akhandaakaara vRitti

[Guest guest]

Dear Learned Members and Friends, PranamsRecently within a posting of Sri Sadaji at the Advaita-L list, the concept of "akhandaakaara vRitti" was brought about.I looked for some definitions and mainly retained two, one from Sadaji himself and the other from Dennis Waite.Sri SadaJi's: ...This is called akhandaakaara vRitti - unbroken thought flow of the divine silence within in spite of whatever the noise that is. (from an old posting to this list)Sri DennisJi's: The mental `occurrence' which effectively causes enlightenment. This is the vRRitti (thought modification) in the form of (AkAra) the formless or undivided (akhaNDa). (from the definitions posted in www.advaita.org.uk)(Translations from other sources define it also as unbroken "experience".)So far I had a vague notion of this concept but recently a series of readings revealed that it is a very important piece within the spectrum of Advaita Vedanta, since it is equated with Self-Realization itself.Here some of my doubts:What is the "role" of the akhandaakaara vRitti in Self-Realization?Is it a result of sadhana, or could be taken also as an induced tool of sadhana itself?Is it a "state" of mind, or what is the relationship (if at all) of it with the mind and/or with chidabhasa?Has more to do with "consciousness of", or is more related to "pure consciousness"?Kindly requesting some members to throw some light on this topic,All the best.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>> Recently within a posting of Sri Sadaji at the Advaita-L list, the

> concept of " akhandaakaara vRitti " was brought about.

> I looked for some definitions and mainly retained two, one from

Sadaji

> himself and the other from Dennis Waite.

>

> Sri SadaJi's: ...This is called akhandaakaara vRitti - unbroken

thought

> flow of the divine silence within in spite of whatever the noise

that

> is. (from an old posting to this list)

> Sri DennisJi's: The mental `occurrence' which effectively causes

> enlightenment. This is the vRRitti (thought modification) in the

form of

> (AkAra) the formless or undivided (akhaNDa). (from the definitions

> posted in www.advaita.org.uk)

> (Translations from other sources define it also as unbroken

> " experience " .)

>

> So far I had a vague notion of this concept but recently a series

of

> readings revealed that it is a very important piece within the

spectrum

> of Advaita Vedanta, since it is equated with Self-Realization

itself.

> Here some of my doubts:

> What is the " role " of the akhandaakaara vRitti in Self-Realization?

> Is it a result of sadhana, or could be taken also as an induced

tool of

> sadhana itself?

> Is it a " state " of mind, or what is the relationship (if at all)

of it

> with the mind and/or with chidabhasa?

> Has more to do with " consciousness of " , or is more related to " pure

> consciousness " ?

>

> Kindly requesting some members to throw some light on this topic,

> All the best.

>

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

 

Dear Mouna-ji,

The definition given by Dennis-ji quoted by you is the correct and

complete definition of akhaNDAkAra vRitti. This is described in

books as the unitary, unfragmented mental state. When this vRitti

takes place, that is itself Self-realization. There is nothing more

to be attained.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

[Guest guest]

Mounaji - PraNams

 

Shree Sastriji answered. For the rest of your questions, here is my

understanding.

 

--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Mouna <maunna wrote:

 

Here some of my doubts:

What is the " role " of the akhandaakaara vRitti in Self-Realization?

----------

It is the self-realization itself - where my mind is shifted its attention to

the underlying consciousness that I am.

--------------------

 

Is it a result of saadhana, or could be taken also as an induced tool of

saadhana itself?

---------

Saadhana purifies the mind. In the processes mind can discriminate the real or

eternal vs ephemeral. Continuous shifting of the mind to the substantive than

the temporal is still a saadhana, until when it firmly abides in that knowledge

of the substantive that I am. then one abides in his own self - which is the

self-realization.

 

-------------------------

 

Is it a " state " of mind, or what is the relationship (if at all) of it with the

mind and/or with cidaabhaasa?

Has more to do with " consciousness of " , or is more related to " pure

consciousness " ?

 

--------

In the cidaabhaasa - three are two aspects involved which is combined into one -

I am and this is resulting in I am this - which is nothing but ego. In the

jnaana yoga one shifts the attention from I am this to I am by negating I am not

this (not this is not another this) until one firmly abides in I am. It is pure

witnessing consciousness that I am without the witnessed. Objectless awareness.

Technically it is called upahita caitanya since upaadhiis are still there. But

understanding is I am the undivided caitanya only in spite of the upaadhiis like

space in a pot. This shift happens in the mind only where mind shifts from I am

this to I am by dropping all this - not literally - but by understanding. All

this is understood as mithyaa while I am satyam.

 

 

Hote this helps.

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Here is what Sw. Krishnananda says at:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/patanjali/raja_51.html

 

QUOTE

 

Everywhere, in every condition, there is the possibility of

everything, because while in individual life - the ordinary life of

senses and mental cognition - there was a bifurcation of the seer

and the seen, here the bifurcation has ceased, and therefore the

necessity for the mind to move towards objects in respect of desire

and action also ceases.

 

What is action? It is nothing but the movement of the subject

towards an object for a particular purpose. This movement is

possible only when there is externality, spatiality and distance,

etc. between the subject and object. This has been eliminated

thoroughly, and therefore there is no movement of the mind towards

an object. Therefore there is no desire for the object and there is

also no possibility for any activity, because the very goal of

activity has been achieved by the merger of all conditions of action

into the very subjectivity of consciousness.

 

This is the state of sat-chit-ananda, as the Vedanta tells us - Pure

Existence, Pure Knowledge, Pure Bliss. The existence of all things

becomes one with the consciousness that knows. The satta or the

Pure, All-Pervading Essential Being of everything becomes the

universal content of the knowing consciousness which, to keep itself

abreast with the extent of this content that is universal, also has

to be universal, so that the consciousness that knows this universal

object is also universal. It is not an individual's mind or

consciousness that cognises a universal object, because the subject

and the object should be on a par. The individual object can be

cognised or perceived by an individual subject, but the universal

object or the universal content cannot enter into an individual's

consciousness. So here, the object is universal. & #346;ruta anum & #257;na

prajñ & #257;bhy & #257;m anyavishay & #257; vi & #347;esh & #257;rthatv & #257;t (I.49).

