[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Assuming you agree with that statement, why is the definition of
> nirvikalpakam in VedAnta paribhAshA so different from what Swami
> Paramarthananda says - that the vritti that eliminates the "apparent"
> svarUpa bhedatvam between jivan and brahman, or to put it in other words,
> the vritti that shows svarUpa abheda between jiva and brahman is
> akhandAkAram?


​See this from last post:
[
The samyagdarshanam (correct knowledge?) is that which liberates, and that
is termed as akhaNDAkAravRttiH.
brahman is GYAna-svarUpa, but it is not opposed to aGYAna. We can see that
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 the
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 qualities
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.​

]​
​
I hope that it mentions that I'm accepting that the GYAna which causes
emancipation, which is generated by mahAvAkya is akhaNDAkAra.

Note that it's not akhaNDAkAra because it removes bheda/khaNDa. Consider
प्रकृष्टप्रकाशश्चन्द्रः .
This is where I'm objecting by saying that it's called so because it's not
illuminating anything else(relation or adjective), apart from a single
entity. And, every logic used by dvaitin-s to refute every other definition
of akhaNDa-padArtha, is useful here.
Also, note that I'm objecting limit of uses of the term akhaNDAkAra, as
they appear, for brahmaGYAnam only.​ That's why I brought सोयम् and
प्रकृष्टप्रकाशश्चन्द्रः.
If the subject is akhaNDa, the vRtti which illuminates/removes aGYAna of it
should be akhaNDAkAra. But, if akhaNDa means 'devoid of visheSha', 'devoid
of difference', etc. then it will not cover other uses. So, it should be
defined as chitsukhAchArya, madhusUdanasarasvatI, etc. have done. And,
that's why the logic-counter logic used for akhaNDArtha-vAkya is also
useful for vRtti, which someone objected in his post.

This one more copy-paste, if needed:
[
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.
]


*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com