[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Thu Jun 18 00:25:03 CDT 2015
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> Kindly share your understanding of these terms and their similarities or
> differences if any. So that it would be beneficial to one and all. As far
> as my understanding with regard to samyagdarshana, it goes like this : sa
> cha bAhyalOkO nAstyasmAkaM AtmavyatiriktaH, sarvaM hi asmAkaM AtmabhUtameva
> sarvasya cha vayaM AtmabhUtAH…is this sarvAtmabhAva something different
> from akhandAkAravrutti?? Since I am unable to find this term
> ‘akhandAkAravrutti’ in prasthAna traya bhAshya ( I may be wrong here) I am
> trying to understand this term with samyak jnAna. Hence seeking your
I'll not like to say anything about your use of those words of
different/one type of knowlede.
Let me clear my stand, although I have said it once on some forum already.
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.
Now, charamatvam of GYAnam/vRtti.
If you accept that GYAna doesn't cause videhakaivalyam at once and leaves
way for prArabdha, i.e. if you accept jIvanmukti; then the knowledge of
brahman present in jIvanmukta is not charama. charama means final, after
which there is no appearance if duality, not even as mithyA or one with you.
You may not find this term in bhAShyam. It may have surfaced after facing
objections from others/or vedAntins themselves.
It is not essential that bhAShyam could always be supported by repeating
terms used by bhAShyakAra only.
B: how 'akhanda' can have the 'AkAra' that too with 'vrutti' rUpa?? Or is
it symbolically used to denote the sama darshana of the samyak jnAni??
L: akhaNDa is not brahman here as you appear to imply. 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.
Any person who wants to know more, is suggested to study books mentioned.
I'll add that I don't expect that any of you should accept such definition.
It is actually difficult to accept it, just because your studies are
limited to bhAShyam/translations, etc. These terms can't be related to
bhAShyam directly, I accept. Those who stand on translations, will find it
more difficult because terms are from Sanskrit language, related to complex
system of thought/argument, and because I don't know how to explain them in
English with examples.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list