Unambiguous statement of Akhandakara vritti in the Gita Bhashyam

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Bhagavadgita 2nd ch. we have this verse 21:

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम् ।
कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥ २१ ॥

2.21 O Partha, he who knows this One as indestructible, eternal, birthless and undecaying, how and whom does that person kill, or whom does he cause to be killed! [This is not a question but only an emphatic denial.-Tr.]

 

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम्द्वितीयोऽध्यायःश्लोक २१ - भाष्यम्

…

अविक्रिय एव सन् बुद्धिवृत्त्यविवेकविज्ञानेन अविद्यया उपलब्धा आत्मा कल्प्यते, एवमेव आत्मानात्मविवेकज्ञानेन बुद्धिवृत्त्या विद्यया  असत्यरूपयैव परमार्थतः अविक्रिय एव आत्मा विद्वानुच्यते । विदुषः………

Shankara says that this vRtti is not absolutely real, but unreal: asatyA. This is no doubt vidyA, right / samyag jnanam. 

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda: What is highlighted is the translation of the Bhashya for the component 'vRtti' that has for its content the Discriminative knowledge:  

As on account of the lack of knowledge of the distinction between the Self and the modifications of the intellect, the Self, though verily immutable, is imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver of objects like sound etc. presented by the intellect etc., in this very way, the Self, which in reality is immutable, is said to be the 'knower' because of Its association with the knowledge of the distinction between the Self and non-Self, which (knowledge) is a modification of the intellect.

Anandagiri says: The Atman itself, in association with the Discriminative knowledge-bearing vRtti, is called the 'Jnani'. (In contrast, the Atman itself, in association with the ignorance-propelled illusory connection with objects is known as the knower of objects. 

तेनात्मोपलब्धा कल्प्यते। तच्चाविद्याप्रयुक्तमिथ्यासंबन्धनिबन्धनं तथैवाध्यासिकसंबन्धेन ब्रह्मात्मैक्याभिव्यञ्जकवाक्योत्थबुद्धिवृत्तिद्वारा विद्वानात्मा व्यपदिश्यते नच मिथ्यासंबन्धेन पारमार्थिकाविक्रियत्वविहतिरस्तीत्यर्थः।

Thus, we have in the Bhashyam an irrefutable instance of akhaNDAkAra vRtti stated. 

warm regards

subbu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

In this 2-21 bhAshya, it is quite evident that there is no vidyAvidya vyavahAra in Atman and both avidyA and vidyA just mental modification. One who is having ajnAna called as ajnAni and the one who is having jnAna called as jnAni, both are in the sphere of avidyA only and this type of avidyA influence happens only when there is reality transfer (adhyAsa).   With this the upasiddhAnta arises that avidyA is NOT the potency of the self and it does not have the power to cover (encompass) the self itself 😊  mUlAvidyAvAda goes for a big six here 😊.  In the really real nature (satyasya satya) of the brahman / self there are absolutely no vyAvahArik dealings like ignorance and knowledge.  It is always nitya Shuddha, buddha mukta svarUpa Atman.

 

Anyway, brahmAkAra vrutti ( brahma who is nirAkAra but  vrutti what is jnAni going to get is brahma-AkAra likewise akhanda is nirAkAra but it is also explained as akhanda-AkAra vrutti, reminds me something like square circle thing 😊)  Don’t we have better words to express this Samyak drushti or Atmaikatva vidyA??  Anyway vrutti happens in antaHkaraNa but what is this antaHkaraNa??  You prabhuji-s pose this question to me when I said avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha, now you are arguing like anything as if antaHkaraNa is a bifurcated compartment which can accommodate avidyA and vidyA whenever it is fed 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Subbuji – PraNAms

 

Requesting some clarification:

 

Discriminative knowledge involves nitya anitya vastu viveka – When a thought arises in the mind, it is illumined by the light of consciousness for me to have the knowledge of the thought. Hence, discriminative involves leaving the thought (while the thought is there), shifting the mind’s attention to that light of consciousness and claiming that I am that. Hence, Kena says ‘pratibodha viditam matam’ – it is revealed in every thought.

 

One cannot perceive a thoughtless mind – as Swami Satprakashanandaji says in his Methods of Knowledge (P.94) –‘mind (without vrutti) is imperceivable.’

