[Advaita-l] mithyaa / anirvachaniiya and asattva

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
*www.lalitaalaalitah.com


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Naresh Cuntoor <nareshpc at gmail.com> wrote:

> as putrahInA means a woman and putraH means son, so there is no repetition
> >
>
> Surely you agree that putrahInA (vandhyaa) is not a synonym for woman.
>

I can't anything like that in my postings.
​​

> It only means a woman who cannot have a biological offspring.
> So the problem is in equating putrahInA or vandhyaa with 'woman' without
> further qualification;
> similarly in equating andha with puruSha without any qualification
> (sightless person, not just person).
>

I just took visheShyAMsha to show that visheShya-s are quite different.
Nothing more was wished to be conveyed.
​​

> > either useful or useless. This much regarding difference of visheShya
> part.
> > Talking of visheShNAMshsa, putrahInA means ​​putrAbhAvaH and this is
> > certainly not the meaning of word putraH.
> > So, I don't see any repetition.
> >
>
> At no point did I say that there is repetition is in just "putrahInA" (or
> vandhyA)
>

OK. So, you were always talking about some sentence and it's meaning while
we all were talking about a padArtha.
​​

> > However, what you conceive as repetition comes only after we add another
> > word to the word vandhyAputraH to make a sentence. But, that must have
> same
> > meaning to cause it. So, vandhyAputraH sutarahitAjAtaH is a repetition
> and
> >
>
> No, the repetition occurs much earlier -- when you say putrahInAyAH putraH
> (=putrahInAputraH = vandhyAputraH). In the vigraha, the first part
> putrahInAyaH has already stated that you referring to a woman who does not
> have a son.


OK.
​​

> Then the uttarapada adds putraH.


So, what ? putraH doesn't mean 'a woman who doesn't have a son'.
​​