[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Wed Jul 6 03:29:48 EDT 2022

Namaste Venkatji,

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 10:53 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> What you have said below is a very interesting distinction which I must
> confess that I was not aware of. Which texts make such a distinction?

My understanding is from what Acharyas have taught me multiple times w.r.t.
viparItabhAvanA... in fact, most AVG teachers translate or explain
viparItabhAvanA as a habitual error, post jnAna. And also that nididhyAsana
without jnAna is nirguNa dhyAna or japa; I don't have a particular source
to quote, but it may also be there in Sw. Paramarthananadaji's Panchadashi
I edited. I'm tied up with something, but if I am able to find a source, I
shall share. The meaning is further also understood based on analysis of
vyutpatti of the word itself and in sync with lakshaNa of nididhyAsana in
the sampradAya quoted earlier to be after shravaNa and manana

I have seen the term viparItabhAvanA also used for the jnAna pratibandhaka
> that prevents the rise of jnAna, and which requires nididhyAsana for its
> removal. For reference, please see the Sanskrit Vichara Sagara, topic 27 on
> page 18, under the heading निदिध्यासनस्योपयोगः.

Thanks for quoting one of my most favourite works. In the quoted
Vicharasagara topic, upayoga of nididhyAsana in removing pratibandhaka that
prevents the rise of jnAna is clubbed together with the other two, shravaNa
and manana there, so I don't see my understanding contrary to it. Logically
too, since the earlier para shows manana takes away bhedasatyatvabuddhi, I
find it difficult to see the viparItabhAvanA there means one of an ajnAnI
with a satyatvabuddhi in bheda. Pls also refer to the para on page xxxii
that talks of nididhyAsana for more details and a nice differentiation
between svaprayatna and vinA svaprayatna for nididhyAsana and samAdhi or

Finally, as I replied earlier, these are minor differences in my mind. To
me, Vivarana and Bhamati are both valid, despite many technical
differences. SMN, all three are needed in both views for sAkShAtkAra is
sufficient samanvaya for me. I don't see it contradict their
antarangasAdhanatva as given by the Shruti in either case. For the
differences, I suggest even any one who asks me to stick to whatever helps
them stay the course. I too follow the same.

--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