[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi: request for a clarification.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Durga Ji,

All perceived knowledge, gained through whichever sense organ,  consists of
two components. One is the universal/general “ existential “ (सन् aspect),
and the second is the vishesha/particular/unique aspect like pot (घट) etc.
The first one is not unique to knowledge gained through any  particular
sense organ. It is common to all knowledge. The second one is what is
grasped through a particular sense organ and is unique to that sense organ.
But mistakenly we understand only the second aspect to be the right
knowledge, completely ignoring or taking for granted the first aspect. That
is termed “Ignorance”. In fact the first one is the ever “Existing” Brahman
which is termed “Satya” or right Knowledge, while the second one is
“mithyA” or adhyAsa and is wrong knowledge.

If this is kept in mind, I think the apparent contradictions get resolved.

Hope I am making sense.
Regards

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:15 AM Durga Prasad Janaswamy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om,
> Pranams.
>
> Advaita Siddhi
>
> A.  paricCheda 1 - paricChinnatva hetUpapattih
>
> नच - रूपादिहीनतया चाक्षुषत्वाद्यनुपपत्ति: बाधिकेति - वाच्यम् ; Do not argue
> thus - Brahman, being without form, cannot be seen with eyes and thus there
> is a contradiction.
>
> प्रतिनियतेन्द्रियग्राह्येष्वेव रूपाद्यपेक्षानियमात्, सर्वेन्द्रियग्राह्यम्
> तु सद्रूपं ब्रह्म, नातो रुपादिहीनत्वेऽपि चाक्षुषत्वाद्यनुपपत्ति: Every
> sense organ is capable of revealing only that which it is designed for (for
> example, eyes can only reveal form, not sound). Whereas Brahman is capable
> of being known by all sense organs. Thus even though Brahman has no form it
> is capable of being known.
>
>
> B. paricCheda 1 - pratyaksha bAdhoddhAre sattva nirvachanam
> ननु 'सन् घट' इत्याद्यध्यक्षबाधितविषया दृश्यत्वादय - इति चेत्  If this is
> the argument (of the opponent) - The world's unreality established by
> reasons such as knowability, etc. is contradicted by direct perception of
> the kind "The pot exists".
>
> न ; चक्षुराद्यध्यक्षयोग्यमिथ्यात्वविरोधिसत्त्वानिरुक्ते: |
> No. The existence that is capable of being known through direct perception
> is not contradictory to mithyAtva. (The corollary - The existence that is
> contradictory to mithyAtva, is not perceptible.)
>
> I think I am missing something here, to me (A) and (B) look contradictory.
> Please clear my confusion.
>
> Thanks and regards
> -- durga prasad janaswamy
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>