[Advaita-l] Two types of Atma jnAni-s &their approachtoreallife situation

Vidyasankar Sundaresan svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 1 16:41:51 CDT 2010

> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> Bhaskar, there is a reason I wanted to go back to fundamentals. All that
> you say would make sense only if you define the word jnAnI and the term
> samyag-darSana in particular ways. 
> bhaskar :
> I do agree & accept that samyag darshi or absolute brahma jnAni in my book 
> is not the same as you explained. In my books the absolute brahma jnAni 
> does not get kAma krOdha & controls it subsequently. So, I request you to 
> give me a para or two definitions about samyag jnAni in your own words in 
> a simple language prabhuji...In the recent post you had given the example 
> of "harati viveka-prajnAM" from geeta bhAshya...Here Kindly clarify harati 
> viveka prajnAM should be understood jnAna pravrutti daurbalya or jnAna 
> daurbalya...coz. you are directly talking about viveka-prajnA..not 
> pravrutti of that viveka.
> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> All that others say make sense only because others define the word jnAnI 
> and samyag-darSana in a more
> flexible way than you do. It is because of the more flexible definition 
> that others can talk about -vara, -varIya and -varishTha among jnAnI-s. 
> bhaskar :
> again, I have heard umpteen times about these grades in jnAni-s...but 
> still not clear whether all these categories are of the custodians of SAME 
> 'muktAvasTha' absolute jnAna?? In other words, whether they are all SAME 
> absolute brahma jnAni-s without any hierarchical gradations in the status 
> of their jnAna?? Without pointing me to the prakaraNa grantha-s, could 
> you please clarify me in your own language prabhuji. 



First question - is viveka-prajnA = samyag-jnAna?

Second question - Over the last couple of years, I have already written
thousands of lines about how the term samyag-darSana has been used
in a more flexible manner than how you construe it and that it does not
have to be restrictive in its application. What else can I add to make it


Third question - is your inability to be clear on the grades of jnAnI-s 
something that can be clarified? Doesn't it stem from the same basics
that I asked you to revisit and clarify to the rest of the list?

Fourth question - which prakaraNa grantha have I quoted in support of 
any of my positions at any time on this list? Give me an instance from all
the years both of us have been members of this list. You only have about
fifteen years worth of postings to find one example.


The problem is this - nobody in the advaita tradition denies the absolute
brahmajnAnI of your definition. Rather, we say that the absolute brahma-
jnAnI of your definition is the brahmavid-varishTha and we allow for other
kinds of brahmajnAnI-s. For you, these gradations are impossible, so all
the others are ajnAnI-s. A wonderful assessment indeed, when there is
direct usage of the term -varishTha in the Sruti and there is more than
enough evidence from Sankara bhagavatpAda's bhAshya-s (NOTE, NOT
prakaraNa grantha-s, to satisfy your "academic" attitude towards the
authenticity of textual attribution) that your restrictive definition is not
true to his works. In either case, no amount of clarification will help
without your getting back to basics.


Since you ask me for an explanation in my own words, but project your
views as if they arise from Sankara's own words, I will ask more questions
in my own words. You already know my answers to these questions, so
take those as the clarifications that you requested. As far as I am
concerned, these questions are rhetorical in nature. But I would like you
to give me your answers in your own words, without sUtrabhAshya
references or what Sri Saccidananandendra Sarasvati Swami says about
those references.


I draw your attention again to bRhadAraNyaka bhAshya 1.4.7 - What
is samyag-jnAna-prApti? What is jnAna-pravRtti? Why does Sankara talk
of jnAna-pravRtti AFTER the prApti of samyag-jnAna? Whose is pravRtti
- the one who has samyag-jnAna or the one who is still desirous of
obtaining samyag-jnAna? If samyag-jnAna is nothing short of muktAvasthA
brahma-jnAna, then everyone who has samyag-jnAna is the same as
everyone else who has samyag-jnAna. In that case, how can jnAna-
pravRtti be weak or strong? Why does Sankara bhagavatpAda say that
it can be weak? If it is the case that in samyag-jnAna there is absolutely
no more mind, so much so that anyone who has a mind can only be an
ajnAnI, why does Sankara bhagavatpAda say, "avaSyaM bhAvinI-pravRttir
vA^N-manaH-kAyAnAM"? Whose is this vAk? Whose is the manas and
whose is the kAya? The one with samyag-jnAna or another? 

You came up with a convoluted explanation of brahmavid-varishTha with
reference to saguNa-brahma-jnAnI vis-a-vis nirguNa-brahma-jnAnI. What 
explanation can you give to Sankara bhagavatpAda's own words in the
passage I quote above? Leave aside the discussion about vidhi-s and citta
vRtti nirodha in that passage. There is still a lot of information there and a
lot of thought that needs to be put into it, about samyag-jnAna, samyag-
jnAnI, jnAna-pravRtti and its daurbalya, the vAk, manas and kAya of the
one who has this jnAna-pravRtti etc. Will you save your supposedly logically
unassailable definition of samyag-jnAna or will you pay attention to what
Sankara bhagavatpAda is teaching here?

> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> You cannot apply your definition of jnAnI to what the others say, without
> examining your basics and their basics more thoroughly. Otherwise, all
> everybody can do is to talk in circles without improving any 
> understanding.
> bhaskar : 
> you are right prabhuji, to improve my understanding on the basics I need 
> to get the clarifications on the doubts posed by me above. So that while 
> sharing my understanding I can refer to the popular stand on these issues.

As I said before, you have the entire history of my postings to this list to get
ample amount of clarification on my stand. I don't need to add anything else,
because as far as I am concerned, your request for clarification is like asking
me what is the relationship between Rama and Sita after listening to the whole
of the Ramayana. If at the end of reading through my previous posts, you can
still claim that what I, along with others, am saying about jnAnI-s is only a
"popular" stand, hats off to you! 

> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> The heavy sarcasm in which you couch your responses, surrounded by a
> lot of respectful prabhuji-s doesn't help either. Beyond a point, it does
> sound quite false. I am saying this to you frankly and openly, only 
> because
> you have given me a title of one of your cyber-gurus. 
> bhaskar :
> It is quite unfortunate that you have seen sarcasm only in my mails...But 
> IMO, it is not at all one way traffic..Anyway, I always respect & accept 
> your observation prabhuji.

Please point to what sentence of mine gives you the impression that I see 
sarcasm ONLY in your mails. That I see sarcasm in your posts does not mean
that it is there ONLY in your posts. There is a world of obvious difference there.

For example, in one of yesterday's posts on another thread, you said, "You
can expect more scholarly & deplomatic reply from Sri Subbu prabhuji or Sri
Vidya prabhuji...In the meantime you can cherish my not so worthy reply :-))"

In another post a month or two ago, you wrote that I say certain things only
because I am "sampradAya-baddha".

If these are not instances of sarcasm, please let the list know what they are.
In any case, I would request you to please stop calling me one of your guruji-s.
It is a title that you thrust upon me in the first place and I am not one to hold
you to it, but increasingly, the content and tone of your responses on the list
are not what one gives to a guruji. Spare me the guruji title and we can have
a more honest disagreement and a more open discussion. I won't ask you to 
drop the prabhuji title, because you habitually hand it out to everybody.



Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list