[Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, gradations in Atma jnAna, superior-inferior jnAna nishTa etc. etc. PART-I
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Mon Mar 12 08:40:56 CDT 2007
praNAms Sri Karthik prabhuji
First of all kindly pardon me for the overdue reply...
Infact I was expecting a rather constructive criticism from your goodself
for my mails...but I am sorry to mention that you have just ended up in
trifle personal attacks on me..most of the members have already noticed it
& responded to it also......Anyway, I respect your remarks/attacks on me
since you are my fellow advaitin. I take your words as friendly comments
on me...prabhuji, you do agree with me that we are not discussing here for
any personal benefit. So, let us be more objective in our evaluation of
Message from S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com>@lists.advaita-vedanta.org
received on 02/28/2007 11:01 PM
> I shall humbly try to
> issues regarding (a) gradations in Atma jnAna,
There is no such thing as gradations in Atma-jnana. The other person
who has repeatedly pointed this out in this list is Annapureddy
Siddartha Reddy, who has specified that it is GRADATIONS IN THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF ATMAJNANA.
Then what do you mean by *firm * & *infirm* AtmajnAna?? does this division
not pertains to Atma jnAna?? if not then what else?? dont you tie your
divisions in AtmajnAna to a Atma jnAni & saying one is jnAni mAtra &
another one is paripUrNa jnAni?? Are you not differentiating between
AtmajnAna & AtmajnAni?? An absolute AtmajnAni is jnAna itself there is no
duality in him like jnAtru & jnAna...Hence shruti's declaration *satyaM,
jnAnaM ananthaM brahma..If at all there is gradations in *establishment* of
AtmajnAna that jnAna belongs to saguNOpAsaka-s with different level of
capabilities.. it is not aparOksha jnAna..it_is_only parOksha jnAna in
krama mukti..... see shankara bhAshya quoted earlier.
Show me where Vidyaranya speaks of gradations in Atma-jnana! You are
obviously raising a straw-man argument here.
see your own words below which you have quoted in one of your earlier
mails...interestingly the word *establishment* which you are introducing
now is conspicuous by its absence in the below:
// quote //
Two kinds of BrahmaGYAna: sthitaM and asthitaM
The JMV however claims that there is a difference between steady and
unsteady BrahmaGYAna :
bhagavadgItAsu dvitIyAdhyAye sthitapraGYaH paThayate -
arjuna uvAcha -
'sthitapraGYasya kaa bhaashhaa samaadhisthasya keshava .
sthitadhiiH kiM prabhaashheta kimaasiita vrajeta kim.h .. 2.54 ..
praGYA tattvaGYAnam.h . tad.h dvividhaM sthitaM asthitaM cha iti .
"In the second chapter of the Bhagavad GItA the sthitapraGYa
has been mentioned thus:
Arjuna said: 'What is the definition of him who is unsteady
in the supreme knowledge and in profound meditation? O Keshava,
how does he, whose knowledge is steady, speak, sit and walk?'
praGYA means knowledge of Truth (tattvaGYAna) .
That is of two kinds - steady (sthitaM) and unsteady (asthitaM)."
// unquote //
prabhuji, what do you mean by this heading : Two Kinds of brahmajnAna* ??
& subsequent explanation?? where did you mention *establishment* here??
H.H. Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal of Sringeri has himself
admitted to gradations in the establishment of Atmajnana.
I've already requested you to not to bring any individual names &
comparisons in our discussion...can it be possible for you to adhere to
this request prabhuji??
I dont know in which context mahAsannidhAnaM said this. If possible
quote the complete discussion prabhuji...From there we can take it on..
Therefore, by arguing against it, SSS is aligning himself directly
My parama guruji's sole aim was to propagate shuddha shankara prakriya as
said by bhagavadpAda himself in his prasanna gaMbhIra prasthAna trayi
bhAshya..*alignment* was not his intention...
I must point out that this list firmly stands by the Sringeri Math
when it comes to understanding Sankara's doctrine.
