[Advaita-l] FW: Avidya, Jnanis and SSS' views

[Antharyami]

Hari OM~

Sri Anand ji,

 Your usage of term ‘Jnana-Karma’ samuccaya is problematic and sounds
non-Mandanaite to me. As you may know, Brahma Siddhi postulates
sapta-sambhanda between Karma and Jnana in as means to liberation. The seven
relations between Jnana and Karma are


            1)      Injunction contained in the Karma kanda alone is the
leads to Jnana                          then to Mukti

2)      Knowledge is subsidiary to Karma – the actions which alone is the
means for mukti

3)      Karma is enjoined with Jnana intended to destroying the desires and
once it is done Jnana alone leads to Mukti.

4)      Karma is enjoined with Jnana in order to liquidate the injunctions
laid by the Vedas accomplishing which Jnana gives Brahma anubhuti

5)      Karmas are conducive to Self knowledge that leads to Mukti.

6)      Karmas are functional to purifying the mind and qualifies the seeker
to Jnana

7)      Karma and Jnana are fundamentally opposed to each other to have no
relation whatsoever.

 Here Mandana advocates position 4 and 5 (not very different from 6), which
are not totally opposed to Sankara’s position, and is clear in the light of
both Bhamati and Vivarana traditions and that the middle school - the
Suresvara's cannot disagree with. The role of Vidhi in accomplishment of
Self Knowledge is very crucial in this context; for Vacaspati there is no
vidhi in the course of self realization while Vivarana tradition insists on
the niyama vidhi. I have argued on these points in support of Bhamati in
some of previous posts – ref ‘Bhamati vs Vivarana’ – Advaita Yahoo group.
 Mandana’s position on the relation between Jnana and Karma is not the
Bhartrprapanca’s or Bhaskara’s version of Jnana-Karma samuccaya.  Mandana
restricts the role of Karma at certain level of Advaitic sadhana and insists
on meditation – abhyasa (which is not karma) – but Prasamkhyana, according
to which atma va are drastavya’ is a vihita-anuvadaka – a factual statement
that qualifies for a special consideration apart from being treated ‘vidhi’
per-se considering the ‘krtya’ suffix – this position is most misconceived
by scholars familiar to Sankara. In my reading Vacaspati has substantial
support of Sankara’s position is his consideration of ‘no vidhi’ but abhyasa
(equated with Nidhidhyasana / Upasana) which leads to moksa. In the scheme
of Advaitic Sadhana the place of Karma is essentially significant, but its
position and relation differs and in Mandana’s case it is not too remote
from Jnana not necessarily connoting ‘Jnana-Karma Samuccaya’ – in my view.

 With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

10th VaishAka / VikRti
-- 
Devanathan.J
Doctoral Student,
Centre for the Study of Religion,
Jackman Humanities Building,
170 St. George Street, floor 3,
Toronto, Ontario M5R 2M8.

Residence:
607-3400 Keele St.
Toronto, ON
M3J 1L7
Phone - 416-543-4585