[Advaita-l] Defintion of anubhava

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Subbuji,


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:48 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> I think there is enough support in the Bhashya for the equation of jnanam
> and anubhava with reference to Brahman:
>

​Undoubtedly so; thats why I questioned as to why some object to the use of
the word anubhava based on English translation of it.​


> In the Taittiriya Bhashya, for the term 'jnanam' occurring in the mantra
> 'satyam jananm anantam brahma', Shankara explains jnanam as jnapti,
> objectless consciousness, that is not produced and is not an action (of
> knowing) either:
>
> ज्ञानं ब्रह्मेति । ज्ञानं ज्ञप्तिः अवबोधः, - भावसाधनो ज्ञानशब्दः - न तु
> ज्ञानकर्तृ, ब्रह्मविशेषणत्वात्सत्यानन्ताभ्यां सह ।
>

Yes, this is the one I mentioned in the earlier mail. However, there is a
nice पूर्वपक्ष to this as well saying that although ज्ञप्ति is भावसाधन/
भावे व्युत्पत्ति, still that धात्वर्थ has an अपेक्षा of कर्म since ज्ञा
धातु is a सकर्मक धातु। This is the basis for my asserting that if the word
अनुभव is rejected saying that it ends up meaning that there is something
different from oneself to experience, the same objection applies to ज्ञान
since the verb-root has an expectancy of an object! Although Bhashyakara
doesn't specifically tell the Purvapakshin that he is right, yet the
agreement is in his statement that it is not really ज्ञप्ति also but
लक्ष्यार्थ meaning चित् consciousness only.
​

> Br.up:
>
> अयमात्मा ; कोऽसौ ? यः प्रत्यगात्मा द्रष्टा, श्रोता मन्ता बोद्धा, विज्ञाता
> सर्वानुभूः — सर्वात्मना सर्वमनुभवतीति सर्वानुभूः — इत्येतदनुशासनम्
> सर्ववेदान्तोपदेशः ; एष सर्ववेदान्तानामुपसंहृतोऽर्थः ; एतदमृतमभयम् ;
> परिसमाप्तश्च शास्त्रार्थः ॥
>

​Thanks, a similar one was quoted by Sreenivasa ji.

>
> And the above can be collapsed into a comment by Shankara to the Mandukya
> karika 4.89:
>
> सर्वश्चासौ ज्ञश्च सर्वज्ञः, तद्भावः सर्वज्ञता
>

​True.​

Having said that, Praveen ji, your profile statement:
>
> * येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
> itself is a definition of sorts for 'anubhava'.
>
>
​:) Yes, but I you see why I would have liked a technical one to refute the
difference between the two words.​

​gurupAdukAbhyAm
​
​
,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
​