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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 6:43 PM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
No, pls read shuktirUpeNa angikArAt, else you, not an advaitin, are a
shUnyavAdi as you will say that now the rajata is gone and so, shukti is
also not there. Else, if you say rajata is really rajata, I will give you
lot of shukti and you can give me rajata back. :-)

> 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.
>
I wonder if you feel that I wrote something more complicated than MS! I
didn't say that at all as you can see in the next sentence itself.
Everywhere you see the word svarUpa, you can't have the same meaning.


> 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.) .
>
Again, I too will give you shukti as material cause, can you give me rajata?


> You cannot say only nature is changing but existence does not change.
>
This is very well covered under nAsato vidyate bhAvaH nAbhAvo vidyate sataH
by Bhagavan Bhashyakara घटे विनष्टे घटबुद्दौ व्यभिचरन्त्यां सद्बुद्धिरपि
व्यभिचरतीति चेत् , न ; पटादावपि सद्बुद्धिदर्शनात्।


> 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'.
>
Not so, already answered with the example of nAmarUpAtmakaM jagat. AtmA=
svarUpa = nAmarUpa =/= (not equal to) existence.


> 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.
>

Not at all. I can say that kAryajagat is mithyA, then since kArya is
mithyA, what are you holding onto kAraNatva for?! If there is no kArya
itself, kAraNatva is mithyA is obvious. You cannot say that there is no
ghaTa, but mRt is its kAraNa and hold on to kAraNatva for mRt! mRt remains
without the guNa of being the ghaTakAraNa. Ergo, such guNa being refuted
for brahman, brahman remains nirguNa. There is clearly no anyonyAshraya
here. In any case, anyonyAshraya has been refuted by MS with your own
acceptance by saying MS avoids it by talking of svarUpa instead. You have
also quoted MS yourself to say that the other doSha also stands refuted.

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.
>
I don't want to use your rUpa here, else you will imagine more doShas
thinking that I accept whatever rUpa means for you; lets agree that its
sadbrahman. We will call it exactly nirvisheSha, nirguNa, as per Shruti.
Now sattA is guNa for you as a visheShaNa not for an advaitin...

> Doesn't sadrUpa is also a viShEShaNa?
>
No no, sat is lakShaNA. This kind of visheShaNa you think it is, is needed
only when separating one from other. We don't have any notion of additional
brahman or any thing other than brahman, so we don't need any vyAvartaka.
Anywhere there is sat, that sat is brahma alone. For you, if jagat is sat,
we will take away sat from it as it is brahman and then you will be left
with jagat which you can no longer call sat as it is only nAmarUpa then and
therefore mithyA. Refer bhAShya under Tai. Up. mantra satyaM jnAnamanantam
brahma. All this pUrvapakSha is not new to Advaitin, Bhagavan Bhashyakara
has already refuted it.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen