Guest guest Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 H.N.Sreenivsa Murthy? Namskarams to all. During the recent postings the word "aKanDAkAravtti" has frequently appeared. My knowledge of Vedantic terms is limited to the ones which have appeared in the commentaries of Sri Shankara to prasthanatraya only. I have not come across with such a word in the commentaries. The word "aKanDAkAravRtti" is a compound word which consists of three words viz. aKanDa, AkAra and vRtti. If the word is used as a synonym to Brahman or Atman, I think it is used in an incorrect way. First of all aKanDa does not have a AkAra and secondly Brahman or Atman is not a vRtti.So if that word has been used to mean Brahman or Atman it is absolutely wrong. If that word represents another entity what is that entity? Please clarify. I stand to be corrected if my understanding is wrong. With respectful regards, Sreenivas Murthy Find out what India is talking about on Answers India. Send FREE SMS from New Messenger to Mobile: Download NOW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 >sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> > The word "aKanDAkAravRtti" is a compound word which consists >of three words viz. aKanDa, AkAra and vRtti. If the word is used as a >synonym to Brahman or Atman, I think it is used in an incorrect way. First >of all aKanDa does not have a AkAra and secondly Brahman or Atman is not a >vRtti.So if that word has been used to mean Brahman or Atman it is >absolutely wrong. If that word represents another entity what is that >entity? > Please clarify. I stand to be corrected if my understanding >is wrong. > > With respectful regards, > Sreenivas Murthy Shree Sreenivasa Murthy - PraNAms. You are right. The word does not designate Brahman or Atman since any designation involves objectification and a vRitti as you rightly pointed out. akhanDa and AkAra are contradictions too as you rightly pointed out. In fact according GoudapAda even the word advaita or Brahman does not designate that either, since, in principle, all words or padams stand for padaartham and there is no brahman padaartham out there for the word to stand for. Now remember the realization is not for Brahman nor for Atman but for the mind - that has wrong notions that I am this or this etc. When the notional mind drops out in the awakening knowledge, understanding not as a thought but as a fact that I am Brahman or I am that sat chit ananda swarUpam where there is no rUpam but a sense of understanding that I am total and eternal. Since it is an understanding in the mind, it is called a vRitti but it is not a vRitti also. When one says a formless form - the very contradiction implied is in fact negates any specific form but sees in and through all the forms. To give a gross example, Let me say I understand fully that I am man. That understanding forms AkhanDa AkAra vRitti in the sense I am fully and completely aware that I am a man and not a woman but that understanding never leaves me in all my transactions - it is an understanding as understanding as fact not as a thought. I can call it as akhanDAkaara vRitti knowing well that I do not have to keep thinking that 'I am a man', I am a man, etc. I understood I am man and operate with the knowledge even if operate in a drama where I have to dress like a woman. It is in that sense Brahman knowledge is akhanDa akAra vRitti, a clear unbroken knowledge in the mind that I am that - that includes the mind too since there is nothing other than Brahman. Hari OM! Sadananda _______________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 praNams Sadanandji, Since you had asked me to ask even the silliest of questions.I have an urge to ask you this question. You wrote: Now remember the realization is not for Brahman nor for Atman but for the mind. Sir, how can an finite everchanging entity which is nothing but a collection of thoughts ie Mind[or 'I']..realize!...Isnt the utter dissolution..nay destruction of mind ..that we call Realization...Am I not different from my Mind?... Its the Mind that superimposes a veil... I apologize to the learned members if they find my Question silly. Find out what India is talking about on Answers India. Send FREE SMS from New Messenger to Mobile: Download NOW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda wrote: > > Now remember the realization is not for Brahman nor for Atman but for the > mind - that has wrong notions that I am this or this etc. When the notional > mind drops out in the awakening knowledge, understanding not as a thought > but as a fact that I am Brahman or I am that sat chit ananda swarUpam where > there is no rUpam but a sense of understanding that I am total and eternal. > Since it is an understanding in the mind, it is called a vRitti but it is > not a vRitti also. When one says a formless form - the very contradiction > implied