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

[Ravi Kiran]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Earlier I had posted the following
>
>
>  << 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 . >>.
>
>
>  I notice I had left out another significant aspect in this
> understanding. For sake of completion , I am now adding it.
>
>
>  << In addition , The Chidabhasa which had all along considered itself
> distinct from the Chaitanyam merges with the Chaitanyam being nondifferent
> from it. What this means is that the distinct “ I “ sense which the
> Chidabhasa had produced and which is resposible for all the samsaric
> experiences gets destroyed . >> .
>

Perfect !  ajnAna nAsha with jnAna utpatti

thanks for the addition ..

>
>  Regards
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>