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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

You are quoting Sankara out of context. Madhusudana refutes the objector
(Vyasatirtha) correctly using differentiation between Sakshi and Vrtti
jnana. He does not say that the objector's position is absurd because he
understands the nyaya.


 On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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).
> >
> >
>  _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>