[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 4 11:24:24 CDT 2015
Venkataraghavan - PraNAms
Thanks for clarifying it.
Frankly for tuula avidya at least it makes absolutely no sense to me, if there is knowledge of an object without an attribute. Pure existence is imperceptible and advaita does not subscribe to indeterminate perception unlike Nyaaya or vishishtaadvaita does. I think Anandaji had discussed this aspect as I read before in his mail.
As per vedanta all objects are just naama ruupa and ruupa stands for attributive content. The question of naama that involves naming and naming involves knowing and knowing involves conscious entity with attributive knowledge in terms of vRitti, since substantive is Brahman - this is true for all objective knowledge. There is no akhada aspect here since attributes are differentiable.
If akhada is undifferentiated objective knowledge, there is no such thing - Now if that applies to self which is attribute less then also it is not possible unless one talks in figurative usage of knowledge of saakshi. Even when I say I see something there, I have to see a form which is its attribute but do not have sufficient further qualifying attributes gathered for me to have a definitive knowledge. you have this is - knowledge which is indeterminate without some form of the object seen. Naamaruupaatmakam jagat.
I need more explanation in order to understand what exactly it stands for. me to grasp.
On Sat, 7/4/15, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
Cc: "श्रीमल्ललितालालितः" <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>
Date: Saturday, July 4, 2015, 11:24 AM
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
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 definition.
On 4 Jul 2015 15:39,
"kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
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.
On Sat, 7/4/15,
Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
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
अज्ञाततया ज्ञाततया च
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
vRttiH, either paroxa or aparoxa, to dispel the
aGYAna(which obstruct the
vyavahAra of pot, etc. as existing, shining, etc.);
or, it is the
(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(!?)
abhilapana, etc.) as 'exiting',
Now, the akhaNDAkAratva or niShprakAratva of vRttiH.
Just take it as if a vRttiH dispels ignorance of a pot, etc.
objectify it's adjectives, it is niShprakArikA.
prakAra means adjectives. The vRtti which illuminates base,
and their relation; is saprakArikA.
advaitin-s, like madhusUdana-sarasvatI, etc. maintain that
brahmAkAra-vRttiH should be niShprakArikA/akhaNDAkArA, if it
has to be
liberating knowledge. Because, shrutiH itself says :
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
Note that it's not akhaNDAkAra because it removes
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
of akhaNDa-padArtha, is useful here.
Also, note that I'm objecting limit of uses of the term
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
of difference', etc. then it will not cover other uses.
So, it should be
defined as chitsukhAchArya, madhusUdanasarasvatI, etc. have
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
synonyms in our system.
Also, note that such vRtti is not only brahmAkArA. When one
question 'which is moon' as 'prakRShTaprakAshaH
chandraH', the sentence
generates akhaNDAkAravRtti; because the question was not
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list