[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Sun Jul 5 00:43:25 CDT 2015

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 9:54 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Frankly for tuula avidya at least it makes absolutely no sense to me, if
> there is knowledge of an object without an attribute.
It should, because it is accepted that any vishiShTa-GYAna expects it's
cause before it, which are niShprakAraka-GYAna-s of visheShya and

Pure existence is imperceptible
​I hope you don't mean that it can't be uncovered. The uncovering is called
perception and it is well accepted for brahman too, otherwise how could
anyone become brahmaGYa.​

> and advaita does not subscribe to indeterminate perception unlike Nyaaya
> or vishishtaadvaita does.
​Wow!! If niShprakAraka-GYAna is not accepted by advaitin-s then why did
naiyAyika-s, dvaitin-s objected it and advaitin-s supported it?​

> I think Anandaji had discussed this aspect as I read before in his mail.
> As per vedanta all objects are just naama ruupa and ruupa stands for
> attributive content. The question of naama that involves naming and naming
> involves knowing and knowing involves conscious entity with attributive
> knowledge in terms of vRitti,  since substantive is Brahman - this is true
> for all objective knowledge. There is no akhada aspect here since
> attributes are differentiable.

​You are going one level up. Please, stay on vyavahAra and talk about

> If akhada is undifferentiated objective knowledge, there is no such thing
- Now if that applies to self which is attribute less then also it is not
> possible unless one talks in figurative usage of knowledge of saakshi. Even
> when I say I see something there, I have to see a form which is its
> attribute but do not have sufficient further qualifying attributes gathered
> for me to have a definitive knowledge. you have this is - knowledge which
> is indeterminate without some form of the object seen. Naamaruupaatmakam
> jagat.
> I need more explanation in order to understand what exactly it stands for.
> me tograsp.

​I'm lost here. I don't understand what you are talking of. I need more
clear version to refute or support.
I'll again remind you that you have to talk on vyAvahArika-level and count
even brahmaGYAna as vyAvahArika.



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list