Brahmakara vritti refuted

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

"Therefore, having known this (tasmād evaṁ viditvā), one should direct memory (smṛtim yojayet) towards the non-dual (advaita)." Mandukya Karika 2.39

HH SSS Vivrti:
There is no need for acquiring an awareness-modification (vṛtti-lābhaḥ) of the Self (ātman) for its knowledge (vedanam). For, in the case of the Self (ātman), which is already self-evident (sva-yam-prasiddhaḥ), knowledge (vedanam) does not require the generation of an awareness-modification (vṛtti-sampādana) related to its object (viṣaya). Even though the Self (ātman) is directly present, immediately evident (avyavahitaḥ), and the very essence of the inquirer (jijñāsuḥ-svarūpa-bhūtaḥ), yet, due to the superimposition of name and form (nāma-rūpa-viśeṣa) imagined by ignorance (avidyā-kalpitaḥ):

(1) To those whose intellect is deluded (hṛta-buddhi), it appears as if unknown.
(2) It seems as if separated from itself due to the obstruction caused by duality (dvaita-bhāva-vyavahita-iva).
(3) It appears as if something distinct from oneself (sva-smāt anya iva).

Thus, the false cognition of the reality of duality (dvaita-bhāva-satyatva-buddhiḥ) alone is what must be eliminated (nivartayitavyā), not an effort made towards the cognition of the Self (ātma-vedane yatnaḥ kartavyaḥ).

from HH SSS, Mandukya Rahasya Vivṛtti (MRV2-38), Pages 390-258 Chatgpt Translation

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Hi Michael,

 

Not joining in here – I don’t recall seeing the post to which you are responding – BUT

 

I have ‘conversed’ with ChatGPT on a number of occasions now, and I don’t think that it has managed to quotes accurately from PT once! I have pointed this out to it a couple of times and it just ‘apologizes’ and ‘promises’ to do better next time (but doesn’t)!

 

I don’t know where your quote DOES come from but it is not kArikA 2.39 (it only goes up to 2.38).

 

ChatGPT’s latest excuses are:

 

<<<< 

Why This Happens

The issue arises primarily from variations in referencing systems and textual traditions. Here are a few reasons:

1. Different Recensions
• Many Upaniṣads, including the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, exist in multiple recensions. Some commentaries use a different chapter-verse numbering system, especially between the Kāṇva and Mādhyandina recensions.
2. Cross-referencing from Commentaries
• Some sources cite Śaṅkara’s Bhāṣya rather than the Upaniṣad directly, and he sometimes paraphrases or references a passage indirectly, which can lead to confusion in numbering.
3. Reliance on Secondary Sources
• Many modern translations and compilations reference passages inconsistently. While I cross-check from primary sources when possible, errors can creep in if an intermediary source has discrepancies.
4. Memory & Speed in Responses
• When pulling references quickly, a misattribution can happen. I should double-check directly against Śaṅkara’s commentary and authoritative editions before citing.

How to Improve This

Since you prefer precise, original Advaita sources, I'll take extra care in verifying references against primary texts rather than relying on secondary indexing. If you'd like, I can prioritize specific editions of the texts that you trust—do you have a preferred edition of the Upaniṣads or Śaṅkara Bhāṣya that you rely on?

>>>> 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEAH8k%3DiHkCghVKO-AbyyQkrs0gULWowMLCrO3rzgcn5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

The verse is MANDUkya 2.36 and not 2.39.

I am afraid SSSS ji has missed the point. While the existence and consciousness aspect of Self are indeed evident, what is covered is the Brahma-swarUpatA. That means, the infinite bliss hood of Self is covered.

No one doubts whether he exists or not. Similarly none doubts whether he is aware or not. These are evident to him always. However, no one considers himself as infinite bliss swarUpa.

This is because the Ananda-swarUpa of Brahman is covered by ajnAna.

That covering can be removed only through BrahmAkArA-vritti.

There is no need for acquiring an awareness-modification (vṛtti-lābhaḥ) of the Self (ātman) for its knowledge (vedanam). For, in the case of the Self (ātman), which is already self-evident (sva-yam-prasiddhaḥ), knowledge (vedanam) does not require the generation of an awareness-modification (vṛtti-sampādana) related to its object (viṣaya).

