Four kinds of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam

[Guest guest]

Pranams to all.

 

   When two or more words in a sentence, each of which has a different meaning, together denote one and the same object, they are said to be in sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. (in apposition).

 Shri Shankara has, in his bhAShya on brahmasUtra 3.3.9, explained that sAmAnAdhikaraNyam is of four kinds.

     

       These four kinds are explained below.

 

1. adhyAse sAmAnAdhikaraNyam- superimposition.

      Here the word ‘adhyAsa’ is not used in the sense of superimposition due to delusion, but in the sense of a deliberate mental act of looking upon one thing as another for the purpose of meditation. The upanishadic statement, “Meditate on name as brahman” is an instance of such a sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. Here the idea of brahman is superimposed on a name, but the idea of name persists and is not negated by the idea of brahman as it happens in the case of a superimposition due to delusion. Another example is meditation on an image as Lord ViShNu, where the idea of ViShNu, is superimposed on the image.

 

2. apavAde sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. (This is also known as bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNyam)- ablation.

    The example given by Shri Shankara for this is--- the idea that the body-mind complex is the Self, which has been persisting over innumerable births, is discarded on the rise of right knowledge arising from the Upanishadic statement ‘That thou art”. Here what was thought to be the Self is found to be not so. Thus the wrong knowledge is replaced by right knowledge.

Another example is the statement, “The silver is nacre”. Here the meaning is that what appeared to be silver is really only nacre. The statement “sarvam khalu idam brahma (Ch. up, 3.14.1), which means “All this is indeed brahman”, is of this type. It means that all this that appears has no reality and that there is nothing but Brahman.

    In this kind of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam the two which are in apposition are of different levels of reality. Silver is prAtibhAsika, while nacre is vyAvahArika. “All this” is vyAvahArika, while brahman is pAramArthika.

3.ekatve sAmAnAdhikaraNyam- identity.

    An example is “satyam jnanam anantam brahma”.   Here each of the three words, satyam, jnanam and anantam has a different meaning, but together they denote brahman. Here satyam, jnanam anantam are identical with brahman.

    

      Another example is, “The pot-space is the same as the total space”.

Here both are equally real (vyAvahArika sattA) and their identity is declared.

4. visheShaNa-visheShya-bhAva sAmAnAdhikaraNyam.

Here the relationship between the words is that of substantive and attribute. An example is, “a blue lotus”.

Best wishes,S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Kindly permit me to express the following:

 

1. The correct BS reference appears to be 3.3.19.

 

2. Is the term explained samAnAdhikaraNyam or samAnAdhikaraNam?

 

3. In No. 3 (ekatve samAnadhikaraNam), pot space is identifiable because it is

bordered by the walls of the pot whereas is there anything such as pure space in

existence? Isn't pure space recognized as an 'entity' due to the existence of

objects? As such, is it right to term it as a vyAvahArika sattA? I know

Shankara has cited this as an example. Yet, is it permissible to entertain

afterthoughts?

 

4. Are satyam, jnAnam and anantam vyAvahArika sattAs? They are only

vyAvaharika concepts and not tangible like an aluminium or clay pot.

 

PraNAms to all.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_________________________

 

 

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> When two or more words in a sentence, each of which has a different

> meaning, together denote one and the same object, they are said to be in

> sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. (in apposition).

...............

> 3.ekatve sAmAnAdhikaraNyam- identity.

>

> An example is " satyam jnanam anantam brahma " . Here each of the three

> words, satyam, jnanam and anantam has a different meaning, but together they

> denote brahman. Here satyam, jnanam anantam are identical with brahman.

 

>

> Another example is, " The pot-space is the same as the total space " .

>

> Here both are equally real (vyAvahArika sattA) and their identity is

> declared.

[Guest guest]

Shastriji - PraNams

 

Beautiful post -There was some analysis on samaanaadhikarana by Ken and if I

remember it is in the files uploaded.

 

I think this should be added along with that post.

 

Just few comments based on my understanding relating to the last one

visheShaNa-visheshya samaanadhikaraNa - I think Bhagavan Ramanuja uses this to

account for the tat tvam asi statement as per vishiShTaadvaita - where in the

statement tat and tvam the visheShaNa and viseShya samaandhikarana is used since

jiiva is considered as attributive aspect of Brahman similar to blue lotus.

 

- in this samaanadhikaraNa, blue is not same as lotus but blueness belongs to

the lotus and cannot exist independent of lotus (or some object) while lotus can

be lotus without being blue although it cannnot be called blue lotus at that

time. The samaanadhikaraNa comes since the substantive - blueness of the blue

and lotusness of the lotus refere to one and the same in the blue lotus.

 

But here we are only referring to swaabhaavika visheShaNas - or inhernet

qualities and not samyoga or tatasta qualities like Devadatta's house is where

crow is sitting now. There is no samaanaadhikaraNa of crow sitting and

Devadatta's house although there is visheshaNa-visheShya sambandha or relation

between qualifier and qualified.

