[Advaita-l] No Parinama in Brahman says Shankara Bhagavatpada

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Bhaskar Prabhu,

KAranatva implies change. It is irreconcilable with changelessness. So
KAranatva has to be adhyAropita in Brahman whether it is nimitta kAranatva
or upAdAna KAranatva. adhyAropita implies another entity whose properties
are adhyAropita in Brahman. Whether that "other" is avidyA in samapradAya
or MAyA in SSS's view. If that other is really other, infiniteness is
compromised. If that other is Ananya (through shakti-shaktimata), then
nishkriyatva is compromised. Only if that other is hare's horn and not even
mithya i.e. sat-asat-vilaksaNa that the nishkriyatva and infiniteness are
upheld.

I understand this pramANa theory pretty well. However, I am addressing the
root of this all. And that root is change and changeless.

Sudhanshu.

On Wed 26 Jun, 2019, 10:59 Bhaskar YR, <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> However, when there is singular changeless entity, nothing is possible.
> Neither vivarta nor pariNAma. Just think for yourself. I have been thinking
> on it since I first came across clay-pot and rope-snake. It is impossible
> in case of singular changeless entity. One needs to assume something else.
> And the moment that other thing is assumed, infiniteness of that singular
> changeless entity is compromised. If one were to say that that other entity
> is here's horn, I am ok. But the moment anything other that here's horn is
> said -- mithyAtva or illusion or dream-like or sat-asat-vilakshaNa, the
> problem comes up.
>
>
>
> praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> First of all we should keep in mind that to arrive at the conclusion that
> brahman is ultimately nishkriya / nirguNa / niravaya etc. which premise we
> are using?? The shruti is the pramANa since brahma nishkriyatva is not
> pratyaksha pramANa gOchara.  So, when you look at the shruti impartially
> the same shruti saying brahman is the nimitta and upAdAna kAraNa as well
> for the jagat is it not??  How can we ignore these shruti assertions while
> holding the only one part of shruti vAkya which says brahman is nishkriya
> as valid??  Can we adopt ‘ardha kukkuti nyAya here to understand shruti
> dictum ??  The vaividhyata of jagat  is pratyaksha pramANita while
> brahman’s nishkriyatva and nirguNatva is shabda pramANa AdhArita.  And that
> which has been established by one pramANa cannot be superseded by another
> pramANa, if that is the case then that paramANa is invalid.  So, under
> these circumstances, to understand the brahma nishkriyatva viz a viz jagat
> kAraNatva, seemingly contradictory positions,  we should follow the
> shrutyanugraheeta tarka ( the tarka should be based on shruti pramANa).
> Shruti says, idaM sarvaM yadayamAtmA, brahmaivedaM amrutaM purastAt don’t
> you think we have to reconcile all these shruti vAkya in order to
> understand brahma nishkriyatva??  The vishaya that shruti trying to
> establish is this i.e. brahman is nirguNa, niravayava, nishkriya etc.  and
> it is not the vishya of the pratyaksha pramANa.  Whereas the vishaya (
> subject matter) of  the pratyaksha pramANa is this jagat  which we are
> experiencing on day to day basis.  I think we are mixing these two
> different pramANa-s and its vishaya and getting confused.
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
>
>
>
>