On taTastha-lakshhaNa and svarUpa-lakshhaNa

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Chittaranjan-ji, Thank you for explaining the `nouemenal' as in

Kant.

 

Please allow me, however, to correct you on the following statement

of yours (Message #23534):

 

"If I understand these terms correctly, "tatastha-lakshana" would

mean

an object as it is by itself, and "swarupa-lakshana" would mean an

object in its formal attributes".

 

It is exactly the other way. Swarupa-lakshana describes the object

as it is by itself and tatastha-lakshana is the indicator of what

it is through its attributes.

 

The word 'taTa' means 'shore' or 'bank'. When someone wants you to

show the location of a river which is somewhere nearby but not

visible, very possibly you may show a tree that stands on the bank

of the river and say that the river is just where the tree is.

Instead of using this much of language the common man may just

say: 'That is the river', pointing to the tree. Here the tree is

only a pointer to the river. The river, in other words, is indicated

by the tree on the bank or shore. So also, the faint few-days-old

moon is indicated by pointing to the space between two branches of

yonder tree. And it must be noted that the moon has nothing to do

with the branches of the tree; yet the branches of the tree help

us to precisely look in the direction of the distant moon. That is

why this type of definition is called a 'Definition by Indication'.

The technical Sanskrit name for this, namely, 'taTastha-lakshaNa'

means exactly this. It means 'Definition' (of the river indicated by

pointing the tree) 'located on (its) 'bank'. So also when we want to

specify the Almighty who is the Transcendental Absolute brahman,

since we cannot handle or delimit the concept by our senses we

just 'indicate' it (or Him!) by saying He is the Father of the

Universe. Here we are referring to His creation aspect. It is only a

pointer to Him. 'ahaM bIjaH pradaH pitA' says the Lord in the 14th

chapter of the Gita, meaning, 'I am the Father who plants the seed'.

On the other hand,

 

Real, Consciousness, Infinite (satyam jnAnam anantam brahma) is

the Upanishadic definition of the Transcendental Absolute. This

definition is applicable irrespective of the context or discussion.

Such a definition is called 'Definition As Is'. The Sanskrit name

for this is svarUpa-lakshaNa.

 

Shankara in his Trishati- Bhashya, on the name "hrImkAra-

lakshhaNa' makes the following observations in his commentary

on `hrImkAra-lakshhaNa':

 

":Thus hrIm stands for the creative, sustaining and dissolving

aspects for all of which together the source is the Transcendental

Absolute Consciousness. The three aspects however singly or together

do not define the Absolute; but they indicate, point the direction

to, the Absolute. Such a defining characteristic is called 'taTastha-

lakshaNa'. meaning, a 'tentative definition' or 'just an indicative

definition'. It is not the final ever-valid definition. Thus the

hrIm syllable is the taTastha-lakshaNa for the Absolute".

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professor,

 

For a long time I have wondered why an indicative definition was called tatastha

lakshana. I don't think that I could have asked for a clearer explanation than

the one provided by you. Many thanks for the same.

 

pranams,

Venkat - M

 

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

Namaste.

 

Please allow me, however, to correct you on the following statement

of yours (Message #23534):

 

"If I understand these terms correctly, "tatastha-lakshana" would

mean

an object as it is by itself, and "swarupa-lakshana" would mean an

object in its formal attributes".

 

 

 

ALL-NEW Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Professor VK-ji,

 

Thank you for the explanation Sir. My knowledge of Sanskrit is

nothing to speak about. Your explanation has actually brought light

to something I was thinking about.... I shall try to include in its

proper context in a later post.

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Chittaranjan-ji, Thank you for explaining the `nouemenal' as in

> Kant.

>

> Please allow me, however, to correct you on the following

statement

> of yours (Message #23534):

>

> "If I understand these terms correctly, "tatastha-lakshana" would

> mean

> an object as it is by itself, and "swarupa-lakshana" would mean an

> object in its formal attributes".

>

> It is exactly the other way. Swarupa-lakshana describes the object

> as it is by itself and tatastha-lakshana is the indicator of what

> it is through its attributes.

>

> The word 'taTa' means 'shore' or 'bank'. When someone wants you to

> show the location of a river which is somewhere nearby but not

> visible, very possibly you may show a tree that stands on the bank

> of the river and say that the river is just where the tree is.

> Instead of using this much of language the common man may just

> say: 'That is the river', pointing to the tree. Here the tree is

> only a pointer to the river. The river, in other words, is

indicated

> by the tree on the bank or shore. So also, the faint few-days-old

> moon is indicated by pointing to the space between two branches of

> yonder tree. And it must be noted that the moon has nothing to do

> with the branches of the tree; yet the branches of the tree help

> us to precisely look in the direction of the distant moon. That is

> why this type of definition is called a 'Definition by Indication'.

> The technical Sanskrit name for this, namely, 'taTastha-lakshaNa'

> means exactly this. It means 'Definition' (of the river indicated

by

> pointing the tree) 'located on (its) 'bank'. So also when we want

to

> specify the Almighty who is the Transcendental Absolute brahman,

> since we cannot handle or delimit the concept by our senses we

> just 'indicate' it (or Him!) by saying He is the Father of the

> Universe. Here we are referring to His creation aspect. It is only

a

> pointer to Him. 'ahaM bIjaH pradaH pitA' says the Lord in the 14th

> chapter of the Gita, meaning, 'I am the Father who plants the

seed'.

> On the other hand,

>

> Real, Consciousness, Infinite (satyam jnAnam anantam brahma) is

> the Upanishadic definition of the Transcendental Absolute. This

> definition is applicable irrespective of the context or

discussion.

> Such a definition is called 'Definition As Is'. The Sanskrit name

> for this is svarUpa-lakshaNa.

>

> Shankara in his Trishati- Bhashya, on the name "hrImkAra-

> lakshhaNa' makes the following observations in his commentary

> on `hrImkAra-lakshhaNa':

>

> ":Thus hrIm stands for the creative, sustaining and dissolving

> aspects for all of which together the source is the Transcendental

> Absolute Consciousness. The three aspects however singly or

together

> do not define the Absolute; but they indicate, point the direction

> to, the Absolute. Such a defining characteristic is

called 'taTastha-

> lakshaNa'. meaning, a 'tentative definition' or 'just an indicative

> definition'. It is not the final ever-valid definition. Thus the

> hrIm syllable is the taTastha-lakshaNa for the Absolute".

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk