[Advaita-l] Fwd: Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

PraNAms

In that Swamiji makes distinction of swaruupa jnaanam vs vRititi jnaanam. Brahma jnaanman is Vritti jnaanam only since it is born out of pramaana. However - (he did not discussed here but discussed elsewhere) that there is no phala vyaati unlike the case of tuula avidya naasha jnaana vRitti  - the destruction of the ignorance of the inert object.

 Brahman jnanam itself involves understanding substratum of everything is nothing but Brahmna and the objective world is only mithyaa. Brahma satyam- jagan mithyaa, jovobramaiva - Hence Brahma jnanam involves understanding I am Brahman meaning I am akhandam and I am there in every perception - pratibhodha viditam. That constant awareness of I am -that raises spontaneously (no phala vyaapti) in the mind is akhandaakaara vRitti jnaanm since it still involves the mind. Determinate and indeterminate perceptions may not have much to do with akhandaakaara vRitti jnaanam. 

my 2c. 

Hari Om!
Sadananda

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 6/27/15, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti
 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Saturday, June 27, 2015, 10:05 AM
 
 Many of the members are familiar with
 the talks of Swami Paramarthananda. I
 was listening to talk no 94 on Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad
 today. Towards the
 end of this talk he very briefly refers to “ akhandakara
 vritti “” and
 asserts the aptness of the term “ vritti “ therein.
 Those who look for
 authoritative confirmation on such issues may like to refer
 to this talk.
 The link is
 
 
  << https://www.mediafire.com/?grw5k6xl6vm09
 >> ,
 
 
  serial no. 7 , talk 94. Each serial number covers 12-15
 talks. Hope this
 info is useful.
 
 
  Regards
 
 On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 >
 >
 > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H S Chandramouli <
 > hschandramouli at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 >
 >> Earlier I had posted the following
 >>
 >>
 >>  << 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 .
 >> >>.
 >>
 >>
 >>  I notice I had left out another significant
 aspect in this
 >> understanding. For sake of completion , I am now
 adding it.
 >>
 >>
 >>  << In addition , The Chidabhasa which
 had all along considered itself
 >> distinct from the Chaitanyam merges with the
 Chaitanyam being nondifferent
 >> from it. What this means is that the distinct “ I
 “ sense which the
 >> Chidabhasa had produced and which is resposible for
 all the samsaric
 >> experiences gets destroyed . >> .
 >>
 >
 > Perfect !  ajnAna nAsha with jnAna utpatti
 >
 > thanks for the addition ..
 >
 >>
 >>  Regards
 >>
 >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
 >> wrote:
 >>
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:54 PM, H S
 Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
 >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 >>>
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>  << 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 .
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> Yes, the vRitti is still needed by the
 antahakarana to remove the
 >>> ignorance of its Source,
 >>> but illumination is "directly" by the
 svayamprakAsaka Chaitanya vastu (
 >>> Source) and
 >>> the illumination is NOT or Never by the
 chidabhasa, as it is never ever
 >>> necessary :)
 >>>
 >>> Pranams and Regards,
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>> 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
 >>>> >>>
 >>>> >>>
 >>>> >>
 >>>> >
 >>>> >
 >>>>
 _______________________________________________
 >>>> 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
 >>>>
 >>>
 >>>
 >>
 >
 _______________________________________________
 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