[Advaita-l] Vikalpa, Savikalpa, and Nirvikalpa

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 00:11:43 CDT 2012

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:19 AM, <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>wrote:

> This is the problem which arises when a person talks without knowing or
> applying correct meaning of a word.

I am aware of the difference between  करणम् and कारणम्.   I did not also
mistake your word 'karanam'.

The simple answer is that if mahAvAkyam is karaNam, then anything other
> including antaHkaraNam can't be the same. It can only be kAraNam. And I
> didn't oppose that anywhere. antaHkaraNam is a sAmAnya-kAraNam of any
> experience.
> > In the Vedanta tradition it is held that while the vivaraNa school
> > emphasizes the mahAvAkya as the karaNam, the bhAmatI school highlights
> the
> > antaHkaraNam as the karaNam.  I had posted a write up based on a talk by
> > Dr.Mani Dravid SastriNaH which beautifully reconciles the two apparently
> > 'opposing' views.  He had pointed out both the 'pakSha-s' are not
> > absolutely exclusive of the other.  When the mahAvAkya is said to be the
> > karaNa, it is impossible for it to operate without the appropriately
> > samskRta mind since the vRtti has to arise in the mind alone.  And when
> the
> > antaHkaraNa is said to be the karaNa, it has to be the one that is
> > appropriately trained on the strength of the mahAvAkya.  Thus, both
> require
> > both and the emphasis alone differs in the presentation by the two
> > 'prasthAnam-s.'
> I can't see how maNi supports you.

I am stating the two views in Vedanta and how they are not really
contradicting each other.

> Moreover, to add spice to controversy :
> There are only six pramANa-s and antaHkaraNam is not one of them. Looking
> again at vedAnta-paribhAShA may help as I'm talking about pramA-karaNam and
> not kAraNam.

No one has denied the need for Agama/shabda as a pramANam.  Only in the
work up to the final sAkShAtkAra as to what is the sAkShAt sAdhanam is what
gets to be viewed differently by different AchAryas.

> And,
> The view which says that samAdhi(dhyAna or prasa~NkhyAna) is needed for
> liberating knowledge to arise is not of sha~Nkara and sureshvara.

The SutrabhaaShya that I cited itself is proof for the fact that samAdhi
(dhyAnam) is needed, vidhIyate, for liberating knowledge to arise.

*योऽप्ययमौपनिषदात्मप्रतिपत्तिप्**रयोजनः समाधिरुपदिष्टो वेदान्तेषु* ’आत्मा
वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यसितव्यः’ ’सोऽन्वेष्टव्यः स
विजिज्ञासितव्यः’ (बृ. २.४.५) ’ओमित्येवं ध्यायथ आत्मानम्’ (मुण्ड. २.२.६)
इत्येवंलक्षणः, सोऽप्यसत्यात्मनः कर्तृत्वे नोपपद्येत। तस्मादप्यस्य
कर्तृत्वसिद्धिः।। ३९ ।।

There is the clear term 'samaadhiH upadiShTaH vedAnteShu'.  The upadesha is
not something optional.  More than anything it is the view of the
sUtrakAraH, bAdaraayaNaH himself.  Even above that the Shruti itself holds
so. Otherwise he need not have had to aphorize so.  All the passages cited
by the bhashyam have the vidhipratyayaH.  The Ratnaprabha also calls it
'jnAnasAdhana vidhi' and Anandagiri also says this.  Sureshwara is also of
this Vedantic view only.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list