[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Rameshji - PraNAms

That was my first post -Here we are referring to jnaana phalam although there is no phalavyaapti for the Vedanta jnaanam.  I was told that I was wrong. I waited to get clarification from Swami Paramarthanadaji. In response to my question of what is akhandaakaara vRtti he mentioned (or to be more precise I heard) the Vedanta jnaana vRitti that eliminates the jiiva-brahma abhinnatvam and makes us understand the ekatvam. It is not phalam but the jnaana vRitti that eliminates the bhinnatvam of jiiva-brahma. I was told that I am wrong again. I am not sure if I am wrong or the definition is incomplete as it is claimed that it applies to perception of objects too. 

It can apply in the case of soyam devadattaH since we have two operations- 1. Direct perception of the current devadatta where the current attributes of Devadatta are involved, and 2. recollection of past perception from memory where that devadatta with different attributes are involved. Hence in the knowledge of soyam devadattaH, this is that Devadatta, the attributes of this and that Devadatta are to be discarded since they are contradictory, and only take the essence of Devadatta -The process is bhaagatyaga lakshana where part of it rejected  and part is retained;  the contradictory vishshaNaas are rejected and unifying one is filtered since there is only one Devadatta. 

Note that in the first perceived Devadatta, we do not perceive him devoid of attributes but with current attributes. When we recall, we recall the past Devadatta with past attributes. Now we use Viveka that sees cognitively the changeless Devadatta in the changing devadattas. Hence it is not direct perceptual knowledge, but can only be known by those who have the Viveka (who can pick up the changeless ones in the changing ones). Hence the example is used to understand tat tvam asi -using baadhyaayam samanaadhikaranam or discard the contradictory qualifications while retaining the essence.  Only a trained mind can do that. 

We also note that in the direct perception, the knowledge is always attributive knowledge since senses can only gather attributes.  In the recollection (internal perceptions) we do not have sense input, but still in recollecting a cow or horse we do recollect the viseshnana sahita viseshya , the object with attributes the recollection of cow differs from that of horse.  

When we see for the first time since we have no memory of the past, then the cognized object is stored with a  name . Second time perception involves direct perception that cause cognition and recollection from memory past similar attributive object and matching (sometime if the recollection is vague or fuzzy) the attributive content, we say,  this is a cow or He is Devadatta, etc. Vishishtaadvaita says the first time cognition is indeterminate and the second time on the cognition is determinate. 

The point remains however that only without the attributive content the object cannot be cognized – In seeing we see form of an object. But in hearing we have to go by the attributive sound to compare whether it is a cat or dog that is not seen but heard. In the case of lightning we see first then we hear later since we have learned that velocity of the light is greater than sound – even though both happened at the same time. All these aspects are involved in perception shabda, sparsa, ruupa, rasa and gandha- where sometime direct contact with the object with sparsa and rasa is involved for cognition and recognition. 

Hence I maintain  based on our experiences, that there cannot be perception of an object without visheshanas since by definition one object differs from the others because of visheshanas only.  I cannot say I have indeterminate perception of cat, cow and horse here – it is like blank perception without the attributive content. If theoretically it is formulated then it has no relevance to human experience. 
Therefore I am not sure what akhadaakaara vRitti in perception of unitary objects is. 

Hari Om!
Sadananda

    
 Sunday, 5 July 2015 9:49 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
 wrote:
   

 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. 
 
 
 
 
 Here it is
 understood that, because of the brahma-jnAna alone, one sees
 the real Brahma vastu everywhere ( sarvAtma bhAva) and not
 because of akhanDAkAra-vrtti on that object, uncovered the
 real brahma-vastu, dispelling the ajnAna of Brahman
  
 
 
 
 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 ||