[Advaita-l] {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} references to exact difference between the terms विदुषां / अविदुषां in Advaita.

[Krishna Kashyap]

*Namaste and praṇāms to all,*

Let me clarify the intent behind my question with an illustrative concern.

We often encounter professors in prestigious universities who, despite
being experts in their respective disciplines, continue to exhibit strong
human vices—kāma, krodha, lobha, mada, mātsarya, and so on. Even within
traditional domains, one may imagine a professor who teaches
Prasthāna-traya Vedānta with great erudition, yet remains vulnerable to
carnal desires and other afflictions. Classical narratives, such as that of
Sage Viśvāmitra’s encounter with Menakā, also raise similar questions. At
what point would one consider Viśvāmitra a *jñānī* or *vidvān*? Should he
instead be understood, at that stage, as a *karma-adhikārī* rather than a
knower established in jñāna?

Against this background, I am currently researching the *ontological and
pedagogical distinctions between the terms viduṣām (विदुषाम्) and aviduṣām
(अविदुषाम्)* within the Advaita tradition.

Although these terms occur frequently across the Prasthāna-traya Bhāṣyas, I
have found it difficult to locate a single, consistent *lakṣaṇa* that
applies uniformly across contexts—ranging from the early formulations in
the Gauḍapāda Kārikās, through Śaṅkarācārya’s Bhāṣyas, and into the later
dialectical developments of the Vivaraṇa and Bhāmatī schools.

More specifically:

   -

   Is *vidvān* to be understood strictly as one who has attained
   *aparokṣa-jñāna* (i.e., a *jīvanmukta*), or does the term, in certain
   contexts, also extend to the *vividiṣu* who possesses only
   *parokṣa-jñāna*?
   -

   Does the scope of *aviduṣām* vary depending on whether the discussion
   concerns *karma-adhikāra* or *jñāna-niṣṭhā*?
   -

   On what basis—psychological, epistemic, or ontological—does one
   determine the legitimate point at which Veda-vihita karmas are to be given
   up?

I am not seeking a purely sociological or āśrama-based explanation (e.g.,
renouncing marriage, adopting saffron robes, or formally entering
sannyāsa). Such external markers do not adequately explain the *internal
lakṣaṇa of the mental or cognitive state* that authorizes the abandonment
of karma.

I would be grateful if learned members could provide *specific textual
references or citations* that articulate these distinctions clearly. I am
also particularly interested in knowing whether there are documented
*vāda-bhedas* among post-Śaṅkara authors regarding the precise boundaries
and usage of these terms and states.

*Best regards,*
*Krishna Kashyap*


>