is in fact negates any specific form but sees in and through all the > forms. > > To give a gross example, Let me say I understand fully that I am man. That > understanding forms AkhanDa AkAra vRitti in the sense I am fully and > completely aware that I am a man and not a woman but that understanding > never leaves me in all my transactions - it is an understanding as > understanding as fact not as a thought. I can call it as akhanDAkaara > vRitti knowing well that I do not have to keep thinking that 'I am a man', I > am a man, etc. > I understood I am man and operate with the knowledge even if operate in a > drama where I have to dress like a woman. > > It is in that sense Brahman knowledge is akhanDa akAra vRitti, a clear > unbroken knowledge in the mind that I am that - that includes the mind too > since there is nothing other than Brahman. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda Namaste Vedantins, It is my understanding that the akhanda akara vritti is this. The mind is always cognizing objects, either of sense perception, or thoughts, moods, emtions, etc. But what is substrate to the mind? What is in and through the mind, and is in fact in and through all things? All things are in the Self. The Self shines through, illumines and pervades all of duality. Therefore the Self is always shining in the mind. In fact, it is that Self that illumines the vrittis which the mind forms of objects. It is the Self by which all 'things' are known. If there is no content in the mind other than the Self, i.e. if there are no objects of perception, no objects at all, then what is the content of the mind at that time? The Self. That is the akhanda akara vritti. Because the Self always shines everywhere and at all times. I believe the akhanda akara vritti is also referred to as an ati sukshma vritti, that is a very subtle vritti. So it is the vritti in the form of the formless, which does sound like a contradition, but since the Self fills all forms, then from that perspective, it may not sound so contradictory. Now I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. My pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 --- Aniruddha <anides_84 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: > praNams Sadanandji, > > Since you had asked me to ask even the silliest of questions.I have > an urge to ask you this question. > > You wrote: Now remember the realization is not for Brahman nor for > Atman > but for the mind. > > Sir, how can an finite everchanging entity which is nothing but a > collection of thoughts ie Mind[or 'I']..realize!...Isnt the utter > dissolution..nay destruction of mind ..that we call Realization...Am I > not different from my Mind?... > Its the Mind that superimposes a veil... Shree Aniruddha, PraNAms. What gets destroyed is the notional mind or notions in the mind that I am this or I am that etc. When the realization occurs there is clear understanding in the mind that there is no separate this or that since everything of this and that is nothing but Brahman that I am. So even the mind which has been pointed as this mind - is also included in the totality as Brahman only, since there is clear understanding that there is nothing other than Brahman. Hence mind will understand that in and through all the vRitties or thoughts the substantive is nothing but Brahman. Hence it is not complete destruction of the mind. The false notions that falls in the realization of the truth. That is why a mahatma can use the mind with clarity and able to teach us. Without the mind a mahaatmaa cannot teach and there will not by any guru left once a guru is realized! Hence it is said in amRita bindu Upanishad 'manaeva manuShyAnAm kAraNam bandha moxayoH' - mind is responsible for both bondage and liberation. All finites are not separate from Brahman that includes the mind too. The notion that finites are finites only drops out in the understanding that 'sarvam khalvidam brahma' All this is nothing but Brahman. Hope it is clear Hari OM! Sadananda > > > I apologize to the learned members if they find my Question silly. > > > > > > > Find out what India is talking about on Answers India. > Send FREE SMS from New Messenger to Mobile: Download NOW! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 >"Durga" <durgaji108 > >So it is the vritti in the form of the formless, which >does sound like a contradition, but since the Self fills >all forms, then from that perspective, it may not sound >so contradictory. > >Now I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. > >My pranams, >Durga Durgaji - you are absolutely right. My praNAms. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 wrote: > > H.N.Sreenivsa Murthy? > Namskarams to all. > > During the recent postings the word "aKanDAkAravtti" has frequently appeared. My knowledge of Vedantic terms is limited to the ones which have appeared in the commentaries of Sri Shankara to prasthanatraya only. I have not come across with such a word in the commentaries. > The word "aKanDAkAravRtti" is a compound word which consists of three words viz. aKanDa, AkAra and vRtti. If the word is used as a synonym to Brahman or Atman, I think it is used in an incorrect way. First of all aKanDa does not have a AkAra and secondly Brahman or Atman is not a vRtti.So if that word has been used to mean Brahman or Atman it is absolutely wrong. If that word represents another entity what is that entity? > Please clarify. I stand to be corrected if my understanding is wrong. > > With respectful regards, > Sreenivas Murthy A Note on Akhandakara-vritti. It is amazing to read the excellent responses that have appeared on the subject. Since the term is frequently used by me, I owe an explanation on the subject. In traditional Vedanta, this term, Akhandaakaara vritti, is used to mean that unique mode of the antahkarana (mind) having for its content the Self, which destroys the veiling avidya and liberates the person from samsara. It is a vritti that arises abruptly and accomplishes its job of eradicating ignorance and subsides. It is explained as `kShaNa-trayAtmikA-vrittiH' meaning, in the first moment it arises, in the second it destroys avidya and in the third it subsides. The advent of this vritti is what is termed `saakshaatkaara', Realization, liberation. While the meanings given by Mdm. Durga ji and Sri. Sada ji are quite to the point, it may be noted that it is also termed variously as `AtmAkAra vritti', `BrahmAkAra vritti', Atmavidya, Brahmavidya etc. The sUkShmatvam pointed out by Durga ji is quite appropriate. We have the upanishadic utterance: dRishyate tu agryayA buddhyA' = the Self is apprehended by an extremely subtle intellect. There are no two opinions about the mind grasping the Self when it comes to the knowing of the Self in liberation. We have the declaration: manasaiva anu drashtavyam' = It has to be apprehended by the manas alone, based on the teaching of the shastra and the Guru. Although we have the declaration: `yato vaacho nivartante, apraapya manasaa saha' = Whence words return along with the mind, the seeming contradiction is explained as: the Self is not apprehended by an unprepared mind and it is only a duly cultivated mind that can apprehend it. When finite objects are grasped by the mind, while knowing them, the mind takes on the form of these objects. Thus we have `ghaTaakaara vritti', `vrikshaakkaara vritti', etc. When it comes to knowing the Atman, the mind takes on the form of the Atman. Although there is no form for Atman, since the mind becomes `all Atman' and nothing else then, the aakaara is deemed, aupachaarika. Recall `na kinchidapi chintayet' of the Gita 6th chapter where Bhagavan asks the meditating aspirant to `not to have any other object in the mind'. Again, there is the word `Brahma samsparsha' in that chapter. Although Brahman is ` ashabdam asparsham arUpam, agandhavat, etc.', still the apprehending of Brahman in deep meditation is spoken of as `touching' of Brahman. Further study on `vritti-vyaapti' and `phala-vyaapti' and how there is only vritti-vyaapti in Atmajnanam and no phala vyaapti, can be made from the Panchadashi VII 90- 95 (available in our Library and in Bharatadesam site. That the apprehension of the Self, is by the mind alone is affirmed by our Acharya in several places in the bhashyam. For example, at the very start of the Chandogya Upanishad bhashyam, in the introduction, the Acharya raises a question as to how meditation, dhyana, is different from Atma jnanam, both being functions of the mind alone. He says: Rahasya-sAmAnyAt manovRitti-sAmAnyAccha yatha advaita-jnanam manovritti- maatram, tathaa anyaanyapi upaasanaani manovritti-rUpANi ityasti hi saamaanyam. After asserting that advaita jnanam is manovritti maatram, the Acharya addresses the question asked above: SvAbhAvikasya Atmani akriye adhyaropitasya kartraadi-kaaraka-kriyaa- phala-bheda-vijnaanasya nivartakam advaitajnanam. Rajjvaadaaviva sarpaadyadhyAropalakshana-jnanasya rajjvAdisvarUpa-nishchayaH prakAshanimittaH. Atmajnanam or Self knowledge eradicates the ignorance-caused superimposed notions of doership, etc. in the immutable Atman. Just like the right understanding of the truth namely the rope, that arises due to the help of light, etc. in respect of the serpent that has been superimposed on a rope. Then the Acharya states that in the case of dhyanam there is the continuous flow of identical vrittis in the mind to the exclusion of the opposite vrittis. Again, in the Brahmasutra bhashya, 1.1.4, the Acharya states: TasmAt mAnasatve api jnAnasya mahat vailakShaNyam. = ….therefore, even though jnanam is (a function) of the mind, there does exist a vast difference (between dhyanam and jnanam). Then we shall see a passage