[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Venkatraghavan S]

Please can you explain how the definition of akhandArthatvam as

"aparyAyashabdAnaM padavRtti-smArita-atirikta-agochara-pramAjanakatvam"

in the second parichcheda of advaita siddhi is the same as your definition?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 5 Jul 2015 06:26, "श्रीमल्ललितालालितः" <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> *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'.​
>
>