[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 1:52 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Translation (Swami Gambhirananda)  << How can the term “steadfastness in
> Brahman””, used in its derivative sense and possible of application to
> people in all the stages of life, be confined to the monk alone? >>
>
> Explanation ::  Sri Mani Dravid Shastri Ji, while explaining this, observes
> that the Purvapakshi understands the derivation of ब्रह्मसंस्थ
> (brahmasaMstha) ** ब्रह्मणि स॑स्था यस्य (brahmaNi sa\'sthA yasya) ** as
> ** one
> who has BrahmajnAna and is established in Brahman **.
>
> The response of the Sidhanti is as follows
>
> <<  ब्रह्मसंस्थ इति हि ब्रह्मणि परिसमाप्तिः अनन्यव्यापारतारूपं
> तन्निष्ठत्वमभिधीयते >>
>
> <<  brahmasaMstha iti hi brahmaNi parisamAptiH ananyavyApAratArUpaM
> tanniShThatvamabhidhIyate >>
>
> Translation  << The term “steadfastness in Brahman”” implies a consummation
> in Brahman, a total absorption in Brahman, which is the same as the absence
> of any other preoccupation except that >>.
>

Since you have quoted Brahmashri Maniji, I listened to the talk you linked
and although I don't understand Tamil, I understood most of it with
Sanskrit and Kannada.

Here, I got a different meaning which actually establishes what I was
saying, also established by Sw. Gambhiranandaji's translation you quote.

Explanation :: Sri Mani Dravid Shastri Ji observes that the Sidhanti
> presents the derivation in the current context differently. In the term
> संस्थ (saMstha), when the dhAtu स्थ (stha) is preceded by the upasarga
> सं(saM),
>  it conveys the meaning of  समाप्तिः (samAptiH) , (end/culmination).  Hence
> ** ब्रह्मणि स॑स्था यस्य (brahmaNi sa\'sthA yasya)**  is to be understood
> as  ** One whose duties end/culminate in attaining BrahmajnAnam **
>

Now, if we take your English translation as appropriate, it brings quite a
few questions and obervations as a corollary. Pls allow me to ask since I
said didn't have anything new to add earlier, with all due respect:
1) It would mean that the siddhAnti is saying that brahmaniShTha = sAdhaka
can be only a sannyAsI, and not any other ashramI because the latter has
other duties that cannot culminate in brahmajnAna!
2) It would also mean that brahmajnAnI cannot be other ashramI, because
without being a sAdhaka, one cannot be a jnAnI. Or worse yet, one would be
a jnAnI without ever being a sAdhaka!
3) And all this is in a pATha taught by a non-sannyAsI Brahmashri Maniji to
many non-sannyAsI non-sAdhakas! This 3rd point is only since I couldn't
help see the contradiction. Kindly pardon me being the elder and more
mature, if it seems harsh.

Either the contradictions are glaring or I am completely missing the point
in 3.4.20 vidhirvA dhAraNavat which I see as discussing a sannyAsa vidhi.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */