[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 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;
>

​Not with all visheShaNa-s. with any or many attributes - is correct.
​


>  whereas
> the second one will be a knowledge of the ghaTa without  any(?) of its
> viShEShaNas / attributes.
>
​correct.
​


> Now, the question arises - which of these would be a complete knowledge of
> the ghaTa?
>

​There is no complete knowledge of ghaTa, all are just with more or less
attributes.
Everything may have ananta attributes, who knows.
​


> 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.
>
​That's correct.
​


> 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.
>

​See,
if the vastu is nirvisheShaNa, any vRtti illuminating it as savisheShaNa
will be apramA.
While it is not same for savisheShaNa-vastu.
The subject is causing this confusion for you. Consider their svabhAva.
​

​
​K:
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 !?

​L:
Because, it's name suggests that the subject of it should be akhaNDa. Now,
that akhaNDa can be only single and partless entity. So, compared to
sakhaNDavRtti of sakhaNDaGYAna, it has limited scope.
BTW, do you think that ghaTa-GYAna(even sakhaNDa) has some less scope than
samUhAlambanaGYAna or hastiGYAna? You may think. But, consider that GYAna
has done it's work of revealing, and that makes it complete in every case.
Otherwise, vishvaGYAna will be greater than brahmaGYAnam!!

​K:
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 !?

​L:
Then it will not be ghaTAkArAkhaNDavRtti. It must be brahmAkAra for that.
If you have actually read my posts, then remember the definition of AkAra.
Roughly, AkAra takes place of viShayatA. So, if vRtti is akhANDaghaTAkAra
then it should reveal ghaTa, not brahman. If you think that brahman needs
to be revealed for revelation of ghaTa, then let me remind you that
revelation of brahman is in shape of ghaTa only in such places.