[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[Ravi Kiran]

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:12 AM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Sri Anand Ji ,
>
>
>  This is reg your observation
>
>
>  << This knowledge or recognition is a case of "akhaNDAkAra vRtti", where
> the object is "ghaTa", a pot, with attributes. >> .
>
>
>  I am constrained to say I am unable to agree with this. The complete
> statement concerning this knowledge would be “ I recognize that this is
> that object “ . Though the part “ I recognize that “ is left unsaid mostly
> , it is always there and implied. This makes the knowledge “ khanda “ (
> with parts ) , namely it has three parts I ( Pramatru ) , recognize (
> Pramana ) and *this is that object* ( Prameya ) . Hence it is not
> appropriate to call this knowledge a-khanda ( partless ) “ akhandakara
> vritti “. Can you please give a reference to where this called so. Ofcourse
>


> I do not know where it has been stated that it is inappropriate to call it
> so .


Thanks for driving this discussion further..

Since, it is not clear (source of advaita texts) that the unitary knowledge
(due to chidabhasa) generated in loukika sentences having akhaNDArthatva
can or cannot be called as "akhaNDAkAra vRtti", there is difference of view
points.



> It is only my understanding.
>
>
>  On the otherhand , consider the knowledge generated by the Maha Vakya
> Upadesha “ tatvamasi “ . The knowledge generated is of the form “ Aham
> Brahmasmi “ . This “ knowledge “ is a-khanda , partless . There is no
> Pramatru, Prameya and Pramana components. Hence it is appropriate to call
> this knowledge A-khanda ( partless ) “ akhandakara vritti “ . At least I
> can cite one reference in support of such a usage. That is its use in
> Vedanta Sara by Sri Sadananda Yogi in his Vedanta Sara .
>
>
>  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.
>
>
>  I would be grateful for a clarification.
>
>
>  Pranams and Regards
>
>
>  Chandramouli
>
>