[Advaita-l] Two Advaitic verses with a profound combined purport

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:52 AM Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Srinathji,
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:32 AM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Madhusudhana Sarswati will not agree with you.
> >
> > In AS, his recourse to objection from Dvaitin is to accept  "svarUpENaiva
> > niShEdha" of this prapancha.
> >
> > He takes this route to avoid the anyOnyAshrya raised in Nym.  wide ;
> >
> > nApi dwitIyaH : - abhAdhyatvarUpa pAramArthikatvasya bhAdhyatvarupa
> > mithyAtvaniruNyatvEna, anyOnyAShrayat | pAramArthikatva-syApi
> > svarUpeNa niSEdhE, prathamapaxOkthadOshapthi: athaH: tasyApi
> > pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaE anavastA iti chEt –
> >
> > myvam – svarUpENaiva trikAlikaniShEdhasya, prapanchE sukthi rUpyAdau cha
> > angikArAth |
> >
>
> Everything said by you later is in contradiction to the above refutation
> itself with an assertion in the end so: shUktirUpyAdau cha angikArAt.
>

How can it be? When you negate rajata, you are negating very svarUpa of
rajata, meaning the material silver is negated along with all its rUpa.


>
>
> > But, this acceptance of negation by svarUpa of this world,  will render
> the
> > world to null and reduced to utter non-existence (asat).
>
> There goes another literal interpretation! Take the word nAmarUpAtkajagat,
> for example. What do we understand by it? nAmarUpe AtmA (#AtmAnau would
> mean dvaita for a dvaitin!)= svarUpaM yasya jagataH tat jagat. If advaitin
> were to say nAmarUpAtmakajagat mithyA, a dvaitin will suddenly jump and say
> AtmA has been called as mithyA! What it really means for an advaitin though
> is that AtmA/svarUpa of the world is nAmarUpa which itself cannot come
> about without a sadbrahma as adhiShThAna. If you interpret svarUpa as
> brahman, no one denies that for jagat.


Thank you for agreeing svarUpa of this jagat = Brahman. When MS denies the
very svarUpa of this jagat, it is equivalent to denying Brahman.



> Yet, here svarUpa is not in the
> sense of adhiShThAna at all. The nature of the world is a changing nature,
> that doesn't mean that existence is changing.
>

Again, when you negate very svarUpa of rajata, you are negating material
existence of silver along with all its nature (such as shining-ness etc.) .
You cannot say only nature is changing but existence does not change.
Remember the 'sva' in the term svarUpa indicates which is self-same nature.
If you hold svarUpa can change without existence not necessarily being
changed,  then you are diluting the notion of 'sva'.



>
>
> > Then, since
> > advaita holds identity between kArya jagat with kAaaNa Brahman, such
> > svarUpa niShedha makes the kAraNa Brahman also equally asat at the end.
> >
> Again, pls understand shUktirUpyAdau cha angikArAt in a better way. The
> kAraNatva of brahman is also mithyA for an advaitin, as nirguNa brahman has
> no kArya outside of it for it to become kAraNa;


Unless you hold brahman is nirguNa you cannot say kAraNatva of brahman is
also mithyA. Unless you negate this jagat (by negating kAraNatva of brahman
and its kArya jagat) you cannot say Brahman is nirguNa. That is the very
issue of anyOnyAshrya pointed out in nyayAmrita my friend.






> That's the problem with mAyavAda my friend.
> >
> advaitavAda is not mAyAvAda no matter howmuchever dvaitins yell at the top
> of their voice from rooftops, since the commitment is to sadbrahma, not
> mAyA.
>

In that case your Brahman is sadrUpa-brahman. Do not call nirviShESha
brahman. Doesn't sadrUpa is also a viShEShaNa?

/sv