[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Sat Jul 11 01:41:48 CDT 2015
Dear Sri Anand Ji,
Reg << In this context, akhaNDa does not
necessarily mean "without parts". It means "integral" or having only one
substantive, ekaprAtipadArthamAtra. >> .
That is what I wanted to know. Some reference where this is specifically
stated as such. Advaita Sidhi or any other.
Pranams and Regards
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> And there is no requirement that pramAtR, prameya, and pramANa must
> coincide for akhaNDAkAra vRtti to happen. In this context, akhaNDa does not
> necessarily mean "without parts". It means "integral" or having only one
> substantive, ekaprAtipadArthamAtra.
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
> > Dear Shri Chandramouliji,
> > You wrote:
> > > My contention is that the use of the word “ akhandakara vritti “ is
> > > inappropriate in respect of any objective perception ( mediate or
> > immediate
> > > ) , ( determinate or indeterminate ) . It is valid only in the context
> > > MahaVakya Janya Jnana.
> > >
> > akhaNDarthatva belongs to not just Vedic sentences and words, but also
> > laukika sentences and words. Please see the advaita siddhi summary that I
> > referred to a few days ago. The vRtti knowledge that results from such
> > sentences and words is akhaNDAkAra vRtti. So I don't see why laukika
> > sentences and words should be denied this capability of generating it. It
> > may be that akhaNDAkAra vRtti is generally used to refer to
> > jnAna, as you say, but technically even laukika words and sentences may
> > generate it. The difference, of course, is that there is no
> > in the case of laukika jnAna.
> > Anand
> > Anand
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <
> > k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >> namastE.
> >> praNaams to our beloved Sri Sadananda-ji & Sri Anand-ji.
> >> After almost a week of somewhat intensive interactions now i feel
> >> 'exhausted' - not tired, but emptied!
> >> See the word 'exhausted' here! I really mean it, in the same sense that
> >> that word was probably used originally, meaning emptied!
> >> I mean i do not have any more points to present on this issue - i have
> >> shared all that i have, dispersed in several of my emails/posts during
> >> last week or so, in one of these threads which bear the subject-line
> >> that word 'akhanDAkAra' etc.
> >> Now i wish to sit back silently and may be just read what others have to
> >> say.
> >> Of course, i am not averse to share when i do find something that i feel
> >> is worth sharing, something that i haven't shared earlier.
> >> I hope you along with all my friends in the group will understand.
> >> Thank you.
> >> *Keshava PRASAD Halemane*
> >> *mOkShakaamaarthadharmah
> >> <
> >> *janmanaa jaayatE jantu**ḥ** | samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvija**ḥ** ||
> >> vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra | brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah ||*
> >> <
> >> On Saturday, 11 July 2015 10:02 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
> >> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Ananda ji
> >> You said:
> >> -The knowledge that comes to your mind then is "this is that pot", i.e.
> >> what you see now is the same pot that you saw in your home. But the
> >> knowledge, "this is that pot" does not involve any attribute of the pot,
> >> such as color or even the special figure on it, although the recognition
> >> may have been based on attributes. It is a simple case of recognition,
> >> "this is that object", without focusing on any attribute of the object.
> >> ---
> >> I am confused by the following statements:
> >> Is recognition different from knowledge when you say - knowledge 'this
> >> a that pot' does not involve any attribute of the pot. Obviously this
> >> not any other pot but that pot implies recognition. Unless one is seeing
> >> for the first time, the cognition and recognition involves comparison to
> >> some extent current attributes with those of previous ones.
> >> Pot itself is akaara and recognition of an object as Pot itself involves
> >> attributive knowledge since it is not pot not a jug. This is that pot
> >> involves as you mentioned recognition and some common attribute of this
> >> and that pot. Without a basis of some common attributes one cannot say
> >> is that pot -
> >> Epistemological -there is always knowledge of x or y, or objective
> >> knowledge, but pure unqualified knowledge is undefinable and that is
> >> swaruupam or Braham.
> >> Hari Om!
> >> Sadananda
> 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