[Advaita-l] akhanDaakara-vRtti‏

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Venkataraghavanji - PraNAms.

Yes you are right.
Hari Om!
Sadananda

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/8/15, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] akhanDaakara-vRtti‏
 To: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015, 11:36 AM
 
 Sri SadAji
 PraNams.
 
 I am
 not disputing the nature of the bhAga tyAga process, or that
 devadatta
 has attributes or not. As stated
 previously, I do agree that devadatta has
 attributes.
 
 The meaning of the sentence is simply that
 there is an underlying
 devadatta. Until we
 have performed bhAga tyAga we don't know what those
 common attributes are, but the knowledge that
 there is a common devadatta
 implied by the
 sentence is not the same as the knowledge of such a
 devadatta's attributes. Knowledge and
 verification of that knowledge are
 two
 different steps.
 
 
 Regards,
 Venkatraghavan
 
 
 
 On
 Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:37 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
 kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 
 > Shree
 Venkataraghavan - PraNAms - in the bhaagatyaaga lakshana
 only the
 > contradictory attributes are
 dropped and not those that are common for this
 > and that Devadatta. Some saadRisyam has to
 be there for validation of
 > oneness of 
 Devadatta. At least the name is common here. If every
 attribute
 > is dropped then this
 Devadatta could also be that yagnadatta too!
 >
 > In the case of tat
 tvam asi - the existence part is not negated existence
 > as this and that -only contradictory
 attributes that appear to invalidate
 >
 the equation are dropped and not to the common ones.
 >
 > Bhagavan Ramana puts
 this as
 > Isha jeevayoH veshadhee bhidaa,
 satva bhaavato vastu kevalam. The costumes
 > that Iswara and Jeeva wearing are only
 different but from the existence
 > part
 is not dropped.
 >
 >
 Hari Om!
 > Sadananda
 >
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Wed, 7/8/15, Venkatraghavan S via
 Advaita-l <
 > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 >
 >  Subject:
 Re: [Advaita-l] akhanDaakara-vRtti‏
 > 
 To: "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
 >  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
 Vedanta" <
 > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 >  Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015, 6:38
 AM
 >
 >  Sri
 Bhaskar-ji,
 >  Namaste and thanks for
 the email.
 >
 >  I am
 not disputing that the
 >  common
 devadatta has attributes - he/she/it
 > 
 clearly does. I am simply saying that the
 >  sentence "this is that" is
 not
 >  conveying any attributes, and the
 knowledge
 >  generated by the sentence*
 does
 >  not contain
 >  any attributive content about that
 common devadatta*.
 >
 >  Regards,
 > 
 Venkat
 >
 >
 >  On
 >  Wed, Jul 8,
 2015 at 11:15 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
 >  wrote:
 >
 >  >  PraNAms Sri
 >  Venkatraghavan prabhuji
 >  >
 >  > Hare
 Krishna
 >  >
 > 
 > Ø  At the risk of stretching this
 >  analogy, let me share my thoughts
 with
 >  >
 > 
 you.
 >  >
 >  >
 The question
 >  was if it is possible to
 cognize an object without its
 >  >
 attributes.
 >  >
 >  > The answer in certain cases,
 like
 >  "soyam devadatta", you
 can. 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.
 >  >
 >  > The
 sentence simply conveys that there is
 > 
 an object called devadatta,
 >  >
 which is
 >  commonly referred to by the
 sa: and ayam padAs.
 >  >
 >  > Ø   Yes,
 >  that sentence would simply convey that
 there exists  some
 >  object
 >  > by some ‘particular’ name
 >  (‘devadatta’ in this example) on
 which I donot
 >  > know anything.
 >  >
 >  > 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,
 >  we just dont know what
 exactly
 >  >
 > 
 he/she/it is.
 >  >
 >  >
 > 
 Ø   As Sri Keshava Prasad prabhuji observed,
 >  normally an inquisitive mind
 >  > does not
 > 
 stop by mere getting the knowledge that there is
 something
 >  out
 > 
 > there!!  Though knowing something
 >  more on that something exists is a
 >  >
 >  subsequent
 process, as soon as some object has been pointed
 >  and addressed
 > 
 >  ‘this’ object is
 > 
 ‘that’, our mind would grasp this sentence with some
 >  > attributes only, it may be either
 way,
 >  wrong or right immaterial here,
 but
 >  >
 > 
 invariably our mind associates some attribute to
 ‘this’
 >  to know that ‘this’
 >  > is nothing but
 >  ‘that’.  We may recall here
 shankara’s observation
 >  in
 >  > bruhadAraNyaka here with regard
 to
 >  ‘drum sound’ ( in second
 adhyAya!!?? Not
 >  > sure).  Here
 shankara clarifies by
 >  grasping the
 genus sound as produced by
 >  >
 >  the beat of the drum, that species
 underlying it are also
 >  grasped,
 but
 >  > ‘they cannot be grasped
 >  as distinct from that genus’.  For as
 species they
 >  > have no independent
 existence.  If we
 >  apply this rule to
 this particular
 >  >
 >  example, this and that devadatta must
 have some underlying
 >  common genus
 >  > through which this
 >  devadatta has been  equated with that
 devadatta.  And
 >  > without this
 common underlying devadatta
 >  there
 cannot be independent
 >  >
 existence
 >  for both ‘this’ and
 that devadatta.  Hence, this
 > 
 underlying
 >  > common genus
 (called
 >  devadutta who is common in
 both this & that) must be
 >  >
 recognized first to declare that this is
 >  that devadatta.  This recognition
 >  > need
 >  not be
 directly related to currently perceiving attributes
 >  of object
 >  >
 (this devadatta)  nor it is
 > 
 necessary that it should have the similarity
 >  >  with the previously cognized
 ‘that’
 >  devadutta, but what needs
 to be there
 >  >
 >  is some commonality which can be termed
 as attributes to
 >  correctly
 identify
 >  > the devadatta.  I
 >  think this commonality what Sri Ananda
 Hudli observed
 >  > while narrating
 his observation, he said
 >  :
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 //quote//
 >  >
 > 
 > 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.
 > 
 >
 >  > //unquote//
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > So,
 bottom line is
 >  ‘devadatta’ (any
 object) does have the attributes
 > 
 which
 >  > is common in both this
 & that
 >  but directly not related
 in raising the
 >  >
 >  knowledge i.e. this is that
 devadatta.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > 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