Definition of jnAna-yoga?

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

PraNAms to our Acharya who said *bhagavad-gItA kimcid-adhItA*! I

thought I have done the 'kimcit'! But I could not define 'jnAna-yoga'

to my Gita-class audience (who are in the third chapter of the Gita

now)!

 

Is there a definition of 'jnAna-yoga' by Shankara anywhere?. The only

two places where the word-combination occurs in the Gita are III-3 and

XVI-1. In the first, Shankara Bhashya says: 'jnAna itself is yoga'.

In the second it is simply a juxtaposition of jnAna and yoga.

 

I would like a definition, in one or two sentences, that is understood

by a beginner in Vedanta and at the same time that will stand further

scrutiny at higher levels in the ladder of advaitic understanding?

 

The VishishTAdvaita people seem to have no problem; their definition is

easy: 'Meditation on the Atman'

 

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 9/3/08, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

br. up. 2.4.5 says: AtmA vA are shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH.

So jnAnayoga is shravaNam,mananam, nididhyAsanam.

 

PraNams -

 

If I can add to what Shree Sastriji said - jnaana yoga also involves

understanding or assimilating relating to Gita -

1. brahmaarpanam brahma haviH .. sloka.

2. slokas in Ch. 7- bhuumiraapo ..and apareyam ..(the 7th ch. is entitld

jnaana-vijnana yoga).

3. Slokas in Ch. 9 - mayaa tatam idam sarvam and the next sloka.

4. kshetra and kshetragna yoga - I am the kshetrajna in all the kshetras.

 

There are many other -spread out in many chapters - jnaana yoga involves as

Sastriji said - sravana manana and nidhydhyasana - on the meaning and

implication of the above slokas.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> for the detailed meaning of the terms, shravaNam, etc, and the result

> obtained by each of them.

 

Namaste,

 

It is true that the phrase 'j~nAnayoga' does not occur in the

10 major upanishads.

 

The word would seem to be a paradox, as the basic thrust is

removal of 'aj~nAna'. In fact, in Vivekachudamani (verse #47; in some

editions it is #49) Sankara uses the word 'aj~nAnayogAt'!

 

aGYaanayogaatparamaatmanastava

hyanaatmaban{}dhastata eva sa.nsR^itiH .

tayorvivekoditabodhavanhiH

aGYaanakaaryaM pradahetsamuulam.h .. 47..

 

" For you who are Paramatman in reality, association with ajnana

produces bondage with the anatman whence arises samsara. The fire of

knowledge of their distinctness will completely burn away the effect of

the ajnana with its roots. "

 

(tr. P. Suryanarayanan)

 

The following verses from Upadeshasahasri may have some

bearing on the definition:

 

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_shankara/US_itran_new.itx

 

dR^isheshChAyA yadArUDhA mukhacChAyeva darshane |

pashyaMstaM pratyayaM yogI dR^iShTa Atmeti manyate || 12:6 ||

 

" An ignorant person looks upon the intellect as the Self, when there is

the reflection of the Self in the intellect like that of a face in a

mirror. "

 

taM ca mUDhaM ca yadyanyaM pratyayaM vetti no dR^isheH |

sa eva yoginAM shreShTho netaraH syAn na saMshayaH || 12:7 ||

 

" He who looks upon the ego, the indiscrimination that produces delusion

and other mental modifications (or the reflection of the Self in them)

as having no connection with the Self , is without doubt the the

dearest to the knowers of Brahman. "

 

kR^itakR^ityashca siddhashca yogI brAhmaNa eva ca |

yadaivaM veda tattvArthamanyathA hyAtmahA bhavet || 13:26 ||

 

" He who thus knows the reality of the Self becomes successful in

attaining the gaol of his life and becomes perfect. He becomes a Knower

of Brahman and one with It. One knowing the Self otherwise may be said

to commit suicide. "

[tr. Sw. Jagadananda)

 

If I understand it correctly, advaita negates duality - so

there no question of two entities being joined (yoga), but realizing

the non-separateness.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

PraNAms

As I see it-

 

jnaana yoga is actually oxymoron. yoga implies yoking the mind or contemplating

in the direction - jnaana involves knowledge which is not purusha tantra.

Contemplation is purusha tantra - that is by human effort while the knowledge is

not. The knowledge is self-revealing.

 

One cannot do jnaana yoga just as one cannot do meditation too. Scriptures only

provide the direction to contemplate on - as pointers.

