[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Keshava PRASAD Halemane]

namastE. praNaams to  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः 
Why an 'object' disappears if-&-when all its adjectives/attributes/viSEShaNas (known/knowable/unknown/unknowable/etc) are removed? Because, an object is nothing but its set-of-adjectives/attributes/viSEShaNas ! So then what remains? Not that nothing remains. There does remain some ONE thing - and that is brahma-vastu. The object was never there - it was only a superposition/adhyAsa(?).  The process (thought-experiment) of 'removal' of all the adjectives/attributes/viSEShaNas was not really removal. That removal process was a sort of uncovering process; to go beyond all those superpositions and reveal the real brahma-vastu that is the base/adhiShTAna(?) of all seemingly real objects in vyAvahArika world. 
This model (if one wishes to call it so) does not mean that  akhanDAkAra[niShprakAraka]vRtti  is not possible as you feared! Let me quote your words here - BTW​, if there is no possible akhaNDAkAra-GYAnam in this world(apart from brahmaGYAnam), then the objection of dvaitin-s would be there could be only sakhaNDa-GYAna of brahman, as only such GYAna rises from shabda and hence brahman is saguNa. I hope to avoid this only, we used the soyam, etc.
No. that is not so!  What i say is this - The only [one singularly unique] "akhanDa-AkAra-vRtti" is "brahma-AkAra-vRtti"; The only [one singularly unique] "akhanDa-vastu"          is "brahma-vastu". A/any sakhanDa-AkAra-vRtti cannot reveal the "akhanDa-vastu" that is "brahma-vastu". Sabda as a means of knowledge works - because brahma-vastu is the only [one singularly unique] self-effulgent-one - what Sabda does is - not really revealing - but only removing the pratibandhakas that otherwise (as-though)cover it; like the clearing of clouds leading to revealing the sun that has been always there - that is, the dOShas 
Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 


     On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 3:24 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
   

 namastE. praNaams to  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः 
Let us have another look at the ghaTa and the paTa example. 
"ghaTa  is  . . . "  =>  ghaTa-AkAra-[saprakAraka-]vRtti; and "paTa    is  . . . "  =>    paTa-AkAra-[saprakAraka-]vRtti; Remove all adjectives/attributes/viSEShaNas (known/knowable/unknown/unknowable/etc) from both the ghaTa & the paTa. Then we have  ghaTa-viShayaka-akhaNDAkAra-[niShprakAraka-]vRtti  and   paTa-viShayaka-akhaNDAkAra-[niShprakAraka-]vRtti  What are the corresponding objects being illumined by these two seemingly different akhanDAkAra-[niShprakAraka-]vRtti ? 
You said and i quote - in the case of  ghaTa-viShayaka-akhaNDAkAra-vRtti : The best answer is, it can't be expressed.
But, if you need to understand anyhow then consider it as GYAna of ghaTa without mentioning ghaTatvam as it's dharma.
However, i say that the object [ghaTa / paTa] disappears along with the set-of-attributes-that-make-up-that-object; no object remains; what remains is simply: "is". That "is" is brahma-vastu over/around/through/? which there has been the seeming adhyAsa?/superposition of whatever 'object' has been illumined through the sakhanDAkAra-[saprakAraka-]vRtti earlier. 
Keshava PRASAD Halemane
mOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 


     On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 2:46 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
   

 namastE. praNaams to  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः 
Let us take the example of "sOyam dEvadattaH". I understand that you said/implied in an earlier email/post that the example of "sOyam dEvadattaH" corresponds to an instance of akhanDAkAra-vRtti. Is it truly so? After ignoring/discarding all the irrelevant adjectives/attributes from both "that dEvadattaH" and "this dEvadattaH" there will remain enough adjectives/attributes to make that claim "sOyam dEvadattaH" and hence it cannot be a situation for niShprakAraka-vRtti/akhanDAkAra-vRtti, right? Indeed, specifically because of the availability of such common adjectives/attributes between the two - "that dEvadattaH" and "this dEvadattaH" - it enables one to make that claim that "this dEvadattaH" is indeed the very same as "that dEvadattaH". 
Every other laukika / vyavahArika example of an 'object' being objectified, to illustrate the associated akhanDAkAra-vRtti [?= niShprakAraka-vRtti] will be met with a similar situation, especially when we compare that case with a corresponding case of the same object being objectified now associated with sakhanDAkAra-vRtti [?= saprakAraka-vRtti]. 
So then we can consider the following four distinct cases: (1) "ghaTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna     of the ghaTa" on the one hand, and (2) "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa" on the other hand.    (3) "paTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna       of the  paTa" on theone hand, and (4) "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the  paTa"on the other hand.   Of course we accept that (1)-&-(3) will be quitedifferent, because of the differences in the attributes of the ghaTa and paTa.  You said that (2) will be  ghaTa-viShayaka-akhaNDAkAra-vRtti  . . . and may be similarly (3) also. Will (1)-&-(2) [and again, (3)-&-(4)] be the same knowledge, ordifferent? If same why same? If different why different, and how muchdifferent will be those two from one another? 
 Will (2)-&-(4) be the same knowledge, ordifferent? If same why same? If different why different, and how muchdifferent will be those two from one another? 
To rephrase the questions, what will be the difference between (a) attributeless-ghaTa and (b) attributeless-paTa . . . ? If we remove all (all known/knowable/unknown/unknowable/etc) the attributes from both "that dEvadattaH" and "this dEvadattaH" what will remain . . . ? Any more "dEvadattaH" at all ?  
Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 


     On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 12:46 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
   

 
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:

A knowledge of the ghaTa arises from the ghaTAkAra-vRtti as usually understood. 

​Wrong sentence written because of lack of understanding.
vRtti is GYAnam, it doesn't give rise to some other GYAnam.
To be precise, you may add vRttyupahitachaitanyam is GYAnam.
​ 
What will be that knowledge of the same ghaTa arising from an akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with it?

Wrong sentence as previous one.
So, it should be 'how do you express ghaTa-viShayaka-akhaNDAkAra-vRtti'?
The best answer is, it can't be expressed.
But, if you need to understand anyhow then consider it as GYAna of ghaTa without mentioning ghaTatvam as it's dharma.
​ 
Will it be the same knowledge, or different? 

​akhaNDAkAravRtti or niShprakAraka-vRtti is different from saprakAraka or sakhaNDa one, otherwise why should we use different words for them.
​ 
I guess that it will be different because of the fact that the ghaTAkAra-vRtti is different from the akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with it. If different, how different will be those two from one another?

​The difference will be in the way they reveal ghaTa. One will reveal only ghaTa and other will reveal it with it's quality/ties.
​ 
"ghaTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa"  -and-  "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa".  

​First learn to use words correctly.
I'm saying this because just a few days ago I corrected someone here. I thought he will correct this after learning!!​ 


श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com