Here, this knowledge

takes an infinite shape. This is called brahmakara-vritti in

Vedantic language. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

Of course, here I have assumed that brahmAkAravritti is

akhandAkAravritti. I have no reason to doubt the validity of my

assumption since we have already equated akhandAkAravritti with Self-

Realization.

 

Of course, Swamiji has written this as part of his exegesis on

Patanjali yoga. However, a reading of the entire essay, which I

strongly recommend, reveals that he is not talking about any special

experience that has a beginning and an end. He is in fact talking

about the sat-chit-Ananda of Vedanta.

 

May the List also read Subbuji in 34705 where he has unequivocally

stated as follows:

 

QUOTE

 

..............................it would be pertinent to know for

certain, without doubt, the position of the UpaniShads, Acharya

Shankara and the scriptural tradition on the matter of Self-

Realization. This is required in the light of various other views

that are certainly not that of Shankara and the sampradaya on this

topic. The salient feature of the Shankaran teaching of Self-

Realization is that it is an experience brought about by the

akhandAkAravritti which is the special mode of the mind which 'takes

on' the form of Atman/Brahman, bereft of all upAdhis (in other

words, the Pure Consciousness without the least admixture of the

anAtman). This vritti is the one that rises abruptly and destroys

avidya and itself gets sublated leaving the Non-dual Pure

Consciousness as the sole reality to the realized person.

 

UNQUOTE

 

It would be interesting to read the entire thread, in which 34705

appears, as Subbuji has gone on to justify his view-point in a very

convincing manner.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Respected Sri Sastriji, Sadaji and Nairji,Thank you for your prompt responses to my post.I still have some "loose ends" regarding the nature of the akhandaakaara vRitti and its appearance in relation to the nature of Slef-Realization. Sadaji, you wrote:> It is the self-realization itself - where my mind is shifted its attention to > the underlying consciousness that I am. and> Continuous shifting of the mind to the substantive than > the temporal is still a saadhana, until when it firmly abides in that > knowledge of the substantive that I am. then one abides in his own self - > which is the self-realization. Would that mean that attention/awareness (or sometimes called mindfullness, either specific or objectless/global) plays one of the most important roles (if not the most) in nidhi-dhyaasana? 1) For example, we go to the cinema (analogy with experienced waking state). Most people get absorbed by the movie, but I try to keep the "global awareness" that what I'm seeing not only happens as images on a screen (ergo "unreal" in a sense) but also that all is contained in the movie theater, even me watching the movie is part of it. Is this what you are describing as the shifting of attention, where I shift my attention to the underlying Whole (objectless awareness) that contains and sustains the actual happening?2) So, would the abidance in one's own self as Self-Realization, according to this cinema analogy, be that we are watching the movie, not losing anymore the underlying "experience" of being in a cinema, surrounded by people, "knowing" (all the time) in the back of our minds that what is projected on a screen is just images that construct a story? In this regard, identification with the movie would be impossible, enjoyment yes, but only up to a certain extent. Would this mean that this objectless awareness became our natural state, that our mind took its form?Usually what happens in a cinema is that only for a few seconds we are able to maintain this objectless awareness, since the notional and perceptive content of the movie grasp our "whole attention".3) Is it a PERMANENT shift of this kind that you describe as Jnanam, Advaitic understanding or Self-Realization? If that be the case, could we define the akhandaakaara vRitti as the actual "unbroken experience" of the objectless awareness at the vyavaharic level? My Pranams and gratitude,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Namaste Respected Members,

 

Chiming in with my limited knowledge and understanding,

but discussion is useful for mananam. The akhanda akara

vritti and the brahmakara vritti are the same 'vritti'

 

I recently attended a Vedanta course with Swami Dayanandaji

who was unfolding Aparoksha Anubhuti, and in the course of

unfolding the text, Swamiji affirmed that both vrittis

are the same vritti.

 

This vritti is the vritti in which the subject/object

distinction dissolves, and the mind cognizes in less

than an instant, that knower/knowing/known are my

self alone satyam/jnanam/anantam brahme. There is

no second thing. All that the senses perceive, as dual,

as well as the perception thereof, is myself alone.

 

This vritti arises in the mind, and then goes, leaving

in its wake knowledge.

 

Technically it is said that after this occurs one is

a jnani, and the vritti does not need to be repeated,

as once knowledge is gained, it cannot be lost. On

the other hand, Swamiji said in the course of the same

unfoldment that the vritti does need to be repeated and

that it is not a one-time vritti.

 

This statement was made in the context of explaining

knowledge which is not 'nishta,' or viparita jnanam.

IOW when old habits of ignorance reassert themselves,

and what to do to remedy that situation.

 

Swamiji told a funny story about this. He compared this

to going to see a 3D movie. You get all settled in, have

your popcorn on your lap, and the movie opens with a brawl.

One actor throws a bottle at another, and you (the one

watching the movie) duck and land with your face in

the popcorn. Then what? You cognize again without

a shadow of a doubt what the reality is.

 

So that's a funny story, but like all of Swamij's stories

very apt and appropriate. Can one really ever loose that

knowledge which one has gained through the arising of the

akhanda akara vritti? No.

 

Can one 'as though' loose it? Yes. And to counteract that,

one needs to contemplate again and again what one actually

knows to be true.

 

So even after knowledge takes place, more and more clarity

may need to be gained in the light of that knowledge, due

to past conditioning, before knowledge becomes completely

nishta.

 

This may seem a strange concept to many who study Vedanta,

and yet, from speaking directly with many others, who have

studied in depth with Swamiji for a long time, they do concur

that old habit patterns of the mind do arise which 'as though'

obstruct knowledge, and that these old patterns of conditioning

then need to be dissolved in the light of knowledge. And for

this one needs to practice nididhyasansa, and perhaps avail oneself of

modern techniques, with which Ishwara has now so graciously provided

us, such as psychotherapy.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Mouna <maunna wrote:

 

> It is the self-realization itself -

 

Would that mean that attention/awareness (or sometimes called mindfullness,

either specific or objectless/global) plays one of the most important roles (if

not the most) in nidhi-dhyaasana?

 

--------

Mouna - PraNAms

 

If I understand your question correctly, during Nidhidhyaasana (as last

paragraph that Durgaji wrote) - the mind keeps falling back to habitual thinking

and identifying that I am this (even though I have learned I am not this). Since

'I am' is always there in 'this', the moment I recognize that the mind is taking

'this' as real, immediately shifting back then and there itself to where one is

consciously aware that I am consciousness and not this - is nidhidhyaasana -

until the mind naturally abides in that, where you are effortlessly in that

state of understanding - in spite of any this that arises- And that is

akhandaakaara vRitti - where the mind abides in the understanding without

slipping back. Since you are the one who is lending support to 'this' also, you

also recognize that all this is nothing but fleeting reality or mithyaa only and

take it as your glory or if you would like to humble and say it is His glory.

Mithyaa will never bother unless

one takes mithyaa as real and get affected by it. - By the by, Bhagavaan Ramana

explains this so beautifully in Sat Darshan which I plan to take next year

Memorial Day camp. Ahandaarkaara vRitti then includes recogntion of this is you

and you are you -or all are in you only. mayaa tata midam sarvam - I pervade

this entire universe - says Krishna - identifying with I am.

 

As long as one is living in the BMI, body and the world, exist. Hence even when

one is fully established in that state of understanding, that understanding will

never cease, even if one 'performs' effectively in this world. Remember there is

nothing wrong with ever vibrant Life including watching movie - as long as one

is keenly aware that it is not real yet it is beautiful and majestic. Shankara

lived such a dynamic life and accomplished so much in such short time, only

because he could play the game of life to the maximum. Hence life becomes -

aatma kriiDa - a beautiful sport - for jnaani. One needs BMI for that. Pure

consciousness is without a second and it does not need any realization.

Realization is only for the mind that has taken mithyaa as real to realize that

I am is pure consciousness because of which all this is possible. Ego then

becomes a bhuuShaNam - ornament - like a snake as decoration around the neck or

good water-bed.

 

------------------

 

1) For example, we go to the cinema (analogy with experienced waking state).

Most people get absorbed by the movie, but I try to keep the " global awareness "

that what I'm seeing not only happens as images on a screen (ergo " unreal " in a

sense) but also that all is contained in the movie theater, even me watching the

movie is part of it. Is this what you are describing as the shifting of

attention, where I shift my attention to the underlying Whole (objectless

awareness) that contains and sustains the actual happening?

---------

Yes - 1) shifting the attention to the underlying consciousness is one.

2) recognizing all this also nothing but vibhuuti or glory since I am - as

existence pervades all this too.

Hence advaita involves - three things.

1. Brahma satyam

2. Jagat mithyaa - mithyaa is not non-existence - it is not real either.

3. And the third - I am that - jiivaH brahma eva.

 

Hence in shifting the mind to the awareness, also recognize that all this also

you are aware of or put it clearly this also is in your awareness. Or looking

differently you exist in these too - including all that you are witnessing in

the movie. It is not you, yet not different from you- Hence I said it is the

substantive of both seer and the seen - being aware of that substantive is

akhandaarkaara vRitti in spite any apparent khanda or divisions.

------------------

 

2) So, would the abidance in one's own self as Self-Realization, according to

this cinema analogy, be that we are watching the movie, not losing anymore the

underlying " experience " of being in a cinema, surrounded by people, " knowing "

(all the time) in the back of our minds that what is projected on a screen is

just images that construct a story? In this regard, identification with the

movie would be impossible, enjoyment yes, but only up to a certain extent. Would

this mean that this objectless awareness became our natural state, that our mind

took its form?

Usually what happens in a cinema is that only for a few seconds we are able to

maintain this objectless awareness, since the notional and perceptive content of

the movie grasp our " whole attention " .

 

-------------

Mouna - One cannot live a life without playing the life - one will become a

stone or awareful stone. Look at the life of Krishna or even Bhaghavaan Ramana.

They played the game of life very effectively better than any body - yet fully

aware that all this is in Me or Me itself. There is nothing wrong with duality -

but taking the duality as reality is the problem. In the meditation - I am not

this - this that I am rejecting not the existence of this but the superficial

reality that I am assigning to this. Just as I enjoy sunrise and sunset knowing

very well that sun never rises and sets - is an exact analogy - where Iswara

SRiShTi goes on but jiiva sRiShTi that is taking mithyaa as real goes away. One

can enjoy the movie as along one does loose sight I am seer and that is seen and

I am real and the seen is only a projection of a story for entertainment.

 

------------------------

 

 

3) Is it a PERMANENT shift of this kind that you describe as Jnaanam, Advaitic

understanding or Self-Realization? If that be the case, could we define the

akhandaakaara vRitti as the actual " unbroken experience " of the objectless

awareness at the vyAvahArika level?

------------

Mouna we are using words that cannot describe the state beyond the words.

It involves awareness of the totality that pervades both seer and the seen even

when both seen and seen are dancing on the screen of the mind. Unbroken state of

understanding in spite of changing experiences. Experiences keep changing but

understanding does not - hence it is called knowledge not experience. 'I am' is

all the time experienced even when I do not know who that I am is.

Understanding that I am that which is being experienced all the time and not

this that is continuously changing with changing experiences - is the knowledge.

 

Remember we are trying to express in words which cannot be expressed in words.

yathovaaco nivartante.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Can one really ever loose that knowledge which one has gained through the arising of the akhanda akara vritti? No.

> I think this is the position of shankara...after the dawn of jnAna, the jnAni (beholder of svarUpa jnAna, if I can say like that :-)) does not have to do anything..First of all I am not able to understand this word : *akhandAkAra*!! if this jnAna has an *AkAra* how can it be akhanda?? the term *AkAra* itself means it has some limited boundaries is it not??

