[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[Ravi Kiran]

Pranams

Thanks for the detailed response from *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*

Just sharing my understanding from this thread:

1. akhaNDAkAravRttiH results in brahmavidyA or
jivAtma paramAtma ekatva jnAna (knowledge of the mahAvAkya)

2. As per the below defintion of charama jnAna, other vRttis based on
prArabdha
( though it is seen as bAdhita vRtti or sublation, in light of the charama
vRtti )
doesn't arise. There is just the unbroken homogeneous eka charama vRtti

So, one would understand it as synonym to jnAna samAdhi, having no
knowledge or awareness of the nAma rUpa prapaNcha.

Namaste


Hari Om!

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:55 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> ​
>
> I'll not like to say anything about your use of those words of
> different/one type of knowlede.
> Let me clear my stand, although I have said it once on some forum already.
>
> The samyagdarshanam (correct knowledge?) is that which liberates, and that
> is termed as akhaNDAkAravRttiH.
> brahman is GYAna-svarUpa, but it is not opposed to aGYAna. We can see that
> it is which illuminates aGYAna, etc. too. And, hence it is said that
> अज्ञाततया ज्ञाततया च सर्व्वं साक्षिभास्यम् ।
> So, the samyag-gyAna is vRttyupahita-chaitanyam. vRttiH again should be
> brahmAkArA, otherwise it can't dispel aGYAnam of brahman. This is seen in
> case of ghaTa-GYAnam and ghaTAgyAnam.
> The akAraH of vRttiH is defined as the yogyatA(capacity/ability?) of
> vRttiH, either paroxa or aparoxa, to ​dispel the aGYAna(which obstruct the
> vyavahAra of pot, etc. as existing, shining, etc.);
> or, it is the तत्सन्निकृष्टकरणजन्यत्वं (don't know enough English to
> translate, sorry!) present in vRttiH.
> So, the brahmAkAratvam of vRtti means that the ability of vRtti to dispel
> ignorance of brahman which(ignorance) blocks(!?) vyavahAra(abhiGYA,
> abhilapana, etc.) as 'exiting', 'shining/illuminating'.
>
> 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.
>
> advaitin-s, like madhusUdana-sarasvatI, etc. maintain that the
> brahmAkAra-vRttiH should be niShprakArikA/akhaNDAkArA, if it has to be
> liberating knowledge. Because, shrutiH itself says : tameva
> viditvAtimRtyumeti. Here 'eva' implies that it should not illuminate pot
> etc. /or parts / or qualities with brahman.
>
>
> Now, charamatvam of GYAnam/vRtti.
> If you accept that GYAna doesn't cause videhakaivalyam at once and leaves
> way for prArabdha, i.e. if you accept jIvanmukti; then the knowledge of
> brahman present in jIvanmukta is not charama. charama means final, after
> which there is no appearance if duality, not even as mithyA or one with
> you.
>
> ​You may not find this term in bhAShyam. It may have surfaced after facing
> objections from others/or vedAntins themselves.
> It is not essential that bhAShyam could always be supported by repeating
> terms used by bhAShyakAra only.
>
> B: how 'akhanda' can have the 'AkAra' that too with 'vrutti' rUpa??  Or is
> it symbolically used to denote the sama darshana of the samyak jnAni??
>
> L: akhaNDa is not brahman here ​as you appear to imply. 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.
> Note that akhaNDAkAravRtti or niShprakAravRtti or nirvikalpakavRtti are
> synonyms in our system.
> Also, note that such vRtti is not only brahmAkArA. When one replies to
> question 'which is moon' as 'prakRShTaprakAshaH chandraH', the sentence
> generates akhaNDAkAravRtti; because the question was not about quality.
>
> Any person who wants to know more, is suggested to study books mentioned.
>
> I'll add that I don't expect that any of you should accept such definition.
> It is actually difficult to accept it, just because your studies are
> limited to bhAShyam/translations, etc. These terms can't be related to
> bhAShyam directly, I accept. Those who stand on translations, will find it
> more difficult because terms are from Sanskrit language, related to complex
> system of thought/argument, and because I don't know how to explain them in
> English with examples.
>
>
>
>
>
> *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
>