[Advaita-l] Karma yoga: the kinder, softer preparation for self-inquiry and surrender

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Venkat,

Reg  <<  ie saying that you get scholarly knowledge from the sruti and
guru, and then have to apply it (“live on the strength of that knowledge”)
>>,

No no. Sruti and Guru are not just for  scholarly knowledge. They are
needed till aparOksha jnaana  is achieved. Here also ‘achieved’ is just a
way of expression. REMOVE ignorance is another way. Sri Bhagavatpada
himself says removal of ignorance and attaining jnaana mean the same. They
are not to be construed as cause and effect.

Reg  << Whilst sruti does teach a lot more, it ulitmately is sublated.
Sruti also says that Brahman cannot be defined; so not quite how you you
can say that they declare what IS.  Indeed what sruti conveys is to REMOVE
ignorance - the erroneous superimposition; not to add a new conceptual
knowledge >>

Earlier also I had mentioned that I am not giving any particular attention
to exactness in expression unless where it is essential for understanding.
So you need to take my statements like these in the proper spirit. Being
not well versed in Vedanta, it is indeed difficult for me to always use
vedantically exact expressions !! As long as one can reasonably understand
the intended meaning, it is fine for me.

Reg  << Hence why Sankara can write very unambiguously "“therefore the
knowledge of this Self, by the process of neti, neti and the renunciation
of everything are the *only *means of attaining immortality” >>,

Indeed yes. Emphasis is on *the knowledge of the Self*. The whole process
covers SMN. The entire passage must be considered in totality in
understanding the purport of the passage. Not just some sentences taken in
isolation. In this connection, since you are familiar with Sri SSS, please
also see Foot Note 2 on page 127 and Foot Note 5 on page 128. The entire
Bhashya on BU 3-5-1 is interpreted as applicable to both sAdhakas (seekers
of Knowledge) (vividisha sanyasa) as well as for jnaanis (vidvat sanyasa).

Regards
Chandramouli

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:55 PM Ven Balakrishnan <ventzu at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Dear Chandramouli
>
> On baalya and mouna, it is an interesting point you raise . . . both SSSS
> in his comments on BU3.5.1 and Swami Gambhirananda in his notes to his
> translation of BrahmaSutraBhasya, equate baalya to manana and mouna to
> nididhyasana; ie saying that you get scholarly knowledge from the sruti and
> guru, and then have to apply it (“live on the strength of that
> knowledge”).  Consequently your distinction of before / after Jnana for
> Ramana vs Sankara does not seem to apply.
>
> Whilst sruti does teach a lot more, it ulitmately is sublated.  Sruti also
> says that Brahman cannot be defined; so not quite how you you can say that
> they declare what IS.  Indeed what sruti conveys is to REMOVE ignorance -
> the erroneous superimposition; not to add a new conceptual knowledge.
>
> Hence why Sankara can write very unambiguously "“therefore the knowledge
> of this Self, by the process of neti, neti and the renunciation of
> everything are the *only *means of attaining immortality”.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
>
>>
>