[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
agnimile at gmail.com
Sat Jul 4 08:16:51 CDT 2015
1) >>I hope that it mentions that I'm accepting that the GYAna which causes
emancipation, which is generated by mahAvAkya is akhaNDAkAra.
2) >>Note that it's not akhaNDAkAra because it removes bheda/khaNDa.
This is where I'm objecting by saying that it's called so because it's not
illuminating anything else(relation or adjective), apart from a single
Thanks for the clarification. I would be most grateful if you can give the
specific reference within advaita siddhi that defines akhandAkArA as such.
Having made that request, I respect your learning of the subject and I am
prepared to accept your definition, but to trace that to the original
source would complete my understanding of the term.
I don't think I was suggesting that the application of the term akhandAkAra
be restricted to only the mahavakya janya jnAnam.
I also do not believe Swami Paramarthananda's definition is limiting it
only to a context of mahavakya janya jnanam either. It is simply saying
that the akhandAkAra vritti generated by mahAvAkya has svarUpa abhedA -
there is no relational knowledge such as observer / observed, nor is there
any knowledge of attributes, for the thing known is attribute less.
However, we are students of VedAnta (at least I am. I am not sure about
your good self, as sometimes you refer to "you" and "your" in connection
with vedAnta and vedAntic AchAryAs, but let's leave that aside). When a
student of vedAntA approaches a vedAntic guru with the question "What is
akhandAkAra vritti?", the gurus answer would depend on
a) What is the level of the student's understanding and maturity?
b) What is the guru's understanding of the student's understanding level.
c) What is the context of the question.
d) What is the purpose that the guru seeks to achieve by answering the
e) What is the guru's understanding of the subject matter.
The gurus purpose here is for the sishya to realise that Brahman and he
have svarUpa abhedatvam and therefore be a mukta. You have agreed that the
mahavakya jnAnam that gives rise to moksha is also akhandAkArA.
The answer to the question "What is akhandAkAra vritti?" can be given in
such a way as to both satisfy the sishyAs question and also achieve the
prayojanam of Moksham.
The sishyA did not ask the guru to give the lakshaNam of akhandAkArA that
is free from ativyApti, avyApti or anyathAvyApti doshAs.
It is my humble opinion that without considering the other factors, to
directly conclude that the answer given the by the guru implies the guru's
lack of understanding of the subject matter is unwarranted.
On 4 Jul 2015 10:57, "श्रीमल्ललितालालितः" <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> Assuming you agree with that statement, why is the definition of
>> nirvikalpakam in VedAnta paribhAshA so different from what Swami
>> Paramarthananda says - that the vritti that eliminates the "apparent"
>> svarUpa bhedatvam between jivan and brahman, or to put it in other words,
>> the vritti that shows svarUpa abheda between jiva and brahman is
> See this from last post:
> 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.
> I hope that it mentions that I'm accepting that the GYAna which causes
> emancipation, which is generated by mahAvAkya is akhaNDAkAra.
> Note that it's not akhaNDAkAra because it removes bheda/khaNDa. Consider
> प्रकृष्टप्रकाशश्चन्द्रः .
> This is where I'm objecting by saying that it's called so because it's not
> illuminating anything else(relation or adjective), apart from a single
> entity. And, every logic used by dvaitin-s to refute every other definition
> of akhaNDa-padArtha, is useful here.
> Also, note that I'm objecting limit of uses of the term akhaNDAkAra, as
> they appear, for brahmaGYAnam only. That's why I brought सोयम् and
> If the subject is akhaNDa, the vRtti which illuminates/removes aGYAna of
> it should be akhaNDAkAra. But, if akhaNDa means 'devoid of visheSha',
> 'devoid of difference', etc. then it will not cover other uses. So, it
> should be defined as chitsukhAchArya, madhusUdanasarasvatI, etc. have done.
> And, that's why the logic-counter logic used for akhaNDArtha-vAkya is also
> useful for vRtti, which someone objected in his post.
> This one more copy-paste, if needed:
> 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.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list