from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (I.iv.7) Bhashyam. It is here we are able to get a very clear picture of the exact nature of the ignorance-eradicating function of Atmajnanam: Yadaiva Atma-pratipAdaka-vAkya-shravaNat AtmaviShayam vijnAnam utpadyate, tadaiva tadutpadyamAnam tadvishayam mithyaajnAnam nivartayadeva utpadyate. The meaning is: Even as the experiential knowledge of the Atman arises upon hearing the sentence delineating the Atman, it (the knowledge) eradicates the mithyajnanam (that has espoused the vijnAnam) that pertains to Atman. A very significant quote from the book Sridakshinamurtistotram Vol.I is given hereunder to facilitate understanding of this concept: Thus the akhandaakaaravritti, termed also as Brahmavidyaa, Vidya, etc. though as a mental mode, is in the realm of Avidya, yet destroys Avidya since this Vidya, objectifying nothing of the empirical entities, is attached exclusively to and braced by pure Consciousness alone; the Vidya and Avidya are fundamentally opposed to each other. The onset of Vidya is thus the waking up of the jiva to his Eternal Brahmanhood. Even when It is obscured, as it were, It is not and cannot be extinguished. Its flicker is always there. He who recognizes this and turns his attention to wards It seriously i.e., with pratyakpravanataa and proceeds on the path of enquiry, succeeds in destroying Avidya. When this Akhandaakaaravritti which has been dormant because of suppression by Avidya, is extricated, it is said to `arise'. Avidya though concocted as beginningless, is then sublated. Avidya operates to obscure Vidya; but the Vidya operates to the detriment of Avidya. Prior to enquiry, Avidya dominates as it were; it is made known by its products such as attachment, hatred etc. The Vidya, when it starts bracing up, is made known by its antecedent requirements like detachment etc., which herald the Vidya. Avidya sets up multiplicity, difference etc., while the Vidya points towards and leads to the One Eternal. Avidya is fundamentally extrose, being associated with appearances only, while the Vidya is introse as embracing Reality, the Pure Consciousness and dissociated from appearances. Avidya is obscurative and projective while the Vidya is illuminative and sublative. Thus the Vidya, though posited in the region of Avidya itself, is fundamentally opposed to Avidya in respect of causes, nature and consequences. Thus says the Brihadvaartika (2.1.376): Hetu-svarUpa-kAryANi virodhIni parasparam | Avidyaa-vidyayoH…………………………… || (unquote) It is pertinent to note the word `arises'. It shows that it is a unique experience that happens momentously. The eradication of Avidya is also immediate. It is only when this happens that a person becomes, nay, he knows beyond doubt that he is, liberated. Only then it can be said from direct experience that there is no samsara for oneself and no rebirth. When a person says that he has known the Atman from the study of the scriptures, it is not direct knowledge. It has to be pursued with keen focusing on the Atman and this unique experience obtained. There could be other places in the Bhashyam where Atmajnanam is discussed as the avidya-destroying vritti. The above is just a sample. With humble pranams at the Holy Feet of The Guru, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: Dear Sri Subramanian, The scholarly reply is most educative. My questions are simple and straighforward. Where has Sri Shankara used that word in his commentaries? The word might have appeared in prakaranas and prakaranas except Upadeshasahasri cannot be accepted as written by Sri Sankara for various reasons which are very well known in the vedantic world. I request that the replies may be short and sweet and to the points only.I have lot of limitations in respect of Shastric knowledge. It will be of great help if the relevant places from the commentaries to prasthanatraya only , Where Sri Shankara has used that word directly, is furnished. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa murthy. advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145.> wrote: > > H.N.Sreenivsa Murthy? > Namskarams to all. > > During the recent postings the word "aKanDAkAravtti" has frequently appeared. My knowledge of Vedantic terms is limited to the ones which have appeared in the commentaries of Sri Shankara to prasthanatraya only. I have not come across with such a word in the commentaries. > The word "aKanDAkAravRtti" is a compound word which consists of three words viz. aKanDa, AkAra and vRtti. If the word is used as a synonym to Brahman or Atman, I think it is used in an incorrect way. First of all aKanDa does not have a AkAra and secondly Brahman or Atman is not a vRtti.So if that word has been used to mean Brahman or Atman it is absolutely wrong. If that word represents another entity what is that entity? > Please clarify. I stand to be corrected