SSSS ji missed the non-illumination of Brahma-swarUpa which cannot be explained unless a covering is accepted.

Even though the Self (ātman) is directly present, immediately evident (avyavahitaḥ), and the very essence of the inquirer (jijñāsuḥ-svarūpa-bhūtaḥ), yet, due to the superimposition of name and form (nāma-rūpa-viśeṣa) imagined by ignorance (avidyā-kalpitaḥ):

(1) To those whose intellect is deluded (hṛta-buddhi), it appears as if unknown.

Only the Ananda swarUpa appears as unknown and not sat and chit.

(2) It seems as if separated from itself due to the obstruction caused by duality (dvaita-bhāva-vyavahita-iva).
(3) It appears as if something distinct from oneself (sva-smāt anya iva).

Thus, the false cognition of the reality of duality (dvaita-bhāva-satyatva-buddhiḥ) alone is what must be eliminated (nivartayitavyā), not an effort made towards the cognition of the Self (ātma-vedane yatnaḥ kartavyaḥ).

Self cannot be known like a chair and table, which are known through pratifalita-chaitanya. Instead being swaprakAsha, it merely requires removal of the AvaraNa for its illumination. Just the avidyA is required to be removed, the swaprakAsha Brahma-swarUpa stands revealed on its own. Sat and chit are anyway revealed beforehand itself.

And that avidyA removal is through BrahmAkArA-vritti. 

Regards 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Surewshwaracharya in the Taittiriya Bhashya Vartikam admits of the Avidya-dispelling VRtti explicitly, without any ambiguity:

The context is the Taittiriya Upanishad Brahmanandavalli statement: yo veda nihitam guhAyAm paramE vyOman, so'shnutE sarvAn kAmAn saha 

This means: whoever realizes that Brahman seated in the cave of the intellect, attains complete fulfillment. Explaining this Sureshwara says:

तमोरजोविनिर्मुक्ततद्वृत्त्या चोपलभ्यते । ब्रह्मातो निहितं बुद्धौ मनसैवेति च श्रुतिः ॥ १०८ ॥

Brahman is apprehended by that vRtti, the transformation of the intellect, that is free of tamas and rajas (that is, with pure Sattva).  The pramANa for this is: manasA eva idam ApnOti, neha nAnAsti kinchana - occurring in the KaTha and Brihadaranyaka upanishads:  this Brahman is apprehended through the instrumentality of the mind/intellect alone. Naturally any function of the mind/intellect is by default through a vRitti.  This vRitti alone is called akhanDAkAra vRtti.   By citing that KaTha, Brihadaranyaka shruti's Sureshwara is also endorsing that the Shruti is the pramANa for the akhaNDAkara vRtti. 

निगूढमस्यां तद्ब्रह्म कामाविद्याद्युपप्लवात् । प्रत्यग्धियोऽनुपश्यन्ति तस्माद् बुद्धिर्गुहोच्यते ॥ १०९ ॥ 

In this very next verse Sureshwara confirms the application of the vRtti: In this intellect cave is hidden the Brahman by the screen of desire and avidyA (the sequence taught in the Brihadaranyaka is: the fundamental avidyA > kama > karma.  Avidya pertaining to one's true nature (AvaraNa) gives rise to the vikShepa of being finite and the desire to fulfill oneself and this in turn leads to action. Sureshwara gives this logic and says: Those who have turned inward, pratyak dhiyaH, which is essentially the culmination in akhaNDAkAra vRtti in apprehending the Atman Brahman and hence alone the intellect is termed guhA, cave, says Sureshwara. 

warm regards

subbu

 

--

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

I need to study the full vivruti of this verse in detail before drawing final conclusions. However, at first glance it seems inappropriate to extend that explanation to the case of brahmakara‑vritti. As Sudhanshu ji, Raghav ji, and Subbu ji have pointed out, brahmakara‑vritti is distinct from all other antahkarana‑vrittis. According to our siddhanta, while a typical antahkarana‑vritti (i.e. ordinary intellectual process or thought) cannot objectify Atman-Brahman, only brahmakara‑vritti is capable of indirectly revealing Atman-Brahman by effectively sublating the ignorance covering its true nature.

