[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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