[Advaita-l] Fwd: Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Ravi Kiran,


 Reg << Ok, this Vritti ( akhandakara )  that arises is not of chidabhasa,
since it is directed towards the attributeless Source ( in the sense that a
vritti directed towards any object with attributes,  alone is of chidabhasa
)...In that sense, there is no difference (of any) between the Source and
the akhandakara vritti ( content or substance wise) >> ,


 some corrections in semantics ( and hence aid in understanding ) perhaps
would be in order. Maybe rewording as follows would be better ( just a
suggestion ) .


 << This vritti , accompanied by Chidabhasa , unveils the Aavarana covering
the Chaitanyam . Instead of the vritti envoloping , and associated
Chidabhasa illumining , the “ object “ ( Chaitanyam in this case ) , as
happens in respect of a vritti directed towards any object with attributes
, the vritti itself is illumined entirely by the Chaitanyam directly . The
content of the vritti is then essentially Atman itself as there is no other
content relating to the “ I / knowerhood “ ( pramatru ) or “ know “ (
pramana ) components ( associated with cognition through Chidabhasa )
present in all cognition relating to Anatma vastus. In that sense , there
is no essential difference between Source ( Chaitanyam ) and the content of
the vritti. >> .


 I know I am treading on dangerous ground and the terminology may not pass
close expert scrutiny . But this is the best I could do. For further
refinement in understanding / terminology , better to refer to experts/
standard texts / talks.


 Regards

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:51 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti
> To: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>
>
> Dear Sri Chandramouli Ji
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sri Ravi Kiran,
>>
>>
>>  Reg << Mind is no doubt needed for both as the instrument for
>> cognition.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Can you pl elaborate this statement? As you are accepting the need for
>> mind in self cognition, what is the role played by mind in Realization
>> (without the involvement of chidabhasa or reflected consciousness) ? Kindly
>> clarify >> ,
>>
>>
>>   I had covered this in my definition of “ akhandakara vritti “ . Mind
>> is the only instrument available for knowledge, whether of Atman or Anatma.
>> In respect of Anatma, the knowledge is gained through the participation of
>> Chidabhasa . But in respect of Atman ( Self Realization ) , it is through
>> Chaitanyam itself and not through Chidabhasa. A drishtanta in this
>> connection , which has always fascinated me , goes like this. Consider a
>> mirror reflecting light onto a dark room through a small hole, illuminating
>> whatever vastus are covered by the reflected light . The mirror is slowly
>> turned towards the source of light itself. When the mirror directly faces
>> the source of light, does the reflected light illumine the source of light
>> ?? Till this point is reached , all the vastus covered by it were illumined
>> by the reflected light. But not now. On the other hand the mirror itself
>> can be considered to have been illumined by the source of light. Same is
>> the case at the time of Self Realization. As long as knowledge of Anatma
>> vastus were being cognized by the mind ( equivalent of mirror ) ,
>> Chidabhasa ( equivalent of reflected light ) was illumining the vastus. But
>> once the mind is intensely concentrated on the Atman by the sadhaka (
>> equivalent of mirror turned directly towards the source of light ) and the
>> Guru pronounces the Maha Vakya “ tatvamasi “ , the resulting Vritti in the
>> sadhaka's mind
>>
>
> Ok, this Vritti ( akhandakara )  that arises is not of chidabhasa, since
> it is directed towards the attributeless Source ( in the sense that a
> vritti directed towards any object with attributes,  alone is of chidabhasa
> )...In that sense, there is no difference (of any) between the Source and
> the akhandakara vritti ( content or substance wise)
>
>> uncovers the veil of avidya covering the Chaitanyam ( aavarana naasha ) ,
>> leading to the illumination of the mind directly by the Chaitanyam (
>> equivqlent of the source of light ) . This leads to Self Realization , the
>> knowledge of the form “ aham Brahmasmi “ .
>>
>>
>>  You could also usefully refer to the link
>>
>>
>>  <<
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2014-November/037681.html
>> >>
>>
>>
>>  for a discussion in this Forum on the role of mind in Self Realization.
>> You have also participated in that thread.
>>
>>
>>  Regards
>>
>
> Thanks
>
> Namaste
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Sri Chandramouli Ji
>>>
>>> Thanks for fwding your response:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:03 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  What about the knowledge of Sushupti << I know I slept well >> .
>>>> Chidabhasa is dormant/inactive. But still knowledge is there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, this I know in waking ( jagrat), the existence (unbroken) that
>>> persisted during sushupti ...there was never a moment when existence was
>>> not..
>>>
>>>
>>>> This
>>>> knowledge is therefore not attributable to Chidabhasa.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  We can also consider from another viewpoint , the difference between
>>>> jada
>>>> ( inert ) and svaprakasha ( selfevident ) vastu. The fundamental
>>>> difference
>>>> is that for cognizing a jada vastu an illuminating entity is needed
>>>> whereas
>>>> for cognizing a svaprakasha vastu another illuminating entity is not
>>>> needed. For both nodoubt mind is involved as the instrument for
>>>> cognition.
>>>> According to you Chidabhasa is needed for both the above cognitions.
>>>> Then
>>>> there is no difference between them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  My point is Chidabhasa is needed for cognizing all inert vastus . But
>>>> it
>>>> is not needed for cognizing Svaprakasha vastu ( It is so by definition
>>>> itself ) .
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, we can say, in sushupti, the svaprakAsha vastu exists or illumines
>>> by itself..  there is no need for mind or other illumining entity
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mind is no doubt needed for both as the instrument for
>>>> cognition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you pl elaborate this statement? As you are accepting the need for
>>> mind in self cognition, what is the role played by mind in Realization
>>> (without the involvement of chidabhasa or reflected consciousness) ? Kindly
>>> clarify
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  That the cognition is at vyavaharika level only has not been disputed .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Namaste
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>