[Advaita-l] Fwd: [advaitin] Consciousness and cognition - a consonance between the taittirIya upaniShad bhAShya and dakshinAmUrti stotra

[Venkatraghavan S]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025, 12:49
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Consciousness and cognition - a consonance between
the taittirIya upaniShad bhAShya and dakshinAmUrti stotra
To: Advaitin <advaitin at googlegroups.com>


Namaste Putran ji,
Good to hear from you.

The topic under discussion in the passage here is the meaning of the phrase
"jnAnam brahma" occuring in the taittirIyaupaniShad. Here, both words
jnAnam and brahma, being in primary case ending (prathamA vibhakti), the
direct meaning of the phrase is Brahman is jnAnam - as opposed to brahmaNah
jnAnam, which would have meant knowledge *of* Brahman.

The latter phrase brahmaNah jnAnam, with the sixth case ending for the word
brahma, could take on the two meanings you speak of - where

1) Brahman is the object of knowledge (a case of dvitIyArthe / karmaNi
ShaShThI, like in the case of brahmajijnAsA in the phrase, athAto
brahmajijnAsA), or

2) the cognition belongs to Brahman (Brahman's thought, sambandhe
ShaShThI), like in the case of the upaniShadic sokAmayata (He desired).

However, that is not the case here. Here it is jnAnam brahma - meaning
Brahman *is* jnAnam.

That being the case, Shankara interprets the word jnAnam not to be a
property that belongs to / qualifies Brahman, but rather that the phrase
"jnAnam brahma" is the definition of Brahman *as* jnAnam.

That leads to the question, if Brahman *is* jnAnam, the word "jnAnam" in
the worldly sense refers to cognitions, and cognitions are temporally
finite, the implication would be that Brahman is temporally finite too.

Shankaracharya answers this objection in the passage quoted. The gist of
the argument is that the true meaning of the word jnAnam is jnapti, meaning
consciousness. The figurative meaning of the word jnAnam is vRtti or
thought, which happens to be temporally finite.

Any figurative usage of a word requires a sambandha, a connection, between
the true meaning of the word and the figurative meaning. The sambandha
between the consciousness and thought is that the latter is illuminated by
consciousness, and through this illumined cognition, one perceives the
world. The connection between cognition and consciousness is so close that
many people are not able to distinguish the two. Therefore, in worldly
usage, the word jnAnam may refer to thought, but in the true sense it can
only refer to consciousness, because without consciousness, it is not
possible to know the world through thoughts alone.

Why? Because thoughts by themselves (in the absence of consciousness), are
inert.  However, consciousness is never absent, so whenever thought arises,
it does as as illuminated thought - that is why people do not recognise
consciousness to be an entity that is separate to and independent of the
thought.

Therefore, while in worldly use, the term jnAnam means cognitions, in the
literal sense it can only mean consciousness, because without
consciousness, it is not possible to know with thoughts alone.

That being the case the phrase jnAnam brahma cannot imply that Brahman is
temporally finite, like thoughts. It is eternal consciousness.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan




On Tue, 24 Jun 2025, 21:20 putran M, <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,
>
> I was also thinking on this usage of "knowledge" since I had mentioned my
> understanding like this in the last self-talk I made (in my mind vs dharma
> thread). I am in the process of perhaps adding some clarifications as well
> since a general listener may wonder why I said an advaitin may veer away
> from the VA usage "This exists in Brahman = This is a part of Brahman" and
> instead "This is knowledge or cognition of Brahman".
>
> Interestingly, the English usage "This is (in the) knowledge/cognition of
> Brahman" can be understood in two ways, which give different approaches to
> the advaitic version of Ishvara. If we take "knowledge of Brahman" to be
> "knowledge belonging to Brahman" or "cognition by Brahman", then whatever
> arises in cognition is present in the eternal jnana of Brahman.  It is the
> jnana-shakti or chit ("memory") of Brahman, that Brahman by His iccha
> brings into cognition (kriya). We never can see something different or new
> than what always exists in potential manner; and whatever is seen has Him
> as the adhishtanam.
>
> But the status of this cognition is that of imagination/drishti. The
> knowledge does not denote the intrinsic reality of Brahman but rather Its
> potential power (Maya) to imagine. In other words, the object as known is
> not Sat itself but a superimposition or projection. It is like me imagining
> I have wings and can fly. The status is of a thought (only my
> cognition/knowledge, real in that thought-world), which has no intrinsic
> reality in my true nature and yet is not absolutely non-existent. I am the
> source and support for the cognition and yet I myself am in truth
> completely different from the wings and flying. If I get back to my self,
> that wing-business is completely non-existent. I am the satya and
> adhishtanam for the wing-imagination that is mithya.
>
> Perhaps even the notions of eternality (time), change, duality can be
> subsumed within this drishti/knowledge/cognition - which indicates their
> anirvachaneeyatvam.
>
> The other interpretation of "This is cognition of Brahman" is where
> Brahman is known/cognized in such and such manner. We are shifting from the
> seer to the seen; and though the adhishtanam is nirguna, It gets known
> through the prism of adhyasa. "Snake", "rod", "monster" are all cognitions
> of the Rope that has nothing to do with them. All duality is an adhyasa
> on/cognition (wrong knowledge) of nirguna Brahman.
>
> But if start asking "who is the seer of the snake?", then we can go from
> jiva (seer vs seen is within the adhyasa) to Maya and back to the Ishvara
> above (whose knowledge is the world being projected). The Q&A will go in
> circles within the mithya realm.
>
> Those are my running thoughts on this.
>
> PS. I think I can follow the reason for "figurative" regarding the common
> usage of jnanam; and yet I can't quite fully understand that reason (!):
> what it means to say "the word jnAnam in the true sense is eternal and
> unchanging".
>
> thollmelukaalkizhu
>
>
>