 

Hence, we need a perceptual thought to use Viveka to keep the mind shifting from the anitya to nitya -That constant shift – do you call this akhandaakaara vritti? – I give an example  -  one cannot recognize the presence of sunlight where the moon is if the moon is not there. We need the moon to reflect the sunlight. Discriminative intellect then involves shifting mental attention to moonlight, which is nothing but sunlight, leaving the mind's attention from the moon.  

 

Meditation is then leaving the perceived objects and shifting the mind’s attention to the light of consciousness because of which every perception is known. Is that ‘akhanda aakaara vritti’? Would like to hear your clarification.  

 

Hari Om!

Sada

 

On Monday, February 10, 2025 at 04:28:04 PM GMT+5:30, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 

 

…

 

अविक्रिय एव सन् बुद्धिवृत्त्यविवेकविज्ञानेन अविद्यया उपलब्धा आत्मा

कल्प्यते, *एवमेव आत्मानात्मविवेकज्ञानेन बुद्धिवृत्त्या विद्यया *

* असत्यरूपयैव* परमार्थतः अविक्रिय एव आत्मा विद्वानुच्यते । विदुषः………

 

Shankara says that this vRtti is not absolutely real, but unreal: asatyA.

This is no doubt vidyA, right / samyag jnanam.

 

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda: What is highlighted is the translation

of the Bhashya for the component 'vRtti' that has for its content the

Discriminative knowledge:

 

As on account of the lack of knowledge of the distinction between the Self

and the modifications of the intellect, the Self, though verily immutable,

is imagined through ignorance to be the perceiver of objects like sound

etc. presented by the intellect etc., in this very way,* the Self, which in

reality is immutable, is said to be the 'knower' because of Its association

with the knowledge of the distinction between the Self and non-Self, which

(knowledge) is a modification of the intellect.*

 

Anandagiri says: The Atman itself, in association with the Discriminative

knowledge-bearing vRtti, is called the 'Jnani'. (In contrast, the Atman

itself, in association with the ignorance-propelled illusory connection

with objects is known as the knower of objects.

 

तेनात्मोपलब्धा कल्प्यते। तच्चाविद्याप्रयुक्तमिथ्यासंबन्धनिबन्धनं

तथैवाध्यासिकसंबन्धेन* ब्रह्मात्मैक्याभिव्यञ्जकवाक्योत्थबुद्धिवृत्तिद्वारा

विद्वानात्मा व्यपदिश्यते* नच मिथ्यासंबन्धेन

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste All,

Last week, Subbuji presented several vakhyanana citations on AAV. I added two or three more, compared them with one or two of HH SSS's reflections on the term/s through a Chatgpt analysis and posted them here. No one here responded until Subbu ji cited Gita 2.21. 

Here is a re-cap of my post summarizing conclusions specific to post-Sankara citations. Citations and a version of the original post is linked below. 

--AAV is unnecessary because:
Brahman is ever self-evident (svataḥ-siddha), and ignorance is not an entity needing an external instrument for destruction.
Misidentification is removed by discernment, not by a new mental construct.
This is why he (HH SSS) rejects AAV as a valid pramāṇa (means of knowledge).

--HH SSS does not equate realization with any samādhi-based cognition but rather with direct, effortless abidance in the ever-known Self.
In Vedanta Sara, realization follows from AAV transitioning into non-dual absorption; HH SSS sees this as unnecessary.

--Vyākhyānakāras: GK 3.46 suggests the need for AAV through relentless meditation.
HH SSS: AAV is not required; abidance (ātmaniṣṭhā) comes by negating adhyāsa.

--HH SSS denies that ignorance needs an active destroyer (vṛtti).
He holds that ignorance is dispelled simply by seeing it as false, like mist dissolving in sunlight.

--AAV arises upon the understanding of mahāvākyas and negates ignorance.
HH SSS disagrees, arguing that mahāvākyas reveal the ever-known Self, and no new vṛtti is required.

--AAV is the final cognition that negates ignorance, but ultimately it too disappears.
HH SSS rejects this: He sees realization as ignorance simply vanishing without requiring a special vṛtti.

--AAV is equated with "neti neti" (not this, not this).
HH SSS accepts neti neti but denies AAV as a necessary cognition.

