[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Keshava PRASAD Halemane]

namastE. 
IMHO: Don't we (re)cognize blueness in blue color, only in relation to the non-blueness in all non-blue-objects . . . So, then it is all relative . . . meaning duality of contrasts or rather multiplicity of contrasts that helps us perceive . . . How do we (re)cognise empty-space ? What are the key identifying-&-distinguishing attributes / characteristics / features / properties of empty-space ? Perhaps (IMHO) by "object-abhAvatva" - earlier i cognised an-object-in-space and now that object is gone and what remains is empty-space; but no cognisable attributes, right? Maybe or may not be! The limits of a finitely-bound-empty-space may be (re)cognised by such limits, and the limits separated in space through a 'distance-measure'. So, then the concept of a distance measure can be considered as a key attribute for empty-space! Now, that is maths, geometry in particular!  
Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 


     On Monday, 6 July 2015 2:00 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
   

 Sri SadAji,
What attributes do attributes have? What is the attribute of blueness
itself? The answer has to be nothing - but still it is possible to perceive
blueness. So it is possible to perceive an attributeless thing.

If not, how can one cognise Brahman, an attributeless thing?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 6 Jul 2015 09:06, "kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Rameshji - PraNAms
>
> That was my first post -Here we are referring to jnaana phalam although
> there is no phalavyaapti for the Vedanta jnaanam.  I was told that I was
> wrong. I waited to get clarification from Swami Paramarthanadaji. In
> response to my question of what is akhandaakaara vRtti he mentioned (or to
> be more precise I heard) the Vedanta jnaana vRitti that eliminates the
> jiiva-brahma abhinnatvam and makes us understand the ekatvam. It is not
> phalam but the jnaana vRitti that eliminates the bhinnatvam of
> jiiva-brahma. I was told that I am wrong again. I am not sure if I am wrong
> or the definition is incomplete as it is claimed that it applies to
> perception of objects too.
>
> It can apply in the case of soyam devadattaH since we have two operations-
> 1. Direct perception of the current devadatta where the current attributes
> of Devadatta are involved, and 2. recollection of past perception from
> memory where that devadatta with different attributes are involved. Hence
> in the knowledge of soyam devadattaH, this is that Devadatta, the
> attributes of this and that Devadatta are to be discarded since they are
> contradictory, and only take the essence of Devadatta -The process is
> bhaagatyaga lakshana where part of it rejected  and part is retained;  the
> contradictory vishshaNaas are rejected and unifying one is filtered since
> there is only one Devadatta.
>
> Note that in the first perceived Devadatta, we do not perceive him devoid
> of attributes but with current attributes. When we recall, we recall the
> past Devadatta with past attributes. Now we use Viveka that sees
> cognitively the changeless Devadatta in the changing devadattas. Hence it
> is not direct perceptual knowledge, but can only be known by those who have
> the Viveka (who can pick up the changeless ones in the changing ones).
> Hence the example is used to understand tat tvam asi -using baadhyaayam
> samanaadhikaranam or discard the contradictory qualifications while
> retaining the essence.  Only a trained mind can do that.
>
> We also note that in the direct perception, the knowledge is always
> attributive knowledge since senses can only gather attributes.  In the
> recollection (internal perceptions) we do not have sense input, but still
> in recollecting a cow or horse we do recollect the viseshnana sahita
> viseshya , the object with attributes the recollection of cow differs from
> that of horse.
>
> When we see for the first time since we have no memory of the past, then
> the cognized object is stored with a  name . Second time perception
> involves direct perception that cause cognition and recollection from
> memory past similar attributive object and matching (sometime if the
> recollection is vague or fuzzy) the attributive content, we say,  this is a
> cow or He is Devadatta, etc. Vishishtaadvaita says the first time cognition
> is indeterminate and the second time on the cognition is determinate.
>
> The point remains however that only without the attributive content the
> object cannot be cognized – In seeing we see form of an object. But in
> hearing we have to go by the attributive sound to compare whether it is a
> cat or dog that is not seen but heard. In the case of lightning we see
> first then we hear later since we have learned that velocity of the light
> is greater than sound – even though both happened at the same time. All
> these aspects are involved in perception shabda, sparsa, ruupa, rasa and
> gandha- where sometime direct contact with the object with sparsa and rasa
> is involved for cognition and recognition.
>
> Hence I maintain  based on our experiences, that there cannot be
> perception of an object without visheshanas since by definition one object
> differs from the others because of visheshanas only.  I cannot say I have
> indeterminate perception of cat, cow and horse here – it is like blank
> perception without the attributive content. If theoretically it is
> formulated then it has no relevance to human experience.
> Therefore I am not sure what akhadaakaara vRitti in perception of unitary
> objects is.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
>  Sunday, 5 July 2015 9:49 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>
>  On Sun, Jul
>  5, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane via Advaita-l
>  <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  wrote:
>
>  namastE. praNaams
>  My Dear
>  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
>  I am continuing further on the same line of
>  thinking . . .
>  Irrespective of the object
>  being objectified, the akhanDAkAra-vrtti  always
>  corresponds to the brahmAkAra-akhanDa-vRtti
>
>
>  This would
>  mean..
>
>  akhanDAkAra-vrtti is
>  of the svayam-prakAsaka Brahma vastu alone, hence get Its
>  brahmAkAratva
>
>  since
>  akhanDAkAra-vrtti on any object does not dispel the ajnAna
>  of Brahman
>
>
>
>  which illumines the real
>  brahma-vastu in any/every/all object(s); that is the vision
>  of a brahma-jnAni - even when looking at any object the
>  brahma-jnAni sees the brahma-vastu in any/every/all objects
>  being objectified.
>
>
>
>
>  Here it is
>  understood that, because of the brahma-jnAna alone, one sees
>  the real Brahma vastu everywhere ( sarvAtma bhAva) and not
>  because of akhanDAkAra-vrtti on that object, uncovered the
>  real brahma-vastu, dispelling the ajnAna of Brahman
>
>
>
>
>  So, my understanding about the
>  akhanDAkAra-vRtti is that it goes far beyond any/every/all
>  viShEShaNas and reaches the real brahma-vastu any illumines
>  it, rather than stopping short at the level of the
>  viShEShaNas as in the case of other
>  anEka-AkAra-vRttis.
>  Keshava PRASAD
>  HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |
>  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt
>  vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah ||
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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