I also wish to refer to SBG 5.15 and 5.16:

In SBG 5.15 Bhagavan says:
“अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं” ("Knowledge is covered by ignorance.")

In SBG 5.16 Bhagavan says:
“ज्ञानेन तदज्ञानं नाशितम्” ("That ignorance is destroyed by knowledge")
“ज्ञानं प्रकाशयति तत्परम्” ("Knowledge reveals the Supreme [Atman-Brahman]")

In translation, these statements suggest that:
- Knowledge (1) is covered by ignorance
- That ignorance is destroyed by knowledge (2)
- Knowledge (3) reveals the Supreme (Atman-Brahman)
We also know that the very nature of the Supreme (Atman-Brahman) is pure Knowledge (4).

Thus, the term “Knowledge” is referenced — explicitly or implicitly — in four times. The key question is: Are all these references to “Knowledge” identical, or do they denote distinct aspects? Consider the following:

a. Knowledge (1):
The knowledge that is covered by ignorance cannot itself be capable of overcoming ignorance; otherwise, ignorance would not be able to cover it. Thus, Knowledge (1) is not antagonistic to ignorance.

b. Knowledge (2):
When it is said that ignorance is destroyed by knowledge (2), this indicates that Knowledge (2) must be antagonistic to ignorance. Therefore, Knowledge (2) cannot be the same as Knowledge (1).

c. The Nature of Knowledge (2):
Since ignorance covering Knowledge (1) is subsequently destroyed by Knowledge (2), it follows that Knowledge (2) must have an origination — it is acquired, born, gained, dawned or generated by some cause capable of removing a pre-existing ignorance. Hence, Knowledge (2) is mutable and temporary.

d. Knowledge (3):
The statement that “Knowledge (3) reveals the Supreme” suggests that Knowledge (3) cannot be identical to Knowledge (1); if it were, then Knowledge (1) would reveal the Supreme regardless of any covering ignorance. Thus, Knowledge (3) must be the same as Knowledge (2) — that is, a mutable, originated knowledge which, by dispelling the ignorance obscuring Knowledge (1), allows the revelation of the Supreme.

e. The Nature of Knowledge (1):
Per our siddhanta, the Supreme (Atman-Brahman) is of the nature of pure, immutable Knowledge (jnāna Brahman). In this view, the revelation of the Supreme is tantamount to the unveiling of the pure Knowledge (Knowledge (1)).

In summary, we seem to have two distinct kinds of “Knowledge” mentioned:

A. Knowledge (1) and Knowledge (4):
This represents the jnana svarupa of Atman-Brahman — immutable, unconditioned, unrelated and non-antagonistic.

B. Knowledge (2) and Knowledge (3):
This represents a distinct, originated knowledge — a mutable aspect that arises, is antagonistic to ignorance and is capable of dispelling ignorance.

If A corresponds to the true nature of Atman-Brahman, could you please clarify the nature of B? Our later acharyas describe this originated, modified knowledge as a special type of vritti-jnana — a modification of the antahkarana. The explanation of these verses found in the Gudhartha Dipika is particularly illuminating.

As a side note, it is significant that in 5.15 Bhagavan explicitly states “अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं” (“knowledge is covered by ignorance”), thereby underscoring that positive ignorance has the capacity to obscure (avarana) knowledge.

prostrations,
Vikram

On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 4:30 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Therefore, having known this (tasmād evaṁ viditvā), one should direct memory (smṛtim yojayet) towards the non-dual (advaita)." Mandukya Karika 2.39

HH SSS Vivrti:
There is no need for acquiring an awareness-modification (vṛtti-lābhaḥ) of the Self (ātman) for its knowledge (vedanam). For, in the case of the Self (ātman), which is already self-evident (sva-yam-prasiddhaḥ), knowledge (vedanam) does not require the generation of an awareness-modification (vṛtti-sampādana) related to its object (viṣaya). Even though the Self (ātman) is directly present, immediately evident (avyavahitaḥ), and the very essence of the inquirer (jijñāsuḥ-svarūpa-bhūtaḥ), yet, due to the superimposition of name and form (nāma-rūpa-viśeṣa) imagined by ignorance (avidyā-kalpitaḥ):

(1) To those whose intellect is deluded (hṛta-buddhi), it appears as if unknown.
(2) It seems as if separated from itself due to the obstruction caused by duality (dvaita-bhāva-vyavahita-iva).
(3) It appears as if something distinct from oneself (sva-smāt anya iva).

