[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 11:05 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

<<  Now, coming to the point of contention, Sri Chandramouli says "It is
clear
from the above that the term ब्रह्मनिष्ठ (brahmaniShTha) is
applicable to a sAdhaka  (who is not a jnAni) also."

I don't know how it is clear - perhaps he can elucidate >>

I had drawn this conclusion from the subsequent portion of the Bhashya
which was presented in the post. Copied below for ready reference

<< Bhashya further states (which was cited in my earlier posts also in this
thread)

<<  ब्रह्मनिष्ठत्वमेव हि तस्य शमदमाद्युपबृंहितं स्वाश्रमविहितं कर्म ;
यज्ञादीनि च इतरेषाम् ; तद्व्यतिक्रमे च तस्य प्रत्यवायः । >>

<<  brahmaniShThatvameva hi tasya shamadamAdyupabRRiMhitaM svAshramavihitaM
karma ; yaj~nAdIni cha itareShAm ; tadvyatikrame cha tasya pratyavAyaH |  >>

Translation  << The duty of his order of life consists of steadfastness
itself in Brahman, supported by selfcontrol etc., whereas sacrifices etc.,
are the duties for  others; the monk incurs sin by transgressing his own
duties, (as much as others do by transgressing theirs) >>,

The Bhashya observes here that brahmaniShThatvam is the only duty for this
sAdhaka, who is not a jnAni  yet. Hence the conclusion.
Regards

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 11:05 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Praveen ji
> Re:
>
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2022, 11:53 Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) It would mean that the siddhAnti is saying that brahmaniShTha =
> sAdhaka
> > can be only a sannyAsI, and not any other ashramI because the latter has
> > other duties that cannot culminate in brahmajnAna!
> > 2) It would also mean that brahmajnAnI cannot be other ashramI, because
> > without being a sAdhaka, one cannot be a jnAnI. Or worse yet, one would
> be
> > a jnAnI without ever being a sAdhaka!
> > 3) And all this is in a pATha taught by a non-sannyAsI Brahmashri Maniji
> to
> > many non-sannyAsI non-sAdhakas! This 3rd point is only since I couldn't
> > help see the contradiction. Kindly pardon me being the elder and more
> > mature, if it seems harsh.
> >
>
> I listened to this talk - essentially what was said was that the term
> brahmasamstha occuring in this context can only apply to sannyAsa Ashrama -
> the reason for this is that the yaugika meaning of the term brahma-samsthA
> can only apply to the sannyAsi.
>
> The yaugika meaning given by the bhAShyakAra is as mentioned by Sri
> Chandramouli - samsthA in brahmasamthA means culmination, avasAna. So the
> term brahmasamsthah in this context means - he whose sole purpose is
> culmination in brahman (brahmajnAna), ie those for whom there is nothing
> else enjoined. This obviously cannot apply to any other Ashrami, because
> they do have other karma-s that have been enjoined for them.
>
> The Shruti vAkya in question, ‘ब्रह्मसंस्थोऽमृतत्वमेति’ is saying  that the
> one who is a brahmasamsthah (a sannyAsi who has no necessity for anything
> other than brahmajnAna, one who has culminated in Brahman) attains
> immortality.
>
> I don't think the corrolaries you suggest necessarily follow from this much
> alone - i.e. in saying that the sannyAsi attains inmortality, it does not
> follow that no one else can attain it. All the bhAShya is seeking to do is
> to establish that brahmasamsthah can only mean sannyAsi. Therefore, the
> force of the siddhAntin's refutation of the pUrvapakshI lies primarily in
> dismissing the contention that the term can apply to other Ashrama-s also,
> not in stating that jnAna cannot arise in other Ashrama-s.
>
> Therefore the argument is that if one belongs to any other Ashrama, they
> have an obligation to continue performing their duties even after
> brahmajnAna, so they cannot have samsthA, samApti in brahmajnAna. That
> would incur pratyavAya. Therefore, they cannot be the ones referred to by
> the term brahmasamsthAh.
>
> Now, coming to the point of contention, Sri Chandramouli says "It is clear
> from the above that the term ब्रह्मनिष्ठ (brahmaniShTha) is
> applicable to a sAdhaka  (who is not a jnAni) also."
>
> I don't know how it is clear - perhaps he can elucidate. Just because the
> term brahmasamsthah refers to a sannyAsi and the term sannyAsi can refer to
> vividiShA sannyAsi also, it does not automatically imply that
> brahmasamsthah can refer to a vividiShA sannyAsi also.
>
> The reason being that the word brahmasamsthah occurs in the context of the
> shruti vAkya ब्रह्मसंस्थोऽमृतत्वमेति - the brahmasamsthah attains
> immortality. This can only apply to a jnAni sannyAsi, and not merely a
> vividiShA sannyAsi who is yet to attain jnAna.
>
> Now it is always possible that there is some other place in shAstra where
> the term brahmasamsthah can apply to an ajnAni also, but in this particular
> location, because it refers to such a brahmasamsthah attaining immortality,
> can only apply to a jnAni.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>