[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sri Chandramouliji
Just noticed that our previous correspondence was not copied to the advaita
list. Forwarding that here, if its helpful to others.

vedAnta paribhAsha defines nirvikalpaka perception as:

 tacca pratyakShaM dvividhaM
savikalpakanirvikalpakabhedAt| tatra savikalpakaM vaishiShTyAvagAhi jnAnaM,
yathA "ghaTamahaM jAnAmi" ityAdi jnAnam| nirvikalpakaM tu saMsargAnavagAhi
jnAnaM, yathA "so.ayam devadattaH", "tat tvamasi" ityAdivAkyajanyaM jnAnam|

The above indicates that laukika sentence produces laukika nirvikalpaka
jnAnam too.

I guess your question is what is the reference to prove that akhandAkara
vritti is synonymous with nirvikalpaka jnAnam.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 11 Jul 2015 08:20, "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sri Chandramouliji,
> I'm not aware of any - I will search and get back to you if I find it.
>
> This as my question to Sriman LaitAlAlitah also. He suggested looking in
> the brahmAnandI - I haven't managed to get hold of it yet.
>
> His derivation of the etymology of akhandAkAra vritti, was, for your
> reference:
> akhanda (the object of an akhandArtha vAkyA)+AkAra (the capability of (a
> vritti) to reveal)+vritti - or, a vritti that has the capability to reveal
> an akhanda object.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 11 Jul 2015 08:06, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>>
>> I am looking for a reference to the word " akhandakara vritti " in any
>> Text , Advaita Sidhi or any other , just as it has used the word "
>> akhandakthatvam " quoted by you.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Chandramouli
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:26 PM, 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
>>>>
>>>
>>