2023-06-22 12:07:41 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
8
fegrafa-s
appear to be one, there is no repetition. The
Even the expressed meaning or the vachyartha of the
words conveys an idea of a unified meaning, an identity cum-
difference called 'tādātmya' between the meanings because of
the grammatical relation of apposition, Sāmānādhikaraṇya'.
This is the attributive-substantive relation where a single
perceived object like a black pot, is conceived as consisting of
two distinct elements, the attribute 'blackness' and the substance
'pot'; the oneness being perceptual and the difference conceptual.
"
The qualifying element could be again a 'vişeshana' an
attributive which is persent in the subsantative, participates in
its function and distinguishes it; an upadhi' an adjunct, which
is also present in the substantive and distinguishes it, but does
not enter into the function of the substantive; or an upalak-
shana', an indicator which only distingushes the substantive.
For example "The black pot is destructible". Blackness is
present in the pot, participates in its function of being destructi-
ble and distinguishes it. It is an attribute, a viseshana, "Space
delimited by the labyrinth of the ear is the organ of hearing ".
Delimitation by the labyrinth of the ear is present in the
designated space and distinguishes it, but does not participate in
its function of being the organ of hearing. This is an upadhi,
an adjunct. The object seen at the end of the branch is the
moon". Being at the end of the branch distinguishes the moon
but has no relation with the moon itself or with its function
of giving light. It is an upalakshana, an indicator.
The tādātmya' of the attributive and the substantive
includes the identification of the adjunct and the substantive
and the indicator and the substantive. But when the seeker
who has understood from the proper study of the upanishads
that their purport is to convey the absolute non-duality of
Reality, comes across one of the mahāvakyas, great statements,
he proceeds from the unifying meaning conveyed by the expres-
sed meaning to the absolute non-distinction by seeking the
implied meaning by the process of partial abandonment, bhaga-
tyaga-lakshana or the jahat-lakshaṇa, as may be appropriate.
66
(
.
fegrafa-s
appear to be one, there is no repetition. The
Even the expressed meaning or the vachyartha of the
words conveys an idea of a unified meaning, an identity cum-
difference called 'tādātmya' between the meanings because of
the grammatical relation of apposition, Sāmānādhikaraṇya'.
This is the attributive-substantive relation where a single
perceived object like a black pot, is conceived as consisting of
two distinct elements, the attribute 'blackness' and the substance
'pot'; the oneness being perceptual and the difference conceptual.
"
The qualifying element could be again a 'vişeshana' an
attributive which is persent in the subsantative, participates in
its function and distinguishes it; an upadhi' an adjunct, which
is also present in the substantive and distinguishes it, but does
not enter into the function of the substantive; or an upalak-
shana', an indicator which only distingushes the substantive.
For example "The black pot is destructible". Blackness is
present in the pot, participates in its function of being destructi-
ble and distinguishes it. It is an attribute, a viseshana, "Space
delimited by the labyrinth of the ear is the organ of hearing ".
Delimitation by the labyrinth of the ear is present in the
designated space and distinguishes it, but does not participate in
its function of being the organ of hearing. This is an upadhi,
an adjunct. The object seen at the end of the branch is the
moon". Being at the end of the branch distinguishes the moon
but has no relation with the moon itself or with its function
of giving light. It is an upalakshana, an indicator.
The tādātmya' of the attributive and the substantive
includes the identification of the adjunct and the substantive
and the indicator and the substantive. But when the seeker
who has understood from the proper study of the upanishads
that their purport is to convey the absolute non-duality of
Reality, comes across one of the mahāvakyas, great statements,
he proceeds from the unifying meaning conveyed by the expres-
sed meaning to the absolute non-distinction by seeking the
implied meaning by the process of partial abandonment, bhaga-
tyaga-lakshana or the jahat-lakshaṇa, as may be appropriate.
66
(
.