[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Venkataraghavan - PraNAms

Thanks for clarifying it. 

Frankly for tuula avidya at least it makes absolutely no sense to me, if there is knowledge of an object without an attribute. Pure existence is imperceptible and advaita does not subscribe to indeterminate perception unlike Nyaaya or vishishtaadvaita does. I think Anandaji had discussed this aspect as I read before in his mail. 

As per vedanta all objects are just naama ruupa and ruupa stands for attributive content. The question of naama that involves naming and naming involves knowing and knowing involves conscious entity with attributive knowledge in terms of vRitti,  since substantive is Brahman - this is true for all objective knowledge. There is no akhada aspect here since attributes are differentiable. 

If akhada is undifferentiated objective knowledge, there is no such thing - Now if that applies to self which is attribute less then also it is not possible unless one talks in figurative usage of knowledge of saakshi. Even when I say I see something there, I have to see a form which is its attribute but do not have sufficient further qualifying attributes gathered for me to have a definitive knowledge. you have this is - knowledge which is indeterminate without some form of the object seen. Naamaruupaatmakam jagat. 

I need more explanation in order to understand what exactly it stands for. me to grasp. 

Hari Om!
Sadananda

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 7/4/15, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "श्रीमल्ललितालालितः" <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>
 Date: Saturday, July 4, 2015, 11:24 AM
 
 Acharya
 Sadaji,
 PraNams.
 At the risk of potentially misrepresenting Sri
 Srimallalilataalaalita:'s definition of
 akhandAkAra(until we get the original definition of
 akhandAkAra from advaita siddhi or chitsukhI, that risk is
 likely to continue to exist), this is my understanding:
 AkhandAkAra vritti is that vritti which
 produces the knowledge of an object, without providing
 knowledge of its attributes or relations (for e.g. between
 the object and its attribute).
 As examples, he gave soyam or prakrishta
 prakAshashcha chandra:
 The knowledge produced be these statements is
 akhandAkAra -in the case of soyam, the knower will know that
 He (Sa:) is this person (ayam), but the specific attributes
 of He and this person are not known- only the identity of
 the underlying person is known.
 In the case of prakrishta prakAshashcha
 chandra:, none of the attributes of the moon are known, nor
 is the relationship between the bright light and moon is
 known (ie that it is reflected sunlight) in the knowledge
 produced by that statement.
 Therefore the knowledge generated from such
 statements also qualify to be termed akhandAkAra, and not
 just the ones from mahAvAkya janya jnAnam.
 Sri srimallalitaalaalitah's contention is
 that if akhandAkAra is defined as simply abhinnatva or any
 other alternatives proposed during the course of the
 discussion, it is either non applicable in instances like
 the above, and in the instance to describe mahavaAkya janya
 jnAnam, simply the wrong definition.
 Regards,
 
 Venkatraghavan
 On 4 Jul 2015 15:39,
 "kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 PraNAms
 
 
 
 I do not understand what is being presented below by
 Shreeman LalitalaalitaH. The description is too vague for
 me. I appreciate if someone who can understand this describe
 this clear terms what exactly that is being described as
 akhandaakaara vRitti and for me to understand in clear terms
 how this differs from other descriptions.
 
 
 
 Hari Om!
 
 Sadananda
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 
 On Sat, 7/4/15,
 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via
 Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 
 
 
 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 
 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