[Advaita-l] Vikalpa, Savikalpa, and Nirvikalpa

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> I am aware of the difference between  करणम् and कारणम्.   I did not also
> mistake your word 'karanam'.
>

A person saying mahAvAkyam and antaHkaraNam, both karaNam of brahma-GYAna
confuses all.
vyApAravadasAdhAraNaM kAraNm or sAdhakatamaM is karaNAm. And I don't think
that more than one cause can be sAdhakatamaM for a kArya. So, vAchaspati
and others who say that different things are karaNa of brahma-GYAna are
opposed to each other.


> I am stating the two views in Vedanta and how they are not really
> contradicting each other.
>

See above. They are in contradiction. maNi was only showing you kAraNatvam
of one and karaNatvam of other in each case and not karaNatvam of each.

In short, I meant that vAchaspati-s view is ekadesha and wrong one.


> > 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.
> >
>
> No one has denied the need for Agama/shabda as a pramANam.  Only in the
> work up to the final sAkShAtkAra as to what is the sAkShAt sAdhanam is what
> gets to be viewed differently by different AchAryas.
>

sAxAt-sAdhanam is another name of karaNam. So, see again your sentence. You
are again using words without knowing meaning.


> > The view which says that samAdhi(dhyAna or prasa~NkhyAna) is needed for
> > liberating knowledge to arise is not of sha~Nkara and sureshvara.
>
>
> The SutrabhaaShya that I cited itself is proof for the fact that samAdhi
> (dhyAnam) is needed, vidhIyate, for liberating knowledge to arise.
>

As you are a serious reader of bhAShya, I'll like to direct you to
br^ihadAraNyaka-bhAShyam-s and it's vArttika to gain clarity.
Anyway, the direct answer is :
vidhIyate just says that they are needed. That is justified in our case too
as we accept them for specific purpose, i.e. to remove viparIta-bhAvanA.
So, there is no need to imagine a new karaNa for brahma-GYAnam.
If you insist to accept antaH-karaNam as karaNam of brahma-GYAnam, then
from today count the number of pramANa-s seven instead of six.
There are other problems in accepting antaHkaraNam as pramANam. But, I hope
you will find yourself.