[Advaita-l] NOTES ON MANDUKYA UPANISHAT AND KARIKA - INTRODUCTION -1.

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

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

> 
> --- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >              NOTES ON MANDUKYA UPNISHAD AND KARIKA
> > 
> > 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!
Sadananda