 

The universe and the cause maaya are considered as tatasta lakshna for Brahman

in the definition of janmaadhyasya yataH. Hence mityaa objects of pots and pans

do not come under samaanadhikaraNa aspect - while satyam,jnaanam anantam are

swaruupa lakshaNas as Shankara explains clearly.

 

would welcome your comments.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

------------------

--- On Mon, 3/16/09, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

   When two or more words in a sentence, each of which has a different

meaning, together denote one and the same object, they are said to be in

sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. (in apposition).

 Shri Shankara has, in his bhAShya on brahmasUtra 3.3.9, explained that

sAmAnAdhikaraNyam is of four kinds.

     

       These four kinds are explained below.

 

4. visheShaNa-visheShy a-bhAva sAmAnAdhikaraNyam.

Here the relationship between the words is that of substantive and attribute. An

example is, “a blue lotusâ€.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

> But here we are only referring to swaabhaavika visheShaNas - or inhernet

qualities and not samyoga or tatasta qualities like Devadatta's house is where

crow is sitting now. There is no samaanaadhikaraNa of crow sitting and

Devadatta's house although there is visheshaNa-visheShya sambandha or relation

between qualifier and qualified.

>

> The universe and the cause maaya are considered as tatasta lakshna for Brahman

in the definition of janmaadhyasya yataH. Hence mityaa objects of pots and pans

do not come under samaanadhikaraNa aspect - while satyam,jnaanam anantam are

swaruupa lakshaNas as Shankara explains clearly.

>

> would welcome your comments.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Dear Sada-ji,

You have touched upon a topic that I was proposing to make the subject of my

next post.

What we have learnt is that the example given for taTasthalakShaNa is the

crow sitting on a house. I have now learnt from an eminent scholar that there

are some further refinements to this. There are three terms—visheShaNa, upAdhi

and upalakShaNa. The common feature of all these is that they serve to

distinguish a particular object or entity from others. But there is a subtle

difference among these three terms and a special significance is attached to

each of these terms.

 

visheShaNa is what is always with the object or entity. e.g., a white cow. When

the cow moves the whiteness is also always with it.

 

upadhi is what distinguishes an entity from others, without being always with

it. For example, there are 10 persons sitting on the floor, while only one

person is sitting on a chair in a room next to mine. I ask some one to bring the

person sitting on the chair. He goes and brings the man alone, and not the

chair. The chair has served to distinguish him from others, but it is not always

with him. But the man was sitting in the chair when the man who went to call him

saw him. This is the feature that distinguishes upAdhi from upalakShaNa. The

upAdhi is a thing that is there with the object or entity at the relevant time.

 

upalakShaNa is a quality which was there earlier, but is not there at the time

when the term is used. For example, a person goes in search of a house of a

particular person. While walking along the street he saw the cart of a

vegetable-seller standing in front of a particular house. (This may not happen

in USA, but is common in India). He walked further and asked a person standing

in front of another house , " Which is the house of Mr A? " . The man answers, " It

is the house in front of which a cart was standing when you were passing by it " .

(By this time the cart has moved away). Here the house is identified by a past

event which was known to both. Thus, upalakShaNa is what enables one to

distinguish a particular object or entity by something which was there earlier,

but is not there now.

The example of a crow sitting on a house is also upalakShaNa because the crow

would not be there when the person reaches the house. The same is called

taTasthalakShaNa when the idea is to distinguish it from svarUpalakShaNa.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

> ------------------

> --- On Mon, 3/16/09, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

>

>

>    When two or more words in a sentence, each of which has a different

meaning, together denote one and the same object, they are said to be in

sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. (in apposition).

>  Shri Shankara has, in his bhAShya on brahmasUtra 3.3.9, explained that

sAmAnAdhikaraNyam is of four kinds.

>      

>        These four kinds are explained below.

>  

> 4. visheShaNa-visheShy a-bhAva sAmAnAdhikaraNyam.

> Here the relationship between the words is that of substantive and attribute.

An example is, “a blue lotusâ€.

>

[Guest guest]

Sastriji - PraNams

 

Fantastic - glad to learn the difference between upAdhi and upalakShaNa.

 

I am also trying to find correct words to distinguish swaruupa and swaabhaavika

visheShaNas - which I call the first one as necessary and sufficient while the

next one is only necessary but not sufficient quality. Like sweetness is

necessary but not sufficient quality to distinguish sugar. I do not know if

there words for proper distinction to differentiate these two. I discussed this

with swami Parmaarthanandaji - he could appreciate the difference but just

suggested use swaruupa for one and swabhaavika for the other, although swaruupa

is swaabhaavika also while reverse is not necessarily true - Like lotusness is

swarupa while blueness is swaabhaavika for blue lotus. samaanaadhikaraNa applies

at swaabhaavika level but not at swaruupa level. If I take blue lotus and green

lotus, lotusness is samaanam for both but not superficial colors which are

needed to distinguish one lotus from the other, but not necessarily to

distinguish lotus from blue and greee

lillies. Just trying to differentiate visheShaNa visheShya sambandhas.

