agnimile at gmail.com
Wed Jul 8 03:44:45 CDT 2015
The question was if it is possible to cognize an object without its
The answer in certain cases, like "soyam devadatta", you can. Please
consider the sentence soyam devadatta, leaving all notions of whatever or
whoever devadatta is.
What does that sentence, taken in isolation, convey? Do we know, just by
that sentence, if devadatta is a man, a woman, a dog, an alien? We don't.
The sentence simply conveys that there is an object called devadatta, which
is commonly referred to by the sa: and ayam padAs.
Because we don't know the attributes of devadatta, can we say that no
knowledge whatsoever is produced by the sentence?
We cannot, because that sentence produces knowledge that there is such a
common object referred to by sa: and ayam, we just dont know what exactly
The knowledge produced here is nishprakAraka.
I know you didn't address me, but I thought the explanation could be of
some use in your enquiry. If not, please accept my apologies and excuse my
On 8 Jul 2015 09:29, "Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> praNAms Sri Keshava Prasad prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> You wrote :
> > Just take it as if a vRttiH dispels ignorance of a pot, etc. but
> > doesn't objectify it's adjectives, it is niShprakArikA.
> > prakAra means adjectives. The vRtti which illuminates base, it's
> > qualities and their relation; is saprakArikA.
> My fundamental question here is can our senses cognize an object as object
> without any attributes of that object?? What exactly does it mean
> nishprakArika vrutti?? When I see a pot, I would get the 'pot' vrutti, how
> can this 'pot' jnAna would arise in mind without any attributes of that
> 'pot'?? Don’t you think the term 'pot' itself is an attribute (nAma
> rUpAtmaka vishesha) of the clay?? Is there anything that can be called an
> 'object' without recognizing / perceiving its attributes / vishesha-s?
> Don’t you think it is as good as saying: I have the
> nishprakArika(attributeless) jnAna of 'necklace', when the 'necklace'
> itself is vishesha / attribute / nAma rUpa of the 'gold' ??
> And in dAshtrAntika, can we say this nishprakArika vrutti itself is brahma
> jnAna that is attributeless jnAna of brahman?? Since brahman is ultimately
> in its svarUpa nirguNa, nirvishesha, nirvikAra !!
> Sorry to say that I am getting stuck in the basic level itself.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> 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