if my understanding is wrong. > > With respectful regards, > Sreenivas Murthy A Note on Akhandakara-vritti. It is amazing to read the excellent responses that have appeared on the subject. Since the term is frequently used by me, I owe an explanation on the subject. In traditional Vedanta, this term, Akhandaakaara vritti, is used to mean that unique mode of the antahkarana (mind) having for its content the Self, which destroys the veiling avidya and liberates the person from samsara. It is a vritti that arises abruptly and accomplishes its job of eradicating ignorance and subsides. It is explained as `kShaNa-trayAtmikA-vrittiH' meaning, in the first moment it arises, in the second it destroys avidya and in the third it subsides. The advent of this vritti is what is termed `saakshaatkaara', Realization, liberation. While the meanings given by Mdm. Durga ji and Sri. Sada ji are quite to the point, it may be noted that it is also termed variously as `AtmAkAra vritti', `BrahmAkAra vritti', Atmavidya, Brahmavidya etc. The sUkShmatvam pointed out by Durga ji is quite appropriate. We have the upanishadic utterance: dRishyate tu agryayA buddhyA' = the Self is apprehended by an extremely subtle intellect. There are no two opinions about the mind grasping the Self when it comes to the knowing of the Self in liberation. We have the declaration: manasaiva anu drashtavyam' = It has to be apprehended by the manas alone, based on the teaching of the shastra and the Guru. Although we have the declaration: `yato vaacho nivartante, apraapya manasaa saha' = Whence words return along with the mind, the seeming contradiction is explained as: the Self is not apprehended by an unprepared mind and it is only a duly cultivated mind that can apprehend it. When finite objects are grasped by the mind, while knowing them, the mind takes on the form of these objects. Thus we have `ghaTaakaara vritti', `vrikshaakkaara vritti', etc. When it comes to knowing the Atman, the mind takes on the form of the Atman. Although there is no form for Atman, since the mind becomes `all Atman' and nothing else then, the aakaara is deemed, aupachaarika. Recall `na kinchidapi chintayet' of the Gita 6th chapter where Bhagavan asks the meditating aspirant to `not to have any other object in the mind'. Again, there is the word `Brahma samsparsha' in that chapter. Although Brahman is ` ashabdam asparsham arUpam, agandhavat, etc.', still the apprehending of Brahman in deep meditation is spoken of as `touching' of Brahman. Further study on `vritti-vyaapti' and `phala-vyaapti' and how there is only vritti-vyaapti in Atmajnanam and no phala vyaapti, can be made from the Panchadashi VII 90- 95 (available in our Library and in Bharatadesam site. That the apprehension of the Self, is by the mind alone is affirmed by our Acharya in several places in the bhashyam. For example, at the very start of the Chandogya Upanishad bhashyam, in the introduction, the Acharya raises a question as to how meditation, dhyana, is different from Atma jnanam, both being functions of the mind alone. He says: Rahasya-sAmAnyAt manovRitti-sAmAnyAccha yatha advaita-jnanam manovritti- maatram, tathaa anyaanyapi upaasanaani manovritti-rUpANi ityasti hi saamaanyam. After asserting that advaita jnanam is manovritti maatram, the Acharya addresses the question asked above: SvAbhAvikasya Atmani akriye adhyaropitasya kartraadi-kaaraka-kriyaa- phala-bheda-vijnaanasya nivartakam advaitajnanam. Rajjvaadaaviva sarpaadyadhyAropalakshana-jnanasya rajjvAdisvarUpa-nishchayaH prakAshanimittaH. Atmajnanam or Self knowledge eradicates the ignorance-caused superimposed notions of doership, etc. in the immutable Atman. Just like the right understanding of the truth namely the rope, that arises due to the help of light, etc. in respect of the serpent that has been superimposed on a rope. Then the Acharya states that in the case of dhyanam there is the continuous flow of identical vrittis in the mind to the exclusion of the opposite vrittis. Again, in the Brahmasutra bhashya, 1.1.4, the Acharya states: TasmAt mAnasatve api jnAnasya mahat vailakShaNyam. = ….therefore, even though jnanam is (a function) of the mind, there does exist a vast difference (between dhyanam and jnanam). Then we shall see a passage from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (I.iv.7) Bhashyam. It is here we are able to get a very clear picture of the exact nature of the ignorance-eradicating function of Atmajnanam: Yadaiva Atma-pratipAdaka-vAkya-shravaNat AtmaviShayam vijnAnam utpadyate, tadaiva tadutpadyamAnam tadvishayam mithyaajnAnam nivartayadeva utpadyate. The meaning is: Even as the experiential knowledge of the Atman arises upon hearing the sentence delineating the Atman, it (the knowledge) eradicates the mithyajnanam (that has espoused the vijnAnam) that pertains to Atman. A very significant quote from the book