asat is something
existing which changes is incorrect and directly against Gita and
BhAshyakAra.

//  If we narrow the meaning of asat to kevala atyanta abhAva then asadvA
edam agra Asit leads to shUnyavAda and satyamchaanrutaMcha satyamabhavat
does not convey any meaningful position of asat at the beginning.//

Asat means  क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीयमानत्वानधिकरणत्वम् and not
atyanta-abhAva. So, please reframe your objection.

// I don’t know how to name it. // Again I don’t know how to term this in
technical terms. //

I am asking you to name it. Try. Just thinking something vaguely is
meaningless.

//  In short abhAva is simply lack of knowledge which I myself do not know
during bhrAntikAla hence there is no corresponding chitta vrutti with
regard to jnAnAbhAva hence it is called abhAva rUpa. //

Be specific. Is jnAna-abhAva asat or mithyA?

//again here there is tAndava nrutya of tarka which is simply goes against
our common / natural anubhava.//

There is no tAnDav nritya taking place here. These are sane and logical
discussions. Using words without defining them is gossip, loose and causal
talk. You go through the write-up carefully and come-up with informed and
rational objections.

// Whatever we submit should be in line with shruti, yukti and anubhava. //

Sir ji. Whatever I have written is in line with shruti, yukti and anubhava.

//Does mUlAvidyA is simply subjective feeling or objective existence or
subjective feeling of objective existence by the ajnAni ?? //

What is "feeling"?

mUlAvidyA is mithyA, i.e. it is appearance while being non-existence. So,
it has no objective existence.