[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Ravi Kiran]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <
k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:

> Anyone can have akhanDAkAra-vRtti to the extent that anyone can have
> brahmAkAra-akhanDa-vRtti janya brahmajnAna,
>


no more no less.  And when one does have akhanDAkAra-vRtti
> [niShprakAra-vRtti] the vRtti-janya-jnAna is sarvAtmabhAva jnAna.
>

This is not true, if you look at the example quoted by SrIlalitAlAlitaH

When one replies to
question 'which is moon' as 'prakRShTaprakAshaH chandraH', the sentence
generates akhaNDAkAravRtti; because the question was not about quality.

here, the akhanDAkAra-vRtti [niShprakAra-vRtti] is not resulting in Brahma
jnAna (sarvAtmabhAva).


> The so called akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with some examples/analogies
> like  सोयम् and प्रकृष्टप्रकाशश्चन्द्रः etc.  cannot be truly said to be
> akhanDAkAra-vRtti because of some remnant traces of viShEShaNas therein,
> although they may serve as good pedagogical examples/analogies to
> facilitate the teaching/learning process.
>
> I have written too much.  And, i have not received comments from
> SrIlalitAlAlitaH yet.
>
> In one of my earlier posts/mails of 04th-July that i had shared i
> presented my earlier understanding ("IMHO") of the vRtti-janya-jnAna, that
> is basically from my academic/technical background in systems-science:
>
> Any objectification necessarily presumes a relationship - 'aRb' as Sri
> Anand Hudli referred to it at some point in his post - that is, based on
> the "set_of_attribute-value_pairs" used as the identifying & distinguishing
> characteristic features/properties of the object being objectified.
>
> According to the nature of that set, i have classified vRtti-janya-jnAna
> as one of the four possible classes: [SUnyatvam] <> [Ekatvam] <>
> [anEkatvam] <> [anantatvam].
>
> *Now, i am trying to wear a different hat; based on whatever i am trying
> to understand from my little bit of reading of whatever has been written by
> SrIlalitAlAlitaH in these threads . . . and that is what i have been
> sharing today.  I don't know, i am yet to finalize my thinking on these
> lines, though. *
>
> So let me stop here, and wait for the comments of SrIlalitAlAlitaH, before
> going further.
>
> *Keshava PRASAD Halemane*
> *mOkShakaamaarthadharmah
> <https://ia801004.us.archive.org/23/items/MOkShaKaamaArthaDharma/mOkSha-kaama-artha-dharmah.pdf>*
> *janmanaa jaayatE jantu**ḥ** |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvija**ḥ** ||
>  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah ||*
> <https://ia601903.us.archive.org/1/items/JanmanaajaayatEjantuh/janmanaajaayatEjantuh.pdf>
>
>
>
>   On 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 ||
>
>
>
>
>
>      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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>