Thus, the false cognition of the reality of duality (dvaita-bhāva-satyatva-buddhiḥ) alone is what must be eliminated (nivartayitavyā), not an effort made towards the cognition of the Self (ātma-vedane yatnaḥ kartavyaḥ).

from HH SSS, Mandukya Rahasya Vivṛtti (MRV2-38), Pages 390-258 Chatgpt Translation

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEAH8k%3DiHkCghVKO-AbyyQkrs0gULWowMLCrO3rzgcn5A%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1FB%2Bshm1RncSnkxrU0Vzgh46-fvbC%3D9tdpOGg-d1Dc2g%40mail.gmail.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1FB%2Bshm1RncSnkxrU0Vzgh46-fvbC%3D9tdpOGg-d1Dc2g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Raghav, 

//Any pramANa including the antya-pramANa produces vRttis. 

I exist. I am conscious. Are self-evident. They don't need any new pramANa.

But, that "I am deshataH, kAlataH aparicchinnaH" automatically implies certain vRttis do occur when these statements are studied.//

There is no transient, finite, object vritti that is capable of 'knowing' the subject Self. Samyak jnana, vritti, removes avidya, as say the texts but only by negation of wrong views.  Remove the error and claim the substratum  To posit that Brahmakara vritti is necessary denies sruti as pramana. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLf1CW62PuohLoovii1L50k3jBrRj2wDTTx6asVV7iMyDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subramian

तमोरजोविनिर्मुक्ततद्वृत्त्या चोपलभ्यते । ब्रह्मातो निहितं बुद्धौ मनसैवेति च श्रुतिः ॥ १०८ ॥  

A great quote seemingly supportive of Brahmakara vritti. Kudos for locating it. I have not studied that text nor even viewed the quote's context but none of the equilivent terms appear in PTB and in NKS, Sureswara sings another tune:

"But they say that in the case of one

who meditates on the meaning conveyed by the sentences
as continuously as the Ganges flows, another
cognition arises which is (not relational because it is)

not the meaning of any sentence (avakyartha).
(Response): The knowledge derived from Vedic revelation
demolishes nescience in its form as modified into the
factors necessary for action at a single stroke. ence
there can be no association between the two (knowledge and actrion).1.67"

But as, in whatever way they are considered, texts like
“that thou art” do not envisage action even indirectly,
it is difficult to show that they imply activity like continuous
meditation (prasankhyana). 3.81

All that pondering can produce is the power of
habitually concentrating the mind. It is not as a result
of our pondering that the means of knowledge yield
knowledge of their objects; (they do so directly).3.90

Hence a man derives
from such texts as that thou art” synthetic knowledge
of the form “I am the Absolute (Brahman)”, and, having
done so, he must practise sustained meditation on them
until awareness of the inmost Self dawns in its (direct)
form, inexpressible by any sentence. The state of final
liberation (kaivalya) is achieved only by this knowledge.
To refute this idea, we say: 
[9] On our view, that which is not the meaning of any
sentence {viz. the Self or Absolute) is immediately
apprehended as the meaning of “that” and “thou”
through the exclusion (vyavrtti) of meanings arising
from the grammatical apposition of the words etc., 1 as
in the case of the pot-ether and the other ether. 3.9

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

How does Brahma-jnAna arise then? I mean we hear from teacher or from shAstra. Then what happens thereafter?

And why does it not happen even after hearing from teacher for so many people.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Michael

On Mon, 3 Feb, 2025, 4:59 pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Raghav,

//Any pramANa including the antya-pramANa produces vRttis.
I exist. I am conscious. Are self-evident. They don't need any new pramANa.
But, that "I am deshataH, kAlataH aparicchinnaH" automatically implies
certain vRttis do occur when these statements are studied.//

There is no transient, finite, object vritti that is capable of 'knowing'
the subject Self.

Samyak jnana, vritti, removes avidya, as say the texts
but only by negation of wrong views. 

I am happy to see that you agree that there is something called "samyak-jnAna-vRtti" that arises in the antaHkaraNa when shAstra shravaNam takes place. (With sAdhana chatuShTaya in place etc).

