[Advaita-l] Vikalpa, Savikalpa, and Nirvikalpa

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 01:14:05 CDT 2012

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

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

A person saying mahAvAkyam and antaHkaraNam, both karaNam of brahma-GYAna
confuses all.
vyApAravadasAdhAraNaM kAraNm or sAdhakatamaM is karaNAm. And I don't think
that more than one cause can be sAdhakatamaM for a kArya. So, vAchaspati
and others who say that different things are karaNa of brahma-GYAna are
opposed to each other.

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

See above. They are in contradiction. maNi was only showing you kAraNatvam
of one and karaNatvam of other in each case and not karaNatvam of each.

In short, I meant that vAchaspati-s view is ekadesha and wrong one.

> > 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.

sAxAt-sAdhanam is another name of karaNam. So, see again your sentence. You
are again using words without knowing meaning.

> > 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.

As you are a serious reader of bhAShya, I'll like to direct you to
br^ihadAraNyaka-bhAShyam-s and it's vArttika to gain clarity.
Anyway, the direct answer is :
vidhIyate just says that they are needed. That is justified in our case too
as we accept them for specific purpose, i.e. to remove viparIta-bhAvanA.
So, there is no need to imagine a new karaNa for brahma-GYAnam.
If you insist to accept antaH-karaNam as karaNam of brahma-GYAnam, then
from today count the number of pramANa-s seven instead of six.
There are other problems in accepting antaHkaraNam as pramANam. But, I hope
you will find yourself.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list