Sridakshinamurtistotram Vol.I is given hereunder to facilitate understanding of this concept: Thus the akhandaakaaravritti, termed also as Brahmavidyaa, Vidya, etc. though as a mental mode, is in the realm of Avidya, yet destroys Avidya since this Vidya, objectifying nothing of the empirical entities, is attached exclusively to and braced by pure Consciousness alone; the Vidya and Avidya are fundamentally opposed to each other. The onset of Vidya is thus the waking up of the jiva to his Eternal Brahmanhood. Even when It is obscured, as it were, It is not and cannot be extinguished. Its flicker is always there. He who recognizes this and turns his attention to wards It seriously i.e., with pratyakpravanataa and proceeds on the path of enquiry, succeeds in destroying Avidya. When this Akhandaakaaravritti which has been dormant because of suppression by Avidya, is extricated, it is said to `arise'. Avidya though concocted as beginningless, is then sublated. Avidya operates to obscure Vidya; but the Vidya operates to the detriment of Avidya. Prior to enquiry, Avidya dominates as it were; it is made known by its products such as attachment, hatred etc. The Vidya, when it starts bracing up, is made known by its antecedent requirements like detachment etc., which herald the Vidya. Avidya sets up multiplicity, difference etc., while the Vidya points towards and leads to the One Eternal. Avidya is fundamentally extrose, being associated with appearances only, while the Vidya is introse as embracing Reality, the Pure Consciousness and dissociated from appearances. Avidya is obscurative and projective while the Vidya is illuminative and sublative. Thus the Vidya, though posited in the region of Avidya itself, is fundamentally opposed to Avidya in respect of causes, nature and consequences. Thus says the Brihadvaartika (2.1.376): Hetu-svarUpa-kAryANi virodhIni parasparam | Avidyaa-vidyayoH…………………………… || (unquote) It is pertinent to note the word `arises'. It shows that it is a unique experience that happens momentously. The eradication of Avidya is also immediate. It is only when this happens that a person becomes, nay, he knows beyond doubt that he is, liberated. Only then it can be said from direct experience that there is no samsara for oneself and no rebirth. When a person says that he has known the Atman from the study of the scriptures, it is not direct knowledge. It has to be pursued with keen focusing on the Atman and this unique experience obtained. There could be other places in the Bhashyam where Atmajnanam is discussed as the avidya-destroying vritti. The above is just a sample. With humble pranams at the Holy Feet of The Guru, subbu Find out what India is talking about on Answers India. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 wrote: > > > H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams to all. > subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote: > > Dear Sri Subramanian, > > The scholarly reply is most educative. > My questions are simple and straighforward. Where has Sri Shankara used that word in his commentaries? Reply: Namaste Sir, As far as i know Sri Shankara has not used this term in any of the prashthana traya commentaries. I apologise for not including this vital information in my reply. You say: The word might have appeared in prakaranas and prakaranas except Upadeshasahasri cannot be accepted as written by Sri Sankara for various reasons which are very well known in the vedantic world. I request that the replies may be short and sweet and to the points only.I have lot of limitations in respect of Shastric knowledge. It will be of great help if the relevant places from the commentaries to prasthanatraya only , Where Sri Shankara has used that word directly, is furnished. > > With warm and respectful regards, > Sreenivasa murthy. > Reply: Even in the prakarana texts i do not remember coming across this term. In the Vivekachudamani there occurs a verse commencing with: BrahmAkAratayA sadA sthitatayaa... Let me make it known that i am not aware of the reasons for not accepting the other prakaranas by the Vedantic world. For your kind information, on the back cover of the book 'Intuition of Reality' published by the Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Holenarasipur, there is a mention of a publication by this Karyalaya titled: 'Minor works of Sri Shankaracharya' with a description : 'Here are sixteen most popular minor works ascribed to Shankara, with Sanskrit Text in Devanagari script, Translation and short notes elucidating all difficult points'. There are the Shankara Mutts that have been following the tradition established by Sri Shankara and they accept various works as that of Shankara. For those following that tradition, the contents of those works are acceptable as that coming from Sri Shankara. In any case, i do not want to enter into a debate on