[Advaita-l] akhanDaakara-vRtti

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Anand ji,
Thanks for clarifying. This is my understanding, I think its the same as
what you are saying:

1) "this devadatta" has attributes, "that devadatta" has attributes.
2) the underlying devadatta has attributes.
3) however, the sentence this is that devadatta, simply says this devadatta
= that devadatta. That statement doesn't tell us anything about the
attribute of the underlying devadatta, nor does it require the presence or
absence of attributes in the underlying devadatta. It simply says the
underlying object is one, without talking about the attribute of the
object. Therefore its an akhandArtha vAkyam.
4) the knowledge that this sentence "this is that devadatta" produces is
akhandArtha vritti.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
 On 7 Jul 2015 18:41, "Anand Hudli via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:09 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Chandramouli ji - PraNAms
> >
> > In the case of soyam devadattaH - as Sadananda yogi illustrates as an
> example of jadajahallakshNa. Lakshana involves not vaachyaartha but
> lakshyaartha and jahat ajahat involves bhaga tyaaga - where contradictory
> parts have to be rejected and only equate the non-contradictory - here
> unchanging entity. How fast this is done is of no consequence. Viveka
> involves nithya anitya vastu viveka. In this example the buddhi does
> instantly or slowly by remembering that devadatta depending on how sharp
> that memory is - some times more prodding may be required to recapitulate
> that devadatta.  It can be instant process but the mind has to drop the two
> contradictory attributes to arrive at oneness of this and that devadattas
> or aham and tat -In the case of Devadatta  mind may do fast but in the case
> of tat tvam asi - the previous notions inhibit seeing that equation. Soyam
> devadattaH is classical example to illustrate the jahdajahallakshaNa - in
> illustrating the viveka
> >  required to appreciate the tat tvam asi
> >
> > Yes I know Shree Aandaji - Not sure if he is particularly interested to
> join. One can try. I am ccing this to Him, if he cares to comment.
> >
> > Hari Om!
> > Sada
> >
> >
>
> I am not sure what exactly is being discussed, so I'll just say this. I
> remember seeing comments to the effect that anything with attributes cannot
> be the object of  "nirvikalpaka" or indeterminate perception. However, we
> have the example of "this is that Devadatta". Both the Devadatta seen now
> as "this" and the Devadatta seen earlier as "that" have attributes. They
> are both men, with parts such as hands, feet, etc. What is going on here?
> Although Devadatta is very much a perceivable person with attributes, the
> crucial point here is that the perception "this is that Devadatta" does not
> involve any of those attributes. It is exactly expressing an identity
> between two objects, this Devadatta and that Devadatta, nothing less,
> nothing more. So there is no "appeal" made to any attribute in the
> knowledge "this is that Devadatta", although Devadatta does have
> attributes. Obviously, the same Devadatta could be an object of determinate
> perception, "Devadatta is stout", "Devadatta is short", etc.
>
> Anand
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>