[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Ravi Kiran]

Isn't it important to understand why a term is defined so or the coverage
of the meaning ..? Is the term defined first and later the meaning of the
subject fit into it or based on the characteristics of the subjective
experience, the term got so-coined ?

particularly, the interest arouse, with the intent of knowing, if the term
distinctly presents the knowledge of Brahman in certain way (limited to
BrahmaGYAna alone) and if so, how it is explained ..??

Later, when understood that, it has a broader coverage (loukika as well),
and there could be some other reasons as well to define the term as defined
(which is not clear), it falls outside my scope of interest ... also,
respect whatever thought process has gone into defining the term as such...

Thanks


On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 10:09 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Why should one insist that other examples be covered under the same term
>> by
>> defining akhaNDAkAra as niShprakAra ?
>>
>
> ​Why should one play with system-specific-terms?​ Better make your
> separate system and spare us.
>
>
>
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>