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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com


On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 12:13 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> Durga Ji had mentioned in his post under “A”  that
>
> << Whereas Brahman is capable
> of being known by all sense organs. Thus even though Brahman has no form it
> is capable of being known >>
>
> Under “B”, it is stated that
>
> << 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.) >>.
>
> From this I understood that Brahman is stated to be perceptible under A and
> not perceptible under B. Hence the contradiction.
>

Actually, such a guess is bad, since no one can deny that सत् is brahman,
that is one in vedAntasiddhAnta and the same is captured by every करण.
That's why I asked him to elaborate.
It is possible that the contradiction is not even clear to him or the base
of contradiction is wrong.
The contradiction which appears to us is different, which is according to
सत्त्वानिरुक्तिप्रकरण.

any perception
> involves both Atman (Sat part) and anAtman (mithyA part). So in any
> statement relating to perception, reference to either of them should be
> understood contextually. Then there will be no contradictions.


You are not denying perception of सत् but you insist that the sentence
means to talk about घट part and hence सत् part becomes 'not perceived'!
That's not correct. Any sane person or opponent will immediately point that.
If you want to tell that घट is perceived by a vRtti, and the आकार of the
same is घटः सन् then how are you denying perception of सत्?
This is a vAda, where nothing wrong is spared. So, advaita siddhi will be
useless here.

> In what is
> cited by Durga Ji, reference in “A” is to the “Sat” part while the
> reference in “B” is to the mithyA part. Hence no contradiction. That was
> the import of my post. Any other information included therein was only by
> way of completion of the Sidhanta.
>

Already replied to it.

> I will not be able to understand your post as it is in Sanskrit. My
> knowledge of the same being limited, I generally take the help of
> translations or commentaries in other languages for Sanskrit texts.
>

That's ok.
Nothing serious there.
I think the translator of advaita siddhi will help you. He may have better
understanding.

Anyway, your understanding of vedAnta is not beginner-level, so why not
improve it even more by taking a few online Sanskrit classes.
It will remove your inability and help you grasp more serious works without
interference from other languages and translators.