[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:48 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste
>>
>> Did not understand the following expression :
>>
>> > aparoxa of ghaTA
>>
>> isn't ghaTA pratyakSa jnAna ?
>>
> ​
> do  you want to say that ghaTa-GYAna is only paroxa ?
> ​
> ​then many here will be able to answer you..
> if not, then tell clearly what you meant by this so that i could reply.
>

Understanding is that ..

1. ghaTa-jnAna gives the knowledge of the vastu ( ghaTa) , but not the
knowledge of vastu's svarUpa, whereas, jnAna of pratyagAtma is svarUpa
jnAna (abhEda),   ...
2. the knower of the vastu remains different from the vastu (ghaTa)..each
has its identity..so, did not follow the derivation that ghaTa jnana is
akhanda..


​
>
>
>>
>> and jnAna of pratyagAtma is nitya aparokSa
>>
>
> ​it appears that you​
>
> ​think that brahmaGYAna is aparoxa while none other GYAna is aparoxa just
> because of duality.
>


That's not correct.
> Consider that pratyaxa and aparoxa, mean same. It means that the object
> doesn't have any type of aGYAna, either asattvApAdaka-AvaraNa or
> abhAnApAdaka-AvaraNa on it. For ghaTa, etc. it is such GYAna is generated
> by indriya, as eyes which are in contact with ghaTa.
>

Ok, by this definition, if we say ghaTa jnAna is aparoxa, it is not nitya
aparoxa ( unlike jnAna of pratyagAtma) ...ghaTa jnAna can be paroxa as well.


> In case of AtmA such GYAna is generated by mahAvAkya.
> It has nothing to do with duality.
>

Ok...used duality to indicate the difference between the knower (I) and
known ( ghaTa)

>
> I recommend serious study of vedAnta-paribhAShA under any good scholar.
> ​
>
>>
>> How do we understand the aparoxa of ghaTA, as there is duality between
>> the knower and known ( ghaTA) ? Pl clarify
>>
>
> ​This has nothing to do with total revelation, i.e. pratyaxa or aparoxa,
> of anything.
>
> To add yatsAxAdaparoxAdbrahma, this shruti doesn't say that GYAna of
> pratyagAtmA is pratyaxa. It says that brahman is svaprakAsha and
> GYAna-svarUpa because it is pratyagAtmA.
>

Yes

Pranams

>
>
>> Pranams
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:32 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
>>>
>>
>>
>