[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana
agnimile at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 21:14:14 EDT 2022
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022, 10:43 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> श्रवणादिद्वारेणापि *विद्या उत्पद्यमाना
> प्रतिबन्धक्षयापेक्षयैव उत्पद्यते *।
> From this it is clarified that the vidya has to 'arise', utpadyate, which
> alone signifies the mukti phala characterized by no more birth. So the
> pratibandha kshaya has to result in the 'arising' of the vidya, the
> brahma/atmaakaara vritti. .
In my view, I think this means that the vidyA that arises, does so if the
pratibandha-s have been destroyed - उत्पद्यमाना विद्या
It is this vritti that is articulated by
> Vamadeva in those words. Bhashyakara says: गर्भस्थ एव च वामदेवः *प्रतिपेदे*
> ब्रह्मभावमिति... so 'pratipatti' of brahma bhaava is required, which
> arises only upon the pratibandha kshaya. Whether this pratipatti arises
> automatically upon the garbhavasa bhoga is over or whether it is triggered
> by a smarana of the sadhana that he has completed in the earlier birth is
> not stated.
The bhAShya says that in Vamadeva's case, vidyA arose in one birth because
of the sAdhana that was done in another birth.
गर्भस्थ एव च वामदेवः प्रतिपेदे ब्रह्मभावमिति वदन्ती जन्मान्तरसञ्चितात्
साधनात् जन्मान्तरे विद्योत्पत्तिं दर्शयति ; न हि गर्भस्थस्यैव ऐहिकं
किञ्चित्साधनं सम्भाव्यते ।
I think this has a bearing on the question whether this arose simply
because of pratibandha kshaya or because of smaraNa of the mahAvAkya and
I think the discussion in this thread considered this need for
> or otherwise of the 'smarana'. I feel that the utpatti of vidya does not
> happen nirnimitta; the saakshaat nimitta, immediate cause, being the
> smarana, not volitional though, and not of 'all' that was heard, but that
> essence that was accomplished short of the vidyotpatti then, and thus,
> without the need for any upadesha afresh, the vidya, arose.
1) As the bhAShya states that vidyotpatti itself took place in the womb for
vAmadeva, the vidyA itself cannot be a smaraNAtmikA - it must be
2) All pramA has to be pramANajanyA, especially so for the pramA of the
aupaniShada-puruSha, which can only be known through the upaniShad. It
cannot arise purely by chance.
3) From this, we can infer that the brahmapramA did not arise in the
previous birth because the pratibandha blocked the pramA from arising.
4) Further, as the bhAShyakAra says, there is no exposure to the pramANa in
the womb either.
Therefore, we are left with the only option that the pramANa was recalled
in the later birth and that recalled pramANa gave rise to the jnAna. That
is, the pratibandha stopped the pramANa from giving rise to the jnAna in
the previous birth, and stored the pramANa as samskAra. When the
pratibandha was destroyed, that triggered the activation of the pramANa
samskAra, leading to the recollection of the pramANa, which gave rise to
the vidyA in vAmadeva when he was inside the womb.
If the samskAra itself led to the vidyA, such a vidyA would be
smaraNAtmikA, which would invalidate 1.
If the pratibandha kshaya itself led to vidyotpatti, then the kAryakAraNa
bhAva between pramANa and pramA would be invalidated (ie one could argue
that vidyA itself can arise as Ishvara anugraha, without the need for
sAdhana), and 2 would be invalidated.
The smaraNatva here, I think, is limited to this samskArajanyatva of the
pramANa, and need not extend to the recollection of how the sAdhana was
conducted etc in the previous birth, - it can be limited to, as you say,
the essence of the akhaNDa-vAkyArtha.
I think this is
> reasonable given the vyavadhana, time gap, between the SMN completed in the
> earlier birth and the point of arising, pratipatti, of the brahmakara
> In a different context, of vidyotpatti sans upadesha, in the case of
> Prajapati, the bhashya says in the Brihadaranyaka 1.4.2:
> अत्र चोदयन्ति — कुतः प्रजापतेरेकत्वदर्शनं जातम् ? को वास्मा उपदिदेश ?
> अथानुपदिष्टमेव प्रादुरभूत् ; अस्मदादेरपि तथा प्रसङ्गः ।How did Prajapati
> attain the ekatva darshanam, who taught him, or without being taught it
> The reply is: नैष दोषः ; उत्कृष्टहेतूद्भवत्वाल्लोकवत् । यथा
> पुण्यकर्मोद्भवैर्विविक्तैः कार्यकरणैः संयुक्ते जन्मनि सति
> प्रज्ञामेधास्मृतिवैशारद्यं दृष्टम् , तथा
> कार्यकरणैः संयुक्तमुत्कृष्टं जन्म ; तदुद्भवं चानुपदिष्टमेव
> युक्तमेकत्वदर्शनं प्रजापतेः । Owing to his extraordinarily pure
> antecedents he is endowed with extremely exalted body-mind complex
> instrument. And due to this advantage vidya arose in him even untaught now.
> Anandagiri Acharya explains:
> प्रजापतेः सुप्तप्रतिबुद्धवत्प्रकृष्टादृष्टोत्थकार्यकरणवत्त्वात्पू
> *र्वकल्पीयपदपदार्थवाक्यस्मरणवतः* स्मृतिविपरिवर्तिनो
> वाक्याद्विचार्यमाणाददृष्टसहकृतात्तत्त्वज्ञानं स्यात्....
This is a clincher I think! Essentially, with this one sentence Anandagiri
AchArya has provided two reasons that I mentioned above - adRShTa
sahakAritva (samskAra) + pUrvakalpIya pada-padArtha-vAkya smaraNa (the
pramANa smaraNa I mentioned above).
Thank you very much for sharing this reference.
> Opinions welcome.
> warm 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:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 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