[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Anil Aggarwal]

 Venkatji,
Thank you
A student of Swami Parmathananda


Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 
> Sri Srimallalalitaalaalita:,
> You said:
> 
> 1) >>I hope that it mentions that I'm accepting that the GYAna which causes
> emancipation, which is generated by mahAvAkya is akhaNDAkAra.
> 
> 2) >>Note that it's not akhaNDAkAra because it removes bheda/khaNDa.
> This is where I'm objecting by saying that it's called so because it's not
> illuminating anything else(relation or adjective), apart from a single
> entity.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I would be most grateful if you can give the
> specific reference within advaita siddhi that defines akhandAkArA as such.
> 
> Having made that request, I respect your learning of the subject and I am
> prepared to accept your definition, but to trace that to the original
> source would complete my understanding of the term.
> 
> I don't think I was suggesting that the application of the term akhandAkAra
> be restricted to only the mahavakya janya jnAnam.
> 
> I also do not believe Swami Paramarthananda's definition is limiting it
> only to a context of mahavakya janya jnanam either. It is simply saying
> that the akhandAkAra vritti generated by mahAvAkya has svarUpa abhedA  -
> there is no relational knowledge such as observer / observed, nor is there
> any knowledge of attributes, for the thing known is attribute less.
> 
> However, we are students of VedAnta (at least I am. I am not sure about
> your good self, as sometimes you refer to "you" and "your" in connection
> with vedAnta and vedAntic AchAryAs, but let's leave that aside). When a
> student of vedAntA approaches a vedAntic guru with the question "What is
> akhandAkAra vritti?", the gurus answer would depend on
> a) What is the level of the student's understanding and maturity?
> b) What is the guru's understanding of the student's understanding level.
> c) What is the context of the question.
> d) What is the purpose that the guru seeks to achieve by answering the
> question.
> e) What is the guru's understanding of the subject matter.
> The gurus purpose here is for the sishya to realise that Brahman and he
> have svarUpa abhedatvam and therefore be a mukta. You have agreed that the
> mahavakya jnAnam that gives rise to moksha is also akhandAkArA.
> 
> The answer to the question "What is akhandAkAra vritti?" can be given in
> such a way as to both satisfy the sishyAs question and also achieve the
> prayojanam of MokshSri Srimallalalitaalaalita:,
> You said:
> 
> 1) >>I hope that it mentions that I'm accepting that the GYAna which causes
> emancipation, which is generated by mahAvAkya is akhaNDAkAra.
> 
> 2) >>Note that it's not akhaNDAkAra because it removes bheda/khaNDa.
> This is where I'm objecting by saying that it's called so because it's not
> illuminating anything else(relation or adjective), apart from a single
> entity.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I would be most grateful if you can give the
> specific reference within advaita siddhi that defines akhandAkArA as such.
> 
> Having made that request, I respect your learning of the subject and I am
> prepared to accept your definition, but to trace that to the original
> source would complete my understanding of the term.
> 
> I don't think I was suggesting that the application of the term akhandAkAra
> be restricted to only the mahavakya janya jnAnam.
> 
> I also do not believe Swami Paramarthananda's definition is limiting it
> only to a context of mahavakya janya jnanam either. It is simply saying
> that the akhandAkAra vritti generated by mahAvAkya has svarUpa abhedA  -
> there is no relational knowledge such as observer / observed, nor is there
> any knowledge of attributes, for the thing known is attribute less.
> 
> However, we are students of VedAnta (at least I am. I am not sure about
> your good self, as sometimes you refer to "you" and "your" in connection
> with vedAnta and vedAntic AchAryAs, but let's leave that aside). When a
> student of vedAntA approaches a vedAntic guru with the question "What is
> akhandAkAra vritti?", the gurus answer would depend on
> a) What is the level of the student's understanding and maturity?
> b) What is the guru's understanding of the student's understanding level.
> c) What is the context of the question.
> d) What is the purpose that the guru seeks to achieve by answering the
> question.
> e) What is the guru's understanding of the subject matter.
> The gurus purpose here is for the sishya to realise that Brahman and he
> have svarUpa abhedatvam and therefore be a mukta. You have agreed that the
> mahavakya jnAnam that gives rise to moksha is also akhandAkArA.
> 
> The answer to the question "What is akhandAkAra vritti?" can be given in
> such a way as to both satisfy the sishyAs question and also achieve the
> prayojanam of Moksham.
> 
> The sishyA did not ask the guru to give the lakshaNam of akhandAkArA that
> is free from ativyApti, avyApti or anyathAvyApti doshAs.
