[Advaita-l] Binary nature of Jnana

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveen ji

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022, 08:29 Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Venkatji,
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 10:53 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> What you have said below is a very interesting distinction which I must
>> confess that I was not aware of. Which texts make such a distinction?
>>
>
> My understanding is from what Acharyas have taught me multiple times
> w.r.t. viparItabhAvanA... in fact, most AVG teachers translate or explain
> viparItabhAvanA as a habitual error, post jnAna. And also that nididhyAsana
> without jnAna is nirguNa dhyAna or japa; I don't have a particular source
> to quote, but it may also be there in Sw. Paramarthananadaji's Panchadashi
> I edited. I'm tied up with something, but if I am able to find a source, I
> shall share. The meaning is further also understood based on analysis of
> vyutpatti of the word itself and in sync with lakshaNa of nididhyAsana in
> the sampradAya quoted earlier to be after shravaNa and manana
> vichikitsa-artha.
>

Ok thank you.


> I have seen the term viparItabhAvanA also used for the jnAna pratibandhaka
>> that prevents the rise of jnAna, and which requires nididhyAsana for its
>> removal. For reference, please see the Sanskrit Vichara Sagara, topic 27 on
>> page 18, under the heading निदिध्यासनस्योपयोगः.
>>
>
> Thanks for quoting one of my most favourite works. In the quoted
> Vicharasagara topic, upayoga of nididhyAsana in removing pratibandhaka that
> prevents the rise of jnAna is clubbed together with the other two, shravaNa
> and manana there, so I don't see my understanding contrary to it. Logically
> too, since the earlier para shows manana takes away bhedasatyatvabuddhi, I
> find it difficult to see the viparItabhAvanA there means one of an ajnAnI
> with a satyatvabuddhi in bheda. Pls also refer to the para on page xxxii
> that talks of nididhyAsana for more details and a nice differentiation
> between svaprayatna and vinA svaprayatna for nididhyAsana and samAdhi or
> sAkShAtkAra.
>

Thanks for pointing this out.

The only area where there appear to be differences between our respective
understanding is in whether the obstacle that prevents the rise of jnAna
and that which is removed by nididhyAsana can be *termed* as
viparItabhAvanA or not. You had said that they cannot and had cited valid
reasons for the same.

I merely showed an example from an authentic (prAmANika) work within the
advaita tradition where such a pratibandhaka is called viparItabhAvanA.

The text says - "देहादिदृश्यप्रपंचः सर्वोऽपि सत्यः, जीवब्रह्मणोर्भेदश्च
सत्यः - इति धीर्विपरीतभावना । सा च निदिध्यासनेन निवार्यते । एवं
श्रवणादित्रयं ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकीभूतासंभावनाविपरीतभावनानिवृत्तिद्वारा परम्परया
अपरोक्षज्ञानसाधनं भवति ।"
Here, the habitual notions of the reality of the world, the difference
between jIva and brahma being real etc are specifically termed
viparItabhAvanA, a pratibandhaka for the rise of jnAna, removed by
nididhyAsana, which, as part of a triad along with shravaNa and manana,
serves as the remote cause for the rise of brahmasAkshAtkAra.

The clubbing of nididhyAsana along with shravaNa and manana goes only so
far as being a part of the triad that comprise the remote cause for
brahmajnAna. I don't think it extends as far as saying that shravaNa or
manana remove this said viparItabhAvana - for the text clearly says that is
nididhyAsana that does so.

I don't think you are denying the possibility of nididhyAsana itself prior
to jnAna - for such a contention is refuted by the very paragraph in xxxii
you referred to "साक्षात्कारपर्यन्तमिदं निदिध्यासनमभ्यसनीयम्".

This view was suggested by Sri Anand ji in his summary of the discussion,
but I had said that that was not per my understanding. I don't think you
had disagreed with me there.


> Finally, as I replied earlier, these are minor differences in my mind. To
> me, Vivarana and Bhamati are both valid, despite many technical
> differences. SMN, all three are needed in both views for sAkShAtkAra is
> sufficient samanvaya for me. I don't see it contradict their
> antarangasAdhanatva as given by the Shruti in either case. For the
> differences, I suggest even any one who asks me to stick to whatever helps
> them stay the course. I too follow the same.
>

I agree. However as we are engaging in shAstrArtha, I am seeking to amplify
the minor differences so that we can get a deeper understanding of the
different views on the topic.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan



> 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] */
>