[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Venkatraghavan S]

SadAji,
I will leave Sri Srimallalitaalaaitah to explain further - but there are
some examples on knowledge in the vyavahArika level that would qualify as
akhandAkAra by that definition.

For example, if I tell you that Amitabh Bacchhan is the hero of the film
Sholay, and you haven't seen the film - you will know that AB is the hero,
but won't have knowledge of the attributes of the hero - what the name of
the character is, what his profession in the film is, etc. By that
definition, you will have akhandAkAra vritti of Amitabh Bachchan.

I think that example is appropriate, will leave it to you  and others to
judge.

Re the utility of such a concept, I believe Srimallalitaalaalitah suggested
that Sri MadhusUdhana Sarasvati uses this to refute dvaita and nyAyA
arguments against advaita, but as I haven't read advaita siddhi, I couldn't
possibly comment on what the specific objections and replies were.

Regards
Venkatraghavan
On 4 Jul 2015 17:24, "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>