[Advaita-l] Fwd: Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Ravi Kiran,


 You observed << << 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) >> .


 I had mentioned earlier that the akhandakara vritti leads to Jnanam of the
form “ aham Brahmasmi “. In this connection, I referred to Vichara Sagara.
The text is in the form of a question and answer session between the
Shishya and Guru. The Shishya seeks clarification on the following issue.


 “ To whom does the knowledge << aham Brahmasmi >> arise? Is it to the
Chidabhasa plus Mind combination or to Kutastha/Sakshi ( meaning
Atman/Brahman ) ?? If it is to the first , then it is Mithya. If it is to
the second, then Brahman becomes a vikari ( subject to modification ).
Please clarify “ .


 This is the doubt raised by the Shishya. The Guru replies as follows.


 << No doubt the Jnanam is for the Chidabhasa/mind combination. However in
this Jnanam the Chidabhasa cognizes his identity with
Kutastha/Sakshi/Brahman also.Thus he ( Chidabhasa ) negates ( baadha ) his
mithya svarupa and realizes his identity with Brahman . >> .


 If this helps in better understanding of the position , fine. For further
elaboration , you might like to refer to the work ( Vichara Sagara )
itself.


 Regards

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:54 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Sri Ravi Kiran,
>
>
>  Reg << 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) >> ,
>
>
>  some corrections in semantics ( and hence aid in understanding ) perhaps
> would be in order. Maybe rewording as follows would be better ( just a
> suggestion ) .
>
>
>  << 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 . 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>