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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Praveen ji
There was this part in your thrust and parry discussion with Srinath ji.

"On the other hand, unless you start with Brhamn being nirguNa, you cannot
> hold jagat is mithya.
>
You can start from any end and establish the other. The issue with shushka
tarka is you want to start with both together!

Which comes first?
>
As above. Take any.


That is the interdependence we are talking here.
>
The interdependence is resolved by taking refuge in Shruti."


That was an excellent reminder. Even Venkatraghavan ji alluded to a similar
idea viz., if other conditions like sAdhana chatuShTaya etc., are in order,
then shruti vAkyas have the power to directly generate the special vRtti
corresponding to advitIya brahma GYAnam ।e, of brahmAtmA as adhiSThAnam and
jagan-mithyAtvam is unassailably understood. Otherwise there is no end to
the tarkas that the dualistic mind will engender to hold on to
jagat-satyatvaM . ( if we only logically try to arrive at jagan-mithyAtvam
first independent of Shruti and then use that to *prove* nirguNatvam of
Brahman. What of Shruti then? ) There is a quantum leap at some point in
the journey of Non-dual vedAnta when citta shuddhi is there and the shruti
vAkyas come alive.

Om
Raghav

On Sun 14 Apr, 2019, 12:57 AM Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Sat 6 Apr, 2019, 02:32 Srinath Vedagarbha, <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> Since you know you can make ghaTa out of mRt, you are free to make this
> argument of potential guNa, whatever it means, but I'm saying that brahman
> has no guNa because it was never, is not and will never be a kAraNa for
> anything. Where is the potentiality?! If you insist it's there, I'll say
> that is mithyA too. Now you may want to think of how did you get to know of
> ghaTakAraNatva of mRt without ghaTa itself.
>
>
> >
> >> Ergo, such guNa being refuted for brahman, brahman remains nirguNa.
> >>
> >
> > How do you deny guNa in Brahman?
> >
> Shruti does.
>
> Unless you say this jagat is adhyArOpa on Brhamn (hence mithya) you cannot
> > deny guNa in Brahman.
> >
>
> Already explained so.
>
> On the other hand, unless you start with Brhamn being nirguNa, you cannot
> > hold jagat is mithya.
> >
> You can start from any end and establish the other. The issue with shushka
> tarka is you want to start with both together!
>
> Which comes first?
> >
> As above. Take any.
>
> That is the interdependence we are talking here.
> >
> The interdependence is resolved by taking refuge in Shruti.
>
>
> > If you say there is no anyonyAshraya , remember you are going against
> > MS's own acceptance and causing your own dOSha of apasiddhAnta !
> >
> That's your opinion. It's not even close though. There are more ways to
> solve an issue. I don't see MS accept such doSha in as many words in any
> case. It's your assuming that it is the reason he takes a particular route.
> Even so, you yourself have to accept  both that he agreed that there can be
> such a doSha and resolved it. You can't just agree with half of what MS
> said and not with the resolution, any which way.
>
>
> > Then, please tell me how do you distinguish Brahman from vandyAputra?
> >
> I don't need to since vandhyAputra is non-existent.
>
> Your assumption that  visheShaNa is need only between sajAtIya vastus,
> > quite baseless assumtion.
> >
> This argument of yours itself is baseless. Pls refer what visheshaNa means
> in kalpadruma, etc, and then revisit lakShaNa, assuming you've studied
> vyAkaraNa well. Else you may be a special case of someone who may be using
> words such as nilotpala to distinguish from another such as raktaghaTa!
>
> >
> 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".
> >
> That's only partial understanding, worse than no understanding, of course.
> Don't handpick bhAShya sentences, take that bhAshya whole.
>
> Do not forget Brahman in your school is na-iti na-iti, which
> > definitely includes your characterization of Brhaman as as "sadbrhamn".
> >
> Pls tell me what is your understanding of Advaitin's understanding of what
> is iti here. I can clearly see that you don't have the slightest idea. This
> is the issue of trying to jump to brihatprashthAna without prashthAnatraya,
> be it as apUrvapakShi!
>
> Another instance of apasiddhAnta?
> >
> Perhaps for yourself, yet another. As for me, you don't know enough of
> siddhAnta to call out apasiddhAnta.
>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>