[Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste

Thanks for your response.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:40 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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) ,
>>
>
> ​Seriously!! ghaTaGYAna *gives *knowledge!!??
> It should be understood that ghaTaGYAna is knowledge of ghaTa, so it can't
> give itself.
>

Ok, used in the sense, knowledge arises when vastu is perceived..


> ​
>
>
>> but not the knowledge of vastu's svarUpa,
>>
>
> ​In realm of vyavahAra, ghaTa is vastu. So, ghaTaGYAna reveals vastu.
> Why do you expect ghaTaGYAna to reveal vastu-svarUpa, which is brahman in
> vyavahAra-kAla?
> That will make ghaTaGYAna similar to brahmaGYAna!!
>

analogy used while trying to figure the akhanda of ghaTa jnAna
mentioned..understand it is not the right approach..

​
>
>
>> 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..
>>
>
> ​Not like that.​
>
> ​Let me ask you, what do you mean by knower remains different from ghaTa?
>

In the sense, I know the vastu perceived , but I am not the vastu

Ok, I see the analysis below, at the moment when knowledge of vastu takes
place (chaitanya associated with pramAna being non-different from chaitanya
associated with pramEya  ..)


> According to vedAntin-s, ghaTa becomes pratyaxa only when it becomes one
> with you, although such oneness of pramAtRprameyachainaya-s is not accepted
> as cause of liberation. Please, check vedAnta-paribhAShA for clarity.
> So, even ghaTapratyaxa is no different in that sense from brahmaGYAna.
>

Thanks..will study the above work

>
> Add to it that, although brahman is not fala-vyApya, it is accepted as
> vRtti-vyApya, and hence it's knowledge causes similar expression as 'I know
> brahman'. If it doesn't then you are accepting that GYAnI doesn't know that
> he knows brahman.
> The expression that brahman can't be said to be known, just means that
> brahman can't be said to be illumined by others.
>
> So, there is no difference.
>

Ok

>
> All vRttti-GYAna-s are sakhaNDa in the sense you and others are talking.
> And, the brahman, which is pure knowledge/consciousness, although akhaNDa
> is not aGYAna-virodhI. So, you can't say that ghaTa-GYAna is vRtti-rUpa and
> hence skhaNDa, but brahmaGYAna is one with brahman and hence akhaNDa, too.
> ​
>
> Understood.

Pranams