[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

My understanding is based on the text (VS) of SVBS as well as talks given
by Swami Paramarthananda as summarized by his student available as PDF
(pages 55 to 67). I have listened to his talks quite sometime back, but am
unable to have access to the same just now.

As per text (SVBS),

Topic 30, page 20  << अत एव
महावाक्येनाव्यवहितप्रत्यग्ब्रह्मापरोक्षज्ञानमेव  जायते, न तु परोक्षमिति II
>>,

<<  ata eva mahAvAkyenAvyavahitapratyagbrahmAparokShaj~nAnameva  jAyate, na
tu parokShamiti II  >>,

Topic 31, page 20, << last five lines >>.

Also following copied from your earlier post

<<  The shravaNa in the SMN triad that is being talked about in the Vichara
Sagara sentence quoted earlier as the remote cause of brahmasAkshAtkAra, is
the shravaNa to determine that the tAtparya of the Shruti lies in advaita.

Different from this shravaNa, which is the direct cause of
brahmasAkshAtkAra attributed in Vichara Sagara, is the mahAvAkya that has
been heard from a guru.

ज्ञानस्य साक्षात्साधनं तु श्रोत्रेन्द्रियसंबद्धवेदान्तवाक्यमेव ...
अवान्तरवाक्येन परोक्षमेव, महावाक्येन त्वपरोक्षमेव।

The direct means to jnAna is vedAntic sentences that are connected to the
sense of hearing...(He then goes on to say vedAntic sentences are two
types,  avAntaravAkya and mahAvAkya and defines the former as those
upaniShad sentences which reveal the svarUpa of jIvAtma and paramAtma and
the latter as those sentences that reveal their identity ). avAntaravAkya
shravaNam gives rise to indirect knowledge. mahAvAkya shravaNam gives rise
to direct knowledge.

 So the classification system according to VS is:

1) The shravaNa of vedAnta which is a remote cause of knowledge is to
remove doubts about where shruti's prAmANya lies.

2) manana is to remove asambhAvanA and samshaya.

3) nididhyAsana is to remove viparIta bhAvanA.

4) avAntaravAkya shravaNam leads to paroksha jnAna.

5) mahAvAkya shravaNam, the antaranga sAdhana, is the direct means for
direct knowledge  >>.

My understanding is based on all the above. Have I made a mistake?
Regards

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 4:47 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> Re: "The issue here is that in texts like Vichara Sagara, it is contended
> that
> while repetition of Shravana (minus MahAvAkya) may be required, there is no
> need for repetition of the MahAvAkya itself (as part of the repeated
> Shravana) for Realization."
>
> Can you clarify where in the Vichara Sagara this is stated? Is it a direct
> reference or an inference that you have drawn?
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022, 11:52 H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Pranams Bhaskar Ji,
>>
>> My understanding is exactly the same as yours.
>>
>> The issue here is that in texts like Vichara Sagara, it is contended that
>> while repetition of Shravana (minus MahAvAkya) may be required, there is
>> no
>> need for repetition of the MahAvAkya itself (as part of the repeated
>> Shravana) for Realization. Hearing the MahavAkya only once, during first
>> Shravana, is enough. It is not the contention that only MahAvAkya Shravana
>> is needed repeatedly for Realization.
>> Regards
>>
>>