 

The truth is aprameyam - is an object for knowledge.

 

When the mind becomes contemplative where the saadhak has developed the required

saadhana sampatti - the four fold qualifications, the enquiry into the nature of

Brahman is defined as jnaana yoga - as Br. Up that Sastriji pointed out -

shrotavyaH, mantavyaH and nidhidhyaasitavyaH - where tavyaH implies a vidhi -

one has to do it - and doing part is the yoga. The truth reveals itself since it

is self-revealing.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> jnaana yoga is actually oxymoron.

 

Namaste,

 

The clue to the definition may be in the Bhashya on Gita 13:24 -

 

 

dhyaanenaatmani pashyanti kechidaatmaanamaatmanaa .

anye saaN^khyena yogena karmayogena chaapare .. 13\-24..

 

 

" 24. Through meditation some realize the Self in (their) intellect

with the help of the internal organ; others through Sankhya-yoga, and

others through Karma-yoga.

 

Dhyanena, through meditation: Meditation means contemplation (on the

Self) after withdrawing into the mind with concentration the organs

of hearing etc. from the objects like sound etc., and then

withdrawing the mind into the indwelling conscious Self. Thus, from

the citation of such illustrations as, 'the crane meditates, as it

were, 'the earth meditates, as it were; the mountains meditate, as it

were' (Ch. 7.6.1), it follows that meditation is a constant and

uninterrupted current of thought like a line of pouring oil. Through

that meditation, kecit, some yogis; pasyanti, realize; the indwelling

conscious atmanam, Self; atmani, in (their) intellect; atmana, with

the help of the internal organ that has been purified by meditation.

 

Anye, others; sankhyena yogena, through Sankhya-yoga: Sankhya means

thinking, 'These qualities, viz sattva, rajas and tamas, are objects

of my perception; I am the Self, distinct from them, a witness of

their functions, eternal and different from the qualities.' This

Sankhya is Yoga. [by Sankhya is meant that knowledge which arises

from the foregoing reflection. This knowledge is itself called Yoga

(concentration of mind) inasmuch as it is similar to Yoga in leading

to the realization of the Self.] Through that they realize the Self

with the help of the internal organ. This is how it is to be

construed. "

 

And anye, others; karma-yogena, through Karma-yoga-action itself

being the Yoga: Action performed with the idea of dedication to God

is figuratively called Yoga since it leads to Yoga. (others realize)

with the help of that (action), through purification of the mind and

rise of Knowledge. [The best among the yogis are competent for

meditation (dhyana); the modiocre for reflection (Sankhya); and the

lowest for Karma-yoga.]

[tr. Sw. Gambhirananda]

 

" ....anye sA~nkhyena yogena, sA~NkhyaM naama 'ime sattvarajastamAMsi

guNAH mayA dRRishyA ahaM tebhyo.anyaH tadvyApArasAkShibhUtaH nityaH

guNavilakShaH AtmA' iti chintanaM eShaH sA~Nkhyo yogaH,

tena 'pashyanti AtmAnamAtmanA' iti vartate |

karmayogena, karmaiva yogaH, IshvarArpaNabudddhyA anuShThIyamAnaM

ghaTanarUpaM yogArthatvAt yogaH uchyate guNataH ; tena

sattvashuddhij~nAnotpattidvAreNa cha apare || "

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste to Krishnamurthi-ji, Sadananda-ji, and Sunder-ji,

 

In his bhAshya on gItA, 3.3, Shri Shankara says: jnAnam eva yogah—

jnAna itself is the yoga. The word `yoga' can be derived in two

ways: yujyate iti yogah, and yujyate anena iti yogah. The first

derivation means just `union'. The second derivation means 'that by

which the union is effected'. Anandagiri points out in his sub-

commentary that in the expressions karmayoga, bhaktiyoga and

jnAnayoga the word `yoga' is used in the sense of `that by which the

union is effected'. He says, " yujyate anena brahmaNa " —that by means

of which the jIvAtmA is united with brahman. It is well known that

the word `united' is not to be taken literally because there are no

two entities to be united. It only means the realization of the

identity of jIvAtmA and paramAtmA.

