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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

The following may be relevant also.

// अत्र ब्रूमः, रूप्योपादानाज्ञानमप्यनादिचैतन्याश्रितत्वादनाद्येव //.

To that  extant, my earlier statement

//  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.//  //

needs to be corrected. Sorry for the oversight.
Regards

On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 6:54 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
>>> .
>>>
>>