[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Wed Jul 6 04:46:39 EDT 2022
In the 7th chapter of the Panchadashi, this is stated about nididhyasana,
the subject matter of the same and the need for it:
बहुजन्मदृढाभ्यासाद्देहादिष्वात्मधीः क्षणात् ।
पुनः पुनरुदेत्येवं जगत्सत्यत्वधीरपि ॥ १०२॥
विपरीता भावनेयमैकाग्र्यात्सा निवर्तते ।
तत्त्वोपदेशात् प्रागेव भवत्येतदुपासनात् ॥ १०३॥
उपास्तयोऽत एवत्र ब्रह्मशास्त्रेऽपि चिन्तिताः ।
प्रागनभ्यासिनः पश्चाद्ब्रह्माभ्यासेन तद्भवेत् ॥ १०४॥
तच्चिन्तनं तत्कथनमन्योन्यं तत्प्रबोधनम् ।
एतदेकपरत्वं च ब्रह्माभ्यासं विदुर्बुधाः ॥ १०५॥
तमेव धीरो विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत ब्राह्मणः ।
नानुध्यायाद्बहुञ्छब्दान्वाचो विग्लापनं हि तत् ॥ १०६॥
अनन्याश्चिन्तयन्तो मां ये जनाः पर्युपासते ।
तेषां नित्याभियुक्तानां योगक्षेमं वहाम्यहम् ॥ १०७॥
इति श्रुतिस्मृती नित्यमात्मन्येकाग्रतां धियः ।
विधत्तो विपरीताया भावनायाः क्षयाय हि ॥ १०८॥
यद् यथा वर्तते तस्य तत्त्वं हित्वान्यथात्वधीः ।
विपरीत भावना स्यात्पित्रादावरिधीर्यथा ॥ १०९॥
*आत्मा देहादिभिन्नोऽयं मिथ्या चेदं जगत् तयोः ।
देहाद्यात्मत्वसत्यत्वधीर्विपर्ययभावना ॥ ११०॥*
तत्त्वभावनया नश्येत्सातो देहातिरिक्तताम् ।
आत्मनो भावयेत्तद्वन्मिथ्यात्वं जगतोऽनिशम् ॥ १११॥
nididhyasana ends in: चिदेवात्मा जगन्मिथ्येत्यत्र पर्यवसानतः ।
नेतिहासादिभिर्भवेत् ॥ १२२॥
He states viparitabhavana constitutes 1. dehaadi aatmatva bhrama and 2.
jagat satyatva bhrama. *देहाद्यात्मत्वसत्यत्वधीर्विपर्ययभावना ॥ ११०॥*
The unique nature of the Panchadashi cited above is: the content of
nididhyasana is two fold, essentially: 1. practicing the 'I am distinct
from the pancha koshas' and 2. the world is mithya. The two have to be
practiced mandatorily as the cause of samsara is 1. taking the body-mind
complex to be the Atman and 2. taking the world to be satyam.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:48 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Praveen ji
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2022, 08:29 Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > 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
> > I edited. I'm tied up with something, but if I am able to find a source,
> > 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
> > vichikitsa-artha.
> Ok thank you.
> > I have seen the term viparItabhAvanA also used for the jnAna
> >> 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
> > prevents the rise of jnAna is clubbed together with the other two,
> > and manana there, so I don't see my understanding contrary to it.
> > too, since the earlier para shows manana takes away bhedasatyatvabuddhi,
> > 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
> > sAkShAtkAra.
> Thanks for pointing this out.
> The only area where there appear to be differences between our respective
> understanding is in whether the obstacle that prevents the rise of jnAna
> and that which is removed by nididhyAsana can be *termed* as
> viparItabhAvanA or not. You had said that they cannot and had cited valid
> reasons for the same.
> I merely showed an example from an authentic (prAmANika) work within the
> advaita tradition where such a pratibandhaka is called viparItabhAvanA.
> The text says - "देहादिदृश्यप्रपंचः सर्वोऽपि सत्यः, जीवब्रह्मणोर्भेदश्च
> सत्यः - इति धीर्विपरीतभावना । सा च निदिध्यासनेन निवार्यते । एवं
> श्रवणादित्रयं ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकीभूतासंभावनाविपरीतभावनानिवृत्तिद्वारा परम्परया
> अपरोक्षज्ञानसाधनं भवति ।"
> Here, the habitual notions of the reality of the world, the difference
> between jIva and brahma being real etc are specifically termed
> viparItabhAvanA, a pratibandhaka for the rise of jnAna, removed by
> nididhyAsana, which, as part of a triad along with shravaNa and manana,
> serves as the remote cause for the rise of brahmasAkshAtkAra.
> The clubbing of nididhyAsana along with shravaNa and manana goes only so
> far as being a part of the triad that comprise the remote cause for
> brahmajnAna. I don't think it extends as far as saying that shravaNa or
> manana remove this said viparItabhAvana - for the text clearly says that is
> nididhyAsana that does so.
> I don't think you are denying the possibility of nididhyAsana itself prior
> to jnAna - for such a contention is refuted by the very paragraph in xxxii
> you referred to "साक्षात्कारपर्यन्तमिदं निदिध्यासनमभ्यसनीयम्".
> This view was suggested by Sri Anand ji in his summary of the discussion,
> but I had said that that was not per my understanding. I don't think you
> had disagreed with me there.
> > 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
> > them stay the course. I too follow the same.
> I agree. However as we are engaging in shAstrArtha, I am seeking to amplify
> the minor differences so that we can get a deeper understanding of the
> different views on the topic.
> Kind regards,
> > gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> > --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] */
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list