[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Anand Ji,


 You said << 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. >> .


 I am curious to know if Advaita Sidhi specifically mentions that the
Vritti knowledge resulting from such sentences and words is “ akhandakara
vritti “ or is it your conclusion. Just for my information.


 You also mentioned <<  So I don't see why laukika
sentences and words should be denied this capability of generating it.  >>
.


 I have given the reason. The knowledge resulting from such sentences and
words in laukika context do not have the capability of generating knowledge
without parts ( a-khanda ) because they depend upon Chidabhasa for
generating knowledge and that cannot be without parts.


 Pranams and Regards


 Chandramouli



On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>