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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

Raghav,
This is a totally different thing.
What you presented says that AtmA is neither विदित nor अविदित and is साक्षी
of all वृत्ति.
While siddhiH is telling that AtmA is known through eyes, since it is
perceivable by all instruments. The contradiction comes next, when the
other chapter tells that the sattva which is opposed to mithyAtva can not
be defined, etc.
Chandamouli,
That is unrelated too.
You are saying that सत् part of knowledge is प्रमा and घट part is
ignorance(you must say illusion, instead of ignorance though).
That was not the base of contradiction.

These confusions and this type of unclarity is based on not seeing the
original chapters of siddhiH.
I hope you see there first, then find the contradiction and then come back
to understand my reply, if needed.

I hope this is enough for this thread.


*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com


On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 9:51 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Durga Prasad ji
>
> The following bhAShya passage on kenopaniShad is also relevant to the
> topic, implying that (सर्व)प्रत्ययैरेव प्रत्ययेष्वविशिष्टतया लक्ष्यते (the
> Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions,
> as non-different from them.)
>
> The full context is given below.
>
>
> प्रतिबोधविदितं मतममृतत्वं हि विन्दते । आत्मना विन्दते वीर्यं विद्यया
> विन्दतेऽमृतम् ॥ २.४ ॥
> lt (i.e. Brahman) is really known when
> It is known with (i.e. as the Self of) each state of
> consciousness, because thereby one gets immortality. (Since) through one’s
> own Self is acquired strength, (therefore) through knowledge is
> attained immortality.
>
> Bhashya
>  प्रतिबोधविदितं बोधं बोधं प्रति विदितम् । बोधशब्देन बौद्धाः प्रत्यया
> उच्यन्ते । ।  विदिताविदिताभ्यामन्यद्ब्रह्मेत्यागमवाक्यार्थ एवं
> Pratibodha-viditam, known with reference to each state
> of intelligence. By the word bodha is meant the cognitions
> acquired through the intellect.
>
> सर्वे प्रत्यया विषयीभवन्ति यस्य, स आत्मा सर्वबोधान्प्रतिबुध्यते
> सर्वप्रत्ययदर्शी चिच्छक्तिस्वरूपमात्रः प्रत्ययैरेव प्रत्ययेष्वविशिष्टतया
> लक्ष्यते ; नान्यद्द्वारमन्तरात्मनो विज्ञानाय
> The Self, that encompasses
> all ideas as Its objects, is known in relation to all these
> ideas. Being the witness of all cognitions, and by nature
> nothing but the power of consciousness, the Self is indicated by the
> cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as non-different from
> them. There is no other door
> to Its awareness.
>
> अतः प्रत्ययप्रत्यगात्मतया विदितं ब्रह्म यदा, तदा तत् मतं
> तत्सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यर्थः
> Therefore when Brahman is known as the
> innermost Self (i.e. witness) of cognitions, then is It known, that is to
> say, then there is Its complete realisation.
>
> सर्वप्रत्ययदर्शित्वे चोपजननापायवर्जितदृक्स्वरूपता नित्यत्वं
> विशुद्धस्वरूपत्वमात्मत्वं निर्विशेषतैकत्वं च सर्वभूतेषु सिद्धं भवेत् ,
> लक्षणभेदाभावाद्व्योन्न इव घटगिरिगुहादिषु ।
> Only by accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions
> can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to
> growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in
> essence, the Self, unconditioned, and one in all beings, just as it is in
> the case of akasa (space) because of the non-difference of its
> characteristics despite its existence in pots,
> caves, etc.
>
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Jul, 2020, 4:11 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>