[Advaita-l] Jnana and ajnana (Bhakti vs. Jnana)

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Knowledge and Ignorance of the same object cannot co-exist in the cognizer.
> One cannot have the experience of the type "I know there is an object
> called
> vyakarana and I dont know the object called vyakarana".



The above is perfectly possible in the way Shankara and Vidyaranya have
explained, with examples.  If anyone confuses between the opening sentence
of the adhyasa bhashya which implies that 'jnanam and ajnanam are poles
apart like light and darkness' and what Shankara has said about the presence
of sAmAnya jnAna of Atman and the absence of vishesha jnana thereof in one
pramAtA, then the problem is with the understanding of the objector.

You are confusing
> between the object called vyakarana and objects that it is composed of such
> as vibhakti, kala, sandhi etc. You have inferred your ignorance about
> contained objects based on the knowledge that vyakarana has contents and
> that you have not experienced them. To experience that "I am ignorant of an
> object", you need to have the knowledge of the object.
>

To experience that 'I am ignorant of an object' it is enough if i have a
cursory knowledge of it.  I do not think this is so difficult to
understand.  And the position that you are suggesting is also not difficult
to understand because it is so absurd. If I have the *knowledge of the
object *as you say, I cannot be ignorant of it at the same time.   And let
me also make it clear that no one has proposed the absurd position that a
person is totally knowledgeable about an object and yet has ignorance about
it.  Only such a position, if at all stated by anyone, will warrant an
objection that you have proposed.  I would like to see based on which
Advaita Acharya's above supposed absurd position has that objection been
raised by whichever school.

Having said this, I acknowledge what Ramesh Krishnamurthi has just said
about the topic in summing up and rest the case here.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

>
> I think you have not read my latest post which answers this (vrtti jnana
> and
> sakshi jnana).
>
>