[Advaita-l] Two Advaitic verses with a profound combined purport
Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 4 12:36:14 EDT 2019
Namaste Praveen ji
That was excellently put. Thank you for taking the time and effort to
present it so well.
On Thu 4 Apr, 2019, 8:58 PM Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 6:43 PM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
> > Everything said by you later is in contradiction to the above refutation
> >> itself with an assertion in the end so: shUktirUpyAdau cha angikArAt.
> > How can it be? When you negate rajata, you are negating very svarUpa of
> > rajata, meaning the material silver is negated along with all its rUpa.
> No, pls read shuktirUpeNa angikArAt, else you, not an advaitin, are a
> shUnyavAdi as you will say that now the rajata is gone and so, shukti is
> also not there. Else, if you say rajata is really rajata, I will give you
> lot of shukti and you can give me rajata back. :-)
> > But, this acceptance of negation by svarUpa of this world, will render
> >> the
> >> > world to null and reduced to utter non-existence (asat).
> >> There goes another literal interpretation! Take the word
> >> for example. What do we understand by it? nAmarUpe AtmA (#AtmAnau would
> >> mean dvaita for a dvaitin!)= svarUpaM yasya jagataH tat jagat. If
> >> were to say nAmarUpAtmakajagat mithyA, a dvaitin will suddenly jump and
> >> say
> >> AtmA has been called as mithyA! What it really means for an advaitin
> >> though
> >> is that AtmA/svarUpa of the world is nAmarUpa which itself cannot come
> >> about without a sadbrahma as adhiShThAna. If you interpret svarUpa as
> >> brahman, no one denies that for jagat.
> > Thank you for agreeing svarUpa of this jagat = Brahman. When MS denies
> > very svarUpa of this jagat, it is equivalent to denying Brahman.
> I wonder if you feel that I wrote something more complicated than MS! I
> didn't say that at all as you can see in the next sentence itself.
> Everywhere you see the word svarUpa, you can't have the same meaning.
> > Yet, here svarUpa is not in the
> >> sense of adhiShThAna at all. The nature of the world is a changing
> >> that doesn't mean that existence is changing.
> > Again, when you negate very svarUpa of rajata, you are negating material
> > existence of silver along with all its nature (such as shining-ness
> etc.) .
> Again, I too will give you shukti as material cause, can you give me
> > You cannot say only nature is changing but existence does not change.
> This is very well covered under nAsato vidyate bhAvaH nAbhAvo vidyate sataH
> by Bhagavan Bhashyakara घटे विनष्टे घटबुद्दौ व्यभिचरन्त्यां सद्बुद्धिरपि
> व्यभिचरतीति चेत् , न ; पटादावपि सद्बुद्धिदर्शनात्।
> > Remember the 'sva' in the term svarUpa indicates which is self-same
> > nature. If you hold svarUpa can change without existence not necessarily
> > being changed, then you are diluting the notion of 'sva'.
> Not so, already answered with the example of nAmarUpAtmakaM jagat. AtmA=
> svarUpa = nAmarUpa =/= (not equal to) existence.
> > Again, pls understand shUktirUpyAdau cha angikArAt in a better way. The
> >> kAraNatva of brahman is also mithyA for an advaitin, as nirguNa brahman
> >> has
> >> no kArya outside of it for it to become kAraNa;
> > Unless you hold brahman is nirguNa you cannot say kAraNatva of brahman is
> > also mithyA. Unless you negate this jagat (by negating kAraNatva of
> > and its kArya jagat) you cannot say Brahman is nirguNa. That is the very
> > issue of anyOnyAshrya pointed out in nyayAmrita my friend.
> Not at all. I can say that kAryajagat is mithyA, then since kArya is
> mithyA, what are you holding onto kAraNatva for?! If there is no kArya
> itself, kAraNatva is mithyA is obvious. You cannot say that there is no
> ghaTa, but mRt is its kAraNa and hold on to kAraNatva for mRt! mRt remains
> without the guNa of being the ghaTakAraNa. Ergo, such guNa being refuted
> for brahman, brahman remains nirguNa. There is clearly no anyonyAshraya
> here. In any case, anyonyAshraya has been refuted by MS with your own
> acceptance by saying MS avoids it by talking of svarUpa instead. You have
> also quoted MS yourself to say that the other doSha also stands refuted.
> advaitavAda is not mAyAvAda no matter howmuchever dvaitins yell at the top
> >> of their voice from rooftops, since the commitment is to sadbrahma, not
> >> mAyA.
> > In that case your Brahman is sadrUpa-brahman. Do not call nirviShESha
> > brahman.
> I don't want to use your rUpa here, else you will imagine more doShas
> thinking that I accept whatever rUpa means for you; lets agree that its
> sadbrahman. We will call it exactly nirvisheSha, nirguNa, as per Shruti.
> Now sattA is guNa for you as a visheShaNa not for an advaitin...
> > Doesn't sadrUpa is also a viShEShaNa?
> No no, sat is lakShaNA. This kind of visheShaNa you think it is, is needed
> only when separating one from other. We don't have any notion of additional
> brahman or any thing other than brahman, so we don't need any vyAvartaka.
> Anywhere there is sat, that sat is brahma alone. For you, if jagat is sat,
> we will take away sat from it as it is brahman and then you will be left
> with jagat which you can no longer call sat as it is only nAmarUpa then and
> therefore mithyA. Refer bhAShya under Tai. Up. mantra satyaM jnAnamanantam
> brahma. All this pUrvapakSha is not new to Advaitin, Bhagavan Bhashyakara
> has already refuted it.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list