[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  <<  But wouldn't such an interpretation mean that the mahAvAkya
repetition in the shruti is superfluous?  >>,

I don’t think VS has anything to say on this.

Reg  << I suspect you are drawing a distinction between aparoksha jnAna and
realisation. I am not.

When I said I agreed with realisation occuring coterminous with mahAvAkya
shravaNa, I was agreeing with realisation = aparoksha jnAna, arising
coterminous with mahAvAkya shravaNa.

I think you are using realisation = aparoksha jnAna + pratibandha nivRtti
>>,

In my understanding, there is no difference between aparOksha jnAna and
Realization. I think same is the case with VS as well.

I do not use the term ** aparoksha jnAna + pratibandha nivRtti **.

However, VS also uses the term  **aparOksha jnAna with pratibandhakAs**
which is not synonymous with Realization. In my understanding this is
 **parOksha jnAna** and not synonymous with Realization.

What VS  postulates is that when jnAna is produced through mahAvAkya the
very first time, it is invariably aparOksha jnAna. But there could be
pratibandhakAs in such a jnAna leading to Realization. That state (for want
of a better term) is termed by VS  ** aparOksha jnAna with pratibandhakAs
**. Subsequent sAdhanAs are needed only for removal of the pratibandhakAs,
and not for producing jnAna. Hence mahAvAkya has no further role to play
during this phase of sAdhanAs. Repition of the mahAvAkya any number of
times makes no difference. SMN is practiced only for the removal of the
pratibandhakAs. Whether mahAvAkya is part of this or not is not material.
It does not serve any purpose. Once they are removed, Realization takes
place automatically since only **aparOksha jnAna** remains without any
pratibandhakAs. There is no difference between aparOksha jnAna and
Realization.

In my understanding, it is the hearing of mahAvAkya during this phase of
repetative SMN sAdhana which produces aparOksha jnAna, synonymous with
Realization. This is coterminous with the hearing of mahAvAkya.

Reg  << I don't mean pratibandha nivRtti occurs coterminous, as a rule,
with mahAvAkya shravaNa. I believe you are saying that as a rule, aparoksha
jnAna + pratibandha nivRtti occurs only coterminous with mahAvAkya shravaNa.

I am looking for some pramANa for such a rule, but I cannot seem to find it
>>,

Pratibandha nivRtti through SMN is relevant only for manifest
pratibandhakAs. Their nivRtti along with their root cause is not possible
through SMN. Such a nivRtti calls for removal of avidyA which is possible
ONLY through hearing of the mahAvAkya. That pramANa is found all over the
place.
Regards

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 5:14 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022, 08:27 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is clearly brought out here that Realization is coterminous with
>> hearing of the mahAvAkya. Hence hearing of the mahAvAkya again during the
>> repetitious shravaNa is essential for Realization.
>>
>> Yes, agreed  >>,
>>
>> Nice to see agreement on a crucial issue. I will proceed from here to
>> clarify  my understanding of VS.
>>
>
> Reg  << I don't think Vichara Sagara would disagree with this  >>,
>>
>> Here is where I think we are disagreeing. VS does indeed differ on this
>> point. As per my understanding of VS,  Realization could occur much later
>> than hearing of the mahavAkya, when the pratibandhakAs are removed.
>>
> I suspect you are drawing a distinction between aparoksha jnAna and
> realisation. I am not.
>
> When I said I agreed with realisation occuring coterminous with mahAvAkya
> shravaNa, I was agreeing with realisation = aparoksha jnAna, arising
> coterminous with mahAvAkya shravaNa.
>
> I think you are using realisation = aparoksha jnAna + pratibandha nivRtti.
>
> I don't mean pratibandha nivRtti occurs coterminous, as a rule, with
> mahAvAkya shravaNa. I believe you are saying that as a rule, aparoksha
> jnAna + pratibandha nivRtti occurs only coterminous with mahAvAkya shravaNa.
>
> I am looking for some pramANa for such a rule, but I cannot seem to find
> it. There are examples in shAstra where pratibandha nivRtti happens much
> after mahAvAkya shravaNam, even where there is no opportunity for mahAvAkya
> shravaNam when the pratibandha kshaya happens - e.g. vAmadeva, etc.
>
>
>> As per my understanding, according to VS, aparOksha jnAna does take place
>> for Shvetaketu when he hears the mahAvAkya first time round. But that
>> aparOksha jnana is with pratibandhakAs. When his Guru repeats the mahAvAkya
>> tattvamasi 9 times, each time it is preceded by different illustrations and
>> reasonings. These serve to remove the different pratibandhakAs Shvetaketu
>> was suffering from. It is this removal of all these  pratibandhakAs that
>> lead to his aparOksha  jnAna with pratibandhakAs to be automatically
>> converted to one without pratibandhakAs. Such change in the nature of
>> aparOksha jnAna from one with pratibandhakas to one without them is not
>> because of the Guru repeating the mahAvAkya  tattvamasi several times over,
>> but because of the removal of pratibandhakAs due to the illustrations and
>> reasoning given by the Guru. The inference would be that even without the
>> repetition of the mahavAkya tattvamasi itself here 9 times over, such a
>> change would still have taken place. This is my understanding of VS.
>>
> But wouldn't such an interpretation mean that the mahAvAkya repetition in
> the shruti is superfluous?
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>>