[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste

Did not understand the following expression :

> aparoxa of ghaTA

isn't ghaTA pratyakSa jnAna ?

and jnAna of pratyagAtma is nitya aparokSa

How do we understand the aparoxa of ghaTA, as there is duality between the
knower and known ( ghaTA) ? Pl clarify

Pranams

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:32 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > I am a bit confused because Sri
> > Lalitalalita Yativarya said the knowledge of Brahman in Jeevanmukta is
> > not the charama knowledge.
> >
>
> ​Yes, because charama means last. And, jIvanmukta is actually having
> visions of dvaita, although as mithyA and he is practicing brahmAbhAyAsa to
> maintain his vRtti brahmAkAra.
> ​
>
>
> > Then it means he does not have Akhandakara
> > Vrtti?
> >
>
> ​He has. Let me copy-paste from previous post if you failed to grasp import
> of parts:
> 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.
> 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.
> ​
>
>
> > How can he say his Ignorance is destroyed?
> >
>
> ​Because, he has brahmAkArA vRtti.
> Although, those who accept jIvanmukti, should accept that jIvanmukta has
> avidyAlesha too. In this sense, his ignoran​
> ​ce can be said to exist. But, the avidyA in his case can't cause bondage,
> is also accepted. It only causes bhoga of sukha-duHkha.
> If people have patience, let me bring it to their notice that bhoga of
> sukha-duHkha means that they should be visioned as related to 'I',
> otherwise their appearance can't be said bhoga. So, if a GYAnI doesn't die
> immediately after GYAna to enjoy pleasure and pain, then he should also
> forget his oneness with brahman for a while. And, to get back to his
> svabhAva, he needs to remember that, and that's why brahmAbhyAsa is
> enjoined for GYAnI/vidvat-sannyAsI.
>
> So, in a sense he has aGYAna, although non-binding. From some other point
> of view, he is not aGYAnI, because he knows his identity.
> ​
>
>
> > If some person has
> > Akhandakara Vrtti he will immediately die and get Videha Mukti?
> >
>
> ​No. ghaTAkArA akhaNDavRtti can't cause your death, and so brahmAkAravRtti.
>
> I can see that you are not entertaining my idea of akhaNDAkAravRtti,
> probably because you didn't read, probably because you couldn't understand.
> So, you are talking as if akhaNDAkAravRtti is a vRtti, mental modification,
> which ones born stays​ for your life-time. Get rid of such ridiculous idea.
> By the nature, vRtti is dvi-xaNa-sthAyI(or tri). And, it is just because of
> ignorance of meaning of technical terms and neglecting study of other
> shAstra-s that such ignorance becomes rock-hard.
>
> I saw that someone explained that lack of tripuTI makes vRtti akhaNDAkArA.
> Let me make it clear that vRtti is sAvayava, because it is pariNAma of
> antaHkaraNam. So, in that sense it's always sakhaNDa.
> It was said that oneness of pramAtA-pramANa-prameya causes that loss of
> tripuTI, then let me put it that even in aparoxa of ghaTA, all three
> chaitanya-s are accepted as one. So, that will make ghaTaGYAna
> tripuTI-rahita and hence akhaNDa.
>
> While, the definition provided by me can be supported by studying/looking
> at chitsukhI/advaitasiddhi/brahmAnandI, I doubt that definition of those
> who rely only on bhAShya/vvArttika/translation could ever do that.
> And, even they could cite any sentence from what they have studied, it is
> highly susceptible that vAdirAja, madhusUdasarasvatI, chitsukha talked
> about that.
>
> I think this should end the need of more replies here and kindle desire to
> study a little more than what one has studies.
> Do not expect that I will convince you further, because it is not going to
> yield any result for you and me.
> If you have doubt, read again my reply.
> The post was written just to create a space for new ideas, not to fill you
> with what I know.
>
>
>
>
> *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
>