[Advaita-l] akhanDaakara-vRtti‏

[Ravi Kiran]

namaste Venkatraghavan ji

Thanks, this clarifies :)

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Ravi Kiran ji,
>
> The confusion is because the same example is used in different contexts to
> convey different meanings, like the famous rope-snake.
>
> Here the context is that we are talking of the capacity of sentences to
> produce knowledge. The context is not of someone getting the knowledge and
> then verbalising that in a statement.
>
> The perceiver may have perceived "this devadatta" (A), and "that
> devadatta" (B). Just by the knowledge of A and B individually, he does not
> know A=B.
>
> Suppose some well-wisher comes along and says, "this devadatta is that
> devadatta". Until that sentence has been uttered and heard by the listener,
> he does not know A is B. Once that has been uttered and heard, *new
> knowledge* arises in the form, A is B.
>
> The well wisher's statement makes *no reference* to the underlying
> attributes of devadatta, or how the terms A and B are related - that is why
> it is an akhandArtha vAkya.
>
> Regards,
>
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jul 2015 09:52, "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> namaste
>>
>> 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
>>> attributes.
>>>
>>> The answer in certain cases, like "soyam devadatta", you can.
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>
>>> Please
>>> 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,
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>
>>> we just dont know what exactly
>>> he/she/it is.
>>>
>>
>> We do exactly know as him..
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The knowledge produced here is nishprakAraka.
>>>
>>
>> yes
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> intrusion.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>> 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
>>> object
>>> > without any attributes of that object??  What exactly does it mean
>>> > nishprakArika vrutti??  When I see a pot, I would get the 'pot'
>>> vrutti, how
>>> > 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 an
>>> > '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
>>> brahma
>>> > jnAna that is attributeless jnAna of brahman?? Since brahman is
>>> ultimately
>>> > 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/
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>