--AAV alone removes conditioning factors and reveals Brahman.
HH SSS denies this: He argues that conditioning is removed by recognizing its falsity, not by an active vṛtti.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pQtqr3bgWMttDcButUPIqFw6Oj-hNSbsga8hhv-jsY0/edit?usp=sharing

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1371666169.5802900.1739196719066%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thank you Subbuji. In the jijnAsA-adhikaraNam (BSB 1.1.1), Shankaracharya makes a far reaching statement about the ultimate object of enquiry. He says: 

अवगतिपर्यन्तं ज्ञानं सन्वाच्याया इच्छायाः कर्म, फलविषयत्वादिच्छायाः । ज्ञानेन हि प्रमाणेनावगन्तुमिष्टं ब्रह्म । 

The object of desire indicated by the suffix -san [in the word jijnA-sA (the desire to know)], is jnAna (cognition) that ultimately culminates in avagati, for every desire must have an object. Verily, that which is desired to be realised is Brahman, which is known by a cognition (jnAnena) arising from valid means of knowledge (pramANena).

The fact that Shankara distinguishes jnAna from avagati indicates that there is a jnAna which is different to the avagati, and such a jnAna which culminates in avagati is the object of an enquiry into Brahman (brahmajijnAsA). The jnAna is born from a pramANa.

Later advaitins have termed such a jnAna as akhaNDAkArAvRtti, and have explained avagati as the vRtti-abhivyakta-chaitanya - i.e. the consciousness that shines self-effulgent upon the cessation of avidyA as a result of the vRtti. 

The ratnaprabhA explains the two terms (items in bold from the bhAShya):

आवरणनिवृत्तिरूपाभिव्यक्तिमच्चैतन्यमवगतिः पर्यन्तोऽवधिर्यस्याखण्डसाक्षात्कारवृत्तिज्ञानस्य तदेव जिज्ञासायाः कर्म, तदेव फलम् ।

avagati is consciousness that is manifested as a result of the destruction of avidyA, paryanta means culminating, jnAna refers to the vRttijnAna is the direct impartite cognition of the identity of the self as Brahman, that alone is the object of jijnAsA, that is itself the result of jijnAsA.

So what does the brahma-avagati accomplish, that it is so desired? ब्रह्मावगतिर्हि पुरुषार्थः, निःशेषसंसारबीजाविद्याद्यनर्थनिबर्हणात् ।

The realisation of Brahman is verily the ultimate human aim - for it is the cause of the destruction of the evils of samsAra that have avidyA as their seed.

It is very clear that Shankaracharya says that the knowledge that leads to the realisation of Brahman is born out of a pramANa (shruti, specifically the mahAvAkya) - ie the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is born from the shruti mahAvAkya.

The purpose of the akhaNDAkAravRtti is not the revelation of Brahman - for Brahman is self-effulgent, rather it is the removal of avidyA, which obscures the true nature of the Atma as Brahman. 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3NvL8u4dycumGsK%2BwRwyjOwupAanBjT5TLNLgDQLu7Ug%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

The purpose of the akhaNDAkAravRtti is not the revelation of Brahman - for Brahman is self-effulgent, rather it is the removal of avidyA, which obscures the true nature of the Atma as Brahman. 

 

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I agree with this.  brahmAvagati is not the result of AAV OTOH attaining brahman or realization of our svarUpa is just the removal of avidyA, apart from removal of avidyA there is no second obstruction that comes in our way…and shAstra too which is ultimate pramANa to realize brahman does not objectify the brahman to have the vrutti on THAT.  Ofcourse we all agree that brahman is NOT an object of any action and at the same time for the pedagogical purpose we say shAstra is the means of knowing IT.  But shAstra’s scope ends with wiping off the distinctions superimposed on brahman by avidyA and shAstra does not teach the brahman as such and such a thing.  It is svayaM siddha, svayam prakAshita an Aprameya aparOksha tattva. 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

I'm glad we were able to find common ground.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625DBA81B00A7202123453E84FD2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

<

But shAstra’s scope ends with wiping off the distinctions superimposed on brahman by avidyA and shAstra does not teach the brahman as such and such a thing.  It is svayaM siddha, svayam prakAshita an Aprameya aparOksha tattva.

>

The words - svayaM siddha, svayam prakAshita an Aprameya aparOksha tattva - How are these not a description brahman as such and such thing?

Appreciate if you could clarify this, please. 