Since Sri Vidyashankara prabhuji & Sri Jaldhar prabhuji, the moderators
of this list, have already clarified about this list's stand/policy...I
dont have to comment on your above statement.
> But interestingly if we see shankara bhAshya, the term jnAna has
> contextually interpreted differently. whoever studies shankara
> bhAshya in
> detail will definitely come to know *jnAna* cannot be always refers
> thebrahmajnAna alone in absolute sense but sometime it may refer
> shAstra pAnditya (mere intellectual scriptural knowledge) sometimes
> it is
> upAsana associated with karma etc. etc. For example, in
> (introduction to 1-3-1) bhAshya shankara says *karmaNAM jnAna
> paragatiH uktA* Here it is quite clear that jnAna is used to denote
> *upAsana*, it cannot be interpreted as shAstra vAkya jnAna which
> recommends for *paramArtha jnAna*...Likewise instead of jnAna
> shankara uses
> the term *vidyA* also to give the meaning of *upAsanA*. In
> IshavAsyOpanishat 9th maNtra shankara says * vidyAyAMEva dEvatA
> jnAnE yEva
> ratAH..Here also it is evident that jnAna/vidyA has been
> interpreted as
> *upAsaNa* which is closely associated to karma and purusha taNtra
> Elsewhere the same term jnAna has been interpreted as *shAstra
> (mere intellectual scriptural knowledge).
> Shankara says in gIta
> (Chapter VI verse 46) *jnAnam atra shAstrArtha pAndityaM* that
> (vidyA/jnAna) which is gained through regular study of scriptures.
> according to shankara, jnAna is contextually *mere shAstra
> pAnditya* and
> nothing else...Point to be noted here is *jnAna* that is used in
> context can noway be connected to that of Atma jnAna or paramArtha
Karthik prabhuji :
prabhuji, fire me in simple English. am a Kannada medium student.I am
not able to understand your above comment:-))
"Panditya" itself is taken as referring to Paramartha Atmajnana!
I was talking above the jnAnaM & its contextual usage...& said that jnAna
is sometime interpreted as *shAstra pAnditya* Under which circumstances
you are making above statement?? pls. clarify
Sankara is saying that the Paramartha Atmajnana is nothing but the
Self that is revealed after ignorance is removed by
Sravana-Manana-Nididhyasana on scriptural statements!
yes, no disagreement here...
> However, we can also say, nishTa to a person who is
> this path obediently with all dedication...So, the mumukshu who is
> effort to achieve this apex knowledge can also be called as
Karthik prabhuji :
It seems as if you're trying to say that "Jnana Nishtha" can refer to
the Mumukshu (as you've indicated in your summary below)!
WOW -- talk about twisting theory by debasing terminology!
I am really surprised to see your comment...it is too naive prabhuji. I
hope you have undergone *bhAshya shAnti* I dont have any right to ask you
this question..but kindly clarify have you been studying bhAshya on your
own?? no pun intented here...with a genuine interest I am asking you
this question. I dont want to quote shankara bhAshya here for my above
statements but request you to search for yourself where shankara talks
about jnAna nishTa, tapOnishAta & karma nishTa & karaNArTha jnAna nishTa,
bhAvarTha jnAna nishTa. It is quite obvious that there is clear
difference between * nistishTati anayA iti nishTA* and *nishTIyatE iti
nishTA*...if you have any doubt on this..go back to shankara's sUtra
bhAshya & serach out what shankara says on these things...and THEN ONLY
you can accuse me of *debasing terminology* & twisting theory...
