[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Brahmakara vritti refuted

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Michael
Thanks for raising these questions because it helps us become more clear
about the pramANa process.


On Wed, 5 Feb, 2025, 3:46 am Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Raghav,
> You and others certainly have some fine ideas as to the method and nature
> of Brahmakara vritti without it being mentioned in sruti or bhasya.
> Perhaps check our Subbuji's email on this same thread to see what later
> acharya's said about the term.
>

I understand you to be saying that "the way you and others have talked,
there is nothing particularly objectionable or unreasonable in explaining
the word BKV and shruti pramANa,  but the later PSA Acharyas had a
different take on BKV as demonstrated by Subbuji references."

Well, there is actually no difference. But i shall leave it at that.


> /...that a vague phrase "immediate intuition" which presumably
> involves some vRtti//
>
> ''immediate intuition"  a term translated by HH SSS is only as "vague" as
> its equivalent phrases but what is certain is that it does NOT ASSUME A
> VRITTI.
>

I thought you yourself used the word samyak-jnAna-vRtti earlier for what
you are translating as "intuition" etc.

I repeat - AtmA is svayam-prakAsham. But to negate wrong notions centred on
AtmA, requires vRttis culminating in the carama vRtti *nominally* called
brahmAkAra-vRtti. But the tradition is emphatic that even this BKV does not
and cannot objectify AtmA.

It's interesting that SSS tradition is emphatic that avidyA is antaHkaraNa
doSha but rejects antaHkaraNa vRtti.

Please note also that we say "eyes are a pramANa for color (rUpa)". Even
there, let's say, "I see red color" then there is a lohita-rUpAkAra-vRtti.
Merely asserting occurrence of a vRtti  *does not mean* that eyes cease to
be a pramANa for color.


> - *साक्षात्कर (Sākṣātkāra)* – Direct perception, immediate realization, or
> intuitive understanding.
> - *प्रत्यक्षज्ञान (Pratyakṣajñāna)* – Direct knowledge or immediate
> cognition.
> - *अवबोध (Avabodha)* – Awareness, enlightenment, or intuitive
> comprehension.
> - *दर्शन (Darśana)* – Vision, direct insight, or philosophical realization.
> - *संविद् (Saṁvid)* – Pure consciousness, direct knowing.
> - *अनुभूति (Anubhūti)* – Direct experience or realization.
>
> BKV is an unnecessary complication affixed to pramana, Knowledge of tat
> twam asi is sufficient for immediate instant intuition without any
> intermediary vritti that is not to be found in Bhasya or Sruti. .
>

Are you saying that all pramANas work without vRttis? Or only
shruti-pramANa does not involve vRttis. In any case, it's obvious all
pramANas involve vRttis.


> Sir, I must excuse myself from further response to your comment and others.
> I have spent too many hours researching and responding. Please accept my
> respectful apologies.
>

