[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <
k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:

> namastE.
> praNaams to  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
>
> Let us take the example of "sOyam dEvadattaH".
> I understand that you said/implied in an earlier email/post that the
> example of "sOyam dEvadattaH" corresponds to an instance of
> akhanDAkAra-vRtti.
> Is it truly so?
> After ignoring/discarding all the irrelevant adjectives/attributes from
> both "that dEvadattaH" and "this dEvadattaH" there will remain enough
> adjectives/attributes to make that claim "sOyam dEvadattaH" and hence it
> cannot be a situation for niShprakAraka-vRtti/akhanDAkAra-vRtti, right?
> Indeed, specifically because of the availability of such common
> adjectives/attributes between the two - "that dEvadattaH" and "this
> dEvadattaH" - it enables one to make that claim that "this dEvadattaH" is
> indeed the very same as "that dEvadattaH".
>

​The words are peculiar in the sense that they don't reveal anything apart
from which the vaktA wished to say.
If vaktA just tried to convey oneness of devadatta as one, then they don't
present any other quality of him.
Say, when I say that 'ghaTa is red', I just want to convey the idea of
redness of a specific pot. Whether the pot has parts, or not, or it is
hard, soft, etc. is not intended to be said. So, even if they are present
there, there could be no shAbdavRtti of that AkAra. So, just because vastu
is sakhaNDa, it doesn't make GYAna sakhaNDa. GYAna becomes sakhaNDa when it
reveals the vastu as sakhaNDa.

BTW​, if there is no possible akhaNDAkAra-GYAnam in this world(apart from
brahmaGYAnam), then the objection of dvaitin-s would be there could be only
sakhaNDa-GYAna of brahman, as only such GYAna rises from shabda and hence
brahman is saguNa. I hope to avoid this only, we used the soyam, etc.

Every other laukika / vyavahArika example of an 'object' being objectified,
> to illustrate the associated akhanDAkAra-vRtti [?= niShprakAraka-vRtti]
> will be met with a similar situation, especially when we compare that case
> with a corresponding case of the same object being objectified now
> associated with sakhanDAkAra-vRtti [?= saprakAraka-vRtti].
>

​No. If you accept cause-effect ​relationship and have read my old posts,
as you claim, then you may have come across the cause mentioned to accept
niShprakAraka-GYAnam for ghaTa, etc. If not, then read again.

So then we can consider the following four distinct cases:
> (1) "ghaTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna     of the ghaTa" on the one hand, and
> (2) "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa" on the other hand.
>
> (3) "paTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna       of the  paTa" on the one hand, and
> (4) "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the  paTa" on the other hand.
>
> Of course we accept that (1)-&-(3) will be quite different, because of the
> differences in the attributes of the ghaTa and paTa.
>
> You said that (2) will be  ghaTa-viShayaka-akhaNDAkAra-vRtti  . . . and
> may be similarly (3) also.
> Will (1)-&-(2) [and again, (3)-&-(4)] be the same knowledge, or different?
> If same why same? If different why different, and how much different will
> be those two from one another?
>
> Will (2)-&-(4) be the same knowledge, or different?
> If same why same? If different why different, and how much different will
> be those two from one another?
>
> To rephrase the questions, what will be the difference between (a)
> attributeless-ghaTa and (b) attributeless-paTa . . . ?
> If we remove all (all known/knowable/unknown/unknowable/etc) the
> attributes from both "that dEvadattaH" and "this dEvadattaH" what will
> remain . . . ? Any more "dEvadattaH" at all ?
>

​Unless you learn to use words correctly, I'm talking of Sanskrit words,
I'm ignoring your post.

Expect my reply late, if you write now.
​


>
> *Keshava PRASAD Halemane*
> *mOkShakaamaarthadharmah
> <https://ia801004.us.archive.org/23/items/MOkShaKaamaArthaDharma/mOkSha-kaama-artha-dharmah.pdf>*
> *janmanaa jaayatE jantu**ḥ** |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvija**ḥ** ||
>  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah ||*
> <https://ia601903.us.archive.org/1/items/JanmanaajaayatEjantuh/janmanaajaayatEjantuh.pdf>
>
>
>
>   On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 12:46 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
> lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <
> k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> A knowledge of the ghaTa arises from the ghaTAkAra-vRtti as usually
> understood.
>
>
> ​Wrong sentence written because of lack of understanding.
> vRtti is GYAnam, it doesn't give rise to some other GYAnam.
> To be precise, you may add vRttyupahitachaitanyam is GYAnam.
> ​
>
>
> What will be that knowledge of the same ghaTa arising from an
> akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with it?
>
>
> Wrong sentence as previous one.
> So, it should be 'how do you express ghaTa-viShayaka-akhaNDAkAra-vRtti'?
> The best answer is, it can't be expressed.
> But, if you need to understand anyhow then consider it as GYAna of ghaTa
> without mentioning ghaTatvam as it's dharma.
> ​
>
>
> Will it be the same knowledge, or different?
>
>
> ​akhaNDAkAravRtti or niShprakAraka-vRtti is different from saprakAraka or
> sakhaNDa one, otherwise why should we use different words for them.
> ​
>
>
> I guess that it will be different because of the fact that the
> ghaTAkAra-vRtti is different from the akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with it.
> If different, how different will be those two from one another?
>
>
> ​The difference will be in the way they reveal ghaTa. One will reveal only
> ghaTa and other will reveal it with it's quality/ties.
> ​
>
>
> "ghaTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa"  -and-
>  "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa".
>
>
> ​First learn to use words correctly.
> I'm saying this because just a few days ago I corrected someone here. I
> thought he will correct this after learning!!​
>
>
>
>
>
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>
>
>