Thus karma yoga means `karma as the means of realization' and

similarly bhaktiyoga and jnAnayoga also. So when jnAna is made the

means of realization it is jnAnayoga. Anandagiri explains jnAnam in

this context as `paramArtha-vastu-viShayam jnAnam'. This knowledge

is the means to realization and this knowledge is attained through

shravaNam, mananam and nididhyasanam. So this is jnAnayoga.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 9/4/08, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

In his bhAshya on gItA, 3.3, Shri Shankara says: jnAnam eva yogah—

jnAna itself is the yoga. The word `yoga' can be derived in two

ways: yujyate iti yogah, and yujyate anena iti yogah. The first

derivation means just `union'. The second derivation means 'that by

which the union is effected'.

 

Sastriji - PraNAms

 

Thanks for the indepth analysis provided. Sanskrit is so flexible, it is

important to examine the correct etymological derivation appropriate to get the

correct meaning.

 

Incidentally - Bhagavan Ramanuja considers jnaana yoga as paradharma. Path of

karma and Bhakti with sharanagati is emphasized where jnaana yoga is interpreted

as understandinig ones own self which is different from Iswara and therefore not

the ultimate end as moksha - if possible to be avoided as paradharma.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Br. Up that Sastriji pointed out - shrotavyaH, mantavyaH and nidhidhyaasitavyaH - where tavyaH implies a vidhi - one has to do it - and doing part is the yoga. The truth reveals itself since it is self-revealing.

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I am really surprised why Sri Sastri prabhuji has not replied to this particular statement of yours...coz. shankara goes on to explain in length that shravana, manana & nidhidhyAsana are not vidhipara vAkya-s (injunctive in nature)...In bruhadAraNyaka itself he makes it point very clear & in chAndOgya while exaplaining tattvamasi vAkya also shankara constucts the same argument....I would like to get Sri Sastri prabhuji's clarification on this...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji - PraNams.

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 9/8/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I am really surprised why Sri Sastri prabhuji has not replied to this particular

statement of yours...coz. Shankara goes on to explain in length that shravana,

manana & nidhidhyAsana are not vidhipara vAkya-s (injunctive in nature)...In

bruhadAraNyaka itself he makes it point very clear & in chAndOgya while

exaplaining tattvamasi vAkya also Shankara constucts the same argument.... I

would like to get Sri Sastri prabhuji's clarification on this...

--------------

 

Bhaskarji - Shree Sastriji has answered - in providing the definition of yoga.

That explains the vidhi part too. I am happy with the answer.

 

I think one has to understand Shankara bhaashya. Here is how I understand.

 

one HAS TO DO shravanam - one HAS TO mananam and one HAS TO DO nidhidhyaasanam -

since tavyaH means one has to do.

 

One cannot do shravanam one cannot do mananam and one cannot do nidhidhyaasanam.

 

That is why I said they have to be properly understood. I have no doubts of what

they mean. I have to make effort to sit and listen. but whether I could listen

or not does not depend on purusha tantra - all knowledge is vastu tantra.

Looking from what angel it is vidhi and what angle it is grace also - is clear.

 

It is my vidhi to respond correctly to the best I can whether it will be

understood correctly is not in my hands.

 

Hence when I said that vidhi implied in tavyaH - as the dictionary meaning is

and one has to make some efforts external to have the BMI ready for listening

for reflecting and for contemplating - I have using from the purushatantra part.

manushyaanam sahasreshu kaschit YATATI

 

As Sastriji explained for the meaning of Yoga, the oxymoron that I mentioned is

removed using that definition.

 

I understood what Sastriji discussed and thanked him for bringing that aspect

too.

 

I am sure Shankara bhaashya would not say any thing different - since you are

expert can let me know it says as different and way.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> Br. Up that Sastriji pointed out - shrotavyaH, mantavyaH and

> nidhidhyaasitavyaH - where tavyaH implies a vidhi - one has to do

it - and

> doing part is the yoga. The truth reveals itself since it is

> self-revealing.

>

>

> praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> I am really surprised why Sri Sastri prabhuji has not replied to

this

> particular statement of yours...coz. shankara goes on to explain

in length

> that shravana, manana & nidhidhyAsana are not vidhipara vAkya-s

(injunctive

> in nature)...In bruhadAraNyaka itself he makes it point very clear

& in

> chAndOgya while exaplaining tattvamasi vAkya also shankara

constucts the

> same argument....I would like to get Sri Sastri prabhuji's

clarification on

> this...