Thank for for engaging in the discussion


Om

Raghav


>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 9:00 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Venkarraghavan,
> >
> > Sir, I have asked for PSA citations depicting Brahmakaravritti but have
> > not received a response yet.  The substance of the objection is that BKV
> is
> > not mentioned anywhere in PTB and that my impression of it (without
> > specific citation) is that it is used as a pramana to reveal the Self in
> > contradistinction to sruti as the sole pramana. Show me citation/s where
> my
> > understanding of it is incorrect and I will shut up.
> >
> > //What is your proof for claiming Atmaikatva vidyA is not a vRtti? What
> do
> > you understand by anarthahetoh prahANa and Atmaikatva vidyA?//
> >
> > It is obvious Anartha hetu and atmaikatva vidya are quite distinct.
> > Claiming Atmaikatva Vidya is a vritti goes against all the teaching of
> > Vedanta.
> >
> > Nor is it reasonable in the absence of all that, the Self which, in its
> > own nature is free from all contact, become a knowing agent (*itasmin
> > sarvasmin asati asaṅgasya ātmanaḥ pramātṛ tvam upapadyate*/not
> > reasonable). Therefore the means of knowledge such as perception and the
> > scriptures (*pratyakṣādīni pramāṇāni śāstrāṇi*) are for those that remain
> > on the plane of avidya (*avidyāvad*).// Adhyasa Bhasya"
> >
> > From Chatgpt (citations not confirmed):
> >
> > Śaṅkarācārya explicitly states that *Brahman cannot be known by a vṛtti
> > (modification of the mind)* in multiple places across his works. Below
> > are citations from his *bhāṣyas (commentaries)* and independent texts:
> > ------------------------------
> > 1. *Brahmasūtrabhāṣya (BSB) 3.2.18*
> >
> >    - *Statement:*
> >
> >    "न ह्यस्ति विज्ञानवृत्त्या ब्रह्मणो विषयता।"
> >    (*na hy asti vijñāna-vṛttyā brahmaṇo viṣayatā.*)
> >
> >    - *Translation:* "Brahman is not an object of knowledge through a
> >       modification of consciousness (vṛtti)."
> >    - *Context:* Śaṅkara argues that Brahman, being infinite and
> >    unobjectifiable, does not become the object of a mental mode or vṛtti
> like
> >    other knowable things.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > 2. *Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad Bhāṣya (BUB) 3.8.11*
> >
> >    - *Statement:*
> >
> >    "यद्विषया विज्ञानवृत्तिः सविषयं विज्ञानं भवति। ब्रह्म तु अविषयम्।"
> >    (*yad-viṣayā vijñāna-vṛttiḥ sa-viṣayaṃ vijñānaṃ bhavati. brahma tu
> >    aviṣayam.*)
> >
> >    - *Translation:* "When knowledge has a vṛtti directed towards an
> >       object, it becomes knowledge with an object. But Brahman is not an
> object."
> >    - *Context:* Śaṅkara negates the objectification of Brahman and
> >    affirms its transcendence beyond the mind.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > 3. *Bhagavadgītā Bhāṣya (BGB) 18.55*
> >
> >    - *Statement:*
> >
> >    "न हि ब्रह्म विज्ञानवृत्तिगम्यम्।"
> >    (*na hi brahma vijñāna-vṛtti-gamyam.*)
> >
> >    - *Translation:* "Brahman is not attained by a mental modification
> >       (vṛtti) of knowledge."
> >    - *Context:* Śaṅkara emphasizes that *Brahman is realized by direct
> >    identity, not by vṛtti-jñāna*.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > 4. *Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad Kārikā Bhāṣya (GKB) 3.32*
> >
> >    - *Statement:*
> >
> >    "तस्य विज्ञानवृत्तिगोचरत्वाभावात्।"
> >    (*tasya vijñāna-vṛtti-gocaratvābhāvāt.*)
> >
> >    - *Translation:* "Because it (Brahman) is not within the range of
> >       mental modifications (vṛttis) of knowledge."
> >    - *Context:* Here, Śaṅkara refutes the idea that mental modifications
> >    can lead to Brahman-realization.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > 5. *Vivekacūḍāmaṇi (VC) 417*
> >
> >    - *Statement:*
> >
> >    "अविषयत्वात् ब्रह्मणो विज्ञानवृत्तेः अयोग्यत्वम्।"
> >    (*aviṣayatvāt brahmaṇo vijñāna-vṛtteḥ ayogyatvam.*)
> >
> >    - *Translation:* "Because Brahman is not an object, a mental
> >       modification (vṛtti) is incapable (of knowing it)."
> >    - *Context:* Śaṅkara emphasizes that no vṛtti, even
> *ākhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti*,
> >    can truly grasp Brahman.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *Conclusion*
> >
> > Śaṅkarācārya repeatedly asserts that Brahman is not known through
> > *vṛtti-jñāna* but through *direct self-revelation (svataḥ-siddha-jñāna)*.
> > He establishes this in his *Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya, Upaniṣad Bhāṣyas,
> > Bhagavadgītā Bhāṣya*, and independent texts like *Vivekacūḍāmaṇi*.
> >
> > Would you like any *specific elaboration* on these passages?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 8:26 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Namaste Michael
> >>
> >>
> >> Namaste Venkat,
> >>> // I think you are alleging qualities to the akhandakara vritti that
> were
> >>> not intended. How is quoting Naishkarmya Siddhi passages refuting
> >>> prasankhyana relevant when no one is claiming that the vRtti arises out
> >>> of
> >>> meditation.  //
> >>> I am alleging that it is an improper depiction of PTB to conclude that
> >>> meditation or any kind of effort or repetition culminates in
> >>> Brahmajnanam.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is fine. Don't disagree with that. No one is claiming meditation or
> >> any kind of repetition culminates in brahmajnAna. You are tilting at
> >> windmills here.
> >>
> >>
> >>> //That samyak-dhI of Sureshvara which Shankara refers as to as
> >>> AtmaikyavidyA in the adhyAsa bhAShya, (अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय
> >>> आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते) is the akhanDAkAra
> >>> vRtti.//
> >>> Quite a hopeful stretch to seek confirmation of Akhandhakara vritti in
> >>> the
> >>> prayojanam of Adhyasa Bhasya. Atmaikatva vidya is not a thought/vritti
> >>> but
> >>> the culmination of the prahanaya of adhyasa.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What is your proof for claiming Atmaikatva vidyA is not a vRtti? What do
> >> you understand by anarthahetoh prahANa and Atmaikatva vidyA?
> >>
> >>
> >>> So again, I implore mulavidya vadins to discover any statement in PTB
> >>> referring to Brahmakara vritti or any of its cognates as a pramana. In
> >>> fact, suggesting BKV etc. as sufficient method contradicts
> >>> sruti's declaration as the ONLY pramana for Brahmajnanam.
> >>>
> >>
> >> brahmAkAravRtti is brahmajnAna. Don't understand the basis for your