No one is denying that this vRtti does not and cannot objectify the Self which is the viShayin. There is no disagreement there.

 

Remove the error and claim the
substratum  To posit that Brahmakara vritti is necessary denies sruti as
pramana.

But you just said that the samyak-jnAna-vRtti is indeed required. 

Maybe you have something else in mind by the word brahmAkAra vRtti. 

Asserting such a samyak-jnAna-vRtti aka brahmAkAra vRtti arises,  does not at all contradict shruti prAmANyam. When the antaHkaraNam is exposed to shruti teachings for a length of time, the brahmAkAra vRtti alias samyak-jnAna-vRtti arises.

You are just bringing in the same brahmAkAra-vRtti and giving it a new name samyak-jnAna-vRtti. They both mean the same thing.

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDBxBfU5QRmkwCEZXMxRLkwSgQqm2gTrDRPoZ_EyZbTUQ%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Vikram, 

Thank you for your very proper response. Human replicates A.I. :)

//I need to study the full vivruti of this verse in detail before drawing final conclusions. //
Sorry, the translation is in manuscript form and not yet available. However, the HH SSS Sanskrit original can be view/downloaded here: http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/sanskrit_books.php

//brahmakara‑vritti is distinct from all other antahkarana‑vrittis. //

KIndly show where this is supported in PTB. Sureswara in NKS and Sankara in Upa Sah both point out that only the words of Sruti are pramana capable of revealing that which cannot be the object of any vritti/ avakyartha in NKS.  

//d. Knowledge (3):
The statement that “Knowledge (3) reveals the Supreme” suggests that Knowledge (3) cannot be identical to Knowledge (1); if it were, then Knowledge (1) would reveal the Supreme regardless of any covering ignorance.//

I am confused. Knowledge (1) is the Self; Knowledge (2) is samyak jnana. How is knowledge (3) different from Knowledge (2) and then Knowledge (4)??? Perhaps better to not to refer to all as knowledge. The prakriya is to refer to all these notions as adhyaropa-s of the sastra. The great fault of mulavidya is in reifying these notions so that there is an actual avidya that is actually partially removed (maya remains despite the fall of ignorance = avidya lesa) .. 

//If A  corresponds to the true nature of Atman-Brahman, could you please clarify the nature of B? //

relative, samyak jnana - it negates what obscures A - it cannot positively reveal that which is ever present. The subject cannot become an object. 

 

Our later acharyas describe this originated, modified knowledge as a special type of vritti-jnana — a modification of the antahkarana. The explanation of these verses found in the Gudhartha Dipika is particularly illuminating.

Yes and dear Madhusudhana Saraswati promotes videha mukti above jivanmukti saying in opposition to PTB that duality is not destroyed until the body falls!!

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Thanks for keeping it simple! 
Please refer to NKS where Sureswara speaks of the 4 examples in sastra of adhikari enlightenment. Here's the concluding verse: 
[2.3] And again. Self-realization may be obtained
through mere hearing of the words of the text (once
accidentally), as in the case of the goblin. Three of
these four ways of acquiring Self-knowledge are due to
chance; only in the case of the one who is made to
ponder (on the text which he has previously heard) does
Self-knowledge arise with certainty

In both the NKS and Sankara;s Upa Sah, it is repeatedly and consistently affirmed that only through the words of sastra, tat twam asi, is the Self revealed.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Fine Michael ji.

So, has it happened in your case? I mean, you have heard the shAstra. And also from a teacher. Has the avidyA been removed, or the wrong ideas been negated?

If not, then why not?

Regards 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Only Bhagavan can say why? But what does that prove? I am only intending to voice sastra and acharya in my comments - not proclaim an independent authority.  Even moksa-claiming teachers may misguide students without clear knowledge of sruti. How about your answer to the same question? 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA9Dimp8Qmy4sRgYRBFZHWjzTpDeMh75tUKf7tMCq7GFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Michael Ji,

What you have cited from the NKS is not in any way denying the need for the VRtti.  

regards

subbu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFmB_RJ7rLTgGXZBP5TP57FL-EB-6jGYNcRt8A8RO9vLg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbhuji (shouldn't the second "b" in your name be aspirated, 'bh" ... at least in Sanskrit?)

