[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Thu Jun 18 11:55:36 CDT 2015


On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>

> I note this statement made in your earlier email in relation to the
> akhaNDAkAratva of the brahmAkAra vritti:
> >>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 qualities and relations.
> In relation to the above statement you made, brahman by its nature is
> nirguNa and asaNga - therefore by that definition of akhaNDAkAra, is it
> correct to say that brahmAkAra vritti has to be akhaNDAkAra only, because
> the brahman that the brahmAkAra vritti illuminates has no guNA (adjectives)
> or saNga (relation)?

Correct. Just replace brahmAkAravRtti with brahmapramA, and everything will
be fine.
I hope you know that you were talking about vRtti revealing nature of it's
subject, and such vRtti is called pramA.
vRtti may be of two or three types - pramA, bhrama, ubhayavilaxaNa, should
be noted.

> I ask this because you later say that  -
> >>advaitin-s, like madhusUdana-sarasvatI, etc. maintain that the
> brahmAkAra-vRttiH should be niShprakArikA/akhaNDAkArA, if it has to be
> liberating knowledge.
> Therefore, is there a brahmAkAra vritti possible that is not akhaNDAkArA
> also? So brahmAkAra vritti has to be liberating knowledge.
​yes, brahman is creator, brahman is jagat, brahman has existence or
knowledge of all or Ananda, etc. are such vRtti-s. Even pot exists - is
such vRtti, because existence is brahman.​

​These all vRtti-s are apramA, though.
So, if you would have used the term pramA instead of vRtti here, then my
answer to your question would have been 'no'.​

Note that only brahmAkArAkhaNDavRtti is pramA(compared to other vRtti-s) in
our system, because it has no bAdha.

I request others, who understand these concepts and can present with
examples in lengthy posts, to write more here for benefit of others.

> If this question has no merit, please forgive my ignorance.
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:02 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > I am a bit confused because Sri
>> > Lalitalalita Yativarya said the knowledge of Brahman in Jeevanmukta is
>> > not the charama knowledge.
>> >
>> ​Yes, because charama means last. And, jIvanmukta is actually having
>> visions of dvaita, although as mithyA and he is practicing brahmAbhAyAsa
>> to
>> maintain his vRtti brahmAkAra.
>> > Then it means he does not have Akhandakara
>> > Vrtti?
>> >
>> ​He has. Let me copy-paste from previous post if you failed to grasp
>> import
>> of parts:
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> > How can he say his Ignorance is destroyed?
>> >
>> ​Because, he has brahmAkArA vRtti.
>> Although, those who accept jIvanmukti, should accept that jIvanmukta has
>> avidyAlesha too. In this sense, his ignoran​
>> ​ce can be said to exist. But, the avidyA in his case can't cause bondage,
>> is also accepted. It only causes bhoga of sukha-duHkha.
>> If people have patience, let me bring it to their notice that bhoga of
>> sukha-duHkha means that they should be visioned as related to 'I',
>> otherwise their appearance can't be said bhoga. So, if a GYAnI doesn't die
>> immediately after GYAna to enjoy pleasure and pain, then he should also
>> forget his oneness with brahman for a while. And, to get back to his
>> svabhAva, he needs to remember that, and that's why brahmAbhyAsa is
>> enjoined for GYAnI/vidvat-sannyAsI.
>> So, in a sense he has aGYAna, although non-binding. From some other point
>> of view, he is not aGYAnI, because he knows his identity.
>> > If some person has
>> > Akhandakara Vrtti he will immediately die and get Videha Mukti?
>> >
>> ​No. ghaTAkArA akhaNDavRtti can't cause your death, and so
>> brahmAkAravRtti.
>> I can see that you are not entertaining my idea of akhaNDAkAravRtti,
>> probably because you didn't read, probably because you couldn't
>> understand.
>> So, you are talking as if akhaNDAkAravRtti is a vRtti, mental
>> modification,
>> which ones born stays​ for your life-time. Get rid of such ridiculous
>> idea.
>> By the nature, vRtti is dvi-xaNa-sthAyI(or tri). And, it is just because
>> of
>> ignorance of meaning of technical terms and neglecting study of other
>> shAstra-s that such ignorance becomes rock-hard.
>> I saw that someone explained that lack of tripuTI makes vRtti akhaNDAkArA.
>> Let me make it clear that vRtti is sAvayava, because it is pariNAma of
>> antaHkaraNam. So, in that sense it's always sakhaNDa.
>> It was said that oneness of pramAtA-pramANa-prameya causes that loss of
>> tripuTI, then let me put it that even in aparoxa of ghaTA, all three
>> chaitanya-s are accepted as one. So, that will make ghaTaGYAna
>> tripuTI-rahita and hence akhaNDa.
>> While, the definition provided by me can be supported by studying/looking
>> at chitsukhI/advaitasiddhi/brahmAnandI, I doubt that definition of those
>> who rely only on bhAShya/vvArttika/translation could ever do that.
>> And, even they could cite any sentence from what they have studied, it is
>> highly susceptible that vAdirAja, madhusUdasarasvatI, chitsukha talked
>> about that.
>> I think this should end the need of more replies here and kindle desire to
>> study a little more than what one has studies.
>> Do not expect that I will convince you further, because it is not going to
>> yield any result for you and me.
>> If you have doubt, read again my reply.
>> The post was written just to create a space for new ideas, not to fill you
>> with what I know.
>> *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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list