bhakti

[Subrahmanian, Sundararaman V [IT]]

Ms. SS,

> Jnana would be referred to as a process when describing jnana yoga,
correct?

That is my understanding.

>It would NOT be a process though, when referring to jnana in moksha.
>Correct?

That is in line with my understanding too.

>And in your reference to cognition, we're dealing with jnana as
intellectual
>knowledge, right?

Knowledge takes place only in the intellect.  All knowledge is intellectual
knowledge.
Are there any other types of knowledge?

Probably what you are trying to differentiate is

1. Knowledge of brahman
2. Knowledge of brahman as an object

(1) is the knowledge that is traditionally called moksha as it frees us from
our limitations.  This comes from understanding the true meaning of
mahAvAkyas that you are brahman.  Nothing short of it.

(2) is what most of us have.  When hear from teachers and when we read books
or when we meditate, brahman is looked as an object of our knowledge.  We
have an "idea" of what brahman is and that is probably what you want to
distinguish.  This idea is helpful for sAdhana ie., upAsana.  But this is
falling short of the promise of the Vedas.

Please read Kenopanishad.  Even in the earliest sections, the student is
taught the knowledge of brahman.  The student responds after the teaching
saying:  "I can neither say that I know, nor can I can say that I don't
know".  Here is the difference probably you are trying to highlight.  He
cannot say that he doesn't know, since he has understood what his true
identity is.  But he cannot also say that he knows - in the sense of
"knowing an object" since brahman is not available for cognition like a rose
or tree etc.

Is this what you were trying to highlight?

Regards,
SVS