[Advaita-l] Vikalpa, Savikalpa, and Nirvikalpa

[lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com]

> That mahAvAkya is the 'karaNa'  for the arising of the brahmAkAravRtti is
> agreed.  But at the same time, on the strength of shruti passages such as
> 'manasaivAnu draShTavyam...(KaThopanishat), '. 'yacChed vAngmanasI
> prAjnaH...yadA panchAvatiShThante...buddhim cha na vicheShTati...tAm
> yogamiti manyante sthirAm indriyadhAraNaam  (kathopanishat)....tatastu tam
> pashyati niShkalam dhyAyamAnaH' and 'shortavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH',
> ..dRshyate tvagryayA buddhyA sUkShmayA sUkShmadarshibhiH...etc. and smRti-s
> such as 'dhyAnenAtmani pashyanti kechit...BG 13th chapter and na kinchidapi
> chintayet of the 6th chapter it is also held that the
> antaHkaraNam,/mind/buddhi is the karaNam of this
> avidyAnivartaka/mokShapradAyaka vRtti.

This is the problem which arises when a person talks without knowing or applying correct meaning of a word.
The simple answer is that if mahAvAkyam is karaNam, then anything other including antaHkaraNam can't be the same. It can only be kAraNam. And I didn't oppose that anywhere. antaHkaraNam is a sAmAnya-kAraNam of any experience.

 
> In the Vedanta tradition it is held that while the vivaraNa school
> emphasizes the mahAvAkya as the karaNam, the bhAmatI school highlights the
> antaHkaraNam as the karaNam.  I had posted a write up based on a talk by
> Dr.Mani Dravid SastriNaH which beautifully reconciles the two apparently
> 'opposing' views.  He had pointed out both the 'pakSha-s' are not
> absolutely exclusive of the other.  When the mahAvAkya is said to be the
> karaNa, it is impossible for it to operate without the appropriately
> samskRta mind since the vRtti has to arise in the mind alone.  And when the
> antaHkaraNa is said to be the karaNa, it has to be the one that is
> appropriately trained on the strength of the mahAvAkya.  Thus, both require
> both and the emphasis alone differs in the presentation by the two
> 'prasthAnam-s.'

I can't see how maNi supports you.
Understanding meaning of the word karaNa is needed first.

Moreover, to add spice to controversy :

There are only six pramANa-s and antaHkaraNam is not one of them. Looking again at vedAnta-paribhAShA may help as I'm talking about pramA-karaNam and not kAraNam.

And,

The view which says that samAdhi(dhyAna or prasa~NkhyAna) is needed for liberating knowledge to arise is not of sha~Nkara and sureshvara. It is supported by vAchaspati who follows vedAntaikadeshin bhartR^i-prapa~ncha and hence is refuted by many AchArya-s including anubhUti-svarUpAchArya.