[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Thu Jun 18 02:41:22 CDT 2015
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed response from *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*
> Just sharing my understanding from this thread:
> 1. akhaNDAkAravRttiH results in brahmavidyA or
> jivAtma paramAtma ekatva jnAna (knowledge of the mahAvAkya)
No. because, akhaNDAkArvRttiH is brahmavidyA.
It's cause is mahAvvAkya, is correct.
I don't know what do you mean by 'knowledge of mahAvAkya'. It should be
'knowledge of mahAvAkyArtha'.
2. As per the below defintion of charama jnAna, other vRttis based on
> ( though it is seen as bAdhita vRtti or sublation, in light of the charama
> vRtti )
> doesn't arise. There is just the unbroken homogeneous eka charama vRtti
No. I didn't say or imply that.
As vRtti, even charama-vRtti, is dRshya; so I meant cessation of this vRtti
by saying that no dRshya stays.
> So, one would understand it as synonym to jnAna samAdhi, having no
> knowledge or awareness of the nAma rUpa prapaNcha.
No. You can't compare it to samAdhi, because samAdhi
is a mental modification of the form of cessation of all other mental
modifications and it doesn't affect prapa~ncha. While, the charama-vRtti
destroys every dRshya by destroying avidyA.
I fear that you are superimposing your present understanding on what I
presented. You need to be more open/vacant to understand new things, should
> 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