[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
agnimile at gmail.com
Sat Jul 4 10:24:25 CDT 2015
At the risk of potentially misrepresenting Sri Srimallalilataalaalita:'s
definition of akhandAkAra(until we get the original definition of
akhandAkAra from advaita siddhi or chitsukhI, that risk is likely to
continue to exist), this is my understanding:
AkhandAkAra vritti is that vritti which produces the knowledge of an
object, without providing knowledge of its attributes or relations (for
e.g. between the object and its attribute).
As examples, he gave soyam or prakrishta prakAshashcha chandra:
The knowledge produced be these statements is akhandAkAra -in the case of
soyam, the knower will know that He (Sa:) is this person (ayam), but the
specific attributes of He and this person are not known- only the identity
of the underlying person is known.
In the case of prakrishta prakAshashcha chandra:, none of the attributes of
the moon are known, nor is the relationship between the bright light and
moon is known (ie that it is reflected sunlight) in the knowledge produced
by that statement.
Therefore the knowledge generated from such statements also qualify to be
termed akhandAkAra, and not just the ones from mahAvAkya janya jnAnam.
Sri srimallalitaalaalitah's contention is that if akhandAkAra is defined as
simply abhinnatva or any other alternatives proposed during the course of
the discussion, it is either non applicable in instances like the above,
and in the instance to describe mahavaAkya janya jnAnam, simply the wrong
On 4 Jul 2015 15:39, "kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> I do not understand what is being presented below by Shreeman
> LalitalaalitaH. The description is too vague for me. I appreciate if
> someone who can understand this describe this clear terms what exactly that
> is being described as akhandaakaara vRitti and for me to understand in
> clear terms how this differs from other descriptions.
> Hari Om!
> On Sat, 7/4/15, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 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.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list