[Advaita-l] (no subject)

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 7 02:39:30 CDT 2015

Chandramouli ji - PraNAms

In the case of soyam devadattaH - as Sadananda yogi illustrates as an example of jadajahallakshNa. Lakshana involves not vaachyaartha but lakshyaartha and jahat ajahat involves bhaga tyaaga - where contradictory parts have to be rejected and only equate the non-contradictory - here unchanging entity. How fast this is done is of no consequence. Viveka involves nithya anitya vastu viveka. In this example the buddhi does instantly or slowly by remembering that devadatta depending on how sharp that memory is - some times more prodding may be required to recapitulate that devadatta.  It can be instant process but the mind has to drop the two contradictory attributes to arrive at oneness of this and that devadattas or aham and tat -In the case of Devadatta  mind may do fast but in the case of tat tvam asi - the previous notions inhibit seeing that equation. Soyam devadattaH is classical example to illustrate the jahdajahallakshaNa - in illustrating the viveka
 required to appreciate the tat tvam asi 

Yes I know Shree Aandaji - Not sure if he is particularly interested to join. One can try. I am ccing this to Him, if he cares to comment. 

Hari Om!

On Tue, 7/7/15, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re:
 To: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "agnimile" <agnimile at gmail.com>
 Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2015, 3:15 AM
 Dear Sri Sadananda Ji , 
 Namaskarams. I am encouraged
 continue by the response received from you . But I am afraid
 disagree with the view .Consider   
 <<  arriving
 cognitively by viveka the changeless entity with changing
 >> ,  
 The “ changeless “ entity
 in this
 example is cognized even by illiterates , with whom “
 viveka “
 cannot be associated at all . And certainly not  <<
 deleberate operation of the mind
  >> . Undoubtedly the “ this “ and “ that
 Devadatta are cognized with their respective attributes ,
 but their “
 identity “ surely not. If the illiterate observer is asked
 what is
 it that he finds the “ same “ between “ this “ and
 “ that “
 Devadatta , he only responds “ what the hell , the person
 is the
 same “ . Here , by “ person “ he only means the “
 jiva “ .
 His response is not based on any reasoning or viveka ,
 because we are
 considering an illiterate observer , but only based on
 instinct or
 intuition. And , by “ person “ ( identity ) , whether
 or not , he is referring to the “ attributeless  jiva “
 though he can recognize that “ Jiva “  or “ person “
 individually as “ this “ or “ that “ jiva / person
 only with
 attributes. In fact I would add that you are yourself
 accepting this
 position when you say , at the end of your post , <<
 of the changless one  >> .
 Note the word “ understanding “ . 
 I believe agreement on this
 issue is
 crucial to progressing the discussion on Akhandakara Vritti
 If you consider it appropriate you may consider taking
 opinion on this issue. I would suggest Sri Anand Hudli Ji
 who , I
 presume , you know personally . In fact I would even request
 you to
 check with him if he would like / consent to be a part of
 this group
 in its further deliberations. If you consider the suggestion
 inappropriate , please dont hesitate to dismiss it outright.
 Pranams and
 On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at
 10:06 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
 Chandramouliji - praNams
 With regard to the following, In the somyam devadatta - it
 is not that devadatta is perceived attribute-less. The
 attributes perceived are dropped due to contradictions and
 arriving cognitively by viveka the changeless entity with
 changing attributes. I would consider here the deleberate
 operation of the mind in making sense of direclty perceived
 one set of attributive devadatta and memory of different set
 of attributive devadatta and trying to come up with unitary
 knowledge. Final result is not attribute -less devadatta as
 that cannot be perceived directly or internally; but
 understanding of the changless one while still perceiving
 changing entity.
 Hari Om!
     These are the only two types of interpretation
 normally admissible. However Advaitins insist on a third
 type of interpretation , namely Akhandartha. Ex ; this is
 that Devadatta ; In this sentence neither of the above two
 types is applicable. The words do not convey different
 meanings nor do they exhibit visheshana – visheshya
 relationship. Hence this is considered to point to an
 attributeless vastu. It only points to “ Devadatta “ .
 That is all. All attributes ( time / place / dress etc )
 pertaining to “ this “ Devadatta will have to be
 discarded as well as all the attributes ( time / place /
 dress etc ) pertaining to “ that “ Devadatta also to
 arrive at the meaning of the sentence.
     One point needs to be borne in mind. “ meaning “
 of a vakya pertains to its “ Jnana “ only. Not that they
 are divorced. But for our current discussion let us retain
 the word “ meaning “ while referring to “ Akhandartha
 “ unless otherwise specified. Also note the term “
 vritti “ has not been considered so far. We will come to
 it in the next part. If we are agreed on this , we could
 proceed further. There are some other features also in this
 regard which we can cover as and when relevant.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list