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

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNams
Posting to the group at large. 
Hari Om!Sadananda

 

    On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 04:58:55 PM GMT+5:30, Kuntimaddi Sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:  
 
 Ragavji - PraNams
Thanks for your explanation. I understand from the point of cause-effect relationships.
Looks like we are out of the list. Hence ccing to Chandramouliji also. 
At the empirical level, where pramaanas operate, we are looking at Redness as a property of a given pot that differs from the blueness of another pot. Is there a kaaraya kaarana sambandha for Redness and pot? I can appreciate pot - clay in terms of vaacharambhanam that Shruti talks about as one of the examples.  
As Shree Chandramouliji says, if the relationship between the guna and substance is taken from Meemaamsa-position, they have different categories - substance, quality, action, universals, and non-existent while rejecting samavaayu sambandha of Nyaaya Vaisheshika.
 Father Devadatta compared son Devadatta - are only relationships with reference to the related only, at an empirical level.  There is no superimposed error involved at that level to bring in adhyaasa. 
The whole thing is adhyaasa only from the point of paaramaarthika point where I see that vaacharambhanam sloka is relevant. 
For me, it is not clear. 
Anyway thanks for your help.
Hari Om!Sadananda

 

    On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 03:52:20 PM GMT+5:30, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 

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!
OmRaghav











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 jiI 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. 
OmRaghav





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