Dr. Yadu Moharir ymoharir at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 12 21:19:05 CST 2006

  Actually there is a need to separate these two and our ancestors had done this very effectively through invocation of "gaNesha".  That helps one discriminate between the two.
  The two common names that come to mind are "sumukha"  and "sanmukha".
  First being associated with the "svaruupa  (apparent - visible)" where as the latter pertains to the "svabhaava (guNa-dharma that is true)"
  A practical example become self evident if one learns to ask this question while evaluating an individual for a suitable mate for marriage.
  Getting married just because some one is pretty / handsome often can leads to disastrous results, as the apparent beauty does not last for long.  It is the good nature that can only survive the aging.
  Even if we take the example of Sugar and the sweetness and try to recognize practical aspects then one realizes that sugar is not good for everybody.  It may be harmful if you are diabetic.  Senai-Ji brings in an example of Equal.  Yes it is several times sweeter than sugar but if you are PKU (phenyl keto urea) sensitive then you shouled not be consuming it all.  Aspartic acid is known to accumulate in brain and toxicity is well documented.  They even had congressional hearings on this but in US, Industrial lobby is much more powerful than science.
  Finally, advaita is all about recognizing the truth though the most scientific discriminative tool of "neti -neti" until the truth is found and it is up the the individual the invoke the proper tools for ones own liberation (moxa).
  Just some thoughts.
  Dr. Yadu

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

--- Siva Senani Nori wrote:

> --- kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:
> > 
> > We can further differentiate the inherent qualifications as two
> types: 
> > those that are necessary (swAbhAvika laxaNa) and those that are
> > necessary and sufficient (swarUpa laxaNa). (In my recent discussions
> > with Swami ParamArthanandaji, he mentioned that such kind of
> distinction
> > has not been done before, but agreed that it should be done. He
> > suggested to use the term swarUpa for the necessary qualification
> and
> > the term swarUpa laxaNa for necessary and sufficient qualification. 
> > Here I am using swAbhAvika and swarUpa terms for each, since both
> may be
> > laxaNas). 
> I understand that Sri Sadananda does not want to be drawn into a
> discussion and
> that his terminology has the sanction of H. H. SwAmi paramArthnandajI.
> Yet, one
> question is nagging me which I pose to the learned members of this
> forum.
> One of the defects of laXaNa is said to be ativyApti, literally
> 'spreading
> beyond' [the object-set to be defined]. In the case of sugar, if
> sweetness is
> said to be the laXaNa, it suffers from ativyApti because such a
> definition
> would allow many other substances, including Equal, to be classified
> as sugar.
> C6H12O6 as a definition of sugar would not suffer from such a dosha.
> Such being
> the case is there a need to introduce two more technical terms
> swAbhAvika and
> swarUpa laXanas?
> Senani

Shree Senani - My humble praNaams. That is a beatiful comment. You are
right, If and when we know that the laxana does suffer the ativyApti. 
It is still swAbhAvika but not swarUpa. You have correctly zeroed in
the problem. If sat chit ananda is understood as swarUpa the purpose is
served. You are right on that. sweetness is still its swbhAvika dharma,
but not its swarUpa dharma. What term would you suggest to separate
just the necessary, and necessary and sufficient qualifications. 

Hari OM!

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list