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

[H S Chandramouli]

Pranams श्रीमल्ललितालालितः,

Reg  << 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? >>,

I am saying that सत् is not perceived as Brahman. Can you deny that ?

Reg  << This is a vAda, where nothing wrong is spared.>>,

You are misinterpreting my statement and attributing wrong conclusions.
What can I do.
Pranams and Regards

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 1:14 PM श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> *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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>