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

>

>

> bhaskar

 

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

There is no doubt that there can be no vidhi for jnAna, because it

is vastutantra. But on the question whether there is vidhi for

shravaNam there are different views among post-Shankara advaitins

who are regarded by traditional scholars as authentic exponents of

Shri Shankara's views, as to what kind of vidhi it is. There is also

one view that there is no vidhi. I have given all these views in my

summary of Siddhanta lesa sangraha of Appayya Dikshita at the

following website.

 

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/siddhantalesa1.1.pdf

 

I cannot add anything more on this point.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

There is no doubt that there can be no vidhi for jnAna, because it

is vastutantra.

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks a lot for your kind clarification...Unfortunately I donot have access to internet to read your website...Yes, this is what I was trying to say in my previous mail to Sri Sadananda prabhuji...That which is gained through vidhi cannot be the permanent...If shravaNAdi sAdhana-s are vidhi-para & jnAna obtained from these *vidhi-s* cannot be permanent...As you know, in sUtra bhAshya how shankara repeatedly emphasizes this fact that jnAna is not vidhi-para sAdhana..If we say shravaNAdi are vidhi-s then like agnihOtra, upAsana etc. something needs to be done after it..whereas, shravaNAdi sAdhana-s donot demand anything further to say these sAdhana-s are vidhi para...Hence shankara says in muNdaka shruti bhAshya : yathA vidhi vishaye kartrAdyaneka kArakOpasaMhAradvarENa vAkyArthajnAnakAlAt anyatra anushTeyOrThO asti agnihOtrAdi lakshaNo, *na taThA iha paravidhyA vishaye, *vAkyArtha jnAna samakAla* eva tu paryavasitO bhavati....Despite this clarification from shankara, it is surprising to see still we are believing that shravaNa etc. are vidhi para vAkya-s.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

Would you help me understand this by providing a translation into english of your qoute of shankara's clarification.

 

Many thanks,

 

Peter

praNAms Sri Peter prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Frankly, my English is quite mediocre to do that job ::-(( I must confess here that I am not at all a good translator to give you an authentic interpretation of Sanskrit words/sentences in English. Moreover, I have studied shankara's commentaries ( first I typed here *shankara bhAshya* in place of commentary...then realized this Sanskrit word again would be a problem & deleted the word *bhAshya* & written commentary :-)) mostly in my mother tongue & teaching by my guruji also either in Sanskrit or sometimes in my mother tongue Kannada...I've not attended any gIta, upanishad, brahmasUtra classes where the medium of instruction is English :-)) Moreover, I have not read any English translations of shankara's commentary..I have only one English translation written by Swamy Gambhirananda on BruhadaaraNyaka upanishad...And that book is yet to be read :-)) Hence, whenever I try to write vedanta in English, it would be a big taxing task for me :-)) and no need to mention again that it would be a tedious task for me if somebody asks me to translate bhAshya vAkya-s (commentary sentences) in English. Anyway, here is my sloppy attempt :

The below sentence is picked from shankara's commentary on muNdaka shruti/upanishat (scripture) reference is (1-1-6), in an introduction to this maNtra (scriptural statements/vedic statements (vAkya-s) normally called as *maNtra-s* coz. these statements have intonations (svara-s), shankara talks about the difference between para vidya (local/transactional knowledge) & apara vidyA ( transcendental knowledge). Here he says in para vidyA, the instructions are injunctive (vidhi para) in nature, after hearing the knowledge/theories, one has the obligation to do something like agnihOtra (a vedic ritual related to fire ) etc. Whereas in shravaNa (hearing the scriptural sentences) there is nothing needs to be done after hearing the shruti sentences...A uttama adhikAra (an able aspirant) would get the enlightenment immediately (within no time-jnAna samakAle..emphasizes this) after hearing the shruti vAkya. Hence, it has been said in traditional circle that the direct spiritual practices like shravaNa, manana & nidhidhyAsana are not *vidhi para*....This is what I was trying to convey through that bhAshya vAkya.

Hope this would be of some help to you...

I think it is better to have an English translations on principal upanishads, so that you can refer the relevant portion whenever commentaries quoted in Sanskrit..Ofcourse, for that you have to trust the translator :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji.

 

There is an inadvertent slip here. I am sure you typed it fast. The

meanings of parA and apaRa have been reversed.

 

Best regards.

 

Nair

_________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

......> shankara talks about the difference between para vidya

(local/transactional

> knowledge) & apara vidyA ( transcendental knowledge).