[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sri SadAji,

PraNAms. I would like to draw your attention to Swami ParamArthAnanda's
talk on the guNa of guNa, in the context of chit-chAturvidha pratikriya
within vichAra sAgara.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/4lsum95r493z7o4/VS+128+15thNov14.mp3

Specifically, when talking about jalAkAsha, the opponent says that you
cannot experience reflected space within jalAkAsha as space has no rUpa
(form and colour included within rUpa) and therefore its reflection cannot
be experienced. To reply to that the vedAntin gives three rebuttals. The
third rebuttal speaks directly to the topic in question - attributes of
attributes. Here the vedAntin establishes that the attributes cannot have
attributes. It does not result in infinite regress (the relevant portion
starts from 47:55 in the talk).

This also addresses Sri Keshava Prasad's comments on akAsha.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:24 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 7/6/15, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
>  To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "kuntimaddi sadananda" <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
>  Date: Monday, July 6, 2015, 4:29 AM
>
>  Sri
>  SadAji,
>
>  What attributes do attributes have? What is the attribute of
>  blueness itself? The answer has to be nothing - but still it
>  is possible to perceive blueness. So it is possible to
>  perceive an attributeless thing.
>  If not, how can one cognise Brahman, an
>  attributeless thing?
>  Regards,
>
>  Venkatraghavan
>  On 6 Jul 2015 09:06,
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Venkataraghavan, PraNAms
>
> your question leads to infinite regress.
>
> Here is how I account perception based on what I have studied or
> understood.
>
> Sense can sense only the attributes - forms and colors by the eyes, sounds
> by the ears etc.
> An object is defined by its attributes and one object differs from others
> due to attributive differences. Vedanta also says naama rupaatmakam jagat.
> The substantive of all the objects is nothing but pure existence only. Sat
> eva idam agra aseet. Science is still trying to find the substantive of
> matter ignoring the consciousness that is doing the investigation.
> Schrodinger’s cat problem demonstrates the limitation of science to know
> the substantive of any object. Even from Vedanta, substantive SAT is
> imperceptible and it doe s differ from one object to the other and the
> existence of space between the two objects.
>
> In accounting perception Vedanta and Science differ.  I frankly subscribe
> to the perception as provided or presented  by Science up to what it can
> provide. I have written exhaustively in my Critical Analysis of Vedanta
> Paribhasha. Here are some brief concepts:
>
> 1. Attribute and its locus are inseparable, Nyaaya talks about samavaya
> sambandha while others criticize it. Others just describe it as
> avinaabhaavam or yathartham etc. etc. One can argue what is right – the
> fact remains the same.
> The fact is attributes define an object and they are inseparable. There
> are necessary attributes and necessary and sufficient attributes which I
> call as swaruupam or intrinsic nature.  Shankara says sat chit ananda are
> swaruupam of Brahman, just as H2O is swaruupam of water and it is not an
> attribute of water. The sweetness of sugar is necessary attribute but not
> sufficient. For suffciencey the convers has to work i.e, if it is sweet it
> should be sugar, which it is not necessary.. There are also samyoga
> sambandha – like pot on the table which are tatastha lakhanaas. This
> applies to jagat and Brahman as tatastha lakhana since Brahman is
> attribute-less and hence IMPERCEPTIBLE.  Hence, substantive being Brahman,
> which is imperceptible, only ruupa (form – that covers attributes) are
> cognized via senses that form vRitti. Naama stands for knowing. Here are
> some details.
>
> 2. From Science point, the light falls on the object and gets reflected by
> the object and the reflected light falls on the retina - forming image of
> the form. The original form obviously stays with the object. I see only
> reflected image of the object. Reflected light forming image along with the
> reflected components of the VIBGOYR .This is transmitted by optical nerve
> system into electrical signal to the brain. Up to that point objective
> science can explain. They have no tools to account for the vRitti or even
> the mind. Objective tools are invalid to investigate the subtle material