this issue. I just mentioned these only to give the readers the correct position in this regard. With respectful regards, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: > > advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145@> > wrote: > Where has Sri Shankara used that word in his commentaries? > > Reply: > Namaste Sir, > > As far as i know Sri Shankara has not used this term in any of the > prashthana traya commentaries. > > > > Reply: > > Even in the prakarana texts i do not remember coming across this > term. In the Vivekachudamani there occurs a verse commencing with: > BrahmAkAratayA sadA sthitatayaa... > Namaste, The word seems to have gained currency after Sadananda's Vedantasara, around the 15th century. The following excerpts may be helpful in connecting the synonymous usages. Sri Vidyaranya Swami's PANCHADASI A Summary [Chapter by Chapter] By S. N. Sastri http://www.celextel.org/articles/summaryofpanchadasi.html ...."The Mahavakya gives rise to Self-knowledge by making the mind take the form of Brahman. The question arises—since Brahman has no form, what is meant by saying that the mind takes the form of Brahman (akhanda-aakaara-vritti)? This is explained by Vidyaranya in Jivanmuktiviveka, chapter 3 by taking an example. A pot made of clay is full of the all-pervading space as soon as it is made. Filling it afterwards with water, rice or any other substance is due to human effort. Though the water, etc, in the pot can be removed, the space inside can never be removed. It continues to be there even if the mouth of the pot is hermetically sealed. In the same manner, the mind, in the act of being born, comes into existence full of the consciousness of the self. It takes on, after its birth, due to the influence of virtue and vice, the form of pots, cloths, colour, taste, pleasure, pain, and other transformations, just like melted copper, cast into moulds. Of these, the transformations such as colour, taste and the like, which are not-self, can be removed from the mind, but the form of the self, which does not depend on any external cause, cannot be removed at all. Thus, when all other ideas are removed from the mind, the self is realized without any impediment. It has been said-"One should cause the mind which, by its very nature, is ever prone to assume either of the two forms of the Self and the not-Self, to throw into the background the perception of the not-Self, by taking on the form of the Self alone". And also—"The mind takes on the form of pleasure, pain and the like, because of the influence of virtue and vice, whereas the form of the mind, in its native aspect, is not conditioned by any extraneous cause. To the mind devoid of all transformations is revealed the supreme Bliss". Thus, when the mind is emptied of all other thoughts Self-knowledge arises.".... ....." There is a distinction between the cognition of an external object such as a pot, which is of the form `this is a pot' and the direct knowledge of Brahman, which is of the form `I am Brahman'. In the former case, the mind first becomes modified in the form of the pot. This modification is known as vritti. This vritti removes the ignorance covering the pot. Then the reflection of Brahman or pure Consciousness on the vritti produces the knowledge `this is a pot'. In the case of the knowledge of Brahman also, there is a vritti in the form of Brahman, known as akhanda-aakaara-vritti. After this, the second step of the reflection of Brahman falling on the vritti is not necessary here, because Brahman is self-luminous, unlike inert objects. This is similar to the difference between perceiving a pot and perceiving a lighted lamp. In the former case both the eye and a light are necessary, but in the latter case another light is not necessary. Therefore, while in the case of external objects the reflection of Brahman in the vritti is necessary, in the case of realization of Brahman it is not necessary. The reflection of Brahman or Consciousness in the vritti is known as `phala'. Thus the cognition of an external object is brought about by 'phala', but the direct knowledge (which is called realization) of Brahman is brought about by the vritti itself, without the aid of any phala. It is therefore said in Vedanta that all objects are `phala vyapya', while Brahman is `vritti vyapya'. