Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Anil

Pages: [1]
Discussions on Vedanta / Re: On Vaasanaas
« on: March 22, 2015, 12:47:23 AM »
> Taking sanyaasa etc., are helpful in providing an environment conducive for nidhidhyaasana
> but they are not necessary. What is necessary is giving up the mental attachments to the
> things and beings. Hence the above statement of the scriptures.

I found this beautiful reference to the very same idea on sannyAsa that Sadaji has brought out, in the Kaivalya Upanishad (commentary by Swami Chinmayananda):

Mantra 5 uses the word atyASrama-sthah, which Swami Chinmaya translates as "in a mental attitude of sannyaasa". The mantra exhorts the seeker to meditate on Brahman with a mental attitude of SannyAsa, among other factors.

Mantra Phala-prApti 1 says:  "An atyASrami should always repeat the Kaivalya Upanisad, and at least once a day."

Swamiji in his commentary on this mantra of the Kaivalya Upanishad explicitly says that sannyAsa is only a mental attitude and not an actual change of garb.

Of course, physical sannyAsa can help enormously, but is clearly not a sufficient condition for sannyAsa based on the above mantra of the Sruti.

Critical analysis of vedAnta paribhAShA / UK site for Vedanta Paribhasa
« on: August 14, 2014, 08:22:44 PM »
The entire Vedanta Paribhasa series can also be found at

Sadaji, praNAms!

For the very first time, I have understood, due to this post, the relevance of the two different vAdas, pratibimba-vAda (nature of jiiva as a reflection) and avaccheda-vAda (nature of jiiva as a delimited entity such as pot-space).  Whereas pratibimba-vAda should be used to understand the true signficance of tvam-pada, avaccheda-vAda should be used to understand the import of the complete statement 'tat tvam asi'.

Thank you for bringing this out so clearly in the post!!!

I have heard some people say: 'You can use any vAda you find useful to arrive at self-knowledge'. But my gut feeling has always been that every vAda is unique and has its own special applicability in contributing to self-knowledge. Therefore, an individual cannot just pick and choose any vAda that appeals to the individual, but must strive to see how a vAda is applicable in the overall scheme of gaining self-knowledge. This post clearly shows that both the above two vAdas are necessary to appreciate the process of self-knowledge.

While the same principle that all vAdas are necessary may not hold for other vAdas such as the different theories regarding creation, it certainly seems to hold in the case of vAdas related to the nature of the jiiva, namely pratibimba-vAda and avaccheda-vAda.

Hari Om!

Sadaji, praNAms.

> This reflecting consciousness in or by the mind is called chidaabhaasa. It is essentially ego or ahankaara

The two, ego and chidaabhaasa, are essentially the same, as stated in the above sentence.

In my understanding, the ego is essentially a vRittii, or modification of the mind.  Whereas chidaabhaasa is the consciousness reflected in the mind. So the two are separate?

We have three possibilities:

a) the ego is a vRittii of the mind.

b) the ego is the chidaabhaasa.

c) the ego is the interconnection between the inert mind and the sentient consciousness reflected in the mind.

The third alternative appears to be the meaning of the statement "It is essentially ego or ahankaara". 

Is this a correct understanding of the term ego?


I think the scientific way in which the perceptuality condition has been brought out in this post is marvellous! 

It will be an eye-opener, especially for scientists who read this post. And even for those who do not believe in Vedanta, or consequently in the sat, chit, ananta svarUpam of Brahman. The way Vedanta ties together the two aspects of chit (consciousness in the perceiver) and sat (existence in the object) for perception to occur is immeasurably profound.


Tat Tvam Asi / Re: III: The subject 'I' Acharya Sadanandaji
« on: April 30, 2014, 08:32:45 AM »
Sadaji, I found the use of the English pronouns 'this' and 'that' for the Sanskrit word 'tat' a tad confusing. This occurs at a few spots in the post, but especially here:

The subject 'I' has to be understood from the point of the individual and the predicate 'that' has to be understood from the point of the whole universe. Thus we have two essential entities in the universe, the subject I and the object 'this', which appears to be distinctly different from the subject.

Other Discourses by Sadaji / Re: Two types of adhyAsa
« on: April 30, 2014, 08:26:25 AM »
A highly insightful distinction between the two types of adhyAsa, brilliantly tied in with the concepts of the individual's creation vs. Ishvara's creation.

This also neatly explains why, even after j~nana, the j~nani continues to interact with the world, which he now knows is Ishvara's vyAvahArika projection and has to be experienced, while remaining unperturbed by his own subjective sufferings which he now knows are a result of his own former prAtibhAsika error of considering himself a samsari and which need not now affect him.

I believe the first kind of adhyAsa, where the error is based on perceived attributes, is technically also called nirupAdhika adhyAsa, although I am not sure about this.

Pages: [1]