[Advaita-l] Jnana and ajnana (Bhakti vs. Jnana)

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> The term Sakshi did not appear in either of your posts until I posted
> on how Madhusudana resolved it.


As Ramesh repeatedly said, the presentation of the objection without any
pUrva or apara, did not give one any clue as to what the objector was
objecting to.  Given the insufficient/unclear/confusing information the best
answers were given.  The possibility of jnana and ajnana pertaining to the
same object  was what appeared to be questioned.  And this was answered
admirably, by any standards.

I think the best method would have been for you to have presented the
objection with the proper citations, preferably in the original, the
context, etc.


> Is Sakshi Jnana cause of vrtti jnana and/or ajnana?
>

sAkshi jnana is not a variety by itself.  sAkshi is jnanasvarUpa itself.
The only reason it is given a special status is because it is with reference
to the jiva.  If there is no concept of 'jiva' there is no concept of sAkshi
either. sAkshi is like a light that shines.  By virtue of its shine,
whatever comes within its range gets illumined.  jnana and ajnana are both
such candidates that come within the range of the sakshi. sAkshi is never a
'cause'; it is asanga, not wanting to cause anything.  This is the position
in advaita.  Other schools have their own definitions/explanations of
saakshi.

Yet, what Madhusudana has said will have to be seen in what context he said
that and what exactly he said.

>
>