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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Durga ji,
The sattva that is grasped by sense perception is upahita sattva, not
shuddha sattva.

It is not the ghaTa's sattva even in the cognition ghaTa: san - it is
Brahman only, just that it is not shuddha brahma, it is ghaTa upahita
brahma.

Such a sattva is not inimical to (does not overrule) ghaTa's mithyAtva - if
the sattva had revealed the ghaTa's sattva, then the ghaTa would not be
mithyA. However the sattva that is revealed is Brahman's sattva, not the
pot's.

The argument is that the sattva of the pot that would have overruled the
pot's mithyAtva is not revealed in perception. The sattva revealed in the
pot's perception is not inimical to its mithyAtva.

Regards


On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 20:35 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
>