[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Brahmakara vritti refuted

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste  Venkarraghavan.

//I do not wish to play this game // But still you play! There are many of
"you," few of "us" - it can be overwhelming. Below you have given citations
without source - not the way to encourage a response. Regardless, HH SSS is
the game - it is his insights and logic that needs to be considered. Here
we write paragraphs and an occasional page - that's not the way to
determine the truth of Vedanta. It takes a teacher particularly when
confronted with 1200 years of entrenched thinking that somehow missed a
fundamental  - ignorance is an error, not some positive causal shroud.

// No one is claiming that akhaNDAkAra vRtti objectifies Brahman for you
to point them to us as though we are in disagreement.

Rather, the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the knowledge of the absolute identity of
the self,//
Sir, aren't these two sentences contradictory? if it's a vritti, it has an
object.

// No one is claiming that akhaNDAkAra vRtti objectifies Brahman for you
to point them to us as though we are in disagreement.
Rather, the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the knowledge of the absolute identity of
the self,//
If sastra is the pramana, where is the need for a special vritti? Tat twam
asi dispels all apparent vrittis. Otherwise, I do not have difficulty with
what you have written. This business of vritti vyapti and phala vyapti
along with AKV are never mentioned in sastra or bhasya. Though I see how
these notions can be reconciled, I still find them as unnecessary
complications.

I have spent the better part of the day responding to you and other
comments in this thread.  I must excuse myself from further 'play'  despite
worthy conversations/

