[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Keshava Prasad- PraNAms

Here is my answer to the question again. Every object has attributes and without attributes object cannot be defined since definition itself involves attributive description. 

Hence we cannot have an object without attributes and swaabhaavika attributes are inseparable with its locus. At transactional level we have for purpose of transactions use attributive form itself as noun - like ring, bangle etc -a name given for attributive form. 
I have discussed there is no fundamental substantive for any object other than Brahman - that we learn from Vedanta.

No I cannot perceive ring and bangle without their forms other than Gold which has again its attributes and sans those attributes we resort to atoms etc.. until fundamental particles is found.

>From Vedanta the fundamental material is Brahman only. Hence your questions to LalitaalaalitaH were appropriate and correct since one cannot make any difference between pot and cloth with out there attributes. 

Senses see only attributes and sense input to the mind in the form of vRitti contains the info of attributive content - the locus for all these attributes from Vedanta is Brahman only which is imperceptible.

The existence of the object out there is now as though transferred to existence of vRitti with attributes corresponding to the REFLECTED ATTRIBUTES of the object as gathered by the senses. If senses are not needed on can have perception in dark or even a blind man can perceive the attribute less object. One can day dream and see and sense input is not needed for that. 

I think I have addressed the question you posed. 

My 2c

Hari Om!
Sadananda






--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 7/10/15, Keshava PRASAD Halemane via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis
 To: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Friday, July 10, 2015, 2:34 AM
 
 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