//What you have cited from the NKS is not in any way denying the need for the VRtti.  //

I do not deny the need for vritti. I deny it is sufficient, that there is some "special" vritti that is taught in PTB and that it has the effect of a pramana. 

All this said, please inform the conversation as to exactly what is Akhandhakara/Brahmakara/Atmakara vritti and how does it work. Chatgpt and a quick perusal of Panchadasi could not find the term/s though much was made of meditation and samadhi in Panchadasi - alas, yet another discussion

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2rVuB99neVs5doyvqRmHaO70JRk-C-AVXC4KhjhOLnrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

<< I am confused. Knowledge (1) is the Self; Knowledge (2) is samyak jnana. How is knowledge (3) different from Knowledge (2) and then Knowledge (4)??? >>

As I mentioned earlier, Knowledge (3) is identical to Knowledge (2) — that is our point B — while Knowledge (1) is the same as Knowledge (4), which we designate as point A. These two sets, A and B, are distinct.
Re-summarizing the two points:
A. Knowledge (1) == Knowledge (4) == jnana svarupa of Atman-Brahman == immutable unassociated non-antagonistic Knowledge
B. Knowledge (2) == Knowledge (3) == some other distinct knowledge which is mutable, has an origination and is antagonistic to ignorance

<< Perhaps better to not to refer to all as knowledge. >>

Perhaps.. but as I had mentioned, these are the exact words used by Bhagavan - 'jnanam' appears explicitly three times (and implicitly once) in the two verses. Our goal is to understand these citations and their distinctions if any. (Also, I do not wish to enter into the mula-avidya discussion.)

<< Sureswara in NKS and Sankara in Upa Sah both point out that only the words of Sruti are pramana capable of revealing that which cannot be the object of any vritti/ avakyartha in NKS. >>

<< relative, samyak jnana - it negates what obscures A - it cannot positively reveal that which is ever present. The subject cannot become an object. >>

Indeed so. Atman/Brahman/Jnana does not depend on any other jnana for illumination. The mere removal of ignorance is sufficient, as Brahman svarupa cannot be objectified in any way. We are in agreement on this point.

It is well understood that the ignorance of an object is removed by the corresponding knowledge (prama) of that object.

Based on your perspective, I am listing a few points. Please review them carefully and let me know if you agree:

1. Samyak jnana is relative and is distinct from Brahman-svarupa-jnana.
2. Samyak jnana is antagonistic to ignorance; that is, ignorance is removed by samyak jnana.
3. Samyak jnana has an origination and is generated through Sruti pramana.
4. Samyak jnana is a prama gained through the valid Sruti pramana and employs the triputi of pramata, pramana and prameya.
5. The content of this samyak jnana is the oneness (ekatvam) of Brahman-Atman.

Please proceed with the discussion of further points only if you agree with the above. If you disagree, let’s clarify these first. Assuming we are in agreement, the rest of the points further detail the nature and modus operandi of samyak jnana:

6. As a prama, this samyak jnana is a vritti in the antahkarana.
7. As an antahkarana vritti, it must have a vishaya; in this case, the vishaya is the oneness (ekatvam) of Brahman-Atman.
8. What is the nature of this Brahman-Atman-ekatvam (BAE) vritti? Typically, a vritti assumes the form of its object of knowledge (prameya). Clearly, BAE is not an “externalized” object, yet for the BAE vritti to form, there must be some sort of “objectified” BAE.
9. So, what is the nature of this objectified BAE? It refers to the true nature of Chaitanya, which appears as the individualized pramata or jivatman. In essence, BAE amounts to knowing the true nature of the pramata / jivatman / Chaitanya as it appears now.
10. Consequently, the pramata / jivatman / conditioned Chaitanya itself becomes the vishaya of BAE vritti; And this vritti is capable of removing the ignorance of the oneness (ekatvam) of Brahman-Atman.

In summary, the ignorance of Brahman-Atman’s identity is dispelled by the corresponding knowledge (prama) of Brahman-Atman-ekatvam. This knowledge (prama) is what you refer to as samyak jnana — generated by Sruti pramana through Sravana (and/or manana/nididhyasana).

Please let me know where you might disagree. The essence of samyak jnana is captured in the points above. The additional details concerning why it is termed ‘brahmakara vritti’ or ‘akhandakara vritti’ are more about the nature of the vritti itself and some associated terminology.

