references to exact difference between the terms विदुषां / अविदुषां in Advaita.
Krishna Kashyap
Subject: Inquiry regarding the technical definitions of Vidvān and Avidvān in Advaita Siddhānta
Namaste and Pranams to all,
I am currently researching the ontological and pedagogical distinctions between the terms viduṣām (विदुषाम्) and aviduṣām (अविदुषाम्) within the Advaita tradition.
While these terms appear frequently across the Prasthāna-traya Bhāṣya, I have found it challenging to pinpoint a consistent, singular definition (lakṣaṇa) that holds across all contexts—from the early formulations in the Gauḍapāda Kārikā, Shankaracharya's PTB bhashyas, to the later dialectical works of the Vivaraṇa and Bhāmatī schools.
Specifically, I am interested in whether the "Vidvān" is strictly defined as the Jīvanmukta (attaining aparokṣa-jñāna), or if the term occasionally extends to the vividiṣu who possesses parokṣa-jñāna. Furthermore, does the definition of "Aviduṣām" shift when discussing karma-adhikāra versus jñāna-niṣṭhā? When can a person decide that it is time to give up veda vihita karmas. I am not interested in a simple social ritualistic answer, such as "ok -I dont want to get married and will wear saffron robes, get into sannyasa ashrama, hence I can give up karmas". This does not explain the actual lakshana of the mental state I have to achieve to give up karma.
Could the learned members provide specific references or citations that articulate these definitions? I am particularly interested to know if there are documented vāda-bhedas (differences of opinion) among post-Śaṅkara authors regarding the boundaries of these two terms/states.
Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
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