[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Praveen Ji,

Just a clarification. My understanding is that for a jnAni, there is no
rebirth. When it is held that one has aparoksha jnAna but continues to
have  viparIta-jnAna, and he sheds his mortal coil at that stage, is he
subject to rebirth or not ?

Regards

On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 6:38 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>