 

Can one 'as though' loose it? Yes. And to counteract that, one needs to contemplate again and again what one actually knows to be true.

> if the akhandAkAra vrutti is meant here as svarUpa jnAna (brahma jnAna) then I dont think this repetitive or sustained effort is required to keep that intact..shankara refutes the prasankhyAna vAda and says jnAni is the personification of jnAna itself & loses his limited identity with BMI...

> While on the subject I'd like to mention that the self pervades the vruttis not the vrutti-s pervade the self to say I've the akhandAkAra vrutti of brahman..When the antaHkaraNa vrutti completely turns towards the true nature of the self through the discrimination (vivEka) then it loses its vruttitva. Hence Sri gaudapAdAchArya says in kArika that jnAna vrutti or pratyaya is not a separate thing apart from brahman (jnAnaM jnEyAbhinnaM)..

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga-ji.

 

My deep respects to Swami Dayanandaji and the learned preceptors at

his gurukulam.

 

If what you conclude is right, then the vritti that occurred couldn't

be akhandAkAra. akhanda means indivisible whole. If there is a need

for *more and more clarity* post akhandAkAravritti (a.v.), then what

occurred was only a khandavritti.

 

Actually akhandAkAra is an oxymoron. Indivisibile wholeness and

AkAra (form or shape) cannot go hand in hand.

 

Reacting to my submission of yesterday to the List, some one has

asked me off-List why do jnAnis act like us ajnAnis even after a.v.

I am trying to answer this question on my own. Kindly bear with me

because we have tried this ad nauseum even before.

 

Well, if we accept Sw. Krishnanandaji's explanation, all actions have

come to an end for a jnAni with spatiality and temporality having

come to an end and he doesn't find any need to act at all. So, I

should assume that he is not acting at all. It may be that we ajnAnis

see him acting.

 

The truth is that this universe including this ignorant me is an

indivisible whole. Yet, in my ignorance, I see this world as

existing separate from me, changing every moment, expanding,

coalescing, diversifying and perishing. That is the nature of my

ignorance in which I am totally incapable of appreciating my

indivisible wholeness of all-inclusiveness which includes the

objectified universe. And, if that same ignorant me, sees a jnAni-

indivisible-wholess as acting, then that is natural (naisargika)

adhyAsa. There is nothing unusual about it. The fault is not with

the jnAni but with me. When a.v. occurs to me, I will see that the

erstwhile jnAni is none other than me and that there are no two.

There isn't a separate universe either. That is then advaita.

 

Thus, I think we can easily get rid of this " as though " business.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

 

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

>

> So even after knowledge takes place, more and more clarity

> may need to be gained in the light of that knowledge, due

> to past conditioning, before knowledge becomes completely

> nishta.

>

> This may seem a strange concept to many who study Vedanta,

> and yet, from speaking directly with many others, who have

> studied in depth with Swamiji for a long time, they do concur

> that old habit patterns of the mind do arise which 'as though'

> obstruct knowledge, and that these old patterns of conditioning

> then need to be dissolved in the light of knowledge. And for

> this one needs to practice nididhyasansa, and perhaps avail oneself

of

> modern techniques, with which Ishwara has now so graciously

provided

> us, such as psychotherapy.

>

[Guest guest]

Actually akhandAkAra is an oxymoron. Indivisibile wholeness and

AkAra (form or shape) cannot go hand in hand.

praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, this is what exactly I am trying to say in my earlier post...it is *akhanda* and at the same time saying it has an *AkAra* is self-contradicting, especially when we are trying to describe the Atma jnAna as 'vrutti'...Moreover, here point to be noted that some schools in advaita say this vrutti rUpa jnAna is not enough & cannot be considered as Atma jnAna...and to gain that jnAna in its entireity they say we have to have phala rUpa jnAna in the form of some mystic experience....

If it is not a digression from the subject topic, I request Sri Sastri prabhuji to address this issue.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

I am fully with you. The words vritti and AkAra in

akhandAkAravritti (a.v.)are counter-productive if logically analyzed.

 

Nevertheless, let us accept a.v. as swarUpajnAna or AtmajnAna and

proceed with our discussion without equating it with any mystical

experiences.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

> Yes, this is what exactly I am trying to say in my earlier

post...it is

> *akhanda* and at the same time saying it has an *AkAra* is

> self-contradicting, especially when we are trying to describe the

Atma

> jnAna as 'vrutti'...Moreover, here point to be noted that some

schools in

> advaita say this vrutti rUpa jnAna is not enough & cannot be

considered as

> Atma jnAna...and to gain that jnAna in its entireity they say we

have to

> have phala rUpa jnAna in the form of some mystic experience....

[Guest guest]

Madathil-ji,

 

There has always been a long standing debate over whether realization

happens " in a flash " over a " gradual period of time " .

 

In a sense, the process is non-linear. The " standard " process is as

mentioned in Naishkarmyasiddhi 1.52 which we have discussed before,

but the precise order varies from person to person. Nevertheless all

criteria including all the 4-fold qualifications need to be met before

final & complete jnAna dawns.

 

Your disagreements with Swami Dayananda may be seen in this light. The

same also explains why some sources talk of gradations among jnAnI-s.

These are all convenient classifications only.

 

Ramesh

 

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

- yoga vAsiShTha

[Guest guest]

It seems that we have discussed all this before and I have

certainly said all that follows, in one way or another, numerous times. My

understanding largely derives from Swamis Dayananda and Paramarthananda.

 

akhaNDAkAra vRRitti equates to j~nAna or the ‘self-realisation

event’. ‘Taking on the form of the undivided’ is a poetic way

of putting it (“not very satisfactory”, as T. S. Eliot might put

it). So I don’t think there is any point in arguing that ‘form’

and ‘undivided’ are contradictory. What it means is that the mind

now knows my true nature and this knowledge is irrevocable because it is not

simply knowing as an objective fact; it is as though the mind has become that

truth. What it does not necessarily mean is that I will henceforth behave

subsequently according to this knowledge. Swami P says that the adhikArI who

had no prior chatuShTaya sampatti cannot gain j~nAna at all. He who had gained

a moderate amount will become a j~nAnI but will not gain the ‘fruits’

of that knowledge (jIvanmukti). He who was fully qualified beforehand will

immediately gain both knowledge and fruits. For the j~nAnI who does not also

have phalam, a period of nididhyAsana will bring this about. This may take many

forms, such as reading, discussion, teaching etc.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji and Nairji - PraNAms

 

Oxymoron actually starts with notion of self-realization itself. There is

nothing to realize. The contradiction is the very essence of the samsaara

itself. That exactly what adhyaasa means. If the so called akhanDaadhaara vRitti

comes from the fact that khanDa vRitti is taken as real and separate from me,

the existence-consciousness. The existence-consciousness is akhanDam and mind

has to be there to realize that and the very mind itself is base for

vRitti-dhaara.

 

There lies the problem not in the definition or realization of the oxymoron of

the very nature of samsaara.

 

This is precisely reason why scripture says words cannot reach there.

 

Durgaji – PraNAms

 

And I must say, based on my understanding, Durgaji - your understanding of

scriptures and swami Dayanandaji teaching is absolutely correct. Knowledge

occurs by shravaNam. Mananam helps to resolve any doubts. and Nidhidhyaasana

helps to internalize the understanding. PramaaNa is required for any knowledge

and knowledge can occur only by the intellect. Lord has not given any other

instrument to grasp the knowledge. Firm abidance in that knowledge is

self-realization and occurs when all the habitual notions drop out. The notional

mind drops out leaving mind free from notions, where it can abide in the

knowledge that I am - that is the essence of akhadaarkaara VRitti that involves

mind only. There is no other instrument available for knowledge.

 

 

Hari Om

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

Actually akhandAkAra is an oxymoron. Indivisibile wholeness and

AkAra (form or shape) cannot go hand in hand.

praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, this is what exactly I am trying to say in my earlier post...it is

*akhanda* and at the same time saying it has an *AkAra* is self-contradicting,

especially when we are trying to describe the Atma jnAna as 'vrutti'...Moreover

,

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> It seems that we have discussed all this before and I have

certainly said

> all that follows, in one way or another, numerous times. My

understanding

> largely derives from Swamis Dayananda and Paramarthananda.

>

>

>

> akhaNDAkAra vRRitti equates to j~nAna or the 'self-realisation

event'.

> 'Taking on the form of the undivided' is a poetic way of putting

it ( " not

> very satisfactory " , as T. S. Eliot might put it). So I don't think

there is

> any point in arguing that 'form' and 'undivided' are

contradictory. What it

> means is that the mind now knows my true nature and this knowledge

is

> irrevocable because it is not simply knowing as an objective fact;

it is as

> though the mind has become that truth. What it does not

necessarily mean is

> that I will henceforth behave subsequently according to this

knowledge.

> Swami P says that the adhikArI who had no prior chatuShTaya

sampatti cannot

> gain j~nAna at all. He who had gained a moderate amount will

become a j~nAnI

> but will not gain the 'fruits' of that knowledge (jIvanmukti). He

who was

> fully qualified beforehand will immediately gain both knowledge

and fruits.

> For the j~nAnI who does not also have phalam, a period of

nididhyAsana will

> bring this about. This may take many forms, such as reading,

discussion,

> teaching etc.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste to all.

I do not know who first used the term 'akhaNDAkAravRitti', but it

has been in use in authoritative texts since long and must have been

coined by a person who had good knowledge of Sanskrit. So we with

our extremely scanty knowledge of Sanskrit should rather refrain

from criticising it. Moreover, in Sanskrit every word has a number

of meanings. Apart from the meaning 'form', the word AkAra also

means 'nature'. This word has been used in this sense in VP. So

akhaNDAkAra vritti means vritti of the nature of Brahman.

Only objects which can be seen by the eye have form

.. Sound has no form, but it is also an object (viShaya). So also are

happiness and sorrow. In all these cases Vedanta Paribhasha says

that the mind takes the AkAra of the object. From this also it is

clear that what is meant is that the mind takes the nature of sond,

or happiness, etc., or, in other words, the mind becomes identified

with sound, etc. Similarly, the mind becomes identified with akhaNDa

which is a synonym for Brahman. We can look at the matter in this

way, as Dennis-ji has suggested.

As an example of how deceptive Skt words are, let us take the

word 'rUpam'. We take it to mean 'form'. But in most places in

Vedantic works rupam is used in the sense of 'colour'. I can say

this authoritatively because I have studied these texts in the

original Skt under teachers who have mastered not only Vedanta but

also Skt literature and Skt Grammar (PANini).

Bhasksr-ji,

I do not know of any view that Brahman is phala vyapya. Please state

where such a view has been stated.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

If it is 'moderate', then it is khanda vritti and not

akhandAkaravritti (a.v.) is the point. A.v. can't be piecemeal.And

where is the need to differentiate between jnAna and the so-

called 'fruits' of it?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

> Swami P says that the adhikArI who had no prior chatuShTaya

sampatti cannot

> gain j~nAna at all. He who had gained a moderate amount will become

a j~nAnI

> but will not gain the 'fruits' of that knowledge (jIvanmukti). He

who was

> fully qualified beforehand will immediately gain both knowledge and

fruits.

> For the j~nAnI who does not also have phalam, a period of

nididhyAsana will

> bring this about. This may take many forms, such as reading,

discussion,

> teaching etc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sastriji.

 

Appreciate your clarification on the linguistic nuances of AkAra and

rUpaM etc. No quarrels. I can fully agree with you there.

 

However, let us not digress and forget that we began this discussion

with Mounaji trying to understand the meaning of a.v. So, what we

need is a fool-proof definition.

 

We have all accepted that a.v. is nothing but self-realizaton or

bramha-jnAna or brahmAkAravritti or swarUpajnAna etc. So, the first

step is over.

