[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkat ji,

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:48 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> The text says - "देहादिदृश्यप्रपंचः सर्वोऽपि सत्यः, जीवब्रह्मणोर्भेदश्च
> सत्यः - इति धीर्विपरीतभावना । सा च निदिध्यासनेन निवार्यते । एवं
> श्रवणादित्रयं ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकीभूतासंभावनाविपरीतभावनानिवृत्तिद्वारा परम्परया
> अपरोक्षज्ञानसाधनं भवति ।"
> Here, the habitual notions of the reality of the world, the difference
> between jIva and brahma being real etc are specifically termed
> viparItabhAvanA, a pratibandhaka for the rise of jnAna, removed by
> nididhyAsana, which, as part of a triad along with shravaNa and manana,
> serves as the remote cause for the rise of brahmasAkshAtkAra.
>
> The clubbing of nididhyAsana along with shravaNa and manana goes only so
> far as being a part of the triad that comprise the remote cause for
> brahmajnAna. I don't think it extends as far as saying that shravaNa or
> manana remove this said viparItabhAvana - for the text clearly says that is
> nididhyAsana that does so.
>
True, but I didn't intend to say that it means that shravaNA-manana remove
VB, but that it can't also mean that nididhyAsana itself extends to cause
jnAna. However, aparokSha jnAna can be pratibanda-sahita and may not lead
to sAkShAtkAra. So you and I may be using the word jnAna itself with
difference as seen later here:


>
> I don't think you are denying the possibility of nididhyAsana itself prior
> to jnAna - for such a contention is refuted by the very paragraph in xxxii
> you referred to "साक्षात्कारपर्यन्तमिदं निदिध्यासनमभ्यसनीयम्".
>

> This view was suggested by Sri Anand ji in his summary of the discussion,
> but I had said that that was not per my understanding. I don't think you
> had disagreed with me there.
>

I am not disagreeing directly, but I am not agreeing either, since my
understanding says "objection Milord" there, so to say! :-) So I shall
leave it there with the explanation I gave earlier as to jnAna has to
result after mananasiddhi, be it with pratibandhakas, as one reaches
nididhyAsana. An agreement possible in our views seems to be that jnAna
though aparokSha appears parokSha, where nididhyAsa takes away pratibandha
which itself might appear as though nididhyAsa resulted in aparokSha jnAna.
Further, my vyAkaraNa study, however basic it is, finds trouble with
nididhyAsana + "aham brahmAsmi" as viShaya, without jnAna of the vAkya.
Else what would be the viShaya of nididhyAsana pre-jnAna?

Finally, as I replied earlier, these are minor differences in my mind. To
>> me, Vivarana and Bhamati are both valid, despite many technical
>> differences. SMN, all three are needed in both views for sAkShAtkAra is
>> sufficient samanvaya for me. I don't see it contradict their
>> antarangasAdhanatva as given by the Shruti in either case. For the
>> differences, I suggest even any one who asks me to stick to whatever helps
>> them stay the course. I too follow the same.
>>
>
> I agree. However as we are engaging in shAstrArtha, I am seeking to
> amplify the minor differences so that we can get a deeper understanding of
> the different views on the topic.
>

True, I'd like that too, but I am worried of causing misunderstanding at a
personal level with more people, since I seem to have already reached there
in the past couple of days and trying to tone down, worried that I may be
coming off harsh, regardless my intention! I do not have Subbuji's or your
level of patience for elaborate explanations and in staying concise, I
might sound rude, perhaps! To confess, I used to feel sleepy during
shravaNa where there are many repetitions once I feel I have understood. I
used to keep awake by doing padaccheda, samAsa-vigrahas, etc, during
vedantapATha at Gurukula. :-) With a similar jaundiced-eye view, I repeat
less when I write or teach, not intending to sing a lullaby!

sarve janAH sukhino bhavantu,
gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen

>