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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Durga Ji,

You must have been following the thread initiated by you. My interest now
is purely academic and hence asking you this question.

I have explained in my post to श्रीमल्ललितालालितः what I understood from
your query in your first post in this thread. I am copying here the same
for ready reference
<<  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  >>.

I believe, based on the following copied from a post by श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
earlier today that he seems to have understood your query differently.

Copied from the post by  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः  << 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 >>.

Can you please clarify which of these two correctly reflects your query. I
clarify that this is of academic interest to me and you need have no
hesitation in dismissing my interpretation as wrong if you feel so. No hard
feelings.

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
>