 

Now the question is whether the mind remains with a.v. You have

said: " From this also it is clear that what is meant is that the mind

takes the nature of sound, or happiness, etc., or, in other words,

the mind becomes identified with sound, etc. Similarly, the mind

becomes identified with akhaNDa which is a synonym of Brahman " .

 

Sound, happiness etc. in your statement are individual vrittis which

are all khaNDa - coming in pieces (and there are innumerable number

of them!)and conditioned by space/time, whereas brahman cannot brook

any fragmentation/conditioning. Isn't it rather simplistic then to

think that the mind remains when it has identified with brahman? As

Sw. Krishnananda says only limitlessness can know limitlessness.

There can't be two limitlessnesses. So, the mind as we know it in

the understanding of fragmented, individual vrittis is no more there

when it has identified itself with brahman. It is then verily

brahman and there is absolutely nothing exclusive of it.

 

It may be argued that the mind and upAdhis return after

the 'cessation' of a.v. If there is such a cessation, that would

mean a 'cessation' of brahman itself advaitically . So, we are

compelled to conclude that a.v. is irrevocable. Spatio-temporal

upAdhis do not dare tread there.

 

A.V. therefore needs to be definied as nothing but self-realization

where the enquiring mind has come to rest irrevocably in Brahman

without a trace in total identification with It.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

> which is a synonym for Brahman.--- In

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

Sound has no form, but it is also an object (viShaya). So also are

> happiness and sorrow. In all these cases Vedanta Paribhasha says

> that the mind takes the AkAra of the object. From this also it is

> clear that what is meant is that the mind takes the nature of sond,

> or happiness, etc., or, in other words, the mind becomes identified

> with sound, etc. Similarly, the mind becomes identified with

akhaNDa

> which is a synonym for Brahman. We can look at the matter in this

> way, as Dennis-ji has suggested.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

In your first paragraph, you were quite appreciative of the

explanation provided by respected Sastriji. Then in the very second

paragraph, you seem to (at the minimum in appearance) critisize him

for his explanation. I am assuming that we both agree that Sastriji

is a better Sankrit and Vedantic scholar than either of us. I am of

the opinion that your second paragraph and subsequent paragrpahs seem

to 'digress' from the discussion topic.

 

As for as I can see that no fool-proof definition of either a.v. or

self-realization can ever exist! This is the paradox of Vedanta as

for as I know! This is like trying to describe the 'Black-hole' after

entering into the black-hole!

 

Anything more I or you trying to tell is a digression from the

discussion.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Sastriji.

>

> Appreciate your clarification on the linguistic nuances of AkAra

and

> rUpaM etc. No quarrels. I can fully agree with you there.

>

> However, let us not digress and forget that we began this

discussion

> with Mounaji trying to understand the meaning of a.v. So, what we

> need is a fool-proof definition.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Sastriji.

>

> Appreciate your clarification on the linguistic nuances of AkAra

and

> rUpaM etc. No quarrels. I can fully agree with you there.

>

> However, let us not digress and forget that we began this

discussion

> with Mounaji trying to understand the meaning of a.v. So, what we

> need is a fool-proof definition.

>

> We have all accepted that a.v. is nothing but self-realizaton or

> bramha-jnAna or brahmAkAravritti or swarUpajnAna etc. So, the

first

> step is over.

>

> Now the question is whether the mind remains with a.v. You have

> said: " From this also it is clear that what is meant is that the

mind

> takes the nature of sound, or happiness, etc., or, in other

words,

> the mind becomes identified with sound, etc. Similarly, the mind

> becomes identified with akhaNDa which is a synonym of Brahman " .

>

> Sound, happiness etc. in your statement are individual vrittis

which

> are all khaNDa - coming in pieces (and there are innumerable

number

> of them!)and conditioned by space/time, whereas brahman cannot

brook

> any fragmentation/conditioning. Isn't it rather simplistic then

to

> think that the mind remains when it has identified with brahman?

As

> Sw. Krishnananda says only limitlessness can know limitlessness.

> There can't be two limitlessnesses. So, the mind as we know it in

> the understanding of fragmented, individual vrittis is no more

there

> when it has identified itself with brahman. It is then verily

> brahman and there is absolutely nothing exclusive of it.

>

> It may be argued that the mind and upAdhis return after

> the 'cessation' of a.v. If there is such a cessation, that would

> mean a 'cessation' of brahman itself advaitically . So, we are

> compelled to conclude that a.v. is irrevocable. Spatio-temporal

> upAdhis do not dare tread there.

>

> A.V. therefore needs to be definied as nothing but self-

realization

> where the enquiring mind has come to rest irrevocably in Brahman

> without a trace in total identification with It.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Na

 

Dear Nair-ji,

My post was confined to the question whethera v was a contradiction

in terms. I did not deal with any other point at all. Do you think I

am so ignorant that I do not know that brahman is infinite while

sound, etc are limited. You are reading into my reply what I never

intended or dealt with.

S.N.sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramji.

 

Kindly see within under quotes from your post.

 

______

 

> In your first paragraph, you were quite appreciative of the

> explanation provided by respected Sastriji. Then in the very

second

> paragraph, you seem to (at the minimum in appearance) critisize

him

> for his explanation.

 

[There is no criticism. Sastriji can point it out to me if he feels

that I have criticized him. In fact, I am extra careful when I

write to him these days. As an active Member of this Group, I

cannot totally stop writing to him just because others think, often

without justification, that I am criticizing him.]

________

 

 

>I am assuming that we both agree that Sastriji

> is a better Sankrit and Vedantic scholar than either of us.

 

[To me, it is a fact as clear as day-light that he is a great

Sanskrit scholar and Vedantin. My knowledge of Sanskrit is just

rudimentary. I often clarify my doubts with him off-List and he has

always been very helpful. I am a rambler in Vedanta, whereas

Sastriji has had traitional training and authored great works.]

 

_________

 

 

>I am of

> the opinion that your second paragraph and subsequent paragrpahs

seem

> to 'digress' from the discussion topic.

