[Advaita-l] chid-aabhaasa

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

Shri Sadanandaji,

 

Items 4 to 5: 

Ch.U 7 defines most of the terms used by Acharyas like Name, vak, Manas, Chit etc very accurately. In the traditional vyakhanas I did not see any deviation from these definitions so far. Not following the correct definitions of words form this chapter could lead to confusion as people can philosophize any which way they choose. 

 

I myself posted a minor error in a previous post when I said Chit can distinguish between knowledge and ignorance like two amalakas. Now this feature of perceiving two amalakas belongs to manas, not to Chit. Chit can do much better things than manas. But my statement was also not wrong in the sense Chit can always invoke its subordinate (manas) and ask it to distinguish between knowledge and ignorance and get back with an answer! 

 

Trayee vidya model simplifies the multiple levels of Ch.u.7 to just three: vak (Rgveda), manas (yajurveda) and prana (samaveda) in which three reflections interact with each other to create trayeevidya . 

 

Item 6 is my strong conjecture at this point, and I see no way it can be wrong. There are many scattered gems all over in traditions, and everything has the upanishat quality when you think deep, even so called secondary, tertiary books, etc. You have to keep making the connections and validating them at the same time to make sure you are not building a monster (vRttra?). 

 

That reminds me another speculation I have, the word vRtti may be indeed born from the word vRttra. SB has a long story about him. He is first born as some great entity, then turns out to be a monster, and finally ends up being appropriated by devas, thus turning out to be good after all. 


Sorry for the diversion, but I see them as logical extensions. 

 

Regards

Bhadraiah

_________________________________________________________________
It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Same_022009