[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[Anand Hudli]

And there is no requirement that pramAtR, prameya, and pramANa must
coincide for akhaNDAkAra vRtti to happen. In this context, akhaNDa does not
necessarily mean "without parts". It means "integral" or having only one
substantive, ekaprAtipadArthamAtra.

Anand

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Shri Chandramouliji,
>
> You wrote:
> >  My contention is that the use of the word “ akhandakara vritti “ is
> > inappropriate in respect of any objective perception ( mediate or
> immediate
> > ) , ( determinate or indeterminate ) . It is valid only in the context of
> > MahaVakya Janya Jnana.
> >
>
> akhaNDarthatva belongs to not just Vedic sentences and words, but also
> laukika sentences and words. Please see the advaita siddhi summary that I
> referred to a few days ago. The vRtti knowledge that results from such
> sentences and words is akhaNDAkAra vRtti. So I don't see why laukika
> sentences and words should be denied this capability of generating it. It
> may be that akhaNDAkAra vRtti is generally used to refer to mahAvAkyajanya
> jnAna, as you say, but technically even laukika words and sentences may
> generate it. The difference, of course, is that there is no mUlAvidyAnAsha
> in the case of laukika jnAna.
>
> Anand
>
> Anand
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <
> k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>> namastE.
>> praNaams to our beloved Sri Sadananda-ji  &  Sri Anand-ji.
>>
>> After almost a week of somewhat intensive interactions now i feel
>> 'exhausted' - not tired, but emptied!
>> See the word 'exhausted' here! I really mean it, in the same sense that
>> that word was probably used originally, meaning emptied!
>> I mean i do not have any more points to present on this issue - i have
>> shared all that i have, dispersed in several of my emails/posts during the
>> last week or so, in one of these threads which bear the subject-line with
>> that word 'akhanDAkAra' etc.
>> Now i wish to sit back silently and may be just read what others have to
>> say.
>> Of course, i am not averse to share when i do find something that i feel
>> is worth sharing, something that i haven't shared earlier.
>> I hope you along with all my friends in the group will understand.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> *Keshava PRASAD Halemane*
>> *mOkShakaamaarthadharmah
>> <https://ia801004.us.archive.org/23/items/MOkShaKaamaArthaDharma/mOkSha-kaama-artha-dharmah.pdf>*
>> *janmanaa jaayatE jantu**ḥ** |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvija**ḥ** ||
>>  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah ||*
>> <https://ia601903.us.archive.org/1/items/JanmanaajaayatEjantuh/janmanaajaayatEjantuh.pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Saturday, 11 July 2015 10:02 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
>> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ananda ji
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> -The knowledge that comes to your mind then is "this is that pot", i.e.
>> what you see now is the same pot that you saw in your home. But the
>> knowledge, "this is that pot" does not involve any attribute of the pot,
>> such as color or even the special figure on it, although the recognition
>> may have been based on attributes. It is a simple case of recognition,
>> "this is that object", without focusing on any attribute of the object. -
>>
>> ---
>> I am confused by the following statements:
>>
>> Is recognition different from knowledge when you say - knowledge 'this is
>> a that pot'  does  not involve any attribute of the pot. Obviously this is
>> not any other pot but that pot implies recognition. Unless one is seeing
>> for the first time, the cognition and recognition involves comparison to
>> some extent current attributes with those of previous ones.
>>
>> Pot itself is akaara and recognition of an object as Pot itself involves
>> attributive knowledge since it is not pot not a jug. This is that pot
>> involves as you mentioned recognition and some common attribute of this pot
>> and that pot. Without a basis of some common attributes one cannot say this
>> is that pot -
>>
>> Epistemological -there is always knowledge of x or y, or objective
>> knowledge, but pure unqualified knowledge is undefinable and that is Jnaana
>> swaruupam or Braham.
>>
>>
>> Hari Om!
>> Sadananda
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>