> nishTa is explained as karaNArthA nishTa by shankara...For example
> in gIta
> bhAshya on samaH sarvEshu bhutEshu, shankara does not propagate the
> absolute Atma jnAna, he simply says here the mumukshu feels here
> that the
> same pain & pleasure is applicable to one and all...but here in
> sarvEshu bhutEshu is not about yEkamEva advitIya jnAna of jnAni
> that jnAna
> shankara says will be explained subsequently..shankara clarifies
> here " na
> AtmadarshanaM iha tasya vakshyAmANatvAt" ....Interested reader may
> refer to shankara bhAshya on 18th chapter 50 verse to 55th
> verse..it will
> be interesting reading to know the difference between two types of
> nishTa-s....For the second type of nishTa-s (mumukshu-s) shankara
> a process of realization. He says in gIta bhAshya (18-55)
> *shAstrAchAryOpadEshEna jnAnOtpatti paripAka hEtuM sahakAri kAraNaM
> buddhivishuddhatvaadi cha apEkshya janitasya kshEtrajna paramAtma
> jnAnasya, katrutvAdikAraka bhEdabuddhi nibaNdhana sarva karma
> sahitasya, * sva Atma anubhava nishchaya rUpENa yat avasThAnaM sA
> jnAnanishTA* ityuchyatE....it is really a big process is it not??
> interestingly here *kshEtrajna paramAtma yEkatva jnAna* which is
> to be the ultimate nondual knowledge has come among one of many
> prescribed by shankara..it is quite clear that after this *yEkatva
> shankara recommends bedha buddhi nibhaNdhna, sarva karma saNyAsa &
> parA jnAnanishTA. Here the word *jnAnOtpatti* is very important in
> context we should not interpret this vyutpatti of jnAna as
> paramArtha vijnAna.
And why not, may I ask?
why we should not do that I've explained above with shankara's
commentary..if you have anything in contrary..kindly bring it on with
appropriate support from bhAshya.
There is no problem in assuming that Sankara only means Paramartha
Atmajnana by the term "jnanotpatti" throughout his Prasthanatrayi.
Yes, we can assume whatever we want...question is how much support we get
from bhAshya itself for our assumptions :-)) bhAshya vAkya is
*shAstrAchAryOpadEshEna jnAnOtpatti paripAkahEtum* etc....if you have
your own assumtion to these clear cut bhAshya vAkya-s kindly share with
> What is said here is sAdhaka should listen
> to the shAstra & AchAryOpadEsha, do *manana* and nidhidhyAsana to
> himself in *parA jnAnanishTa*..Hence, here jnAnOtpatti is
> preliminary stage
> which should be gained through Agama & gurUpadEsha which comes
> under the
> *shravaNa* category of sAdhana..
Karthik prabhuji :
Again -- where is the evidence for your tall claim? It appears to me
that you are simply *stating* your hypothetical theory rather than
go back to shankara, study gIta bhAshya 18th chapter..you will come to
know why it is not a tall claim but it is a fact in shankara siddhAnta.
> Sofar we have seen :
> (a) jnAna & its origination have been interpreted contextually with
> different meaning.
> (b) There is a difference between jnAna & vijnAna when they are
> used in a
> same sentence.
> (c) there are two types of nishTa-s, one is mumukshu in sAdhana
> path &
> another one is jnAni.
Not at all. "Jnana Nishtha" always only refers to the Jnani.
prabhuji kindly dont talk in the air...had you know the difference
between jnAna nishTa & jnAna nishTAH in shankara bhAshya..you would not
have made this blind comment...
> (d) Mere jnAna can be shAstra pAnditya (intellectual knowledge of
> scriptures) which is devoid of svanubhavAtmaka vijnAna.
This has not been proven. As I mentioned above, "Panditya" itself can
refer to Paramartha Atmajnana.
Chapter VI verse 46...shankara says *jnAnam atra shAstrArtha
pAndityaM*..you come out your interpretation to this bhAshya vAkya...
> With the backdrop of all these points, in the Part-II, let us see
> if there
> is any gradations in this parAjnAna nishTa or jnAni who has the
> knowledge/realization of brahman.
Which is redundant, because there are too many potholes in your first
Let those potholes be fillied with amruta sadrusha bhAshya vAkya-s of
shankara bhagavadpAda...otherwise these discussions would be yours Vs
mine...prabhuji, let us not indulge in *vAdAvaLi-like* arguments
here...Let us have a common premise for our discussion...that premise is
none other than : bhagavadpAda's prasthAna trayi bhAshya.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list