[Advaita-l] Seeking clarification on Bri. Up. Mantra 1-4-2
H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Thu Apr 24 09:27:04 CDT 2014
Sri Jaladhar Vyasji wrote << Well, what Sanskrit word would you use to
translate "Realization"? It seems to me jnana covers it well. You are of
course perfectly right that the "knowledge" or "realization" of Nirguna
Brahman is objectless. >> My point was not on the word " jnana " or
"realization ". Both are fine. My emphasis is on " jnana or realization "
of what. It is not about being " objectless ". It is about being " subject
only ". The bhashya for 1.4.2 , inter alia , states << Because this being
with a human form, possessing a body and organs , was afraid owing to a
false notion about his extinction >> ( Sri Madhavanada's translation ) .
Viraj's fear was of transmigration or rebirth. The bhashya goes on to say
<< He , Viraj , thought , " If there is nothing else but me, no other
entity but myself to be my rival , what I am afraid of , for there is
nothing to kill me? ". From that right knowledge of the Self alone his,
Viraj's , fear was clean gone.>> . The right knowledge mentioned is that of
ekatva . Otherwise being alone also he should not have been afraid, because
in normal understanding ( subject to avidya ) there was no second object
to be afraid of . Perhaps we can also recall here the difference between "
na bhibheti kadachaneti " and " na bhibheti kutashchaneti " appearing in
<< He comes to this whatever-it-is :) naturally when there is no one or
nothing else to teach it because it is the inescapable conclusion when all
dualities have been negated. >> . Is it being suggested that knowledge
arose naturally SINCE there was no one or nothing else to teach it? Viraj
did not have knowwledge earlier because he had not negated duality between
himself and Brahman. He did so now, as per the shruti/bhashya , on further
reflection on the paroksha knowledge he already had.
Hence my earlier statement <<
Do these statements not suggest that Brahman is knowable as an object ? >>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, H S Chandramouli wrote:
> Do these statements not suggest that Brahman is knowable as an object ?
> Could be but I don't see why it _must_ suggest that.
> Perhaps the ultimate knowledge should be stated as << Realization that I
>> am Brahman >> Ayamatma brahma , jiva-brahma ekatva.
> Well, what Sanskrit word would you use to translate "Realization"? It
> seems to me jnana covers it well. You are of course perfectly right that
> the "knowledge" or "realization" of Nirguna Brahman is objectless. That is
> why I think shruti emphasizes the aloneness of Viraj. He comes to this
> whatever-it-is :) naturally when there is no one or nothing else to teach
> it because it is the inescapable conclusion when all dualities have been
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list