[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 02:19:21 CDT 2015
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> So, one would understand it as synonym to jnAna samAdhi, having no
> knowledge or awareness of the nAma rUpa prapaNcha.
The above conclusion could be seen in the light of what is taught in the
युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित् ।
न्नश्नन्गच्छन्स्वपञ्श्वसन् ॥ ८ ॥
प्रलपन् विसृजन्गृह्णन्नुन्मिषन्निमिषन्नपि ।
इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्त इति धारयन् ॥ ९ ॥
These verses teach that a Tattvavit, Jnani, will continue to have all
perceptual experiences and activities of the body-mind but with the
difference that 'I do not do these, these happen.' Otherwise the activity
of the Jnani engaging in teaching, experiencing his prarabdha, etc. cannot
be accounted for, since all these do require the functioning of the sense
organs and their interaction with the sense objects.
> Hari Om!
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:55 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > 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
> > The samyagdarshanam (correct knowledge?) is that which liberates, and
> > is termed as akhaNDAkAravRttiH.
> > brahman is GYAna-svarUpa, but it is not opposed to aGYAna. We can see
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > more difficult because terms are from Sanskrit language, related to
> > system of thought/argument, and because I don't know how to explain them
> > English with examples.
> > *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list