Specific technical details can be found in Vedanta Sara as well.

prostrations,
Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEuEbx0mRu%2BATMyAu1GLou7zgVoM3RhPR3LWS09ObsyYA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Michael

I think you are alleging qualities to the akhandakara vritti that were not intended. How is quoting Naishkarmya Siddhi passages refuting prasankhyana relevant when no one is claiming that the vRtti arises out of meditation. 

In fact what is meant is what Sureshvara says in the vArttika-  

तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्योत्थ  सम्यग्धीजन्ममात्रतः । अविद्यासहकार्येण नासीदस्ति भविष्यति ॥

By the mere birth of the right cognition, rising from sentences such as "That art thou", ignorance and its effects cease to exist in the present, past and the future.

That samyak-dhI of Sureshvara which Shankara refers as to as AtmaikyavidyA in the adhyAsa bhAShya, (अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते) is the akhanDAkAra vRtti.

You are alleging it to be something else and claiming that "something else" has no place in the bhAShya.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFmB_RJ7rLTgGXZBP5TP57FL-EB-6jGYNcRt8A8RO9vLg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Michael ji

The word nididhyAsanam is used differently by the advanced type of pUrva mImamsakas like Sri Mandana Mishra as compared to Advaita vedAnta (including PSA). For them prasaMkhyAna and nididhyAsana are same. But for us, nididhyAsanam is a matter of repeatedly highlighting what has been taught by the Guru/shAstra pramANa to remove viprarIta bhAvanas. nididhyAsanam is part of the shruti pramANa process and not an upAsanA type of merely repeating a vRtti. 

As usual SSSS prakriya misrepresents PSA. And conflates bhAShya-with-PSA understanding of nididhyAsanam with Brahma siddhi use of the word nididhyAsanam. 

SSSS has not understood that his criticism of the word nididhyAsanam applies not to mainstream vedAnta but to Mandana Mishra etc of Brahma siddhi fame. 

In mainstream vedAnta, shruti pramAna leads to vRttis which are dwelt upon, revisited, contemplated by way of pramANa vyApAra, not as a japam or upAsanam. What I carefully listened to and understood, I can revisit that to orient myself better to that very understanding for viparIta-bhAvanA nivRttiH. Only when these obstacles are removed, the word samyak-jnAna-vRtti (aka brahmAkAra vRtti) is appropriate. 

This understanding of nididhyAsanam is anubhava-sammata and sArvatrika-lokAnubhava for all vedAntins.

SSSS, in illogically criticizing nididhyAsanam,  falls foul of the brihadAraNyaka shruti. "AtmA vA arE .....nididhyAsitavyaM".

Now I know what SSSS will say, - the entire PSA vedAnta tradition has misunderstood nididhyAsanam and only SSSS has the right understanding of nididhyAsanam.  All too predictably. 

For the record, no one on this forum claims that repeated "i brahmAsmi" vRtti will give some new magical non-verbal cognition etc., which is not shruti-pramANa-prApta.

So such mischaracterized criticism of PSA wrt the vRtti apExA is like tilting at quixotic windmills.

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCqXePbGboDeK79BwEc4v8H3czGjtsr7xAZS%3DeYDGd8PA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Michael

PSA understanding of nididhyAsanam is that it is pramANa vyApAra.

It's not a mere repetition of a vRtti like an upAsana or prasaMkhyAna. 

The NKS reference by you is well-known as referring to the mImAmsaka idea of using "aham brahmAsmi" as a kind of ahaMgrahopAsana or prasaMkhyAna - a mere repetition of a vRtti not involving any pramANa operation.

As often happens,  SSS misunderstood PSA view on nididhyAsanam which is for viparIta-bhAvanA nivRttiH ;  PSA nididhyAsanam view viz.,  "AtmasaMstham manaH kRtvA na kincit api cintayet (gita 6th chapter)"  is for removing obstacles to the shruti pramANa operation .  

The same word nididhyAsanam is used in Brahma siddhi of Sri  Mandana Mishra which has led to SSSS misrepresenting PSA's logical and shruti-sammata understanding of the samyak-jnAna-vRtti and thinking that PSA is echoing brahma siddhi. 