 

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:13 AM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Unambiguous statement of Akhandakara vritti in the Gita Bhashyam

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DG%3Dv_dVmwUD%3D9xpuDwX%2BGzubV7jWgSNAuSzJ6RcJKUiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

These are pointers, not descriptions.

Suresvaracharya gives the description of a pointing to the star at the end of a tree branch. The star is not literally there. Saying it’s at the end of the branch is a way to direct someone’s attention.

Akilesh Ayyar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45168889096B70E0B4AC0D34A9FD2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Akileshji,

The description "yato va imani bhutani jayante...." could be a pointer. But are you saying - the words "satyam, jnyAnam, Anantam" are also pointers?

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Akilesh Ayyar <aki...@siftingtothetruth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:26 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsHD5KSS-U34-zZ7zYGhTpbdCS3i77bWLHSYt7aMrG2gOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Yes. Ultimately all words with respect to brahman are pointers, because brahman is not an object, and cannot be said to have qualities, which are products of the dualistic mind. This is why sruti says Brahman is net, neti (and even that is but a pointer!).

Akilesh Ayyar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45168132BB6AE47ECC4962C5A9FF2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Rammohan Subramaniam]

Hari Om

What Akilesh ji has stated is the correct understanding regarding every swarupa Lakshna of Brahman being only a pointer to Brahman.  This is because Brahman cannot be described through attributes. Thanks for posting.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

For reference, there is an extensive discussion on the usage of satyam jnanam anantam brahma in the Taittiriya Up bhashya II.1.1. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/ac7c9275-c995-462d-914b-e0bebed53ae4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Rammohan Subramaniam]

Hari Om Putran ji

Bhagavan Shankaracharya defines Satyam as sat + tya leading to the term being a reference to what is sat as in  Chaodogya upanishad ch 6 and tya referring to that which is not sat. Interesting lead to review all places where Satyam is used.in sruthi . It could contextually refer to both vyavahara and Paramartha. Thanks for prompting me share this.

Shri Rammohan

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/07HAF2za1kw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-q%3DSRHno2WfcjVoTFtMsJ4g%3D3%3DESFy5vZbW_GKRrAyP%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Suresh ji,

Yes, the siddhAnta is that the words satyam, jnAnam and anantam are each individually svarUpalakshaNa-s of Brahman, as in satyam brahma, jnAnam brahma, anantam brahma. 

Each of the individually point to the svarUpa mAtra of Brahman by refuting every anRta, jaDa and paricChinna individually. Having refuted that, each of them culminate in the svarUpa mAtra or Brahman. 

This is a case of pade lakshaNA - ie the vAcyArtha of the sentence is anRtAbhAvatva vishiShTa, jaDatvAbhAva vishiShTa and paricChinnatvAbhAva vishiShTa vastu. The cognition of the vAcyArtha of the shAbdabodha, ie the jnAna of the vishiShTa vastu, serves as a dvAra or a pathway to the akhanDAkAra jnAna of Brahman. The sakhaNDAkAra meaning serves to remove doubts that Brahman is anRta or not Brahman is inert or not, or Brahman is limited or not. That is why, even though each lakshaNa, Satyam brahma, jnAnam brahma, anantam brahma are independently sufficient to point to the svarUpa of Brahman, the upaniShad mentions all three, because each word in that definition serves to remove a separate doubt about the nature of Brahman.

In this manner, those definitions are called "pointers" to Brahman - they don't directly reveal Brahman. They reveal it through the means of the sakhaNDAkAra vRtti of the vAcyArtha as a dvAra. After the the vAcyArtha upasthiti happens, the lakshyArtha upasthiti of the svarUpa happens, hence the former is said to be a dvAra for the latter.

However, there is vAkye lakshaNA also. One can say the sentence satyam jnAnam anantam brahma itself acts as a pointer to Brahman as a whole (whole sentence). Again, the process is the same - first the sakhaNDArtha meaning of the sentence is revealed (ie of the satyatva jnAnatva anantatva vishiShTa vastu), which removes doubts about Brahman being anRta, jaDa, paricChinna, and that sakhANDArtha upasthiti acts as a dvAra for akhaNDArtha upasthiti.

In this way, there is no harm to advaita even if a vishiShTa bodha happens first (ie this eventuality doesn't result in vishiShTAdvaita), because such a bodha is not the ultimate tAtparya - it is only a dvAra, a doorway, for the ultimate tAtparya, which is akhaNDArtha upasthiti.

