[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

>  I would be most grateful if you can give the specific reference within
> advaita siddhi that defines akhandAkArA as such.


​See beginning of ​

​2nd parichchheda and search whole brahmAnandI wherever he has mentioned
about this term.​

> I don't think I was suggesting that the application of the term
> akhandAkAra be restricted to only the mahavakya janya jnAnam.
>
​When I reply, it is not essential that I'm refuting a single person.
That's why I never start my post with name of any person. I combine things.
I may not quote the person's words exactly to whom I'm responding. Consider
these points. If my reply doesn't apply to you, then it must apply to
someone else, otherwise why should I waste my words?​


> 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.
>

​This long portion is in support of swami Paramarthananda.
You may have read that I've no problem with his personality and his number
of followers. I'm bothered by what he is telling about a technical term.
Now, you are telling that 'he may know but K Sadandna is not able to grasp
or like that and hence he said less than what he knows'. You see that your
whole support is based on many 'may be'-s/possibilities. As this is
possible, so it is also possible that he may not know and is guessing on
his limited knowledge, isn't it. This probability is not going to generate
determination in me about his knowledge or ignorance. This condition is
called 'state of doubt'. And, I always said that 'I seriously doubt' his
capabilities. I've never said that I've determination. Unless a person
knowing a subject delivers it correctly, how could I be sure of his
knowledge? I'm not sarvaGYA and I hope none of you are. So, birth of doubt
is inevitable.

Anyway, don't bring persons who are not directly part of discussion. That's
better option.​

​Present their ideas as 'ideas', not as 'divine words'.​