[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Anand Ji,

I may add that the Purvapakshins do not agree with " akhandartha " for a
sentence as advanced by the Advaitins. They contend that there are only two
types of interpreting a sentence , namely " Bhedartha " and " Samsargartha
" . Advaitins insist on the third type also.

Pranams and Regards

Chandramouli

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Sri Anand Ji,
>
>
>  Reg <<  akhaNDArthatva is defined as the
> property of words that are not synonyms but amount to (conclude in) the
> meaning of  single substantive. >> ,
>
>
>  I am quite in agreement with this. I have not disputed this at all. This
> is applicable to laukika context also. My issue is about knowledge
> generated by such sentences.
>
>
>  Pranams and Regards
>
>
>  Chandramouli
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Shri Chandramouliji,
>>
>> The nyAyAmRtakAra vyAsatIrtha, who is the pUrvapakShin in the
>> advaitasiddhi, takes up for criticism one of the definitions of
>> akhaNDArthatva given by the advaitins- "aparyAyashabdAnAM
>> prAtipadArthamAtraparyavasAyitvam". akhaNDArthatva is defined as the
>> property of words that are not synonyms but amount to (conclude in) the
>> meaning of  single substantive.
>>
>> Anand
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>