ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 8 03:52:39 CDT 2015
Agree with the explanation below, with slight difference..
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> PraNAms Bhaskarji,
> The question was if it is possible to cognize an object without its
> The answer in certain cases, like "soyam devadatta", you can.
> 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.
In this example, isn't the person having direct perception of devadutta,
makes this statement, "soyam devadatta" ?
( indicating that he is the same "devadutta" that he knew from years
before, though he has grown old, put on weight etc )
If he had not know devadatta before, how can he say that, he is the same as
the one I see now ?
> 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
> he/she/it is.
We do exactly know as him..
> 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
> > without any attributes of that object?? What exactly does it mean
> > nishprakArika vrutti?? When I see a pot, I would get the 'pot' vrutti,
> > 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
> > '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
> > jnAna that is attributeless jnAna of brahman?? Since brahman is
> > in its svarUpa nirguNa, nirvishesha, nirvikAra !!
> > Sorry to say that I am getting stuck in the basic level itself.
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 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