[Advaita-l] 'I do not know' is bhāvarūpa ajnana

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste Praveenji

Sruti mahavAkya janya jnAna gives only parOksha jnAna, while the akhandakara
> vritti attained
> in samAdhi alone gives aparOksha jnAna ( which destroys the bhAvarUpa
> ajnAna inherent in sushUpti as well)
>
​I've no issues with either​ of the vivaraNa or bhAmati prakriyAs. I could
easily reconcile them as what is aparokSha, it is parokShavat and hence
called parokSha.

*All questions arises only when a distinction is made between jnAna
attained in samAdhi vs jnAna generated through maha vAkya and if it is told
that the latter is not sufficient to remove ajnAna completely, without
taking recourse to former.*


>
> Some refs which supports this viewpoint, are from panchadasi 9th chap:
>>
> Let it be so; but the speciality of
>> meditation on the Absolute is that it is nearest to the goal of Self-realisation.
>>
>> True, mark the words "nearest to the goal", which is not the same as the
> goal. ​
> Not as the direct cause for aparokShajnAna, but Panchadashi 9th chapter
> ​mentions dhyAna as the secondary means when one cannot do vichAra by the
> using avichArin, mandadhI, etc
> ​in verses 9.20-21.
> ​
>
>
>> 127. When such complete cessation of mental activity is achieved, only
>> the associationless entity (Atman) remains in his heart. By ceaseless meditation on It based on
>> the great Sayings, arises the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’.
>>
>> ​The exact words of the verse are वाक्यात् जायेत तत्त्वधीः meaning the
> knowledge of reality is born from the महावाक्य sentence, not from dhyAna.
>

*But, how it is interpreted by some (though not in this thread), indicating
attaining aparoxa jnAna through samAdhi as the next logical step after
getting vAkya janya jnAna, makes the difference. *


> Similarly, Panchadashikara makes a series of comparisons to assert that
> nirguNopAsana is better than them (japa, etc) and then raises a pUrvapakSha
> that says that nirguNajnAna is the best to which he agrees.
>
>> There are other similar refs in vivekachudamani reg nirvikalpaka samAdhi leading to videha mukti
>> as opposed to sadyo mukti.
>>
>> ​Sure. videhamukti/ kramamukti is definitely possible with upAsanA.
> ​
>
>
>> > Also, how does this reconcile with other Sruti texts (on sushupti
>>> > experience) in chandogya, Brihadaranyaka...
>>> >
>>> > सलिल एको द्रष्टाद्वैतो भवति, एष ब्रह्मलोकः सम्राडिति हैनमनुशशास
>>> > याज्ञवल्क्यः, एषास्य परमा गतिः, एषास्य परमा संपत्, एषोऽस्य परमो लोकः,
>>> > एषोऽस्य परम आनन्दः; एतस्यैवानन्दस्यान्यानि भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्ति
>>> >
>>> > It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a
>>> > second. This is the world (state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did
>>> > Yājñavalkya instruct Janaka: This is its supreme attainment, this is
>>> its
>>> > supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss...
>>> >
>>> ​Bhashyakara introduces this mantra by saying यत्र पुनः सा अविद्या
>>> सुषुप्ते
>>> वस्त्वन्तरप्रत्युपस्थापिका शान्ता, तेन अन्यत्वेन अविद्याप्रविभक्तस्य
>>> वस्तुनः अभावात् , तत् केन कं पश्येत् जिघ्रेत् विजानीयाद्वा  and later in
>>> the section so: ​तेन न पृथक्त्वेन व्यवस्थितानि करणानि, विषयाश्च ;
>>> तदभावात्
>>> विशेषदर्शनं नास्ति ; He specifically says that the avidyA that projects
>>> other objects is quietened, not completely absent, due to the lack of the
>>> sense organs and objects being separate from each other, one cannot see,
>>> smell, etc.
>>
>>
>> In the bhAshya, you may notice the specific mention, "* there being
>> nothing separated from the self by ignorance  in that state of profound
>> sleep",*
>>
>
> Nothing separated from the self by avidyA doesn't mean self is not hidden
> by avidyA to the same antaHkaraNa that is one with the self, else why would
> anyone wake up bound.
>

*When you say, "one with the self", in That, as ekibhUta or ekibavana or
samprasAda, there is no distinction, whatsoever .. all logic, attributing
bhAva rUpa or otherwise, comes only upon waking :)  *


>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --praveen
>

Thanks