[Advaita-l] NOTES ON MANDUKYA UPANISHAT AND KARIKA - INTRODUCTION -1.
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 15 09:04:24 CST 2006
I found lot of typos and missing words in the post. My excuse is I am
using somebody's computer and internet facilities.
--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Brahman and Chit is Brahman and Anantam or anandam is Brahman. Chit
> cannot be seperate from sat since we are ^taking about non-existent
> chit. we are not talking about
Sat has to anantam even logically since if sat is finite, outside of
> sat should exist and therefore should be included in the sat.
> If they are only necessary qualifications - vedas would have defined
> Brahman is sat chit ananda or anantam. By converse definition I feel
> Veda mandates that there is no ^thing other than sat chit ananda or
> anantam. nothing
> Let us take the cow - what is a cow or what qualification
> cow from a horse. One cannot comeup with any one particular
> deterministic qualification - at last they define cow is that has
Cowness or gotvam. Whatis that gotvam - is it a specific attribute?
Gotvam is considered as deterministic qualification of a cow. But what
is that gotvam? Vedanta Deshika says it is an integrated qualification
of all cow qualifications put together that peceiver sees in all cows -
it is its jaati laxaNa. It is different from horseness of the horse or
goatness of the goat. This is gathered by experience after seeing
sajaati and vijaatis. What is this gotvam - ultimately it is that cow
has - and what is a cow and cow is that which has gotvam. We have a
> Vedanta Deshika says it is an integrated qualities of all other
> attributes, by which can distinguish the jati. This is gained by
> experince. "What is well established by experience is undeniable" TMK
> The problem is there is no specific 'gotvam' attribute and other than
> defining 'gotvam'of cowness is that which cow has - it is a circular
> defintion since there is no swarUpa laxana for cow.
Sorry for the confusion arising in my communication.
> No object in the unverse can have swarUpa laxana since the substantive
> of the object is only Brahman.
> I will try to present this in a coherent form. Ultimately only
> can have swarUpa laxaNa.
> Hari OM!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list