[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A smart inference by Shankara

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // Sir, please go through the text carefully. avidyA is defined to be
anAdi and vinAshI. If it were to be bhAva, then like ghaTa, which is both
vinAshI and bhAva, it would have been sAdi. That is violation with
definition.

Hence, it is concluded that avidyA is not bhAva. This anumAna is the
bAdhaka in the bhAvatva of avidyA //,

 I am probably reproducing your own quote in one of your earlir posts

// न च – अभावविलक्षणाविद्यादौ भावविलक्षणत्वमसम्भवि, परस्परविरोधादिति –
वाच्यम् ; भावत्वाभावत्वयोर्बाधकसत्त्वेन तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ
परस्परविरहव्यापकत्वरूपविरोधासिद्धेः, परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वरूपस्तु विरोधो
नैकविरहेणापरमाक्षिपति । //.

Notice ** तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ **.
Regards

On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 6:39 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji.
>
> //I meant that in this specific context, bhAva vilakshaNa of avidyA in the
> lakshaNa statement context, bhAva refers exclusively to Brahman
> ** अनादिभावरूपत्वे सति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम् **. Here avidyA considered
> is अनादि.//
>
> Our discussion is within this context only. And here only all my argument
> is adduced as stated in previous e-mail. BhAva in bhAva-vilakshaNa refers
> to Brahman, vyAvakArika and prAtibhAsika avidyA-kArya excluding four
> abhAvAs and obviously tuchchha.
>
>
> Reg  // Here, there is bAdhaka sattva for bhAvatva of avidyA by the
>> anumAna -- विनाशी #भावः सादि:, #घटवत्. This shows that ghaTa has
>> bhAvatva. Thus, vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya has bhAvatva //,
>>
>> //That is exactly the point. Here avidyA considered is सादि.//
>>
> Sir, please go through the text carefully. avidyA is defined to be anAdi
> and vinAshI. If it were to be bhAva, then like ghaTa, which is both vinAshI
> and bhAva, it would have been sAdi. That is violation with definition.
>
> Hence, it is concluded that avidyA is not bhAva. This anumAna is the
> bAdhaka in the bhAvatva of avidyA.
>
> This anumAna shows that ghaTa has bhAvatva as meant in the lakshaNa
> bhAva-vilakshaNa.
>
> Hence, your claim that bhAva in the lakshaNa refers exclusively to Brahman
> is erroneous.
>
> Regarda.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAf4TiqYE3n%2BqYqLyiPf3YuoJGcARPR1nPmD5vVTq6rwA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAf4TiqYE3n%2BqYqLyiPf3YuoJGcARPR1nPmD5vVTq6rwA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>