 

From the difference between upalakshaNa and upAdhi you gave, one can say as long

as upaadhis are there, upahita caitanya remains as jiivan mukta. Only perhaps

when the upaadhis drop out, from the point of disciples the upaadhis have become

upalakshaNas - I am just thinking loud based on the description you give for the

two. Very Interesting.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Mon, 3/16/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

There are three terms—visheShaNa, upAdhi and upalakShaNa. The common feature

of all these is that they serve to distinguish a particular object or entity

from others. But there is a subtle difference among these three terms and a

special significance is attached to each of these terms.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

There was some analysis on samaanaadhikarana by Ken and if I remember it is in

the files uploaded.

>

> I think this should be added along with that post.

>

 

Namaste,

 

It is in the Folder/File Mahavakyas.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> Kindly permit me to express the following:

>

> 1. The correct BS reference appears to be 3.3.19.

>

> 2. Is the term explained samAnAdhikaraNyam or samAnAdhikaraNam?

>

> 3. In No. 3 (ekatve samAnadhikaraNam), pot space is identifiable because it

is bordered by the walls of the pot whereas is there anything such as pure space

in existence? Isn't pure space recognized as an 'entity' due to the existence

of objects? As such, is it right to term it as a vyAvahArika sattA? I know

Shankara has cited this as an example. Yet, is it permissible to entertain

afterthoughts?

>

> 4. Are satyam, jnAnam and anantam vyAvahArika sattAs? They are only

vyAvaharika concepts and not tangible like an aluminium or clay pot.

>

> PraNAms to all.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Dear Nair-ji,

I have verified that the sutra is 3.3.9 as I had stated. The sutra is---

vyApteshca samanjasam.

 

The term explained is samAnAdhikaraNam. I find that I had made a mistake in the

transliteration. The first letter `s' should have been followed by a small

letter 'a' and not the capital letter " A'.

 

samAna means `same' and adhikaraNam in the present context means `grammatical

case'. The words in the sentence, which together denote one and the same object,

are said to be in `samAnAdhikaraNam'. The relationship that obtains between (or

among) the words is known as sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. So either of the words can be

used in the present context. The word used in the bhAShya is sAmAnAdhikaraNyam,

but I have used the word samAnAdhikaraNam because it is comparatively easier to

read for those not familiar with Samskrit.

 

According to vedAnta, space or AkAsha has an origin. In brahma sutra 2.3. 1-7,

it has been held that space is a product, after refuting all possible

objections. Being a product, it has only vyAvahArika reality. Everything in this

world is either vyAvaharika or prAtibhAsika, whether it is a concrete object or

a concept.

 

The sentence `satyam jnAnam anantam brahma' appears in the taitt. up. The

upanishad itself has only vyAvahArika reality and so this sentence is also only

vyAvahArika.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> Sastriji - PraNams

>

> From the difference between upalakshaNa and upAdhi you gave, one can say as

long as upaadhis are there, upahita caitanya remains as jiivan mukta. Only

perhaps when the upaadhis drop out, from the point of disciples the upaadhis

have become upalakshaNas - I am just thinking loud based on the description you

give for the two. Very Interesting.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Dear Sada-ji,

The definitions of upAdhi. etc, that I gave are applicable only when we want to

distinguish these terms from one another. The term upAdhi has another meaning

which is what is applicable when we speak of BMI as upAdhi of the Self. I shall

deal with this in another post.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

This is in continuation of the meanings of the terms visheShaNam, upAdhi and

upalakShaNam given in post # 44129. There all the three are intended to qualify

substantives and to distinguish them from all other objects.

 

The words upAdhi and upalakShaNam have also other meanings than those given in #

44129.

 

Another meaning of upAdhi is--upa samIpe AdadhAti svIyam dharmam—

The meaning is—upAdhi is that which gives its quality to what is in its

proximity.

One example is a red flower making a crystal near it look red. Similarly, the

space within a pot appears to have the size and shape of the pot. This is the

sense in which the BMI is said to be the upAdhi of the Self. Here the self

appears to have taken the qualities of the BMI.

 

Apart from the sense given in # 44129, the word upalakShanam is used also in

the following sense. When only one item in a group Is specifically mentioned and

the intention is to denote all the items of that group, it is said that the item

mentioned is an `upalakShaNam' for all the items in the group. For example, in

some places in the upanishads where the eye alone is mentioned and it is

explained in the bhAShya that it is an upalakShaNam, the meaning is that what is

meant is not only the eye but all the five sense organs, of which the eye is

one. Similarly, when water is stated to be upalakShaNa, it means that all the

five elements are meant.

S.N.Sastri