[Advaita-l] akhanDaakara-vRtti‏

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Ravi Kiran ji,

The confusion is because the same example is used in different contexts to
convey different meanings, like the famous rope-snake.

Here the context is that we are talking of the capacity of sentences to
produce knowledge. The context is not of someone getting the knowledge and
then verbalising that in a statement.

The perceiver may have perceived "this devadatta" (A), and "that devadatta"
(B). Just by the knowledge of A and B individually, he does not know A=B.

Suppose some well-wisher comes along and says, "this devadatta is that
devadatta". Until that sentence has been uttered and heard by the listener,
he does not know A is B. Once that has been uttered and heard, *new
knowledge* arises in the form, A is B.

The well wisher's statement makes *no reference* to the underlying
attributes of devadatta, or how the terms A and B are related - that is why
it is an akhandArtha vAkya.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan





On 8 Jul 2015 09:52, "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> namaste
>
> Agree with the explanation below, with slight difference..
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> PraNAms Bhaskarji,
>> The question was if it is possible to cognize an object without its
>> attributes.
>>
>> The answer in certain cases, like "soyam devadatta", you can.
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>> Please
>> consider the sentence soyam devadatta, leaving all notions of whatever or
>> whoever devadatta is.
>>
>> What does that sentence, taken in isolation, convey? Do we know, just by
>> that sentence, if devadatta is a man, a woman, a dog, an alien? We don't.
>>
>
> In this example, isn't the person having direct perception of devadutta,
> makes this statement,  "soyam devadatta" ?
> ( indicating that he is the same "devadutta" that he knew from years
> before, though he has grown old, put on weight etc )
>
> If he had not know devadatta before, how can he say that, he is the same
> as the one I see now ?
>
>
>> The sentence simply conveys that there is an object called devadatta,
>> which
>> is commonly referred to by the sa: and ayam padAs.
>>
>> Because we don't know the attributes of devadatta, can we say that no
>> knowledge whatsoever is produced by the sentence?
>>
>> We cannot, because that sentence produces knowledge that there is such a
>> common object referred to by sa: and ayam,
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>> we just dont know what exactly
>> he/she/it is.
>>
>
> We do exactly know as him..
>
>
>>
>> The knowledge produced here is nishprakAraka.
>>
>
> yes
>
>
>>
>> I know you didn't address me, but I thought the explanation could be of
>> some use in your enquiry. If not, please accept my apologies and excuse my
>> intrusion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>> On 8 Jul 2015 09:29, "Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l" <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> > praNAms Sri Keshava Prasad prabhuji
>> > Hare Krishna
>> >
>> > You wrote :
>> >
>> > > Just take it as if a vRttiH dispels ignorance of a pot, etc. but
>> > > doesn't objectify it's adjectives, it is niShprakArikA.
>> > > prakAra means adjectives. The vRtti which illuminates base, it's
>> > > qualities and their relation;  is saprakArikA.
>> >
>> > My fundamental question here is can our senses cognize an object as
>> object
>> > without any attributes of that object??  What exactly does it mean
>> > nishprakArika vrutti??  When I see a pot, I would get the 'pot' vrutti,
>> how
>> > can this 'pot' jnAna would arise in mind without any attributes of that
>> > 'pot'??  Don’t you think the term 'pot' itself is an attribute (nAma
>> > rUpAtmaka vishesha) of the clay??  Is there anything that can be called
>> an
>> > 'object' without recognizing / perceiving its attributes / vishesha-s?
>> > Don’t you think it is as good as saying:  I have the
>> > nishprakArika(attributeless) jnAna of 'necklace', when the 'necklace'
>> > itself is vishesha / attribute / nAma rUpa of the 'gold' ??
>> >
>> > And in dAshtrAntika, can we say this nishprakArika vrutti itself is
>> brahma
>> > jnAna that is attributeless jnAna of brahman?? Since brahman is
>> ultimately
>> > in its svarUpa nirguNa, nirvishesha, nirvikAra !!
>> >
>> > Sorry to say that I am getting stuck in the basic level itself.
>> >
>> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>> > bhaskar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>