[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Fwd: Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[Ravi Kiran]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:54 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
>  << 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 .


Yes, the vRitti is still needed by the antahakarana to remove the ignorance
of its Source,
but illumination is "directly" by the svayamprakAsaka Chaitanya vastu (
Source) and
the illumination is NOT or Never by the chidabhasa, as it is never ever
necessary :)

Pranams and Regards,


> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>