 

[i fail to see any digression. In fact, I was attempting to put the

discussion back on right track by recalling its origin in Mounaji's

question. It had turned into linguistics from the main theme of

a.v.]

____________

 

>

> As for as I can see that no fool-proof definition of either a.v.

or

> self-realization can ever exist! This is the paradox of Vedanta as

> for as I know! This is like trying to describe the 'Black-hole'

after

> entering into the black-hole!

>

> Anything more I or you trying to tell is a digression from the

> discussion.

 

[sorry, Ramji. I can't agree. I can't tell an enquiring Mounaji or

for that matter any Vedanta enthusiast that any term in Vedanta is

indefinable. Neither can I understand the black-hole analogy. I am

afraid it can at best only unnerve Advaitins and make them doubt the

validity of self-realization - the ultimate goal of Advaita.]

_________

 

My very best regards to you.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sastriji.

 

I just sent out a reply to Shri Ramji. Hope that clarifies my

respect for you. I couldn't therefore have implied that you are

ignorant. God forbid such thought between us.

 

The latter part of my post relates to the general way in which

Mounaji's question is being answered - particularly Dennisji's

message with which you seemed to agree, i.e. *the mind " knowing " its

true nature* and *it is " as though " the mind has become that truth*.

 

His statement in question was: " I don't think there is any point in

arguing that `form' and `undivided' are contradictory. What it means

is that the mind now knows my true nature and this knowledge is

irrevocable because it is not simply knowing as an objective fact;

it is as though the mind has become that truth. What it does not

necessarily mean is that I will henceforth behave subsequently

according to this knowledge. "

 

I thank you very much for expressing your feelings explicitly. I

assure you, Sir, there is never ever any criticism meant.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>> My post was confined to the question whethera v was a

contradiction

> in terms. I did not deal with any other point at all. Do you think

I

> am so ignorant that I do not know that brahman is infinite while

> sound, etc are limited. You are reading into my reply what I never

> intended or dealt with.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

 

Namaste,

 

Sri Ramana's response to a similar question was:

 

http://www.beezone.com/Ramana/TalkswithRamanaMaharshi.html

 

27th December, 1936

 

" 307. Mr. Shamanna from Mysore asked Sri Bhagavan: Kindly explain

Aham Sphurana (the light of 'I' - 'I').

 

M.: 'I' is not known in sleep. On waking 'I' is perceived associated

with the body, the world and the non-self in general. Such

associated 'I' is aham vritti. When Aham represents the Self only it

is Aham Sphurana. This is natural to the jnani and is itself called

jnana by jnanis, or bhakti by bhaktas. Though ever present, including

in sleep, it is not perceived. It cannot be known in sleep all at

once. It must first be realised in the waking state, for it is our

true nature underlying all the three states. Efforts must be made

only in the jagrat state and the Self realised here and now. It will

afterwards be understood and realised to be continuous Self,

uninterrupted by jagrat, svapna and sushupti.

Thus it is akhandakara vritti (unbroken experience). Vritti is used

for lack of a better expression. It should not be understood to be

literally a vritti. In that case, vritti will resemble an 'ocean-like

river', which is absurd. Vritti is of short duration; it is

qualified, directed consciousness; or absolute consciousness broken

up by cognition of thoughts, senses, etc. Vritti is the function of

the mind, whereas the continuous consciousness transcends the mind.

This is the natural, primal state of the jnani or the liberated

being. That is unbroken experience. It asserts itself when relative

consciousness subsides. Aham vritti ('I'-thought) is broken, Aham

sphurana (the light of 'I'-'I') is unbroken, continuous. After the

thoughts subside, the light shines forth. "

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nairji,

 

I've taken excerpts from two of your posts to address,

the first being from post number 42221, and the second

from post number 42236. I did this because it seems to

me that the points you make in the excerpts from those

two posts are of a piece. Below, please find the excerpts

from your two posts, and below that my response to them.

 

Pranams,

Durga

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Durga-ji.

>

> Well, if we accept Sw. Krishnanandaji's explanation, all actions have

> come to an end for a jnAni with spatiality and temporality having

> come to an end and he doesn't find any need to act at all. So, I

> should assume that he is not acting at all. It may be that we ajnAnis

> see him acting.

>

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Re: " akhandaakaara vRitti "

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

> Namaste Shri Sastriji.

>

> Now the question is whether the mind remains with a.v. You have

> said: " From this also it is clear that what is meant is that the mind

> takes the nature of sound, or happiness, etc., or, in other words,

> the mind becomes identified with sound, etc. Similarly, the mind

> becomes identified with akhaNDa which is a synonym of Brahman " .

>

> Sound, happiness etc. in your statement are individual vrittis which

> are all khaNDa - coming in pieces (and there are innumerable number

> of them!)and conditioned by space/time, whereas brahman cannot brook

> any fragmentation/conditioning. Isn't it rather simplistic then to

> think that the mind remains when it has identified with brahman? As

> Sw. Krishnananda says only limitlessness can know limitlessness.

> There can't be two limitlessnesses. So, the mind as we know it in

> the understanding of fragmented, individual vrittis is no more there

> when it has identified itself with brahman. It is then verily

> brahman and there is absolutely nothing exclusive of it.

>

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste Sri Nairji,

 

Understanding the nature of brahman, understanding what self-knowledge

is, understanding how Vedanta reconciles

duality with nonduality is not very easy. It is at the

heart of the teachings, and I cannot claim in any way to

be an expert, yet again, I know that discussing the

teachings is useful for mananam, so with that in view I begin.

 

Two things to consider at the outset are that the

teachings of Vedanta do deal with a subject matter

which at first appears to be paradoxical. How can I,

who appear to be a body/mind/sense organs individual,

be brahman, the unchanging self, and in reality the

truth of all that exists? How is that possible?

 

And even if it is possible, what is all of this duality

which I see if nonduality is the truth? How can the duality,

which I see, be reconciled with the nondual nature of brahman

which the Upanishads tell me I am? So those are some

questions which the jiva has.

