[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 1:14 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for addressing me directly. It gives me the liberty to reciprocate
> which I am utilizing now. It makes the post easier to compose and more
> readable.
>

​Thanks to google, because it has some thing called 'reply to all'.​

Correcting that problem from now, so that you could post to forum only.​

 Also you have conveniently omitted to mention about the status in respect
> of the Maha Vakya << तत्वमसि >> . Its अखण्डार्थ does not have parts. I
> had brought it out in the explanation offered by Swami Harshananda for the
> Vedanta Sara statement concerning अखण्डाकार वृत्ति
>

​I just have to say that I have not read you posts and have not seen any
mention of any Swami in the sense that I'm replying to concepts, not
people.​


>   Reg << I've seen वेदान्तसारः , and I think sadAnanda only used this
> term, but has not defined it. Correct? >>
>
>
>  Are you suggesting Sri Sadananda Yogi used the word without knowing its
> meaning ?? or with knowledge that it was as yet undefined ??
>

​Why are you going so far? I've not said this.
I just said what appears directly from sentence, not what you imagine.​

​Words are peculiar because they generate pramA of the subject where the
vivaxA of vaktA was. If you alter this, then you are showing your own
rAga/dveSha here instead of getting the message which was desired to be
conveyed.​

  Reg << Check commentaries, definitely in Sanskrit and those of credible
> authors, for the meaning.>> ,
>
>
>  What exactly do you mean by “ credible authors “ ??
>

​Those who study every shAstra without twisting it to fit their present
understanding, who are ready to learn new things, etc.

> Is Swami Harshananda not a credible authority for you ??
>
​How could I say anything about a person who is not known to me. Do you
think I should follow you and go on abusing without understanding anything
about him.
Take the blame on you, who presented his words.
That's why I said to K Sadanada that if you think Swami said that he was
wrong.​


> I have cited his explanation only with reference to Vedanta Sara quote.
> Though Swami Paramarthananda has not cited Vedanta Sara for his explanation
> , from the context it is clear that it covers its meaning . Is he not a
> credible Vedantic authority for you ??
>
​No. That too because I'm not his student and I've not heard anything from
him.
So, I'm not in a position to accept his credibility.
That doesn't mean that I consider him ignorant. I have just no ideas about
him.
As with time, his ideas reach me through you or someone else, I'll start to
make my idea about him. Regarding akhaNDAkAra, I can say that his
understanding is limited(considering K Sadananda expressed it correct).​


> Are they not sufficiently well versed in Sanskrit for you ??
>
​No comments for the mentioned reasons.
Where they are wrong can be known only when they utter words. Not, before
that.​


> If I were to depend on their commentaries /talks in other languages , have
> I missed out on Sanskrit commentaries ??
>
​I don't know what does it mean.
​


​BTW, why should I even read these useless words which come from a blind
follower and a deaf person and who is hell bent on twisting sentences?
​

​Let us be clear,
Anything said by anyone is not to be believed just because the vaktA has
followers. Just go and ask how much he has studied. I care for study, not
his strength of followers.​

  It is quite clear from your response that you have realized that the
> definition of the word अखण्डाकार वृत्ति you have so far bandied about
> really does not apply in the context of its usage in Vedanta Sara quoted by
> me ,
>
​Really. Get out of this idea.​
If you think that chitsukhAchArya and madhusUdana-sarasvatI has talked only
of akhaNDArthaka-vAkyam and anything said by them doesn't apply to
akhaNDAkAravRtti, then I'll just say that read my other post.
In short:
vAkyam is called akhaNDArthaparam because it generates vRttiH which has
akhaNDAkAra. So, the refutations stay strong.

> nor in the context in which Swami Paramarthananda has explained it.
>
​

​Keep him apart to save him.

> But you had no compunctions in using highly derogatory language while
> referring to the Swamiji in your response to Sri Sadananda Ji.
>
​BTW, what were those 'highly derogatory words'?
Is questioning your knowledge same as insulting you? If yes, then I'll like
to say that you should expect more of it from me, because I'm not a
believer. If you people are such a believer, then just leave talking of
logic, etc. here.
Will you allow your emotions to raise and start crying when a dvaitin will
question you and your AchArya-s? Will you abuse him and his AchArya-s and
leave the debate?

I can see that the same is being repeated here which happened in
Advaitin-yahoo group over wrong translation by Sw Dayananda. I objected and
the moderator, who was his follower, threatened me to ban. They also termed
these terms derogatory, while they were not. Some moderators pointed that I
have not used foul words, but the main moderator was thinking something
else.
I hope number game will not help such people here.​


> I cannot care less for the sneering language you have tended to use while
> referring to others in this forum for their views , but it is highly
> deplorable with reference to Swami Paramarthananda who , apart from being a
> widely recognized authority on Vedanta , is also held in high esteem by
> many members in this Forum. The least you could do now is to tender an
> unconditional apology to the Swamiji in this Forum.
>

​Get out of dream and read the post again.​

​Why should not any person be questioned ? Why should I not declare that I
don't put faith in a person you love? Is declaring this same as abusing
him? Are you going to bring a 'fatwa' next?
​