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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

Venkataraghavan,
This is good.
I hope the  translator will take it from here.

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com


On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 1:13 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Durga ji,
> The sattva that is grasped by sense perception is upahita sattva, not
> shuddha sattva.
>
> It is not the ghaTa's sattva even in the cognition ghaTa: san - it is
> Brahman only, just that it is not shuddha brahma, it is ghaTa upahita
> brahma.
>
> Such a sattva is not inimical to (does not overrule) ghaTa's mithyAtva - if
> the sattva had revealed the ghaTa's sattva, then the ghaTa would not be
> mithyA. However the sattva that is revealed is Brahman's sattva, not the
> pot's.
>
> The argument is that the sattva of the pot that would have overruled the
> pot's mithyAtva is not revealed in perception. The sattva revealed in the
> pot's perception is not inimical to its mithyAtva.
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 20:35 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>