🙏🙏🙏



On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:48 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>
> I did not look up your Chandogya reference. I have rarely taken recourse
> to search PTB in Sanskrit. If you can point me to searchable PTB, I would
> be most appreciative.
>
> The objection to phala vyapti is that it is an unnecessary assumption and
> not found in PTB.
>
> "When one tries to get the knowledge of a particular thing with the help
> of teachings, observations etc, then the vritti pervades the thing
> with Chidabhasa. Without being pervaded by the nature of consciousness of
> the Self, it is impossible
> to imagine the very existence of the vritti. Whenever there is any
> knowledge of any object,
> the knowledge of the object pervaded by the pure conciousness of Arman
> alone is obtained. So
> when the Vritti with consciousness (i. e. with Chidabhasa ) pervades the
> thing, then automatically
> rhe Phala Bhuta Jnana or Phalabhuta Anuhhava generates in the mind. Hence.
> once the
> pramana removes the non-perception apd misconception of a· tbing the Phala
> Bhuta . In.na will
> result and that alone is the func;tion of a praz:nana." Kulkarni, Teaching
> of Brahman through avidya and maya, p36
>
> Kulkarni further clarifies that akhandakara vritti is discerning atma from
> anatma and as a vritti it is pervaded by Brahman and not vice versa
> "If all this duality be illusory, how is the knowledge of the Self to be
> realised? It is thus replied:—The Knowers of Brahman describe knowledge,
> *i.e.,* the mere essence of thought, which is unborn and free from all
> imaginations as1 non-different from Brahman, the ultimate Reality, which
> is also the object of knowledge. MKbh3.33"
>
> This knowledge of the Self (meaning, the firm conviction about the Real
> nature of the Self, which is called ‘Atmapratyaya’ – see Mantra No.7 of
> Mandukya), becomes one with the object, that is the Transcendental Reality
> of Brahman. Here the knowledge itself becomes one with the Self. "HH SSS on
> MKbh3.33
>
> If this is what is intended by phala vyapti and akhandakara vritti, so be
> it, and I will rest. In fact, I have spent an inordinate amouint of time
> responding to you and others on this thread and with the greatest respect,
> will have to excuse myself from further input.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Subbuji,
>> It is great that you found these references to Brahma/akandhakara vritti.
>> I struggled without success to find source material. Here is Chatgpt's
>> translation of your link page:
>>
>> *Investigation - Results*
>> *8 Results* *Śāstrasiddhāntaleśasaṅgraha - Third Section - Determination
>> of the Negation of Brahmajnāna*
>>
>> "... However, the consciousness-light that has ascended that [state]
>> negates it. Even though by its nature it serves as the witness of ignorance
>> and other [mental modifications], and thus does not negate them, still,
>> when it is ascended through the *akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti*, its capability to
>> negate them is justified. 'The sunlight, though illuminating grass, burns
>> the grass only when focused through a lens'..."
>>
>> *Read further...*
>> *Sarvavedāntasiddhāntasāra-saṅgraha - Verse*
>>
>> "...That *akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti* is associated with the reflection of
>> consciousness. Having taken as its sole object the Supreme Brahman, which
>> is non-different from the Self..." (798)
>>
>> *Read further...*
>> *Sarvavedāntasiddhāntasāra-saṅgraha - Verse*
>>
>> "...It negates the ignorance residing in that [mental state], which is of
>> the nature of concealment. When ignorance is negated through the
>> *akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti*..." (799)
>>
>> *Read further...*
>> *Sarvavedāntasiddhāntasāra-saṅgraha - Verse*
>>
>> "...The *akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti* does not arise without reflection [on the
>> teaching]. Through hearing, reflection, and meditation, undertaken
>> continuously with intent..." (809)
>>
>> *Read further...*
>> *Vedāntasāra*
>>
>> "...(10) Thus, the meaning of the statement based on direct experience is
>> described. In this way, following the method of superimposition and
>> negation, the teacher purifies the meanings of 'That' and 'Thou', and upon
>> being instructed in the sentence with an undivided meaning, the qualified
>> student attains the *akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti*, which is the mental
>> modification in the form of 'I am the infinite, ever-pure, intelligent,
>> free, true, blissful, and boundless Brahman.' This mental modification,
>> accompanied by the reflection of consciousness, takes as its object the
>> unknown Supreme Brahman and negates the ignorance present in it. Just as
>> the destruction of the cause of the cloth [i.e., the thread] leads to the
>> destruction of the cloth itself, similarly, upon the negation of the entire
>> causal ignorance, all its effects are negated, and with that, the
>> *akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti* is also negated. There, the reflected consciousness,
>> like the radiance of a lamp being incapable of illuminating the sun’s
>> radiance..."
>>
>> *Read further...*
>> *Vivaraṇaprameyasaṅgraha - First Sūtra - First Section - Commentary*
>>
>> "...Thus, due to the negation of humanity in that [context], the
>> perception of being human in the Self is an illusion. That is not so [in
>> the case of reality]; otherwise, if one were to apprehend 'a broken piece
>> of a cow' with the form of 'brokenness' imposed on the cow's attribute, and
>> later negate that as 'this is not a fragment,' then the perception of
>> brokenness would also have to be considered an illusion..."
>>
>> *Read further...*
>> *Nyāyarakṣāmaṇi - First Chapter - First Section - Sūtra 17 - Commentary*
>>
>> "...In expressions such as 'This is a pot' or 'This is a cloth,' the
>> words 'pot' and 'cloth,' which are used in conjunction with the mind
>> engaged in such conceptualization, do not attain the state of
>> *akhaṇḍākāra* [unbroken cognition]. When the śruti declares negation
>> through statements like 'Now the instruction is—Not this, not this'
>> (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.3.6), the mental modifications that arose before are
>> withdrawn..."
>>
>> *Read further...*
>> *Kṛṣṇālaṅkāra*
>>
>> "...According to this view, in the case of the individual self
>> conditioned by the mind and the consciousness limited by the object it
>> reflects, the non-difference is not manifested through mental
>> modifications. Unlike the *akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti*, the mental modifications
>> relating to objects like pots cannot negate the conditioning adjuncts, and
>> thus, since the distinguishing adjuncts—namely the mind and its
>> object—persist, the non-difference between the individual self and Brahman
>> does not manifest. This is the intended meaning..."
>>
>> *Read further...🙏🙏🙏*
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:16 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
>> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Michael ji.
>>>
>>> How do you understand the following sentence from Chhandogya Upanishad
>>> bhAshya:
>>>
>>> अद्वैतज्ञानं मनोवृत्तिमात्रम्। That is -- advaita-jnAna is manO-vritti
>>> only.
>>>
>>> Translation by Swami Gambhirananda:
>>>
>>> //As the nondual realisation (advaita-jnAna) is a mere mental
>>> modification (manO-vritti), so also are the other meditations (upAsanA)
>>> forms of mental modifications.
>>>
>>> Herein lies their similarity.
>>>
>>> Objection: Where then, lies the difference between the nondualistic
>>> realisation (advaita-jnAna) and meditation (upAsanA)?
>>>
>>> Vedāntin: The nondualistic realisation demolishes the cognition of all
>>> such differences as agent, instrument, action and results, which are
>>> naturally superimposed on the actionless Self, just as knowledge in the
>>> form of imposition of a snake etc. on a rope etc. is destroyed by the
>>> realisation of the true nature of the rope etc. But meditation (upAsanA)
>>> means establishing a continuous flow of similar modifications of the mind
>>> in relation to some object as presented by the scriptures, (and)
>>> uninterrupted by any foreign idea. This is the distinction.//
>>>
>>> If you read this carefully Michael ji, it is clear that advaita-jnAna
>>> which leads to MOksha is stated unambiguously by BhAshyakAra to be a
>>> manO-vritti.
>>>
>>> This is what is referred to as akhaNDAkArA-vritti.
>>>
>>> Please note that there is no contradiction of this bhAshya-vAkya with
>>> the quotations provided by you which state that Brahman is not an object of
>>> any vritti. Brahman is aprameya, avishaya. However, since avidyA regarding
>>> Brahman is removed by this manO-vritti, Brahman is stated as vritti-vyApya.
>>> When avidyA regarding Brahman is removed by advaita-jnAna, which is nothing
>>> but a manO-vritti, the self-luminous Brahman reveals itself.
>>>
>>> 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%2BBA6q6ted73tCyA41GMCrUsrN0x8VMcEB40GXTZ%2B6Nwwow%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA6q6ted73tCyA41GMCrUsrN0x8VMcEB40GXTZ%2B6Nwwow%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>