[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Mon Jul 4 07:10:58 EDT 2022
Namaste Praveen Ji,
I am sorry to say this. Please dont mistake me for raising this point.
In response to my previous post, at the end, you mentioned that the thread
has become too noisy and hence you are quitting. Since it was in response
to my post, I presume you were referring to issues raised by me as "noisy"
and hence not worthy of continuing the discussion with me. As such I did
not address my next post to you directly. But now you have addressed your
post to me directly also, in addition to the Forum and Anand Ji. I
certainly would not like to be told again that my response is noisy and
unworthy of discussion. Please makeup your mind one way or the other before
I proceed further. Do you really want me to respond?
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 4:23 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> Namaste Chandramouliji,
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 1:52 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> Translation (Swami Gambhirananda) << How can the term “steadfastness in
>> Brahman””, used in its derivative sense and possible of application to
>> people in all the stages of life, be confined to the monk alone? >>
>> Explanation :: Sri Mani Dravid Shastri Ji, while explaining this,
>> that the Purvapakshi understands the derivation of ब्रह्मसंस्थ
>> (brahmasaMstha) ** ब्रह्मणि स॑स्था यस्य (brahmaNi sa\'sthA yasya) ** as
>> ** one
>> who has BrahmajnAna and is established in Brahman **.
>> The response of the Sidhanti is as follows
>> << ब्रह्मसंस्थ इति हि ब्रह्मणि परिसमाप्तिः अनन्यव्यापारतारूपं
>> तन्निष्ठत्वमभिधीयते >>
>> << brahmasaMstha iti hi brahmaNi parisamAptiH ananyavyApAratArUpaM
>> tanniShThatvamabhidhIyate >>
>> Translation << The term “steadfastness in Brahman”” implies a
>> in Brahman, a total absorption in Brahman, which is the same as the
>> of any other preoccupation except that >>.
> Since you have quoted Brahmashri Maniji, I listened to the talk you linked
> and although I don't understand Tamil, I understood most of it with
> Sanskrit and Kannada.
> Here, I got a different meaning which actually establishes what I was
> saying, also established by Sw. Gambhiranandaji's translation you quote.
> Explanation :: Sri Mani Dravid Shastri Ji observes that the Sidhanti
>> presents the derivation in the current context differently. In the term
>> संस्थ (saMstha), when the dhAtu स्थ (stha) is preceded by the upasarga
>> it conveys the meaning of समाप्तिः (samAptiH) , (end/culmination).
>> ** ब्रह्मणि स॑स्था यस्य (brahmaNi sa\'sthA yasya)** is to be understood
>> as ** One whose duties end/culminate in attaining BrahmajnAnam **
> Now, if we take your English translation as appropriate, it brings quite a
> few questions and obervations as a corollary. Pls allow me to ask since I
> said didn't have anything new to add earlier, with all due respect:
> 1) It would mean that the siddhAnti is saying that brahmaniShTha = sAdhaka
> can be only a sannyAsI, and not any other ashramI because the latter has
> other duties that cannot culminate in brahmajnAna!
> 2) It would also mean that brahmajnAnI cannot be other ashramI, because
> without being a sAdhaka, one cannot be a jnAnI. Or worse yet, one would be
> a jnAnI without ever being a sAdhaka!
> 3) And all this is in a pATha taught by a non-sannyAsI Brahmashri Maniji
> to many non-sannyAsI non-sAdhakas! This 3rd point is only since I couldn't
> help see the contradiction. Kindly pardon me being the elder and more
> mature, if it seems harsh.
> Either the contradictions are glaring or I am completely missing the point
> in 3.4.20 vidhirvA dhAraNavat which I see as discussing a sannyAsa vidhi.
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list