[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

Keshava PRASAD Halemane k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in
Sun Jul 5 08:53:14 CDT 2015

namastE. praNaams My Dear  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः 
Let me continue with my understanding, and you may correct me if & wherever required. 
(1) "ghaTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa"  -and-  (2) "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa"
The first one will be a knowledge of the ghaTa with all(?) of its viShEShaNas / attributes; whereas the second one will be a knowledge of the ghaTa without  any(?) of its viShEShaNas / attributes. 
Now, the question arises - which of these would be a complete knowledge of the ghaTa? The naturally expected answer is that the first one seems to be the one preferred, since the second one doesn't illumine any of the viShEShaNas and therefore seems to be only some minimal knowledge without any specific identifying/distinguishing details of the ghaTa object. However, then that answer seems to be somehow misleading, because when the akhanDAkAra-vRtti is applied to brahma-vastu, what is obtained is the brahmAkAraakhanDavRtti which shines as brahmajnAna. So, . . . some possible confusion . . . ! ! ! . . . 

I wonder why the akhanDAkAravRtti has been defined to be of somewhat limited scope & capability rather than allowing for a samyak-jnAna (complete knowledge) of whatever object is being objectified !? 
Could it be possible that the akhanDAkAravRtti indeed goes far beyond the viShEShaNas to reach the real object/vastu which is brahma-vastu irrespective of whatever object is being objectified; whereas all other anEka-AkAra-vRttis reaches only up to the viShEShaNas in the process of such objectification !? 
Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 

     On Sunday, 5 July 2015 5:40 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in> wrote:

 namastE. praNaams My Dear  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः 
Thank you for your patience in responding in spite of the irritation caused thereby. 
Now, therefore, allow me repeat in my own words, from what i have understood from your writings in this forum : [BTW i haven't yet studied advaitasiddhi / vEdAntaparibhASha - i may need much more time for that] 
We are talking about vyavahAra - vRtti-janya-jnAna - in particular. Let us consider any object in the vyavahArika that is the usual perceptible world, say a simple ghaTa. A knowledge of the ghaTa arises from the ghaTAkAra-vRtti as usually understood. What will be that knowledge of the same ghaTa arising from an akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with it? Will it be the same knowledge, or different? I guess that it will be different because of the fact that the ghaTAkAra-vRtti is different from the akhanDAkAra-vRtti associated with it. If different, how different will be those two from one another? "ghaTAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa"  -and-  "akhanDAkAra-vRtti-janya-jnAna of the ghaTa".   Keshava PRASAD HalemanemOkShakaamaarthadharmahjanmanaa jaayatE jantuḥ |  samskaaraat hi bhavEt dvijaḥ ||  vEda-paaThaat bhavEt vipra |  brahma jnaanaat hi braahmaNah || 

     On Sunday, 5 July 2015 5:07 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Keshava PRASAD Halemane via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Is it possible for one to have an  akhaNDAkAra-vRtti [niShprakAra-vRtti] associated with an object in the physical world, say a ghaTa or a paTa like object? OR is it that  an  akhaNDAkAra-vRtti [niShprakAra-vRtti] is by definition always associated with only brahma-vastu? 

​You know, anyone will hate to say same thing again and again. I'm telling this about second question. 

If you understand that I was refuting it's relation with  brahma-vastu only, then it makes sense to deduce that I accept that this vRtti is possible for other objects. Otherwise, why should I insist to cover सोयम् and प्रकृष्टप्रकाशश्चन्द्रः etc.?




More information about the Advaita-l mailing list