Ultimately the tAtparya of the seeker is in knowing what is brahman - ie the questioner is only interested in brahma svarUpa, so the answer given in the shruti as  "satyam jnAnam anantam brahma" answers that question by pointing to the svarUpa of Brahma and nothing else. 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025, 00:23 suresh srinivasamurthy via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Rammohan ji,

As per my understanding in the Advaitic view, the satyatva / jnyAnatva / anantatva cannot be a pointer to anything other than Atman/Brahman. It is very much experiential too as Atman does not need any external pointer to prove its existence.

If satyajnyAnAnandamaya Atman is a pointer to Brahman, then it results in Dvaita/V.Advaita (as Atman as a pratibimba / shareera is a pointer to the Bimba / AtmAntaryAmi paramAtma).

So IMHO, the symbol and the symbolized are essentially one in the Advaitic view. This is also very much in the Shankara bhAshya for "ShAstrayOnitvAt" - where the AchArya teaches Brahman is the origin for shAstra itself (which is unique to Shankara bhAshya).

It would be great if other scholars could correct me if what is stated above is incorrect.

Regards,
Suresh
________________________________
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rammohan Subramaniam <rammohan.s...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 3:18 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625DBA81B00A7202123453E84FD2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625DBA81B00A7202123453E84FD2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DG%3Dv_dVmwUD%3D9xpuDwX%2BGzubV7jWgSNAuSzJ6RcJKUiA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DG%3Dv_dVmwUD%3D9xpuDwX%2BGzubV7jWgSNAuSzJ6RcJKUiA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45168889096B70E0B4AC0D34A9FD2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45168889096B70E0B4AC0D34A9FD2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsHD5KSS-U34-zZ7zYGhTpbdCS3i77bWLHSYt7aMrG2gOQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsHD5KSS-U34-zZ7zYGhTpbdCS3i77bWLHSYt7aMrG2gOQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45168132BB6AE47ECC4962C5A9FF2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45168132BB6AE47ECC4962C5A9FF2%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/ac7c9275-c995-462d-914b-e0bebed53ae4n%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/ac7c9275-c995-462d-914b-e0bebed53ae4n%40googlegroups.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:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[V Subrahmanian]

Very nicely explained. The last paragraph is elucidated in the Shaastra with the analogy of someone seeking to know the moon.  There the expression prakRShTaH prakAshaH chandraH is used to distinctly show the svarUpam of chandra, which is what the seeker is interested in knowing. 

regards

subbu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkcegJwGOME7ceqGfMopGNQCeFW_VOHS%2B260tSD8BEy-A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Venkatraghavan,

//In this manner, those definitions are called "pointers" to Brahman - they don't directly reveal Brahman. They reveal it through the means of the sakhaNDAkAra vRtti of the vAcyArtha as a dvAra. After the the vAcyArtha upasthiti happens, the lakshyArtha upasthiti of the svarUpa happens, hence the former is said to be a dvAra for the latter.//

Is this simply neti-neti? 🙏

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkcegJwGOME7ceqGfMopGNQCeFW_VOHS%2B260tSD8BEy-A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Michael,

The paragraph you quoted is explaining the mechanics of how the sentence satyam jnAnam anantam brahma is understood. It is a sequential understanding to land in the comprehension of the tat padArtha. 

The basis for why the sakhaNDArtha meaning is dropped for akhaNDArtha meaning are sentences like neti neti.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFO31xzPG9ehFM3L7JuUA98hWLvxCCPeSkh77Heh%2BbeEA%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Rammohan ji,

As per my understanding in the Advaitic view, the satyatva / jnyAnatva / anantatva cannot be a pointer to anything other than Atman/Brahman. It is very much experiential too as Atman does not need any external pointer to prove its existence.

If satyajnyAnAnandamaya Atman is a pointer to Brahman, then it results in Dvaita/V.Advaita (as Atman as a pratibimba / shareera is a pointer to the Bimba / AtmAntaryAmi paramAtma).

So IMHO, the symbol and the symbolized are essentially one in the Advaitic view. This is also very much in the Shankara bhAshya for "ShAstrayOnitvAt" - where the AchArya teaches Brahman is the origin for shAstra itself (which is unique to Shankara bhAshya).

It would be great if other scholars could correct me if what is stated above is incorrect.