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 namaskaram to all and to shri Sreenivasa murthyji and now to shri Sunderji what a wonderful explanation !!! when i read the question from Sreeniji, i was wondering why on earth we have such doubts.. when i read the replies from Subbuji, Lakshmiji and now Sunderji... i know how much would i have missed if Sreeniji had not asked such a question... i hope many more such doubts will come up in this very blessed Satsang and that will help us too to learn a little bit atleast.. namaskaram Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh > wrote: advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: > > advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145@> > wrote: > Where has Sri Shankara used that word in his commentaries? > > Reply: > Namaste Sir, > > As far as i know Sri Shankara has not used this term in any of the > prashthana traya commentaries. > > > > Reply: > > Even in the prakarana texts i do not remember coming across this > term. In the Vivekachudamani there occurs a verse commencing with: > BrahmAkAratayA sadA sthitatayaa... > Namaste, The word seems to have gained currency after Sadananda's Vedantasara, around the 15th century. The following excerpts may be helpful in connecting the synonymous usages. Sri Vidyaranya Swami's PANCHADASI A Summary [Chapter by Chapter] By S. N. Sastri http://www.celextel.org/articles/summaryofpanchadasi.html ...."The Mahavakya gives rise to Self-knowledge by making the mind take the form of Brahman. The question arises—since Brahman has no form, what is meant by saying that the mind takes the form of Brahman (akhanda-aakaara-vritti)? This is explained by Vidyaranya in Jivanmuktiviveka, chapter 3 by taking an example. A pot made of clay is full of the all-pervading space as soon as it is made. Filling it afterwards with water, rice or any other substance is due to human effort. Though the water, etc, in the pot can be removed, the space inside can never be removed. It continues to be there even if the mouth of the pot is hermetically sealed. In the same manner, the mind, in the act of being born, comes into existence full of the consciousness of the self. It takes on, after its birth, due to the influence of virtue and vice, the form of pots, cloths, colour, taste, pleasure, pain, and other transformations, just like melted copper, cast into moulds. Of these, the transformations such as colour, taste and the like, which are not-self, can be removed from the mind, but the form of the self, which does not depend on any external cause, cannot be removed at all. Thus, when all other ideas are removed from the mind, the self is realized without any impediment. It has been said-"One should cause the mind which, by its very nature, is ever prone to assume either of the two forms of the Self and the not-Self, to throw into the background the perception of the not-Self, by taking on the form of the Self alone". And also—"The mind takes on the form of pleasure, pain and the like, because of the influence of virtue and vice, whereas the form of the mind, in its native aspect, is not conditioned by any extraneous cause. To the mind devoid of all transformations is revealed the supreme Bliss". Thus, when the mind is emptied of all other thoughts Self-knowledge arises.".... ....." There is a distinction between the cognition of an external object such as a pot, which is of the form `this is a pot' and the direct knowledge of Brahman, which is of the form `I am Brahman'. In the former case, the mind first becomes modified in the form of the pot. This modification is known as vritti. This vritti removes the ignorance covering the pot. Then the reflection of Brahman or pure Consciousness on the vritti produces the knowledge `this is a pot'. In the case of the knowledge of Brahman also, there is a vritti in the form of Brahman, known as akhanda-aakaara-vritti. After this, the second step of the reflection of Brahman falling on the vritti is not necessary here, because Brahman is self-luminous, unlike inert objects. This is similar to the difference between perceiving a pot and perceiving a lighted lamp. In the former case both the eye and a light are necessary, but in the latter case another light is not necessary. Therefore, while in the case of external objects the reflection of Brahman in the vritti is necessary, in the case of realization of Brahman it is not necessary. The reflection of Brahman or Consciousness in the vritti is known as `phala'. Thus the cognition of an external object is brought about by 'phala', but the direct knowledge (which is called realization) of Brahman is brought about by the vritti itself, without the aid of any phala. It is therefore said in Vedanta that all objects are `phala vyapya', while Brahman is `vritti vyapya'. Regards, Sunder Find out what India is talking about on Answers India. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > The word seems to have gained currency after Sadananda's > Vedantasara, around the 15th century. > > The following excerpts may be helpful in connecting the > synonymous usages. > > Sri Vidyaranya Swami's > PANCHADASI > A Summary [Chapter by Chapter] > By S. N. Sastri > > http://www.celextel.org/articles/summaryofpanchadasi.html Namaste Sir, Many thanks for the information and the wonderful link and the clarifying paragraphs. Regards, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.