[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[Keshava PRASAD Halemane]

namastE. My Dear Tamoghna [is that you real name or 'kaavyanaama']: 
i never said that attributeless existence cannot be - in the true sense what i have been repeating all along is that the only real existence is the existence of brahma-vastu which is the only one singularly unique case of attributeless existence; and therefore the akhanDAkAra-[niShprakAraka-]vRtti shining/revealing any object whether it be ghaTa or paTa or that-dEvadattaH or this-dEvadattaH or the so-called-common-dEvadattaH (common between this-dEvadattaH and that-dEvadattaH) does indeed reveal the one real brahma-vastu that is the adhiSThAna of all these vyAvahArika objects. 
What i question is the viewpoint that the akhanDAkAra-[niShprakAraka-]vRtti associated with a ghaTa can reveal the attributeless-ghaTa, and similarly the akhanDAkAra-[niShprakAraka-]vRtti associated with a paTa can reveal the attributeless-paTa, etc. 

Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 


     On Friday, 10 July 2015 12:32 PM, Tamoghna <tamoghna81 at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
   

 Not only Idealistic Advaita but Realist NyAya metaphysics also accept atyributeless existence of substance. It is the basic stance that differentiate Advaita from Bhakti schools of vedanta or nyAya view of Nirvikalpaka perception from that of  B hAtta MImAsA.
Tamoghna

Keshava PRASAD Halemane via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>namastE. praNaams my dear Sadananda ji 
>Thank you for the explanation. I haven't understood your last sentence, though - let me quote it here below for easy reference: 
>Sada: 
>Hence I do not think attribute-less object is nothing Brahman which has to be understood by Vedanta shravana, manana, nidhidhyaasana. 
>
>May be there is a typo that caused the confusion, if so please be kind enough to help me understand what exactly you meant. 
>From what i understood as the viewpoint expressed earlier (by Sri Anad ji as well as Sri LalitAlAlitaH) akhanDAkAra-vRtti can reveal an "object_sans_all-its-attributes", which clearly imply that the existence of an object is independent of its attributes, according to that viewpoint.  That is precisely the point i have difficulty in accepting, and i thought you too have expressed that same point as i did. 
> 
>Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 
>
>
>    On Friday, 10 July 2015 10:03 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
> Keshava Prasad - PraNAms- Here is my understanding
>-------------------------------------
>
>Keshava Prasad:
>
>Q1: Can an upAdhi (say corresponding to an object ghaTa) exist independent of all the attributes ? If so, how do we 
>That is, if-&-when all the attributes of an upAdhi are discarded, does that upAdhi remain as an attributeless-upAdhi ?  If so, how do we distinguish between one attributeless-ghaTa-upAdhi-G1 and another attributeless-ghaTa-upAdhi-G2 ? 
>
>Sada: Some background. Traditionally there are two types of attributes - a) samyoga - contact relationship and b) swaabhaavika intrinsic attributes. Samyoga is like Pot on the table in contrast to pot on the ground. Pot on the table is qualified by being on the table in contrast to the pot on the ground. This is contact relationship - called also taTastha lakshanam or incidental qualification. Jagat is considered as tatastha lakshanam of Brahman - convenient to defined Brahman - janmaadyasya yataH.
>
>Swaabhavika  LakshaNas or intrinsic attributes. locus and attributes are inseparable - period. Blue Lotus, the bluness is inseparable from lotus. Different daarhanikas define the relation between the attributes and the locus - nyaaya calls this relationship as samavaaya sambandha - and others criticise this as it leads to infinite regress. Others just call it as intrinsic attribute inseparable from its locus. 
>
>Here I would like to distinguish those that are  swaabhavikam (necessary) and the others swarupa lakshaNa.(necessary and sufficient).  Ex. Sweetness of Sugar. It is necessary or swabhaavikam but it is not swaruupa lakshanam since converse is not true. That is if it is sweet it must be sugar - which need not be since we have many that are sweet which are not sugar. Swaruupam lakshana becomes very precise since converse has to be applied. Shankara defines the sat chit ananda are swaruupa lakshanaas because - anantatvaat since Brahman is defined also satyam jnaanam and anantam. - anantam eva anandam. 
>
>No object in the world has clear cut swaruupam - the intrinsic material from which they came, by which they are sustained and into which they go back - they have only transactionally swaruupam - like gold becoming ring, bangle etc.Ring is only form of gold and so is bangle. Sans attributes they are nothing but gold. God itself has its attributes - Everyone is familiar with story of Eureka - hence all that glisters is not gold. 
>
>Ask now if I discard the attributes of ring and bangle what do I see - should see attribute-less gold -But gold also has attributes. If I want to attributeless gold or iron or silver - I am going back to atoms which have their own attributes. Hence in transactional reality the game is endless. From the point of Vedanta the material cuase is nothing but Brahman only. But Brahman is imperceptible and undifferentialble. No question of mind grasping Brahman since mind itself is in Brahman. 
>
>Hence I do not think attribute-less object is nothing Brahman which has to be understood by Vedanta shravana, manana, nidhidhyaasana. 
>
>-------------------
>
>
>
>Q2: if-&-when an object ghaTa is stripped of its upAdhi, does that object lose all its attributes as well, having lost their locus, and still remain as an upAdhi-rahita-object which is therefore devoid of all its attributes ? OR is it true that the object having lost its upAdhi, cannot exist any more ? 
>
>The answer follows from the above explanation - sans attributes the essence is Brahman and which is indivisible as per vedanta since all objects are just names and forms. 
>
>Hari Om!
>Sadananda
>-----------------------
>
>
>  
>_______________________________________________
>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