[Advaita-l] akhanDaakara-vRtti‏

[Keshava PRASAD Halemane]

namastE. praNaams to  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः 
You have not provided clear answers to my questions. Instead you simply expect that i find the answers from some/whichever earlier posts of yours, even without clear reference to such posts. I find that your words imply that are either evading the questions or simply beating-around-the-bush without being spcific in you answers to address the questions raised. 
Let me pose one final question here to you (in my earnest attempts to understand what you mean by whatever you have been writing/commenting/etc): 
Q: Does an object ghaTa exist independent of  all  its adjectives/attributes/viSEShaNas ? 
Your earlier writings/comments/etc imply that your answer to this question will be in the affirmative. If so, then let us stop here - because, that is the most fundamental difference between what you think and what i think. Sure enough, i am not interested in any argument just for the sake of argument. 
Bye now. Have a Nice Day. 
 Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 


     On Wednesday, 8 July 2015 10:05 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
   

 Nice way to present questions. It makes providing answers easy.


*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Durga Janaswamy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om,
> Pranams.
>
>
> Namaste श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
>
> You wrote
> "1.  Now, the akhaNDAkAratva or niShprakAratva of vRttiH.
> Just take it as if a vRttiH dispels ignorance of a pot, etc. but doesn't
> objectify it's adjectives, it is niShprakArikA.
> prakAra means adjectives. The vRtti which illuminates base, it's qualities
> and their relation;  is saprakArikA.
>
> 2.akhaNDAkAra of vRtti means that it doesn't illuminate any adjective or
> relation. It just dispels ignorance of / illuminates one thing, either
> brahman or pot without revealing it's qualties and relations."
>
> Doubts: vRttiH  is dispelling ignorance of say,a परिच्छिन्न​ pot.
> 1. Why it is called akhaNDAkAra of vRtti? What is the reason for using the
> term 'akhaNDa'?
>

​If you try to find meanings of both parts in the term akhaNDAkAra, then
you will be able to find that akhaNDa and AkAra both are technical terms of
our system​. They don't mean what they appear to say.
I've give meaning of both terms in old posts. Check them.
Now, the vRtti is called akhaNDAkAra because it dispels ignorance of a
single(akhaNDa) entity.
That single entity may be pot or devadatta or chandraH or brahman.

2. Can it be called आवरण भंगत्व of vRttiH? Is there a difference between
> आवरण भंगत्व and akhaNDAkAratva?
>

​Don't use Sanskrit terms if you don't know their correct meaning and uses,
is my suggestion to all here. It just makes us feel that we, who know their
meaning, are in alien world who are abusing our language.

Now, I've to take help of imagination to know what did you mean. But, my
imagination fails. So, make your statement clear.
​


> 3. As per this definition, any vRttiH that dispels ignorance of any vastu,
> परिच्छिन्न​ or अपरिच्छिन्न, has akhaNDAkAratva.  Am I right?
>

​No. It may have akhaNDAkAratva, if it reveals that vastu, परिच्छिन्न or
अपरिच्छिन्न , without revealing it's attributes and relations -- is the
correct expression.
​


> 4. Is the characteristics of  of dispelling ignorance of परिच्छिन्न​ vastu
> and अपरिच्छिन्न vastu same?
>

​Make it more clear. What do you mean by sameness of the characteristic of
dispelling ignorance(अज्ञाननिवर्त्तनस्वभावः) ?
It is same for all vRtti, because vRtti is अज्ञानविरोधी or it itself is
अज्ञाननाश.
You may need some more study to understand wht I'm trying to mean by second
option, so ignore that.
But, the difference of viShaya makes vRtti different too. So, considering
viShaya, their is no similarity in any two vRtti revealing two different
viShaya-s.

For Keshava,
vishiShTaGYAna needs visheShaNaGYAna, was told be me. You ignored even when
I told you to read that. Anyway, following your view that
'niShprakArakaGYAna' is always brahmaviShaya';
their could be no vishiShTaGYAna for amukta, because visheShya is not known.
even before brahmaGYAna, everyone realizes kevala-brahman by
niShprakArakavRtti(because the result of that = sprakArakaGYAna is seen
everywhere); so their is no need of brahmaGYAna and all are mukta.
both options are absurd. So, the original theory is wrong.

And, the objections about how will the kevala-ghaTa revealed. The answer is
as kevala-ghaTa, as you said.

And, the rule of viShayatA = AkAra is torn apart if
ghaTaviShayaka-niShprakAraka-GYAna reveals something else, i.e. brahman.

For some other people who claim to have studied vedAntaparibhAShA;
Just see a few lines there which talk about niShprakAraka-pratyaxa. Author
has used akhaNDAkAra-word too there.

The best solution I found here is : Since my learning is like this, I'm not
going to accept whatever others say, even if appears logical to me and is
supported by old teachers.
Someone has a similarly good solution: I'll not tell what I know, just go
on clearing my doubts.
Someone does even good: He claims I'm reading you carefully. When asked to
look at some supporting logic already provided, he ignores and continues
with imagination.

Anyway, it is a good exercise for those who have studies shAstra-s for they
need to learn how to refute all these absurd ideas which are being spread
by Missions and bAbA-s and vedAntAchArya-s through books and lectures and
writings.
Although, my teachers and friends just ask me to ignore these views for
these germinate because of ignorance of Sanskrit and shAstra-s. I think it
gives me a challenge to think.

Please, bear with my sharp words if they apply to you. If they don't,
please enjoy.

No more answers today.
I request durgA jI to continue. I'll reply when I find time.
Please, post a big letter with points and then sit back till I reply.
Because, if you bombard me with posts, I'm definitely going to ignore most
of them because they consume too much time.

Thanks.

​


>
> Thank you and regards
> -- durga prasad
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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