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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:28 AM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:



>
>
>> 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.
>

You are confusing between actual kAraNa and the potentiality (a guNa) of
being kAraNa. mRt may or may not have been already a kAraNa for a ghaTa,
but you cannot deny its guNa of being one (anytime in future). Your example
of ghaTa and its material kAraNa mRt is invalid.



> Ergo, such guNa being refuted for brahman, brahman remains nirguNa.
>

How do you deny guNa in Brahman? Unless you say this jagat is adhyArOpa on
Brhamn (hence mithya) you cannot deny guNa in Brahman. On the other hand,
unless you start with Brhamn being nirguNa, you cannot hold jagat is
mithya. Which comes first? That is the interdependence we are talking here.



> 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.
>

If you say there is no anyonyAshraya , remember you are going against MS's
own acceptance and causing your own dOSha of apasiddhAnta !



> You have also quoted MS yourself to say that the other doSha also stands
> refuted.
>

Where did I say MS other dOSha is refuted? I did not even touch Tarangini.
I just quoted svarUpENa-niShEda in context of other member's conversation.



> 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.
>

Then, please tell me how do you distinguish Brahman from vandyAputra?  Your
assumption that  visheShaNa is need only between sajAtIya vastus, quite
baseless assumtion.




> 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.
>

Glad you mentioned Tai. Up.  This is not useful for you here. Do not forget
"satyaM" is interpreted as not as sat directly but as "not-asat". Do not
forget Brahman in your school is na-iti na-iti, which definitely includes
your characterization of Brhaman as as "sadbrhamn". Another instance of
apasiddhAnta?

/sv