[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Sadananda Ji ,


 This is reg your statement << I think I would stop  here since I am not
clear yet what exactly akhandaakaara vRitit and could not make out based on
the statements so far. >> .


 Vedanta Sara of Sri Sadananda Yogi is widele acclaimed a very significant
contribution to Advaita Sidhanta and is practically considered a Classic.
It has used the term Akhandakara Vritti in a particular sense. Advaita
Sidhi of Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati was written over a century after
Vedanta Sara. No doubt it has defined the term more precisely. But it has
not invalidated the understanding of the term as used in Vedanta Sara. Why
do I say so ?? Because , even after several centuries of their existence ,
both are still considered to be classics and authoritative texts on Advaita
Sidhanta . No one has pointed out that the definitions given in Advaita
Sidhi have invalidated its usage as in Vedanta Sara. The definition in
Advaita Sidhi could thus be considered as refinements to repudiate the
arguments put forth by other schools of thought , and not as rejection of
its usage as in Vedanta Sara. They may be of use for debates , but
certainly not essential for understanding or further pursuit of the
sadhana.


 Also you have had the unique opportunity of discussing the issue
personally with Swami Paramarthananda after your own personal indepth
analysis of the subject and given the members here the benefit of the views
of Sri Swamiji whose credibility on such issues you can personally vouch
for and so can many of the other members here who are familiar with the
Swamiji either personally or through his talks.


 Such being the case your statement cited above could very well send out a
wrong message , that the meaning of the term is in doubt , which I am sure
you yourself did not intend. I find quite a few members follow your posts
closely and are benefitted . Hence this note. I would urge you to clarify
that the meaning as given by Swami Paramarthananda and explained by you is
more than adequate for pursuing the study of the Sidhanta .


 Just a suggestion. Please bear with me.


 Pranams and Regards


 Chandramouli

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:13 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Shreeman - PraNAms
>
> I have posted article on determinate and indeterminate perceptions, I am
> sure Shree Ananda Hudli's statements are in tune with what was described.
> If not I have to resolve where the differences are.
>
>
> By the by,
>
> If we are only interested in the subject and not who said want, it is
> better to say - the statements are right or statements are wrong rather
> than some one is wrong or you are wrong or some Swami is wrong, or he does
> not know if what you said is what he said etc, etc. I would like to take
> the blame on myself  if I have misinterpreted Swami Paramarthanandaji
> statements, since he is not a member of the list to defend the statement.
>
> I have no problem in disagreeing with something which does not make sense
> to me based on my prior knowledge. However I do make an effort to
> understand the statement, if I can.
>
>  I can be wrong since I am learner at the same time I can only accept only
> when I am convinced - that is my swadharma. Any knowledge has to explain
> the human experiences if the experiences are contradictory to the knowledge
> -ex. Sunrise and Sunset. Similarly akhandaakara vRitti it is there in every
> perception.
>
> One can say my whole article on indeterminate perception is wrong, I have
> not problem with that either. However for me to accept that statement I
> need more convincing arguments.
>
> I think I would stop  here since I am not clear yet what exactly
> akhandaakaara vRitit and could not make out based on the statements so far.
> My original statement was if the term or concept is not in scriptures nor
> in Shankara and introduced by later advaita masters in response to
> purvapaksha by some darshanikaas, then contextual understanding may be
> required to appreciate the statements.
>
> With this I stop until I get any clearer picture of this akhandaakaara
> vRtti, and push aside since without understanding the term, if I can can
> appreciate the truth, then it reduces to  a fifth leg.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 7/5/15, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
>  To: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>, "A discussion
> group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  Cc: "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>
>  Date: Sunday, July 5, 2015, 1:43 AM
>
>
>  On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 9:54
>  PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  wrote:
>  Frankly
>  for tuula avidya at least it makes absolutely no sense to
>  me, if there is knowledge of an object without an
>  attribute.​
>  It should, because it is accepted that any
>  vishiShTa-GYAna expects it's cause before it, which are
>  niShprakAraka-GYAna-s of visheShya and visheShana.​
>
>   Pure
>  existence is imperceptible​I
>  hope you don't mean that it can't be uncovered. The
>  uncovering is called perception and it is well accepted for
>  brahman too, otherwise how could anyone become
>  brahmaGYa.​  and
>  advaita does not subscribe to indeterminate perception
>  unlike Nyaaya or vishishtaadvaita
>  does.​Wow!!
>  If niShprakAraka-GYAna is not accepted by advaitin-s then
>  why did naiyAyika-s, dvaitin-s objected it and advaitin-s
>  supported it?​  I think
>  Anandaji had discussed this aspect as I read before in his
>  mail.
>
>
>
>  As per vedanta all objects are just naama ruupa and ruupa
>  stands for attributive content. The question of naama that
>  involves naming and naming involves knowing and knowing
>  involves conscious entity with attributive knowledge in
>  terms of vRitti,  since substantive is Brahman - this is
>  true for all objective knowledge. There is no akhada aspect
>  here since attributes are differentiable.
>
>  ​You
>  are going one level up. Please, stay on vyavahAra and talk
>  about ghaTa-paTa-GYAna.​
>
>
>  If akhada is undifferentiated objective knowledge, there is
>  no such thing
>   - Now if
>  that applies to self which is attribute less then also it is
>  not possible unless one talks in figurative usage of
>  knowledge of saakshi. Even when I say I see something there,
>  I have to see a form which is its attribute but do not have
>  sufficient further qualifying attributes gathered for me to
>  have a definitive knowledge. you have this is - knowledge
>  which is indeterminate without some form of the object seen.
>  Naamaruupaatmakam jagat.
>
>
>
>  I need more explanation in order to understand what exactly
>  it stands for. me tograsp.
>  ​I'm
>  lost here. I don't understand what you are talking of. I
>  need more clear version to refute or support.
>  I'll
>  again remind you that you have to talk on vyAvahArika-level
>  and count even brahmaGYAna as vyAvahArika.
>
>  ​
>
>
>  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
>