kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 14 23:51:54 CST 2006

Sree Senaniji and Yaduji - PraNAms to both of you.
Thanks for your comments. Since I am out of station, delay in my

Senaniji - After you mentioned in your private mail, I went back again
to see BhavatpAda Shankara's commentary. Yes you are right. 

There are extensive discussions as you mentioned taking blue lotus as an
example.  Yes he goes through an extended analysis that sat which is
necessary condition becomes a sufficient condition be anantam.  

I still feel that sat is Brahman itslef a necessary and sufficient
condition - In the Ch. Up it starts with Sadeva soumya idam agra Aseet.
ekamevA advitIyam. since the Vedas define in the converse form.  Sat is
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.
 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 as
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
The reason is Shree Vedanta Deshika in his tatva mukTA KalApa as well as
in his shatadhUShaNii he criticise advaita vedanta and shows that all
visheshaNas at the most are only attributive and not substantive - and
not swarUpa laxanas.  

In the tarka shastra they do talk about deterministic qualifications
which distinguishes one object from the other.

Let us take the cow - what is a cow or what qualification distinguishes
cow from a horse.  One cannot comeup with any one particular
deterministic qualification - at last they define cow is that has
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.

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 Brahman
can have swarUpa laxaNa. 

Hari OM!

--- Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- "Dr. Yadu Moharir" <ymoharir at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Namaste:
> >    
> >   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.
> >    
> >   Example:
> >    
> >   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)"
> praNAms
> What Dr. Yadu says is the reverse of what Sri Sadananda proposed. Dr.
> Yadu,
> rightly IMO, says that svAbhAvika is the more accurate of the two; but
> in Sri
> Sadananda's view svAbhAvika laxaNa is only a necessary condition,
> while svarUpa
> laxaNa is a necessary and sufficient condition implying that it is the
> more
> accurate of the two. My point was precisely that such confusion needs
> to be
> avoided.
> Meanwhile Sri Sadananda and I corresponded offline on the topic. The
> gist of
> that correspondence was that Sri Sadananda felt that it was all well
> to say
> that new precise meanings are being attributed to the two words, but
> wondered
> if there is an alternative. I suggested sampUrNa laxaNa, and recalled
> that Sri
> Sankara in his bhAshyam on taittirIyopanishat, specifically on "satyam
> j~nAnamanantam brahma" makes an argument similar to the one made by
> Sri
> Sadananda without using the two new words. Sri Sadananda pointed out
> the
> limitations of 'sampUrNa laxaNa' as an alternative and wanted to know
> the
> relevant excerpts from the AchArya's bhAshyam. Reproduced below is my
> reply to
> him giving the excerpts.
> Sadanandaji
> I have checked SA~NkarabhAshyam and here are the relevant parts.
> First, the AchArya clarifies that the adjectives apply only to the
> object -
> Brahman - and that they are not related to each other. "satyAdiSabdA
> na
> parasparam sambadhyante parArthatvAt. viSeshyArthA hi te. ata ekaiko
> viSeshaNaSabdah parasparam nirapexyo brahmaSabdena sambadhyate 'satyam
> brahma',
> 'j~nAnam brahma', 'anantam brahma' iti."
> Then he discusses the meaning of satyam as that which does not change:
> "atah
> satyam brahmeti brahmavikArAnnivartayati."
> At this stage in your treatment 'sat' is agreed as a necessary
> condition, but
> not being sufficient. The same is pointed out by the AchArya: "atah
> kAraNatvam
> prAptam brahmaNah. kAraNasya cha kArakatvam vastutvAt mridvat
> achidrUpatA cha
> prAptA atah idamuchyate j~nAnaam brahmeti." (But this could imply that
> Brahman
> is a material cause like mud, and hence inert. Therefore it is said:
> j~nAnam
> brahma.)
> Similarly he weaves infiniteness of Brahman into the commentary
> without using
> any additional technical terms. Finally, he concludes (after
> dispelling five
> doubts on the same topic) thus: "evam satyAdiSabdA itaretara
> sam.nidhau
> anyonyaniyamaniyAmakAh santah satyAdiSabdavAchyAt tannivartakA
> brahmaNo
> laxaNArthAScha bhavanti." (Thus, satyam etc. qualify each other and
> define
> Brahman.)
> Thus we see that the AchArya has avoided the usage of additional terms
> by
> pointing out the insufficiency of one of the qualifiers. On the whole,
> I
> appreciate that terminology cuts down the length of explanations, but
> the two
> new technical terms proposed in Sanskrit seem to be avoidable, and
> adding
> confusion to an already complicated field. Of course we can always
> make the
> argument similar to yours in English or any other language, without
> introducing
> new meanings to the two Sanskrit words.
> praNAms
> Senani
> P. S.: While quoting the reverred AchArya's bhAshyam above, I provided
> rough
> translations of the central meaning. I hope that I have not introduced
> any distortions.
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list