Intellectual Knowledge

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

I have been out of station in the last few days and I could'nt post my

replies to the points raised by Shri. Murthy and Shri. D. Hill.

 

Now I will continue with the discussion.

 

D. Hill wrote

 

"Jaishankar asks where does Atma Vidya take place. My answer would be that

it doesn't take place, but is always there, and in certain conditions

reveals itself to the mind. "

 

Jai : I would like to clarify certain things here. The word 'Jnanam' is used

as a word revealing the nature of the Atma. Taittiriya Upanishad reveals

Brahman as 'Satyam Jnanam Anantam'. Here Jnanam is used along with 'anantam'

- limitless. So in this case 'jnanam' cannot mean 'the act of knowing'. It

means the invariable consciousness which is present in all cognition.

Suppose you see a pot or think of a pot then there we can say 'pot

consciouness is.' When the cognition changes to a cloth then 'Cloth

consciouness is'. when one cognises some other object then 'that object

consciouness is'. So 'consciouness is' is invariable in any cognition and

this 'consciouness is' is there even when there is no cognition taking place

like in sleep. Thats why there is a continuity and we can say 'I slept', 'I

dreamt' and 'I am awake'. This 'conciousness' which does not depend upon the

subject-object is revealed by the word 'jnanam' when it is used as a

revealing word.

 

Further this invariable consciouness is not opposses to ignorance. Suppose I

ask 'Do you know chinese?'. You say 'I dont know'. So an ordinary individual

can think 'I am ignorant' and may even have complexes due to this. But How

did he know that 'I dont know'. What revealed to him that he does'nt know

chinese? That consciouness alone is always revealing all mental

modifications. Whether it is ignorance of an object or knowledge of an

object. It is not opposed to ignorance. Then what is opposed to ignorance?

The mental modification 'I know Chinese' alone is opposed to the ignorance

of chinese. When this mental modification or vritti takes place then we say

there is no ignorance.

 

I will give the analogy of the Sun covered by a cloud here which is given

by Shankara in his work Atma Bodha. The Sun whose nature is to be bright can

be covered by a cloud and One might say the Sun is covered by cloud. But

even to know that the Sun is covered by the Cloud, the Sun has to light up

that Cloud. And that Sun is not opposed to that cloud. It reveals it as it

will reveal any other object.

 

So 'Atma Jnana' when used as revealing the nature of the atma does'nt take

place because it is always there. But when 'Atma jnana' is used to signify

the gaining of the knowledge 'I am that invariable consciousness and I am

not a Samsari' then it takes place and it takes place only in the mind or

intellect.

 

D. Hill wrote

"I also feel that one of the problems in discussing this complex issue is

concerns terminology. In particular, what do Gummuluru Murthy and

Jaishankar, respectively, accept as the English translation of buddhi and

manas. When you write "mind" and "intellect" which Sanskrit terms are you

referring to? I take 'buddhi' to be a seat of spiritual intuition or a

higher mind which is receptive to the Pure Consciousness or Atman. Perhaps

I'm mistaken. It's been awhile since I did any formal study! Jaishankar

appears to take buddhi as intellect and I am interested in knowing his

reasons for doing so."

 

Jai : Buddhi is always taken as intellect and I dont see any indication in

shankara's writings which suggest that I should give it any other meaning.

Now you can ask what kind of buddhi? Kathopanishad says ' Drsyate tu Agryaya

Buddhya Sukshmya Sukshma Darshibihi' for which Shankara gives the meaning as

follows :

This atma is seen by the intellect(Buddhya), which has been conditioned by

the words of the Veda and Guru (Agryaya), of the SukshmaDarshin - the one

who sees the subtle. Suksmya is also an adjective of Buddhi. It conveys that

the intellect of the person who is receiving this knowledge is capable of

understanding this atma as not being a sense-object or the senses or the

mind, or the intellect or the unmanifest. '

 

I think words like 'spiritual intuition or a higher mind' convey nothing and

only mystifies Vedanta. Any knowledge requires qualification. You cant teach

Calculus unless you algebra and basic mathematics. Similarly this 'Atma

Vidya' can be taught only if one has 'Sadhana Catushtaya Sampathihi' or '

the Four-fold qualification'. But most of the people will not have all the

qualifications straight away but atleast the person should have the desire

for Moksha and have the committment to grow emotionally and intellectually.

Then this Vidya can be taught and the resulting knowledge takes place only

in the intellect.

 

I will write more on this topic and address all the points raised by

different people. Regarding quotations, give me sometime to read. But I give

some quotations below from my memory and you can refer yourself.

 

1. 'Drsyate tu Agryaya Buddhya Sukshmya Sukshma Darshibhi' - Katopanishad

1st valli 3rd chapter.

 

2. 'Manasa Eva Avaptavyam' - katopanishad

 

3. 'Manasa Eva Anudrstavyam' - Brhadaranyaka Upanishad ( 4th Chapter 4th

brahmanam)

 

4. Introductory Bhasyam to Chandogya Upanishad where Shankara gives the

similarities and differences between mental action and self-knowledge.

 

5. 'Sarva Karmani Manasa Sanyasya Aasthe sukham vashi' - Bhagavad Gita 5th

chapter.

 

6. The bhasyam to the Bhagavad Gita Verse

'Antavanta Ime Dehaha Nityasyoktha Sharirinaha

Anoshinaha Aprameyasya tasmat yudhyasva bharatha' (2nd chapter, verse

around 18 ) where while explaining the word 'Aprameyasya' Shankara says Atma

Vidya takes place by hearing the words of the Guru and Veda and it Destroys

Ajnana.

 

7. 'Shraddhavan labhate jnanam' - 'The one who has shraddha gains this

knowledge' BG 4th chapter. So this knowledge is gained and that means it

takes place.

 

I have only read the first four sutras of brahma sutra. So I cannot quote

freely from Brahma Sutra. But I have studied almost all the upanishads for

which shankara has written commentary and also his Bhagavad Gita Bhasyam

fully. I have quoted whatever came to my mind and will answer some of the

questions raised by Shri Murthy regarding Para-Vidya and Apara-Vidya.

 

Para-Vidya is the Knowledge of the 'Param' or the limitless which we all are

seeking knowingly or unknowingly. 'Apara-vidya' is the knowledge of finite

things i.e. anything that can be objectified by the mind and senses. In case

of Apara-vidya the ignorance of a particular object is destroyed along with

the objectification of that particular object by the mind. But in

'Para-Vidya' there is no object because if the Self is any one object then

it ceases to be the limitless. The Self being the limitless is not any one

object but it is that which gives existence to all objects. This is like the

Gold which is not just a ring or a chain or a pendant or a noselet, but

gives existence to all these names and forms without being any one of them.

The Self is Self-existent and Self-revealing, so its existence need not be

established by any means of knowledge(Pramana). But the problem of a Samsari

is he has wrong notions about the Self and the Veda tries to remove these

wrong notions. So in the case of self-knowledge the removal of ignorance or

wrong notions takes place without the consequent objectification. The

ignorance is destroyed by the mental modification or vritti born out of the

words of the Guru and the Vedas without need for any objectification of the

self because it is self-revealing. This is para-vidya. The classification is

based on the nature of the grammatical object of the knowledge and not on

whether the knowledge takes place in the intellect or sdomewhere else (I

dont know where!).

 

I will answer other questions later.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.