[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

Thank you for setting out your understanding. I have no further questions.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Thu, 14 Jul 2022, 10:27 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>>