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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

If the question was unclear, you should not have answered it. I still
refuse to give marks :) for the original answer because you didn't
write about sakshi after repeated clarification of the question. You
were trying to show how jnana and ajnana can co-exist which is against
nyaya. Sankara used it in the context of knowledge of the set and
ajnana of its elements. It is very different to jnana and ajnana of an
element or object.

Now, I agree sakshi is not the cause - silly trap. Now, what is the
cause of jnana and ajnana in the cognizer?

On 06/07/2011, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The term Sakshi did not appear in either of your posts until I posted
>> on how Madhusudana resolved it.
>
>
> As Ramesh repeatedly said, the presentation of the objection without any
> pUrva or apara, did not give one any clue as to what the objector was
> objecting to.  Given the insufficient/unclear/confusing information the best
> answers were given.  The possibility of jnana and ajnana pertaining to the
> same object  was what appeared to be questioned.  And this was answered
> admirably, by any standards.
>
> I think the best method would have been for you to have presented the
> objection with the proper citations, preferably in the original, the
> context, etc.
>
>
>> Is Sakshi Jnana cause of vrtti jnana and/or ajnana?
>>
>
> sAkshi jnana is not a variety by itself.  sAkshi is jnanasvarUpa itself.
> The only reason it is given a special status is because it is with reference
> to the jiva.  If there is no concept of 'jiva' there is no concept of sAkshi
> either. sAkshi is like a light that shines.  By virtue of its shine,
> whatever comes within its range gets illumined.  jnana and ajnana are both
> such candidates that come within the range of the sakshi. sAkshi is never a
> 'cause'; it is asanga, not wanting to cause anything.  This is the position
> in advaita.  Other schools have their own definitions/explanations of
> saakshi.
>
> Yet, what Madhusudana has said will have to be seen in what context he said
> that and what exactly he said.
>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device