> >> differentiation of the two.
> >>
> >> If your claim is that akhaNDAkAra vRtti is a creation of post Shankara
> >> teachers,  you should ask the people who follow those teachers what they
> >> meant by it, and once you have understood it, you can try to refute it.
> >> However, instead here you are fabricating your own interpretation of
> what
> >> they meant and are refuting such an erroneous interpretation.
> >>
> >> What you allege as their position, is not their position. So, your
> >> arguments against it are fallacious. As I said, you have created
> imaginary
> >> enemies to fight with, not sure what you are seeking to achieve. It is
> >> creating a controversy for controversy's sake.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Venkatraghavan
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 🙏🙏🙏
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 7:15 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> >>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Namaste Vikram,
> >>> > Excellent, I appreciate the style of your presentation.
> >>> >
> >>> > //5. The content of this samyak jnana is the oneness (ekatvam) of
> >>> > Brahman-Atman.//
> >>> > Samyak jnana is opposed to it's opposite - viparita & samshaya
> jnanan.
> >>> It
> >>> > cannot be ekatvam or else it would not qualify as an ever-changing
> >>> vritti.
> >>> > At the same moment, samakala eva, as the dissolution of viparita
> >>> jnanam,
> >>> > Ekatvam consumes all distinctions.
> >>> >
> >>> > “Thus also it is a fact that, although the knowledge of the Self
> >>> results
> >>> > in instantaneous liberation, yet its instruction is imparted with the
> >>> help
> >>> > of some relationship with some conditioning factor.” BSB1.1.12
> >>> > Thus, a clear distinction between samyak jnanam and atma jnanam
> >>> >
> >>> > //Specific technical details can be found in Vedanta Sara as well.//
> >>> > Yes, I am sure but seeking confirmation outside of PTB is the essence
> >>> of
> >>> > the problem. If we strictly limit our understanding to PTB, these
> >>> issues
> >>> > should not arise.
> >>> > 🙏🙏🙏
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:00 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> >>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Namaste Michael
> >>> >> PSA understanding of nididhyAsanam is that it is pramANa vyApAra.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It's not a mere repetition of a vRtti like an upAsana or
> prasaMkhyAna.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The NKS reference by you is well-known as referring to the mImAmsaka
> >>> idea
> >>> >> of using "aham brahmAsmi" as a kind of ahaMgrahopAsana or
> >>> prasaMkhyAna - a
> >>> >> mere repetition of a vRtti not involving any pramANa operation.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As often happens,  SSS misunderstood PSA view on nididhyAsanam which
> >>> is
> >>> >> for
> >>> >> viparIta-bhAvanA nivRttiH ;  PSA nididhyAsanam view viz.,
> >>> "AtmasaMstham
> >>> >> manaH kRtvA na kincit api cintayet (gita 6th chapter)"  is for
> >>> removing
> >>> >> obstacles to the shruti pramANa operation .
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The same word nididhyAsanam is used in Brahma siddhi of Sri  Mandana
> >>> >> Mishra
> >>> >> which has led to SSSS misrepresenting PSA's logical and
> shruti-sammata
> >>> >> understanding of the samyak-jnAna-vRtti and thinking that PSA is
> >>> echoing
> >>> >> brahma siddhi.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> PSA clearly asserts that the avAkyArtha (if we insist on the word)
> is
> >>> >> nothing but the lakShaNA vRttiH understanding of the mahAvAkya by
> >>> >> shravaNam; not by prasaMkhyAna.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> If SSSS and co. insist that PSA is talking only of nididhyAsanam as
> >>> >> prasaMkhyAna, then they are just tilting at quixotic windmills.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Om
> >>> >> Raghav
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Mon, 3 Feb, 2025, 10:34 pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
> >>> >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > Namaste Sudhanshuji,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Only Bhagavan can say why? But what does that prove? I am only
> >>> >> intending to
> >>> >> > voice sastra and acharya in my comments - not proclaim an
> >>> independent
> >>> >> > authority.  Even moksa-claiming teachers may misguide students
> >>> without
> >>> >> > clear knowledge of sruti. How about your answer to the same
> >>> question?
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:30 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> >>> >> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > Fine Michael ji.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > So, has it happened in your case? I mean, you have heard the
> >>> shAstra.
> >>> >> And
> >>> >> > > also from a teacher. Has the avidyA been removed, or the wrong
> >>> ideas
> >>> >> been
> >>> >> > > negated?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > If not, then why not?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Regards
> >>> >> > > Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > --
> >>> >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> >>> >> Groups
> >>> >> > > "advaitin" group.
> >>> >> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it,
> >>> >> send an
> >>> >> > > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> >>> >> > > To view this discussion visit
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA9Dimp8Qmy4sRgYRBFZHWjzTpDeMh75tUKf7tMCq7GFg%40mail.gmail.com
> >>> >> > > <
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA9Dimp8Qmy4sRgYRBFZHWjzTpDeMh75tUKf7tMCq7GFg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > .
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > _______________________________________________
> >>> >> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >>> >> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > For assistance, contact:
> >>> >> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >>> >>
> >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >>> >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>> >>
> >>> >> For assistance, contact:
> >>> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >>>
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>>
> >>> For assistance, contact:
> >>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>