cerebral_rose at MAC.COM
Thu Jun 13 08:04:50 CDT 2002
It seems, and let me know if I'm mistaken, that some of the arguments over
the relationship between bhakti and jnana, have to do with the understanding
of the words.
For example, jnana, is often defined as more of an intellectual knowledge.
I see the use of the word as describing a path of intellectual knowledge,
which is not what it seems Shanskara is saying.
The Knowledge that is Bhakti, is far beyond just intellectual understanding.
I studied the Bhagavad-gita last spring with a professor of Sanskrit. One
of our biggest disagreements came from this very problem. He saw bhakti as
distinct and separate from jnana. He also saw bhakti as the preferred
method or path in the gita. But his translation of jnana was that of purely
intellectual knowledge. I explained to him that during Knowledge of
Ulitimate Reality, they are One. That jnana happens no matter what. But I
used jnana as "understanding of Reality."
Any comments? And thanks for the reference.
> I sugggest that you should check VevekachuuDamani text
> - there are two (1 andhalf) slokas - in that Shankara
> defines Bhakti as pure JNaana only. I provided the
> slokas two weeks ago.
> Hari OM!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list