[Advaita-l] Queries to learn and transform

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Kiran B.R. wrote:

> > Why should one need to make measurements to come to a conclusion?  Anumana
> > is just as much a pramana as pratyaksha. By the lack of qualities such as chetana,
> > viveka, vairagya and other necessary  prerequisites to jnana...
>
> First you define something called jnAna, second you have no instrument
> to measure this in a porcupine, and then you claim the poor porcupine
> is an ajnAni! Wonderful reasoning!
>

Every logical system ends up having to resort to axioms i.e. statements
not provable withing the system itself.  That there is jnana is something
we learn from the shastras (shabda - the 3rd pramana) not through
pratyaksha or anumana.

> jnAna and ajnAna are measurables in manuShyalOka. We have no way of
> ascertaining there aren't parallels in porcupine-lOka which we haven't
> yet been able to measure.
>
> Your example of pi: Pi is a measurable. Only, we aren't 100% accurate,
> that's all. It's different with the jnAna of a porcupine: you haven't
> even identified a measurable. You're measuring a porcupine with the
> yardstick of homo-sapiens. Bad experiment.
>

As you mentioned we don't understand porcupine-loka.  so it is irrelevant
whether we attempt to use its definitions or not.  We do however
understand manushya-loka.  So we use its' definition of jnana.  Like the
value of pi, it may not be perfect but it is the best we have available.

> It's my bias for Krishna. We need men who can fight and destroy the
> enemy. Not sit and vegetate when the enemy is cheating us, killing us,
> destroying our Nation, destroying our culture, destroying our
> languages, destroying our economy, stealing our youth, doing every act
> of adharma in the book and outside it.
>

Note that sitting there is exactly what Krshna Bhagavan did!  He was the
charioteer and the actual task of destroying evil was done by Arjuna who
far from being a jnani actually managed to forget the teaching of the
Gita.

The point is even in action there are direct and indirect types.

> We need men who, even while they fight the enemy, have anthills grown
> around them - just as Valmiki, but on the battlefield and always alert
> - not vegetables.
>
> We don't need another Valmiki who can write another Ramayana as much
> as we need another Rama who can fight the enemy.
>

Or better yet we can forget about needing anyone and do the job ourselves.
The Vedic path is twofold-pravrtti and nivrtti.  It is the duty of
grhasthas to maintain society.  Nowadays it is fashionable for swamis to
get involved in politics or social work etc. but they are not doing
themselves or anyone else any favor by muddling up the duties of the
ashramas in this way.

Jnana is impractical, pointless, vegetable like if you will.  If one is
the type who sees "enemies" then it is better to follow the path the Vedas
have ordained for such people then to pretend one is a jnani.  For a jnani
can have no enemies.  It should be noted that Krishna Bhagavan offered
both the Pandavas and Kauravas the chance to have Him on their side.  If
He fought Duryodhana, it is because the latter rejected Him (due to his
avaricious and ignorant nature) not the other way around.

> All I'm trying to say is - you can still be a jnAni if your only
> business is not meditation, so be Rama who works day in and day out to
> destroy the enemy, not Valmiki.

And you can work day in and day out destroy the enemy without being a jnani.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>