[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Ravi Kiran]

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> namastE. praNaams My Dear  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
>> I am continuing further on the same line of thinking . . .
>> Irrespective of the object being objectified, the akhanDAkAra-vrtti
>>  always corresponds to the brahmAkAra-akhanDa-vRtti
>
>
This would mean..

akhanDAkAra-vrtti is of the svayam-prakAsaka Brahma vastu alone, hence get
Its brahmAkAratva

since akhanDAkAra-vrtti on any object does not dispel the ajnAna of Brahman


which illumines the real brahma-vastu in any/every/all object(s); that is
>> the vision of a brahma-jnAni - even when looking at any object the
>> brahma-jnAni sees the brahma-vastu in any/every/all objects being
>> objectified.
>> So, my understanding about the akhanDAkAra-vRtti is that it goes far
>> beyond any/every/all viShEShaNas and reaches the real brahma-vastu any
>> illumines it, rather than stopping short at the level of the viShEShaNas as
>> in the case of other anEka-AkAra-vRttis.
>> Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |
>>  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma
>> jnaanaat hi braahmaNah ||
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>>      On Sunday, 5 July 2015 7:23 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <
>> k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  namastE. praNaams My Dear  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
>> Let me continue with my understanding, and you may correct me if &
>> wherever required.
>> (1) "ghaTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa"  -and-  (2)
>> "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa"
>> The first one will be a knowledge of the ghaTa with all(?) of its
>> viShEShaNas / attributes; whereas the second one will be a knowledge of the
>> ghaTa without  any(?) of its viShEShaNas / attributes.
>> Now, the question arises - which of these would be a complete knowledge
>> of the ghaTa? The naturally expected answer is that the first one seems to
>> be the one preferred, since the second one doesn't illumine any of the
>> viShEShaNas and therefore seems to be only some minimal knowledge without
>> any specific identifying/distinguishing details of the ghaTa
>> object. However, then that answer seems to be somehow misleading, because
>> when the akhanDAkAra-vRtti is applied to brahma-vastu, what is obtained is
>> the brahmAkAraakhanDavRtti which shines as brahmajnAna. So, . . . some
>> possible confusion . . . ! ! ! . . .
>>
>> I wonder why the akhanDAkAravRtti has been defined to be of somewhat
>> limited scope & capability rather than allowing for a samyak-jnAna
>> (complete knowledge) of whatever object is being objectified !?
>> Could it be possible that the akhanDAkAravRtti indeed goes far beyond the
>> viShEShaNas to reach the real object/vastu which is brahma-vastu
>> irrespective of whatever object is being objectified; whereas all other
>> anEka-AkAra-vRttis reaches only up to the viShEShaNas in the process of
>> such objectification !?
>> Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |
>>  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma
>> jnaanaat hi braahmaNah ||
>>
>>
>>      On Sunday, 5 July 2015 5:40 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <
>> k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  namastE. praNaams My Dear  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
>> Thank you for your patience in responding in spite of the irritation
>> caused thereby.
>> Now, therefore, allow me repeat in my own words, from what i have
>> understood from your writings in this forum : [BTW i haven't yet studied
>> advaitasiddhi / vEdAntaparibhASha - i may need much more time for that]
>> We are talking about vyavahAra - vRtti-janya-jnAna - in particular. Let
>> us consider any object in the vyavahArika that is the usual perceptible
>> world, say a simple ghaTa. A knowledge of the ghaTa arises from the
>> ghaTAkAra-vRtti as usually understood. What will be that knowledge of the
>> same ghaTa arising from an akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with it? Will it be
>> the same knowledge, or different? I guess that it will be different because
>> of the fact that the ghaTAkAra-vRtti is different from the
>> akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with it. If different, how different will be
>> those two from one another? "ghaTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa"
>>  -and-  "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa".   Keshava PRASAD
>> HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi
>> bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi
>> braahmaNah ||
>>
>>
>>      On Sunday, 5 July 2015 5:07 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
>> lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible for one to have an  akhaNDAkAra-vRtti
>> [niShprakAra-vRtti] associated with an object in the physical world, say a
>> ghaTa or a paTa like object? OR is it that  an  akhaNDAkAra-vRtti
>> [niShprakAra-vRtti] is by definition always associated with only
>> brahma-vastu?
>>
>> ​You know, anyone will hate to say same thing again and again. I'm
>> telling this about second question.
>>
>> If you understand that I was refuting it's relation with  brahma-vastu
>> only, then it makes sense to deduce that I accept that this vRtti is
>> possible for other objects. Otherwise, why should I insist to cover सोयम्
>> and प्रकृष्टप्रकाशश्चन्द्रः etc.?
>> ​
>>
>> श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
>> www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>