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

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

I found lot of typos and missing words in the post.  My excuse is I am
using somebody's computer and internet facilities. 

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.                             we are not talking about 
>


  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
> anantam.                     nothing

 
 
> 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

Cowness or gotvam.  Whatis that gotvam - is it a specific attribute? 
Gotvam is considered as deterministic qualification of a cow.  But what
is that gotvam? Vedanta Deshika says it is an integrated qualification
of all cow qualifications put together that peceiver sees in all cows -
it is its jaati laxaNa. It is different from horseness of the horse or
goatness of the goat. This is gathered by experience after seeing
sajaati and vijaatis. What is this gotvam - ultimately it is that cow
has - and what is a cow and cow is that which has gotvam.  We have a
circular definition.   


> 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
> V-1. 
> 
> 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.

Sorry for the confusion arising in my communication. 

Hari OM!
Sadananda



> 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!
> Sadananda
>