[Advaita-l] akdhandaakara vRitti - My mistake

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 5 11:04:27 CDT 2015

Chandramouliji  - PranAms.

First thanks for your kind words.

I full understand swami Pramarthanandaji's comments and also stated my understanding. Looking over what I wrote many years ago on the indeterminate and determinate perceptions, I do feel that statements referring to unifying knowledge in the soyam devadaathaa that involves both determinate and indeterminate perceptions essentially touch base with the akhandaakara vRitti terms in tune with swami Paramarthanandaji's explanation of it. In soyam devadatta, the akhadatva of the jnanam of the essence of Devadatta sans the contradictory lakshanaas - is arrived at by bhaaga tyaaga - that involves Viveka to filtering out the changing attributes of the changeless substratum. That is precisely what Swamiji implied when we apply to jiiva brahman iaikya bodhaka vaakyam. It requires vivaka to pick up the changless entity in the changing things or vRittis. 

What is not clear are definitions provided tby Sadananda yogi, chacchuki, Madhusudana as presented in the list. I have studied Vedanta Sara where Sadananda yogi does discuss the three lakshanaas to arrive at tat tvam asi analysis using soyam devadattaH example. I did not remember the discussion on the akhandaakra vRtti. 

Since Shreeman LalitalaalitaH claims that I am wrong (or my undestanding is wrong) -and asks us refer back to Shree Ananda Hudli post  which in turn is related to determinate/indeterminate perceptions to account akhandaakaara vRitti, where again Shree Anandaji uses the soyam devadatta example. May be Shree Anandaji can clarify the stand points if there is a difference. 

Based on Swami Paramarthanandaji statement (Ok as I understood his the statements!), I have no confusion in terms of what it he said and what it stands for. I am trying to see what exactly what Shree LalaitalaalitaaH referring to when he claims it is different, and how does it differ from Swami Paramarthanandaji's statement; and giving benefit of doubt to the farmer, is there samanavayam of the two positions if there are really two.  To resolve that, I tried to follow but the analysis presented by Sreeman, but it is not clear to me as it stands. Since I do not understand what Shreeman LalitalaalitaH claims that it is different and how does it different, I have given up that pursuit for the time being. Hence my mail. 

Hari Om!

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

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


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list