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rammohan Subramaniam <rammohan.s...@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 3:18 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/ac7c9275-c995-462d-914b-e0bebed53ae4n%40googlegroups.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Dhanyavadam Sri Venkatraghavan-ji

Your explanation is very helpful and revealing! Is it correct to say that the sakhaNDArtha meaning denotes prasiddha brahman / antaryAmi sarveshwara and the akhaNDArtha meaning denotes tureeya / chaturtham?

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2025 1:07 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: [advaitin] Unambiguous statement of Akhandakara vritti in the Gita Bhashyam

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmMNYPzjMNpnKUA2pE9FpUHVMbMA3U%3Dm0Mxf9p6YhR31g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Suresh ji,

The sentence satyam jnAnam anantam brahma denotes the akhaNDArtha of turIya brahma through the means of the sakhaNDArtha meaning of satyatva vishiShTa / anRtAbhAva vishiShTa, jnAnatva vishiShTa / jaDatvAbhAva vishiShTa, anantatva vishiShTa/ paricChinatvAbhAva vishiShTa brahma - because no direct denotation of the akhaNDArtha is possible.

That sakhaNDArtha meaning can be the sarvajna Ishvara when the sentence has the tat pada vAchyArtha as its object. It can also be the jIva when the sentence has the tvam pada vAchyArtha as its object.

This mechanism is taught by Sri Shankaracharya himself. In the context of neti neti there is this passage in the BUB:

ननु कथम् आभ्यां ‘नेति नेति’ इति शब्दाभ्यां सत्यस्य सत्यं निर्दिदिक्षितमिति? - How through the terms "Not this, Not this" is it sought to describe Brahman, the ultimate reality?  

He himself provides the answer: उच्यते — सर्वोपाधिविशेषापोहेन । यस्मिन्न कश्चिद्विशेषोऽस्ति — नाम वा रूपं वा कर्म वा भेदो वा जातिर्वा गुणो वा ; तद्द्वारेण हि शब्दप्रवृत्तिर्भवति ; न चैषां कश्चिद्विशेषो ब्रह्मण्यस्ति ; अतो न निर्देष्टुं शक्यते — इदं तदिति; It is by the elimination of all possible differences due to limiting adjuncts. To explain, it is only an entity that has some distinguishing characteristic - either of name, form, action, some heterogeneity, species or quality - which can be described verbally. However, there is no such distinguishing characteristic in Brahman, and thus it cannot be verbally described, as this / that, etc. 

He continues: गौरसौ स्पन्दते शुक्लो विषाणीति यथा लोके निर्दिश्यते, तथा ; अध्यारोपितनामरूपकर्मद्वारेण ब्रह्म निर्दिश्यते ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ९ । २८) ‘विज्ञानघन एव’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । १२) इत्येवमादिशब्दैः । We describe a cow in the world as "there is a white cow with horns that is moving about"; similarly, Brahman too is described in scripture through superimposed names, forms, actions in statements such as "Brahman is Consciousness, Bliss" (Br. 3.9.28), "It is Pure Consciousness" (Br. 2.4.12) etc.

Please note even the terms vijnAnam Anantam, vijnAna ghana (and by extension, satyam, jnAnam, anantam), etc., Shankara says are are "adhyAropita-nAma-rUpa-karma-dvAra" for brahma nirdesha, ie sakhaNDArtha-dvAreNa-akhaNDArtha-upasthitih.

Here is the crucial concluding sentence - यदा पुनः स्वरूपमेव निर्दिदिक्षितं भवति निरस्तसर्वोपाधिविशेषम् , तदा न शक्यते केनचिदपि प्रकारेण निर्देष्टुम् ; तदा अयमेवाभ्युपायः — यदुत प्राप्तनिर्देशप्रतिषेधद्वारेण ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ३ । ६) इति निर्देशः ॥ However, when the true nature of Brahman - free from all limitations and distinguishing features - is wished to be conveyed, to do so in positive terms is an impossibility. Therefore, the only way left is to describe it as "Not this, Not this", by eliminating all possible characteristics that one has been taught about it.

Thus the idea of adhyAropa-apavAda, neti neti, sakhaNDArtha-dvAreNa-akhaNDArtha are all closely linked. The later AchAryas have developed and articulated these ideas further from what has been stated in the bhAShya.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516D5CC0904C9E4F0C65BD8A9F92%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.