> components. Mind is subtle matter.
>
> 3. Extending our understanding of hardware-software systems, that the
> great Lord has provided a programing language that converts the electrical
> signals to software thus forming vRitti in the mind.
>
> 4. Meemamsa theory involves the mind along with senses envelopes the
> objects and senses bring in the attributes of the object forming a vRitti
> in the mind. Advaita subscribes to this Meemamsa since at that time
> Objective sciences may not have been developed to that extent.
>
> 5. Either via 3 or 4 ultimately we end up the vRtiti in the mind with
> attributive content of object now in subtle form (software form). Existence
> being infinite, the existence expressed outside as tangible object is by
> the above transformation now expressed as software object - vRitti –
> leaving the object outside intact.
>
> 6. The contents of the vRitti are (reflected) attributes of the object. If
> one is color blind, one see only what his sense can gather than the actual
> attributes of the object. I see only the frontal projection of the object
> since reflected light from the frontal portion only reach my retina. The
> light takes its own time to travel. Hence we are seeing galaxies that
> existed in the past now. Sound travels slower hence we see before we hear,
> etc. These are human experiences. Theory of Perception has to account what
> we perceive. Hence mind travelling with senses is not needed to explain the
> vRitti formation. The sense of touch and taste still relays on the the
> object coming in contact for the perception to operate. These are
> limitations of a particular sense.
>
> 7. Same theory of reflection operates in the mind. The original light of
> consciousness first gets reflected by the intellect as chidaabhaasa and in
> the process activating the mind as though a conscious entity, like the
> sunlight making moon luminous – tasya bhaasa sarvam idam vibhaati. The
> light from chidaabhaasa now falls on the vRitti and get reflected back to
> the mind. Thus consciousness from the mind and existence of the object now
> expressed locally as the vRitit joining together for me to be consciousness
> of the existence of the vRiti , which is image of the reflected attributes
> of the object out there. This is called perceptuality condition in Vedanta
> Paribhaasha – for details one can look up the analysis available in my
> website.
> The existence aspect is expressed as THIS IS,  and the attributive part is
> expressed as POT or TABLE or POT ON THE TABLE, etc. This is called idam
> vRitti.
>
> AS the reflected consciousness from the vRitti reaches back to the mind
> then SPONTANEOUSLY A vRitti that I know – this is a pot also arise. This is
> because the consciousness of the subject uniting the existence of the
> object to one to be conscious of the existence of the object (object being
> the attributes only since substantive is pure existence-consciousness which
> does not travel but is there everywhere).
>
> 8. Thus we have idam vRitti and aham vRitti – This is a pot and I know
> this is a pot.  Meditation is ignoring the idam contents but paying
> attention to the aham content – It is like trying to see the sunlight while
> looking at the luminous moon which is only reflected sunlight. Hence in
> every thought, there is consciousness as though associated with it. Hence
> Kenopanishat says – pratibodha vididam matam – It can be known in every
> thought.
>
> 9. Most important is I cannot see the sunlight (saakshii) where the moon
> is but only see the reflected sunlight (chidaabhaasa) as moon light. From
> the reflected light I have to cognitively learn to see the original
> sunlight. Same way I cannot know the original consciousness but looking at
> the mind or looking at the thoughts I need to cognitively see the original.
> Hence Viveka is very important for Self – realization.  Vedanta teaches us
> the whole process of original and the reflected etc – hence it  forms the
> pramana. Swamiji description of akhaadaakara vritti follows for
> self-realization.
>
> 10 Another point is without the moon, the sunlight cannot be RECOGNIZED.
> Same way without reflection of the consciousness, the original cannot be
> recognized. Hence Viveka is very important for Self-realization.
>
> I am currently writing a response to a question posed on Facebook on the
> role of meditation by some Ramana Maharshi’s disciples. All these are being
> pointed out to see clearly what is involved in meditation.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>