[Advaita-l] Fwd: Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

[Ravi Kiran]

Thanks for sharing..

Even though Brahma jnAna or akhandakara vrtti is vRtti jnAna, it is
seamless, without any parts, unlike any other vishaya jnAna..

If we accept any khanda in it, whatsoever and draw similarity with other
vishaya jnANa, there *is* a difference in the comprehension of Brahman and
Brahma jnAna, which verily goes against the Sruti vAkya - brahmavid
brahmaiva bhavati



On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:35 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Many of the members are familiar with the talks of Swami Paramarthananda.
>> I
>> was listening to talk no 94 on Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad today. Towards the
>> end of this talk he very briefly refers to “ akhandakara vritti “” and
>> asserts the aptness of the term “ vritti “ therein. Those who look for
>> authoritative confirmation on such issues may like to refer to this talk.
>> The link is
>>
>>
>>  << https://www.mediafire.com/?grw5k6xl6vm09 >> ,
>>
>>
>>  serial no. 7 , talk 94. Each serial number covers 12-15 talks. Hope this
>> info is useful.
>>
>>
>>  Regards
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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 . >> .
>> >>
>>
>
>