[Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Anandji - PraNAms

Thanks for your detailed reply. I will study this slowly and try to digest it.

Thanks for taking time to respond.

Hari Om!
Sadananda

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 7/12/15, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Attributes and upadhis
 To: "advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Sunday, July 12, 2015, 1:29 PM
 
 Dear Shri Sadanandaji,
 
 On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:02
 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
 kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 
 >
 >
 >
 >
 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
 >
 >
 I
 think here the confusion that keeps arising is about what
 does
 akhaNDArthatva belong to? Does it
 belong to an object such as the pot, or
 does
 it belong to words and sentences? The advaitasiddhi,
 citsukha's
 tattvapradIpika, vedAnta
 paribhAShA, and other texts speak of
 akhaNDArthatva of words and sentences or
 meanings of words and sentences.
 Such words
 and sentences that have akhaNDArthatva produce knowledge
 (vRtti,
 jnAna) that is also valid (pramA).
 Here, there is no claim that the object,
 regarding which knowledge is so produced, has
 no attributes or has
 attributes. In the case
 of the text "satyaM jnAnaM anantaM brahma",
 there
 is akhaNDArthatva because the words
 satyam, jnAnam, and anantam refer to
 the
 same substantive, i.e. brahman. Further, they define
 Brahman, as
 opposed to qualifying Brahman.
 The advaita siddhi gives another technique
 of determining akhaNDArthatva - by question and
 answer (prashnottara),
 where the question
 seeks to know the svarUpa of an object, not an
 attribute. The Vaidika example that can be
 given is the question "kiM
 brahma?" (what is Brahman?) followed by an
 answer, "satyaM jnAnaM anantaM
 brahma". A laukika example that is
 commonly cited is the question "kaH
 candraH?" (What/which is the moon?)
 followed by the answer,
 "prakRSTaprakashashcandraH", the moon
 is abundant brilliance. The context
 is the
 following. Someone who has never seen the moon is shown the
 starlit
 sky at night, upon which he may ask
 "Of these luminaries, which is the
 moon?" To this, the answer would be that
 the abundantly brilliant object
 shining
 among the stars is the moon. The word
 "prakRSTaprakAsha" (abundant
 brilliance) is not an attribute of the moon,
 rather it defines the moon.
 The sentence, 
 "prakRSTaprakashashcandraH" is said to have
 akhaNDArthatva,
 as the sentence generates a
 meaning regarding a single substantive, the
 moon in this case. The reason why the words
 have to refer to a single
 substantive is
 because there cannot be any relation expressed the words
 and
 sentences, nor can the words have
 inter-relationships among themselves. Any
 relation, of course, implies duality, and this
 is exactly what
 akhanDArthatva rules out.
 However, a combination (saMyoga) of two or more
 akhaNDArtha sentences (or words) is allowed and
 in that case we will have
 as many separate
 akhaNDArthavAkyajanya jnAna's as there are such
 sentences.
 An example from the advaitasiddhi
 is the sentence "shItoShNasparshavantau
 payaH pAvakau", water is cold to touch and
 fire hot. Each of the two
 sentences
 "shItasparshavat payaH" and "uShNasparshavAn
 pAvakaH" has
 akhaNDArthatva, although
 the two are simply combined to form a compound
 statement.
 
 Anand
 _______________________________________________
 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