[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

You have actually represented the idea clearly. Thanks.


*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> I think I have correctly understood Akhandakara Vrtti like this
> without confusing myself or getting confused by others. To understand
> Akhandakara Vrtti we have to know Akhandarthatva first. Take Satyam
> Jnanam Anantam Brahma. Here there is no Sambandha of Visheshana and
> Visheshya between Satyam Jnanam or Anantam and Brahma. They are not
> the Qualities of Brahma but they are That. Brahman in Satya, Brahman
> is Jnana and Brahman is Ananta. This Vakya has Akhandarthatva. The
> Vrtti with this Akhandarthatva of Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma is
> Akhandakara Vrtti.
>
> Satyam = Brahma, Jnana = Brahma, Ananta = Brahma.
>
> In Soyam Devadatta also there is no Visheshana and Visheshya. That
> Devadatta is not a Quality of this Devadatta. This Devadatta is not a
> Quality of that Devadatta. This Devadatta = That Devadatta. But here
> we have to use Jahadajahallakshana to remove unwanted qualities from
> This Devadatta and That Devadatta. That Devadatta may have a beard and
> moustache and this Devadatta has no beard and moustache. But he is
> still same Devadatta. This Devadatta = That Devadatta. The Jnana
> coming to us 'This is that Devadatta' is the Akhandakara Vrtti.
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:06 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>