[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 5:37 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> But having said that, in this context my understanding of jnAna-niShThA
> appears to be different.
>
It appears so to me too.


> If it means conviction is still lacking or viparIta-jnAna is still
> persisting, then he is not a brahmavit or a JnAni. He is ajnAni only. A
> sAdhaka only though very advanced in his sAdhana.
>
I would like to specifically point out that I said "as conviction grows",
which definitely doesn't mean "as conviction is lacking", else someone
could erroneously argue that a sannyAsI of BSB 3.4.20 whose brahmaniShThA
grows is lacking brahmaniShThA! Next, nididhyAsana is to counter
viparIta-bhAvanA (my earlier usage of the word viparIta-jnAna might have
caused some confusion. If so, please ignore the following in this para).
One who is an ajnAnI cannot be practicing nididhyAsa to counter
viparIta-bhAvanA as he doesn't even know what is samyagjnAna, let alone
have it. So, it is clear that viparIta-bhAvanA is a vestige of earlier
saMskAras that is possible only in the case of a jnAnI. For details, please
refer to different types of jnAnins in Jivanmuktiviveka (JMV). Else, this
sAdhaka tag would accrue to Yajnavalkya also as pointed out by Bhagavan
Vidyaranyacharya in JMV that he took vidvatsannyAsa for niShThA, leading to
jIvanmukti Ananda, as he had pride, etc, as seen in Janaka's court, which
isn't possible without viparIta-bhAvanA.

> The term jnAna-niShThA is also used for a sAdhaka very advanced in his
> sAdhana. BSB 3-4-20 may be referred. Several citations are furnished in the
> Bhashya. Following is an extract from the same.
>
> <<  परिव्राजकस्य तु सर्वकर्मसंन्यासात् प्रत्यवायो न सम्भवति
> अननुष्ठाननिमित्तः ; शमदमादिस्तु तदीयो धर्मो ब्रह्मसंस्थाया उपोद्बलकः, न
> विरोधी ; ब्रह्मनिष्ठत्वमेव हि तस्य शमदमाद्युपबृंहितं स्वाश्रमविहितं कर्म ;
> यज्ञादीनि च इतरेषाम् ; तद्व्यतिक्रमे च तस्य प्रत्यवायः । >>
>
> <<  parivrAjakasya tu sarvakarmasaMnyAsAt pratyavAyo na sambhavati
> ananuShThAnanimittaH ; shamadamAdistu tadIyo dharmo brahmasaMsthAyA
> upodbalakaH, na virodhI ; brahmaniShThatvameva hi tasya
> shamadamAdyupabRRiMhitaM svAshramavihitaM karma ; yaj~nAdIni cha itareShAm
> ; tadvyatikrame cha tasya pratyavAyaH |  >>.
>
> Translation (Swami Gambhirananda)  << But the monk can incur no sin of
> nonperformance of duties owing to his renunciation of all duties. But
> virtues like control of senses and organs,which characterize him, merely
> strengthen his steadfastness in Brahman, but do not oppose it. The duty of
> his order of life consists of steadfastness itself in Brahman, supported by
> selfcontrol etc., whereas sacrifices etc., are the duties for  others; the
> monk incurs sin by transgressing his own duties, (as much as others do by
> transgressing theirs) >>.
>
> ( Sri SSS in a footnote on this observes that this applies to a sAdhaka
> who is a parivrAjaka and not to a jnAni).
>
I see this as a discussion of applicability of pratyavAya doSha. As to the
argument as to its being applicable to a sAdhaka and not a jnAnI seems odd
to me. I am not sure, but AFAIK, SSS didn't agree with Jivanmuktiviveka
stages of a jnAnI. Even then, trying to see the word brahmaniShThA as
something possible for an ajnAnI is beyond me. The very samAsa stands for
brahmaNi niShThA = brahmaniShThA, where niShThA =nitarAM sthitiH. One who
has no jnAna of oneself being brahma cannot have nitarAM sthiti in it. And
if one can have niShThA in it, has such jnAna, and is therefore, a jnAnI.


> I am not sure if Swami Dayananda Saraswati or Swami Paramarthananda
> intended the same. Praveen Ji only can clarify.
>
In my understanding, both did not intend it so.

> Yajnavalkya was a Brahmavit even before he took to sanyAsa. This is clear
> from the Bhashya itself as well as stated by Swami Sureswaracharya in his
> vArtika, and by HH Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Swamiji in his vyakhyana on
> Viveka Chudamani.
>
I already quoted JMV in my earlier mail that Yajnavalkya was an
aparokShajnAnI pre-sannyAsa, which was actually the point of the example
case!

Thanks,
gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen