[Advaita-l] Relation between the object and its attributes

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sada ji

>
>
> On Tue, 19 May, 2020, 6:57 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda, <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Raghvaji - PraNAms
>>
>> Thanks for your explanation. Yes, I understood adhyaasa.
>>
>> If I say pot is a superimposition on clay - as vaachaarambhanam implies,
>> I have no problem. However, the ontological status of the pot and its
>> attributes differ from pot and clay adhyaasa.
>>
> My understanding - kAraNe kAryAdhyAsa takes place at all levels. First we
> can move downwards and say - Pot is adhyasta on clay; clay is adhyasta on
> molecules; molecules on atoms etc. And so until we realise by shabda
> pramANa that this analysis can only culminate in asti-bhAti-priyam which is
> non-negatable substratum and all else is just a house of cards of words and
> meanings. Therefore these words like pot, clay, molecules are all adhyasta
> alone. Now going up the hierarchy so to speak, if we talk of redness,
> bigness etc., for pot, even there, there is no reason for analyzing color
> or size etc., too any differently. Redness etc., is ontologically no more
> and *no less* than the pot which is also merely an "attribute" of clay.
>
> The color or size of the snake superimposed on a rope is ontologically no
> different from the ontological status of the snake itself. And afaik, there
> is no rule that we cannot do a secondary adhyAsa like color and
> skin-patterns on the adhyasta snake. And the same adhyAsa sambandha
> suffices to explain that as well.
>
> Open to correction ....that goes without saying!
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now small pot vs big pot or round pot etc these are attributes of a
>> particular pot, vyakti. Smallness and bigness are adhyaasa on Pot?
>>
>
>
>
>> The definitions of adhyaasa that Shankara gives - atasmin tat buddhiH -
>> does not apply here, right?
>>
>> Hence my confusion.
>>
>> Hari Om!
>>
>> Sadananda
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 05:12:11 PM GMT+5:30, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
>> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Namaste Sada ji
>> I read a few passages of the relevant portion of the book.
>>
>> The main topic from around page 250 has to do with refutation of any
>> relation or sambandha between two eternal entities as per the vaiseShikas
>> and sAmkhyas. The author concludes by saying that in Shankaracharya's view
>> the substantive alone exists upon which there is adhyasa or superimposition
>> of attributes. He gives the example of devadutta alone being the person
>> even he becomes devadutta, the father or devadutta, the son etc. Attributes
>> have no existence apart from the substantive (the "object").
>>
>> All this in the context of tadananyatvam arambhaNashabdAdibhyaH BS1.3.14.
>>
>> Extending this what the author indicates echoing Shankara - there is only
>> one substantive in this entire creation everything else is a superimposed
>> attribute ; vAcArambhaNam - a notional speech-based word which does not
>> have any substantive correlate.
>>
>> So if we say red flower. It's actually brahman on which flowerness is
>> "attributed" (adhyastha) and then subsequently, redness is attributed.
>> (adhyastha).
>>
>> So to answer your question at a first level - the only sambandha or
>> relation accepted in Advaita is *adhyAsa sambandha* between the only vastu
>> or substantive in creation which is Brahman. There are no other
>> substantives (i.e., "Objects" in the world). All other so-called objects
>> like pot, cloth etc., are actually "attributes" (i.e., nAmarupAtmakAni and
>> thus vAcarambhaNAni) i.e., mithyA.
>>
>> Om
>> Raghav
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 19 May, 2020, 1:47 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda, <
>> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Raghav Kumar - PraNAms
>>
>> Not sure what chapter it is. I am looking book on google it opened on
>> page 250 or so and runs into many pages where refutation of other doctrines
>> are provided.
>>
>> Chadramouliji - PraNams
>>
>> I am looking fundamentally what the Advaitic position is in terms of
>> attribute and its substantive. Most of the discussions I find involve
>> refutation of other schools of thought and not sure if what exactly is
>> Advaitic stand and if there is any difference between the two schools of
>> thought.
>>
>> Hari Om!
>> Sadananda
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 01:12:48 PM GMT+5:30, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
>> via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Namaste Sadaji
>> which particular chapter is proving confusing in the above book?
>> Om
>> Raghav
>>
>> On Mon, 18 May, 2020, 9:32 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> > PraNAms
>> > What is Adviatic position regarding the relationship between the object
>> > and its attributes? I was trying to read the book and it is very
>> > confusing. Hari Om!Sadananda
>> >
>> > The Philosophy of Sankar's Advaita Vedanta
>> > Shyama Kumar Chattopadhyaya - Advaita - 2000 - 396 pages
>> >
>> > Study on Śārīrakamīmāṃsābhāsỵa by Śaṅkarācārya.
>>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > https://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:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>>