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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

On Wed, 20 May, 2020, 9:30 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula:

> Thank for the references Chandramouli ji
> I shall look them up. And feel free to interject. I was only trying to
> make sense of the book under question. But I did comment in passing about
> other things.
>
> Incidentally, till then, is it possible for you to comment on the
> following.
>
>  The snake is adhyasta on the rope. The
> rope is the vivarta upAdAna kAraNam. The rope and snake are related by
> adhyAsa sambandha.
>
> Many see the snake but (let's say) some see it as a grey and others as
> green. Regarding the technical word for the sambandha between the avastu
> greyness superimposed on the avastu snake which is adhyasta on the rope -
> Can't we say that once the "artha'' or object (snake) is superimposed on a
> vastu (rope), then automatically the "GYAna" or attributes like greyness or
> greenness, long/short etc. (depending on past memories) get automatically
> superimposed on the snake? Therefore the experience of these attributes
> (GYAna) is also an aspect of adhyAsa alone?
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 May, 2020, 6:10 PM H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Raghav Ji,
>>
>> Namaste.
>>
>> Reg  << 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! >>,
>>
>> I hope you will not misunderstand my interjection. I have not read the
>> book referred to in your post. But I don’t think the above is correct.
>> AdhyAsa is only as between वस्तु (Vastu), which here is understood as
>> Brahman, and अवस्तु (avastu) which covers everything other than Brahman.
>> There is no adhyAsa as between the several objects classified under avastu.
>>
>> Normally the term bhAvarUpa for avidya is applied to distinguish it from
>> abhAvarUpa. But in the above context, Brahman/Atman  is considered the only
>> vastu (bhAva) while all all else/anAtma is termed avastu. However they
>> (anAtma) entities appear existent due to Brahman/Atman and are hence termed
>> bhAvarUpa. Sometime back, Sri Subhanu Ji had asked for any references in
>> this regard. Though I have collected several since, I had not posted the
>> same so far. I am copying some of these below
>>
>> << Bhava and Bhavarupa  references.
>>
>> 1         Up Sahasri (metric) ; 18-43/44
>>
>> 2         Tai BV of Sri Sureswaracharya  ; 2-178 to 180
>>
>> 3         BUBV 4-1-414, 442, 443
>>
>> 4         Sarva vEdAntasidhanta sAra saMgraha 298-303
>>
>> 5         Vedanta sAra  33-34  >>.
>>
>> If you agree with the above, the whole discussion would need a review.
>> Again my apologies to both you and Sri Sadananda Ji if I have interjected
>> unduly.
>> Regards
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:58 PM 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!
>>> Sada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>