On the discussions - real and unreal! - some ramblings.

[Guest guest]

On Swaruupa lakshaNa! - If one thinks deeply – it may be a

self-contradictory statement too. LakshaNa by ‘definition’ is that which

is a ‘qualification’ and therefore for an object that can be

‘indicated’- as lakshyam is as its goal or target. LakshaNa-s therefore

‘indicators’ or qualifiers that qualify an object that is indicated!

Contradiction in the swaruuapa lakshaNa arises if it tries to indicate

that which cannot be indicated!

 

Tatasta lakshaNa are incidental qualification that are not intrinsic or

inherent with the object and by default Swaruupa lakskhaNa-s then are

intrinsic qualifications. For example ‘sweetness of the sugar’ is the

lakshaNa of sugar – but is it its swaruupa? – In math we call this as

‘necessary qualifications’ - But converse is not necessarily true that

is 'if it is sweet it has to be sugar' is not true, it is necessary but

not sufficient qualification that separates sugar from the rest of the

objects in the universe. Then what qualifies ‘swaruupa dharma’ of sugar

– may be C6H5O6 (I assume this is the right chemical formula for

sucrose- getting old!) – then it becomes both necessary and sufficient

qualification for sugar- But is it swaruupam or swaruupa lakshaNa? – Is

not swaruupam is different from a lakshaNa? – One is the loci and the

other are qualifications – different but inseparable unless you are a

dwaitin.

 

All this upodhghaatam is to raise the question - does Brahman have

swaruupa lakshaNa-s? – satyam jnaanam anantam Brahman? I really do not

think so. This is where we get dwaitins jump over us saying that they

are attributes of Brahman. Let us go back to our definitions – inherent

or intrinsic qualifications of an object are those that define an object

in such a way to differentiate it from the rest of the objects in the

universe. Now can Brahman have any intrinsic qualifications or swaruupa

lakshaNa-s that differentiates or distinguishes Brahman from the rest of

the objects in the Universe. First there can be no object that is

distinct from Brahman – by definition! Infinite cannot be defined –

even the word ‘infinite’ is only an incidental definition – neti type as

not finite – to exclude any thing finite as not that, but it is included

in that if is really infinite. Satyam, jnaanam anatam/anandam brahma

can neither be swaruupa lakshaNa and obviously nor a tatasta lakshaNam.

They are used in the teaching as the Chittaranjanji pointed out that

the words with sentence structure with language has to be used for

communication by the teacher to the taught.

 

Chittaranjanji – It looks like I have flunked in the second post itself.

Since I have VK company, I should not feel bad. Just for fun

discussion- I could not ‘conceive’ the meaning of “I do not think that

the ancient Indians conceived of an inconceivable Objects” –If they

conceived then ‘they cannot come under inconceivable objects’ -

contradictions seem to be inherent in Philosophical discussions. I

presume the so-called ‘realists’are those who ‘CONCEIVE’ that the

‘objects’ cannot be conceived ‘as they are’ The contradiction is

inherent in their conception! – But let us face it - can we ever

conceive the objects ‘as they are’? – I understand we are not taking

about the limitation of the sense measures – which can be overcome by

‘scopes’ microscope or tele- or some other scope. – If I ‘push’ the

realists and the ‘idealists’ to the limit of their analysis they both

have to converge to self contradictions since both cannot ‘conceive’ the

objects as it is!

 

Just from my understanding: – non-existence is not defined as opposite

to existence – it is defined as not having a locus for existence (Ref.

to definitions of falsity by Madhusuudhana Saraswati) If I say

‘gaagaabuubu’ it is non-existent since there is no locus for its

existence either in the past or in the present. One can make something

and call it as ‘gaagabuubu’ then a locus is defined and it becomes

existent. But what he makes it out of are from existent things - thus

creation is only assemblage of existent– But ‘vandhyaa PutraH – is

trikaalepi non-existent while ‘horns of a hare’ – possibility is there

for existence of such an animal since existent hares and horns can be

combined – at least in a dream.

 

Slowly graduating to the third post.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

 

> I presume the so-called `realists' are those who `CONCEIVE' that

> the `objects' cannot be conceived `as they are'.

 

Thus they make a divide between what can be conceived and what can't.

That is the reality-divide. The reality-divide is fictitious because

the 'objects' that cannot be conceived 'as they are' are nothing but

the 'sons of a barren woman'.

 

> But let us face it - can we ever conceive the objects `as they are'?

 

I believe the answer is 'Yes'. They are simply what are conceived.

 

> If I `push' the realists and the `idealists' to the limit of

> their analysis they both have to converge to self contradictions

> since both cannot `conceive' the objects as it is!

 

According to my understanding, the object is already always conceived

when it is cognised or perceived. An object is what is there in the

content of perception or cognition as the object. I believe that it

is our contemporary schooling that makes it difficult for us to go

back to the roots of the meaning of what an object is. I have tried

to express my understanding, for whatever it is worth, on this topic

in a section called 'The Object' in the sixth part of my essays.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> On Swaruupa lakshaNa! - If one thinks deeply – it may be a

> self-contradictory statement too. LakshaNa by `definition' is that

which

> is a `qualification' and therefore for an object that can be

> `indicated'- as lakshyam is as its goal or target. LakshaNa-s

therefore

> `indicators' or qualifiers that qualify an object that is

indicated!

> Contradiction in the swaruuapa lakshaNa arises if it tries to

indicate

> that which cannot be indicated!

>

>