[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thank you sir - I understand your explanation.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 18 Jun 2015 17:56, "श्रीमल्ललितालालितः" <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I note this statement made in your earlier email in relation to the
>> akhaNDAkAratva of the brahmAkAra vritti:
>>
>> >>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 qualities and relations.
>>
>> In relation to the above statement you made, brahman by its nature is
>> nirguNa and asaNga - therefore by that definition of akhaNDAkAra, is it
>> correct to say that brahmAkAra vritti has to be akhaNDAkAra only, because
>> the brahman that the brahmAkAra vritti illuminates has no guNA (adjectives)
>> or saNga (relation)?
>>
>
> Correct. Just replace brahmAkAravRtti with brahmapramA, and everything
> will be fine.
> I hope you know that you were talking about vRtti revealing nature of it's
> subject, and such vRtti is called pramA.
> vRtti may be of two or three types - pramA, bhrama, ubhayavilaxaNa, should
> be noted.
> ​
>
>
>>
>> I ask this because you later say that  -
>> >>advaitin-s, like madhusUdana-sarasvatI, etc. maintain that the
>> brahmAkAra-vRttiH should be niShprakArikA/akhaNDAkArA, if it has to be
>> liberating knowledge.
>>
>> Therefore, is there a brahmAkAra vritti possible that is not akhaNDAkArA
>> also? So brahmAkAra vritti has to be liberating knowledge.
>>
> ​yes, brahman is creator, brahman is jagat, brahman has existence or
> knowledge of all or Ananda, etc. are such vRtti-s. Even pot exists - is
> such vRtti, because existence is brahman.​
>
> ​These all vRtti-s are apramA, though.
> So, if you would have used the term pramA instead of vRtti here, then my
> answer to your question would have been 'no'.​
>
> Note that only brahmAkArAkhaNDavRtti is pramA(compared to other vRtti-s)
> in our system, because it has no bAdha.
>
> I request others, who understand these concepts and can present with
> examples in lengthy posts, to write more here for benefit of others.
>
>
>> If this question has no merit, please forgive my ignorance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:02 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
>>>
>>
>>
>