[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 5 03:43:47 CDT 2015
Shreeman - PraNAms
I have posted article on determinate and indeterminate perceptions, I am sure Shree Ananda Hudli's statements are in tune with what was described. If not I have to resolve where the differences are.
By the by,
If we are only interested in the subject and not who said want, it is better to say - the statements are right or statements are wrong rather than some one is wrong or you are wrong or some Swami is wrong, or he does not know if what you said is what he said etc, etc. I would like to take the blame on myself if I have misinterpreted Swami Paramarthanandaji statements, since he is not a member of the list to defend the statement.
I have no problem in disagreeing with something which does not make sense to me based on my prior knowledge. However I do make an effort to understand the statement, if I can.
I can be wrong since I am learner at the same time I can only accept only when I am convinced - that is my swadharma. Any knowledge has to explain the human experiences if the experiences are contradictory to the knowledge -ex. Sunrise and Sunset. Similarly akhandaakara vRitti it is there in every perception.
One can say my whole article on indeterminate perception is wrong, I have not problem with that either. However for me to accept that statement I need more convincing arguments.
I think I would stop here since I am not clear yet what exactly akhandaakaara vRitit and could not make out based on the statements so far. My original statement was if the term or concept is not in scriptures nor in Shankara and introduced by later advaita masters in response to purvapaksha by some darshanikaas, then contextual understanding may be required to appreciate the statements.
With this I stop until I get any clearer picture of this akhandaakaara vRtti, and push aside since without understanding the term, if I can can appreciate the truth, then it reduces to a fifth leg.
On Sun, 7/5/15, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
To: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, July 5, 2015, 1:43 AM
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 9:54
PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
for tuula avidya at least it makes absolutely no sense to
me, if there is knowledge of an object without an
It should, because it is accepted that any
vishiShTa-GYAna expects it's cause before it, which are
niShprakAraka-GYAna-s of visheShya and visheShana.
existence is imperceptibleI
hope you don't mean that it can't be uncovered. The
uncovering is called perception and it is well accepted for
brahman too, otherwise how could anyone become
advaita does not subscribe to indeterminate perception
unlike Nyaaya or vishishtaadvaita
If niShprakAraka-GYAna is not accepted by advaitin-s then
why did naiyAyika-s, dvaitin-s objected it and advaitin-s
supported it? I think
Anandaji had discussed this aspect as I read before in his
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.
are going one level up. Please, stay on vyavahAra and talk
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.
I need more explanation in order to understand what exactly
it stands for. me tograsp.
lost here. I don't understand what you are talking of. I
need more clear version to refute or support.
again remind you that you have to talk on vyAvahArika-level
and count even brahmaGYAna as vyAvahArika.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list