[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Sun Jul 5 09:46:50 CDT 2015

Dear Sri Sadananda Ji,

Provided , of course , you agree with my assessment.

Pranams and Regards ,


On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:10 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>

> Dear Sri Sadananda Ji ,
>  This is reg your statement << I think I would stop  here since I am not
> clear yet what exactly akhandaakaara vRitit and could not make out based on
> the statements so far. >> .
>  Vedanta Sara of Sri Sadananda Yogi is widele acclaimed a very
> significant contribution to Advaita Sidhanta and is practically considered
> a Classic. It has used the term Akhandakara Vritti in a particular sense.
> Advaita Sidhi of Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati was written over a century
> after Vedanta Sara. No doubt it has defined the term more precisely. But it
> has not invalidated the understanding of the term as used in Vedanta Sara.
> Why do I say so ?? Because , even after several centuries of their
> existence , both are still considered to be classics and authoritative
> texts on Advaita Sidhanta . No one has pointed out that the definitions
> given in Advaita Sidhi have invalidated its usage as in Vedanta Sara. The
> definition in Advaita Sidhi could thus be considered as refinements to
> repudiate the arguments put forth by other schools of thought , and not as
> rejection of its usage as in Vedanta Sara. They may be of use for debates ,
> but certainly not essential for understanding or further pursuit of the
> sadhana.
>  Also you have had the unique opportunity of discussing the issue
> personally with Swami Paramarthananda after your own personal indepth
> analysis of the subject and given the members here the benefit of the views
> of Sri Swamiji whose credibility on such issues you can personally vouch
> for and so can many of the other members here who are familiar with the
> Swamiji either personally or through his talks.
>  Such being the case your statement cited above could very well send out
> a wrong message , that the meaning of the term is in doubt , which I am
> sure you yourself did not intend. I find quite a few members follow your
> posts closely and are benefitted . Hence this note. I would urge you to
> clarify that the meaning as given by Swami Paramarthananda and explained by
> you is more than adequate for pursuing the study of the Sidhanta .
>  Just a suggestion. Please bear with me.
>  Pranams and Regards
>  Chandramouli
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:13 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> Shreeman - PraNAms
>> I have posted article on determinate and indeterminate perceptions, I am
>> sure Shree Ananda Hudli's statements are in tune with what was described.
>> If not I have to resolve where the differences are.
>> By the by,
>> If we are only interested in the subject and not who said want, it is
>> better to say - the statements are right or statements are wrong rather
>> than some one is wrong or you are wrong or some Swami is wrong, or he does
>> not know if what you said is what he said etc, etc. I would like to take
>> the blame on myself  if I have misinterpreted Swami Paramarthanandaji
>> statements, since he is not a member of the list to defend the statement.
>> I have no problem in disagreeing with something which does not make sense
>> to me based on my prior knowledge. However I do make an effort to
>> understand the statement, if I can.
>>  I can be wrong since I am learner at the same time I can only accept
>> only when I am convinced - that is my swadharma. Any knowledge has to
>> explain the human experiences if the experiences are contradictory to the
>> knowledge -ex. Sunrise and Sunset. Similarly akhandaakara vRitti it is
>> there in every perception.
>> One can say my whole article on indeterminate perception is wrong, I have
>> not problem with that either. However for me to accept that statement I
>> need more convincing arguments.
>> I think I would stop  here since I am not clear yet what exactly
>> akhandaakaara vRitit and could not make out based on the statements so far.
>> My original statement was if the term or concept is not in scriptures nor
>> in Shankara and introduced by later advaita masters in response to
>> purvapaksha by some darshanikaas, then contextual understanding may be
>> required to appreciate the statements.
>> With this I stop until I get any clearer picture of this akhandaakaara
>> vRtti, and push aside since without understanding the term, if I can can
>> appreciate the truth, then it reduces to  a fifth leg.
>> Hari Om!
>> Sadananda
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Sun, 7/5/15, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>
>> wrote:
>>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake
>>  To: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>, "A discussion
>> group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>>  Cc: "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>  Date: Sunday, July 5, 2015, 1:43 AM
>>  On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 9:54
>>  PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>>  wrote:
>>  Frankly
>>  for tuula avidya at least it makes absolutely no sense to
>>  me, if there is knowledge of an object without an
>>  attribute.​
>>  It should, because it is accepted that any
>>  vishiShTa-GYAna expects it's cause before it, which are
>>  niShprakAraka-GYAna-s of visheShya and visheShana.​
>>   Pure
>>  existence is imperceptible​I
>>  hope you don't mean that it can't be uncovered. The
>>  uncovering is called perception and it is well accepted for
>>  brahman too, otherwise how could anyone become
>>  brahmaGYa.​  and
>>  advaita does not subscribe to indeterminate perception
>>  unlike Nyaaya or vishishtaadvaita
>>  does.​Wow!!
>>  If niShprakAraka-GYAna is not accepted by advaitin-s then
>>  why did naiyAyika-s, dvaitin-s objected it and advaitin-s
>>  supported it?​  I think
>>  Anandaji had discussed this aspect as I read before in his
>>  mail.
>>  As per vedanta all objects are just naama ruupa and ruupa
>>  stands for attributive content. The question of naama that
>>  involves naming and naming involves knowing and knowing
>>  involves conscious entity with attributive knowledge in
>>  terms of vRitti,  since substantive is Brahman - this is
>>  true for all objective knowledge. There is no akhada aspect
>>  here since attributes are differentiable.
>>  ​You
>>  are going one level up. Please, stay on vyavahAra and talk
>>  about ghaTa-paTa-GYAna.​
>>  If akhada is undifferentiated objective knowledge, there is
>>  no such thing
>>   - Now if
>>  that applies to self which is attribute less then also it is
>>  not possible unless one talks in figurative usage of
>>  knowledge of saakshi. Even when I say I see something there,
>>  I have to see a form which is its attribute but do not have
>>  sufficient further qualifying attributes gathered for me to
>>  have a definitive knowledge. you have this is - knowledge
>>  which is indeterminate without some form of the object seen.
>>  Naamaruupaatmakam jagat.
>>  I need more explanation in order to understand what exactly
>>  it stands for. me tograsp.
>>  ​I'm
>>  lost here. I don't understand what you are talking of. I
>>  need more clear version to refute or support.
>>  I'll
>>  again remind you that you have to talk on vyAvahArika-level
>>  and count even brahmaGYAna as vyAvahArika.
>>  श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
>>  www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list