[Advaita-l] Fwd: Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Sun Jun 21 01:33:04 CDT 2015

This should have appeared in the Forum ID earlier. But looks like it has
been been forwarded to the personal ID. Brought to my attention by Sri Ravi
Kiran Ji. Hence I am forwarding here for info of members. I have also
forwarded the subsequent responses also.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Difficulty with Akhandakara Vrtti
To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>

Dear Sri Sadananda Ji,


 There is absolutely no doubt that Realization is a Vyavaharika term only.
This has not been disputed nor comeup in the discussion at all. But my
question remains. You state that

 <<  In all knowledge of x,y,z, there is chidaabhaasa -since mind is
involved.  >> .

 What about the knowledge of Sushupti << I know I slept well >> .
Chidabhasa is dormant/inactive. But still knowledge is there. This
knowledge is therefore not attributable to Chidabhasa.

 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 ) . Mind is no doubt needed for both as the instrument for
cognition. Hence my understanding is that Chidabhasa is not responsible for
Realization ( loosely worded as Self cognition ) . Atman/Self being
selfevident no other illuminating entity is needed for that. This was my
earlier question and I think it has not been addressed except restating
that Chidabhasa is responsible and needed for the “ cognition “ of
Atman/Brahman. My earlier observation hence remains.

 That the cognition is at vyavaharika level only has not been disputed .

 Pranams and Regards

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:55 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Chandramouliji :
> I am sorry I have copied a fairly large portion from your post . I could
> not condense it as my observations have to be related by you to the
> corresponding portions which are spreadout in this part of your post. My
> apologies.
> My understanding of the position at selfrealization is significantly
> different . Yes . All objective knowledge could be considered as due to
> reflections. But what happens when the “ object “ is the “ Source of the
> Original Light “ ?? This is the position when the Guru says “ tatvamasi “
> to the Sadhaka . The sadhaka is all absorbed in the “ Atman / Brahman “
> thought . Is the “ knowledge “ then due to reflections ? Is there any need
> for reflected light ( Chidabhasa ) at all for this knowledge ?? The answer
> is a definite NO . The knowledge is due to the “ Source of Original Light “
> itself . Hence in this “ knowledge “ there is no Chidabhasa. There are no
> independent aham vritti and idam vritti in this “ knowledge “. This is what
> I had explained in my understanding of the term “ akhandakara vritti “.
> This , in brief , is my understanding.
> ---------------
> Chandramouliji - PraNAms
> 1. It applies to all objective or objectifyable entities - only does not
> apply to pure self and in that case the self does not need self-knowledge
> as it is one without a second.
> 2. The objective light is also forms an image in the mind as a thought and
> light of consciousness from chidabhasa has to fall on the thought and get
> reflected back to the mind for me to know that there is objective light
> sources too. Hence the analogy is, in principle, applies to all inert
> object. Hence atma jyoti is called jyotrijyotiH and swayam jyotiH - even to
> see the sun is inert from the point of consciousness. I am the only that is
> self-conscious and the rest of the world including objective light depend
> on me to shine or illumine.
> Saakshii is the original light and chidaabhasa is the reflected light-
> Self realization involves upahita chaitanyam only -using the reflected
> consciousness, and using veveka one has to recognize the original. Hence
> self-realization is also only at vyaavahaarika level.
> . 3. Missing concept in the model is even the reflecting medium is also I
> am. For that vedanta also pramaana since it says the whole world is nothing
> but Brahman only appears as inert entities too. Hence even the saakshyam is
> also I am.
> 4. In all knowledge of x,y,z, there is chidaabhaasa -since mind is
> involved. manaeva manushyaanam ...  For pure consciousness there is no need
> any knowledge since it is its swaruupam. Any in any knowledge including
> self-knowledge, the mind, the chidaabhaasa are involved and chidaabhasa
> cannot be unless there is the original light. Hence saaskhii, chidaabhasa
> and the reflective medium - all are involved in self-realization. Self
> being one without a second does not need self-realization.
> 5. Hence even self-realization is also within vyaavahaarika satyam only.
> Not sure if I have addressed the issue you have raised.
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list