[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[Venkatraghavan S]

Chandramouliji,
The sentence below should read:

The akhanda here refers to the fact that there is only ONE object indicated
by the sentence.

Regards
Venkatraghavan
 On 11 Jul 2015 07:56, "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Chandramouliji,
>
> The akhanda here refers to the fact that there is only object indicated by
> the sentence.
>
> In the Advaita Siddhi summary sent by Anand ji, the question is asked "kim
> akhandArthatvam" and it is replied  "padavritti smArita atirikta agochara"
> -  (the words are) not indicative of anything other than the ONE suggested
> by the vritti of the word.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>  On 11 Jul 2015 07:38, "H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>