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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu JI,

avidyA is both अनादि as well as विनाशी. Hence ** तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ **.
Regards

On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 6:51 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
>> .
>>
>