> 
> It is my humble opinion that without considering the other factors, to
> directly conclude that the answer given the by the guru implies the guru's
> lack of understanding of the subject matter is unwarranted.
> 
> Regards,
> Venkat
> On 4 Jul 2015 10:57, "श्रीमल्ललितालालितः" <
> lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Assuming you agree with that statement, why is the definition of
>>> nirvikalpakam in VedAnta paribhAshA so different from what Swami
>>> Paramarthananda says - that the vritti that eliminates the "apparent"
>>> svarUpa bhedatvam between jivan and brahman, or to put it in other words,
>>> the vritti that shows svarUpa abheda between jiva and brahman is
>>> akhandAkAram?
>> 
>> 
>> ​See this from last post:
>> [
>> The samyagdarshanam (correct knowledge?) is that which liberates, and that
>> is termed as akhaNDAkAravRttiH.
>> brahman is GYAna-svarUpa, but it is not opposed to aGYAna. We can see that
>> it is which illuminates aGYAna, etc. too. And, hence it is said that
>> अज्ञाततया ज्ञाततया च सर्व्वं साक्षिभास्यम् ।
>> So, the samyag-gyAna is vRttyupahita-chaitanyam. vRttiH again should be
>> brahmAkArA, otherwise it can't dispel aGYAnam of brahman. This is seen in
>> case of ghaTa-GYAnam and ghaTAgyAnam.
>> The akAraH of vRttiH is defined as the yogyatA(capacity/ability?) of
>> vRttiH, either paroxa or aparoxa, to ​dispel the aGYAna(which obstruct the
>> vyavahAra of pot, etc. as existing, shining, etc.);
>> or, it is the तत्सन्निकृष्टकरणजन्यत्वं (don't know enough English to
>> translate, sorry!) present in vRttiH.
>> So, the brahmAkAratvam of vRtti means that the ability of vRtti to dispel
>> ignorance of brahman which(ignorance) blocks(!?) vyavahAra(abhiGYA,
>> abhilapana, etc.) as 'exiting', 'shining/illuminating'.
>> 
>> Now, the akhaNDAkAratva or niShprakAratva of vRttiH.
>> Just take it as if a vRttiH dispels ignorance of a pot, etc. but doesn't
>> objectify it's adjectives, it is niShprakArikA.
>> prakAra means adjectives. The vRtti which illuminates base, it's qualities
>> and their relation;  is saprakArikA.
>> 
>> advaitin-s, like madhusUdana-sarasvatI, etc. maintain that the
>> brahmAkAra-vRttiH should be niShprakArikA/akhaNDAkArA, if it has to be
>> liberating knowledge. Because, shrutiH itself says : tameva
>> viditvAtimRtyumeti. Here 'eva' implies that it should not illuminate pot
>> etc. /or parts / or qualities with brahman.​
>> 
>> ]​
>> ​
>> I hope that it mentions that I'm accepting that the GYAna which causes
>> emancipation, which is generated by mahAvAkya is akhaNDAkAra.
>> 
>> Note that it's not akhaNDAkAra because it removes bheda/khaNDa. Consider
>> प्रकृष्टप्रकाशश्चन्द्रः .
>> This is where I'm objecting by saying that it's called so because it's not
>> illuminating anything else(relation or adjective), apart from a single
>> entity. And, every logic used by dvaitin-s to refute every other definition
>> of akhaNDa-padArtha, is useful here.
>> Also, note that I'm objecting limit of uses of the term akhaNDAkAra, as
>> they appear, for brahmaGYAnam only.​ That's why I brought सोयम् and
>> प्रकृष्टप्रकाशश्चन्द्रः.
>> If the subject is akhaNDa, the vRtti which illuminates/removes aGYAna of
>> it should be akhaNDAkAra. But, if akhaNDa means 'devoid of visheSha',
>> 'devoid of difference', etc. then it will not cover other uses. So, it
>> should be defined as chitsukhAchArya, madhusUdanasarasvatI, etc. have done.
>> And, that's why the logic-counter logic used for akhaNDArtha-vAkya is also
>> useful for vRtti, which someone objected in his post.
>> 
>> This one more copy-paste, if needed:
>> [
>> Note that akhaNDAkAravRtti or niShprakAravRtti or nirvikalpakavRtti are
>> synonyms in our system.
>> Also, note that such vRtti is not only brahmAkArA. When one replies to
>> question 'which is moon' as 'prakRShTaprakAshaH chandraH', the sentence
>> generates akhaNDAkAravRtti; because the question was not about quality.
>> ]
>> 
>> 
>> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org