[Advaita-l] mithyaa / anirvachaniiya and asattva

[Naresh Cuntoor]

>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Naresh Cuntoor <nareshpc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > as putrahInA means a woman and putraH means son, so there is no
> repetition
> > >
> >
> > Surely you agree that putrahInA (vandhyaa) is not a synonym for woman.
> >
>
> I can't anything like that in my postings.
> ​​
>
>
As the quoted part of your previous message said "putrahInA means a woman
and putraH means son".

 >
>
> OK. So, you were always talking about some sentence and it's meaning while
> we all were talking about a padArtha.
> ​​
>

No we are talking about the same thing -- the meaning of the samastapada.
I just broke down the ideas conveyed by the samastapada into smaller units
to explain.


>
> > > However, what you conceive as repetition comes only after we add
> another
> > > word to the word vandhyAputraH to make a sentence. But, that must have
> > same
> > > meaning to cause it. So, vandhyAputraH sutarahitAjAtaH is a repetition
> > and
> > >
> >
> > No, the repetition occurs much earlier -- when you say putrahInAyAH
> putraH
> > (=putrahInAputraH = vandhyAputraH). In the vigraha, the first part
> > putrahInAyaH has already stated that you referring to a woman who does
> not
> > have a son.
>
>
> OK.
> ​​
>

> > Then the uttarapada adds putraH.
>
>
> So, what ? putraH doesn't mean 'a woman who doesn't have a son'.
> ​​
>

Of course it doesn't. Neither did I say so at any point.  The remaining
part of my mail clarified what I had to say. Nothing more to add.

-Naresh