 

Another thing I would like to say is that from the POV of

duality we cannot really reconcile duality and nonduality

by using the same measure we use to explain duality

from within duality. In the end, as much as is possible,

we have to take the stand from the POV of brahman, and then

look at duality and explain it.

 

So from that POV, what does it mean that a jnani does not act,

and from that POV can the mind of a jnani have thoughts

and still be called a jnani's mind?

 

When we look at a jnani from the POV of duality, what do we see?

We see a body/mind/sense organs individual who is performing actions.

I don't think we need to doubt the information that

our eyes give us in this regard, I think rather we need to

look at what the words, 'the jnani does not act' are actually pointing

out.

 

Those words are pointing to the nature of brahman,

which the mind of the jnani has realized the jnani's

true nature to be. Brahman never acts. Brahman doesn't move.

Brahman doesn't change. Brahman is not bound by time or space.

 

When the mind of the jnani has this cognition (which does

occur in the form of a 'thought'), then the body/mind/sense

organs of the jnani do not change their functioning from

the POV of duality, but the apprehension of reality for

the mind of the jnani does change.

 

Thus the jnani now knowing without a shadow of a doubt

'I am that brahman' knows that in reality 'I never act,

and I have never been bound by time and space.'

 

What changes is that the jnani's mind now comprehends

what has always been true. So spaciality and temporality

do not end. It is realized that for me (brahman)

they have never been. It isn't that the jnani ceases

to act from the POV of the body/mind/sense organs.

It is that the jnani realizes I (brahman) have never

at any time performed an action.

 

Well, then how does one bring that understanding out

into duality, as it were, and make sense of the information

our senses give us? We cannot bring our dualistic understanding

to bear upon the understanding of jnanam, rather it has to be

viewed from the other way round. We need to bring the

understanding that jnanam gives us when we examine duality.

 

The teachings tell us that there is only in truth

the nondual reality. So we have to examine, from that

perspective, what duality is. Is duality in the end

really dual? The teachings tell us that it is not.

Well then what is the dual world which the senses perceive?

The teachings tell us it is brahman, which due to the power

of maya, manifests as duality.

 

Now, if a jnani has recognized not only do 'I' brahman

never move, but all of duality, which appears to the senses,

is in the end really brahman, then this direct cognition does

away with the apparent paradox of duality.

 

The ability to recognize at once the satyam in the

mithya world of change explains away in an instant

the paradox of a brahman, which never moves, and a creation,

which does nothing but move, being the same 'thing.'

 

The understanding which jnanam brings is the reconcilation of,

and comfort with, seeming paradox. Thus the body and mind of

a jnani continue to function as before, only now the jnani's

mind knows, that 'I' brahman don't move. At the same time the

jnani's mind knowing and apprehending that everything is in the

final analysis brahman, realizes that nothing is ever away

from brahman.

 

There is no problem with thoughts arising. There is no

problem with activity. All is brahman. All is my self alone. Whether

manifest or unmanifest, it doesn't create a problem

for my mind, and that, in my understanding, is the beauty

of jnanam.

 

Wherever the body is in the creation, 'I' am at home,

because first of all, brahman never changes, and secondly,

within the changing reality everything is brahman. Everything

comes from me, is sustained by me, and returns to me without

affecting me at all. I cannot be away from myself because

I am everywhere, and at the same time 'I' am entirely stable.

 

Lastly, there is a story which I would like to relate,

that I may have told here before, but I think that is

it quite relevant to this discussion.

 

In March of 2008 I had the good fortune to attend some

talks which Swami Dayanandaji gave in Sydney Australia.

One evening some musicians, who are closely associated

with Swamiji, gave a small concert. They sang bhajans

of Swamiji's compostion, including a bhajan to mother

Meenakshi.

 

Although I did not have the good fortune to be born a Hindu,

nor do I know Sanskrit aside from a few words, I realized that

the beauty of the bhajan was quite profound.

 

Some of us accompanied Swamiji to the airport in Sydney

prior to his return to India. We all sat together at a

table in an airport café drinking coffee. I remarked

to Swamiji how beautiful the Meenakshi bhajan was

although I couldn't understand the words.

 

Sitting there Swamiji quietly began to hum. Then he began

to sing a few verses in Sanskrit. Then in English he

translated, " That very maya which brings forth the mithya

creation, gives liberation in the form of a mithya vritti.

The akhanda akara vritti "

 

I know that my memory cannot do justice to the true

beauty of Swamiji's words. With those words, the understanding

and the bhava they created in our hearts, and tears in our eyes

we accompanied Swamiji to the gate and he was gone.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Beautifully explained and presented, Durga-ji! Website essay,

please, if you are not using it for your book! J

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Durga

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:59 PM

advaitin

Re: " akhandaakaara vRitti "

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<Understanding

the nature of brahman, understanding what self-knowledge

is, understanding how Vedanta reconciles

duality with nonduality is not very easy. It is at the

heart of the teachings, and I cannot claim in any way to

be an expert, yet again, I know that discussing the

teachings is useful for mananam, so with that in view I begin.

 

…….

I know that my memory cannot do justice to the true

beauty of Swamiji's words. With those words, the understanding

and the bhava they created in our hearts, and tears in our eyes

we accompanied Swamiji to the gate and he was gone.>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all members.

 

Please permit me to quote a SlOka from Gaudapadakarika which has

a bearing upon the subject matter . It reads;

 

akalpakamajaM j~JAnam j~JEyABinnaM pracakShatE |

brahmaj~JEyamajaM nityamajEnAjaM vibudhyatE ||

The above ShlOka appears in advaita prakaraNa verse 33. I have not

provided the English translation as the translation is available on

the web. The translations that are available are very poor.

 

A study in depth of the sloka with Sri Shankara's commentary will

reveal the whole gamut of Self-Realisation. It may please be noted

that the so-called aKanDAkAravRutti is also being illumined by

aKaMDacaitanya which is one's own true svarUpa.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy