janaswamy2001 at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 8 16:31:12 CDT 2015
Thank you for appreciating the manner of raising my doubts.
As suggested by you, now I have started reviewing your email-postings since May-01, 2015 in the archives of 'advaita-vedanta.org mailing list' .
Your teaching style is different. It is stimulating, to say the least, to me and other members of advaita-l group. Few times, some frustration is getting spilled in to emails.
I have learned a lot in last few days. I will be communicating with you shortly with my doubts.
Thank you and regards
-- durga prasad
> From: lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:04:53 +0530
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] akhanDaakara-vRtti
> To: janaswamy2001 at hotmail.com; advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Nice way to present questions. It makes providing answers easy.
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Durga Janaswamy via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org<mailto:advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>>
> Hari Om,
> Namaste श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
> You wrote
> "1. 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.
> 2.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."
> Doubts: vRttiH is dispelling ignorance of say,a परिच्छिन्न pot.
> 1. Why it is called akhaNDAkAra of vRtti? What is the reason for using
> the term 'akhaNDa'?
> If you try to find meanings of both parts in the term akhaNDAkAra,
> then you will be able to find that akhaNDa and AkAra both are technical
> terms of our system. They don't mean what they appear to say.
> I've give meaning of both terms in old posts. Check them.
> Now, the vRtti is called akhaNDAkAra because it dispels ignorance of a
> single(akhaNDa) entity.
> That single entity may be pot or devadatta or chandraH or brahman.
> 2. Can it be called आवरण भंगत्व of vRttiH? Is there a difference
> between आवरण भंगत्व and akhaNDAkAratva?
> Don't use Sanskrit terms if you don't know their correct meaning and
> uses, is my suggestion to all here. It just makes us feel that we, who
> know their meaning, are in alien world who are abusing our language.
> Now, I've to take help of imagination to know what did you mean. But,
> my imagination fails. So, make your statement clear.
> 3. As per this definition, any vRttiH that dispels ignorance of any
> vastu, परिच्छिन्न or अपरिच्छिन्न, has akhaNDAkAratva. Am I right?
> No. It may have akhaNDAkAratva, if it reveals that vastu, परिच्छिन्न
> or अपरिच्छिन्न , without revealing it's attributes and relations -- is
> the correct expression.
> 4. Is the characteristics of of dispelling ignorance of परिच्छिन्न
> vastu and अपरिच्छिन्न vastu same?
> Make it more clear. What do you mean by sameness of the characteristic
> of dispelling ignorance(अज्ञाननिवर्त्तनस्वभावः) ?
> It is same for all vRtti, because vRtti is अज्ञानविरोधी or it itself is
> You may need some more study to understand wht I'm trying to mean by
> second option, so ignore that.
> But, the difference of viShaya makes vRtti different too. So,
> considering viShaya, their is no similarity in any two vRtti revealing
> two different viShaya-s.
> For Keshava,
> vishiShTaGYAna needs visheShaNaGYAna, was told be me. You ignored even
> when I told you to read that. Anyway, following your view that
> 'niShprakArakaGYAna' is always brahmaviShaya';
> their could be no vishiShTaGYAna for amukta, because visheShya is not known.
> even before brahmaGYAna, everyone realizes kevala-brahman by
> niShprakArakavRtti(because the result of that = sprakArakaGYAna is seen
> everywhere); so their is no need of brahmaGYAna and all are mukta.
> both options are absurd. So, the original theory is wrong.
> And, the objections about how will the kevala-ghaTa revealed. The
> answer is as kevala-ghaTa, as you said.
> And, the rule of viShayatA = AkAra is torn apart if
> ghaTaviShayaka-niShprakAraka-GYAna reveals something else, i.e.
> For some other people who claim to have studied vedAntaparibhAShA;
> Just see a few lines there which talk about niShprakAraka-pratyaxa.
> Author has used akhaNDAkAra-word too there.
> The best solution I found here is : Since my learning is like this, I'm
> not going to accept whatever others say, even if appears logical to me
> and is supported by old teachers.
> Someone has a similarly good solution: I'll not tell what I know, just
> go on clearing my doubts.
> Someone does even good: He claims I'm reading you carefully. When asked
> to look at some supporting logic already provided, he ignores and
> continues with imagination.
> Anyway, it is a good exercise for those who have studies shAstra-s for
> they need to learn how to refute all these absurd ideas which are being
> spread by Missions and bAbA-s and vedAntAchArya-s through books and
> lectures and writings.
> Although, my teachers and friends just ask me to ignore these views for
> these germinate because of ignorance of Sanskrit and shAstra-s. I think
> it gives me a challenge to think.
> Please, bear with my sharp words if they apply to you. If they don't,
> please enjoy.
> No more answers today.
> I request durgA jI to continue. I'll reply when I find time.
> Please, post a big letter with points and then sit back till I reply.
> Because, if you bombard me with posts, I'm definitely going to ignore
> most of them because they consume too much time.
> Thank you and regards
> -- durga prasad
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org<mailto:listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list