[Advaita-l] Re: gUDArthadIpikA 4.35 question on a figure of speech

[Murali Karamchedu]

>... If one has
>already obtained this knowledge, the question of a further delusion does 
>not
>even arise, yet the BG verse makes it a point to say this explicitly.
>"jnAna" is equivalent to "na moha" and the past participle "jnAtvA" is
>correspondingly equivalent to "na mohaM yAsyasi." Hence, MS says, tasyaiva
>dhAtoH sAmAnya vivakshayA = with a view to point out the equivalence of the
>same .
>
>How so? The simile given here is
>
>odanapAkam pacati itivat = just as we say, "he/she cooks odana (cooked
>rice)."
>
>This simile rests crucially on the fact that odana means cooked rice. If we
>were to translate literally, we would have to write, "he/she cooks cooked
>rice" - this is the intended redundancy that MS is pointing to here.

Not if we use 'cooked rice' as the goal being pursued by cooking; as you 
articulate later.

...
>Yet, we apply the word food, by
>extension, to the raw material that needs to be cooked and we use and
>understand the expression "cooks food," involving both the process 
>(cooking)
>and the result (food).
>
>Similarly, with the jnAna referred to in this case - in MS's 
>interpretation,
>the BG encompasses both the process of acquiring the jnAna and the result 
>of
>being established in the jnAna (a state which is equivalent to that of not
>falling into delusion any more).

If we pursue the second part of  interpretation, where food/odanapAkaM/na 
mohaM reflect the result, then is it really a redundancy that is being 
brought out? Seems more like the imminence or inevitable concomittance of 
the result.

-Murali Manohar