PSA clearly asserts that the avAkyArtha (if we insist on the word) is nothing but the lakShaNA vRttiH understanding of the mahAvAkya by shravaNam; not by prasaMkhyAna.

If SSSS and co. insist that PSA is talking only of nididhyAsanam as prasaMkhyAna, then they are just tilting at quixotic windmills.

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 10:26 pm, V Subrahmanian

<v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Michael Ji

Im

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2rVuB99neVs5doyvqRmHaO70JRk-C-AVXC4KhjhOLnrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

How do you understand the following sentence from Chhandogya Upanishad bhAshya:

अद्वैतज्ञानं मनोवृत्तिमात्रम्। That is -- advaita-jnAna is manO-vritti only.

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda:

//As the nondual realisation (advaita-jnAna) is a mere mental modification (manO-vritti), so also are the other meditations (upAsanA) forms of mental modifications.

Herein lies their similarity. 

Objection: Where then, lies the difference between the nondualistic realisation (advaita-jnAna) and meditation (upAsanA)?

 
Vedāntin: The nondualistic realisation demolishes the cognition of all such differences as agent, instrument, action and results, which are naturally superimposed on the actionless Self, just as knowledge in the form of imposition of a snake etc. on a rope etc. is destroyed by the realisation of the true nature of the rope etc. But meditation (upAsanA) means establishing a continuous flow of similar modifications of the mind in relation to some object as presented by the scriptures, (and) uninterrupted by any foreign idea. This is the distinction.//

If you read this carefully Michael ji, it is clear that advaita-jnAna which leads to MOksha is stated unambiguously by BhAshyakAra to be a manO-vritti.

This is what is referred to as akhaNDAkArA-vritti. 

Please note that there is no contradiction of this bhAshya-vAkya with the quotations provided by you which state that Brahman is not an object of any vritti. Brahman is aprameya, avishaya. However, since avidyA regarding Brahman is removed by this manO-vritti, Brahman is stated as vritti-vyApya. When avidyA regarding Brahman is removed by advaita-jnAna, which is nothing but a manO-vritti, the self-luminous Brahman reveals itself. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbuji, 

It is great that you found these references to Brahma/akandhakara vritti. I struggled without success to find source material. Here is Chatgpt's translation of your link page: 

Investigation - Results

8 Results

Śāstrasiddhāntaleśasaṅgraha - Third Section - Determination of the Negation of Brahmajnāna

"... However, the consciousness-light that has ascended that [state] negates it. Even though by its nature it serves as the witness of ignorance and other [mental modifications], and thus does not negate them, still, when it is ascended through the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti, its capability to negate them is justified. 'The sunlight, though illuminating grass, burns the grass only when focused through a lens'..."

Read further...

Sarvavedāntasiddhāntasāra-saṅgraha - Verse

"...That akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti is associated with the reflection of consciousness. Having taken as its sole object the Supreme Brahman, which is non-different from the Self..." (798)

Read further...

Sarvavedāntasiddhāntasāra-saṅgraha - Verse

"...It negates the ignorance residing in that [mental state], which is of the nature of concealment. When ignorance is negated through the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti..." (799)

Read further...

Sarvavedāntasiddhāntasāra-saṅgraha - Verse

"...The akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti does not arise without reflection [on the teaching]. Through hearing, reflection, and meditation, undertaken continuously with intent..." (809)

Read further...

Vedāntasāra

"...(10) Thus, the meaning of the statement based on direct experience is described. In this way, following the method of superimposition and negation, the teacher purifies the meanings of 'That' and 'Thou', and upon being instructed in the sentence with an undivided meaning, the qualified student attains the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti, which is the mental modification in the form of 'I am the infinite, ever-pure, intelligent, free, true, blissful, and boundless Brahman.' This mental modification, accompanied by the reflection of consciousness, takes as its object the unknown Supreme Brahman and negates the ignorance present in it. Just as the destruction of the cause of the cloth [i.e., the thread] leads to the destruction of the cloth itself, similarly, upon the negation of the entire causal ignorance, all its effects are negated, and with that, the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti is also negated. There, the reflected consciousness, like the radiance of a lamp being incapable of illuminating the sun’s radiance..."

Read further...

Vivaraṇaprameyasaṅgraha - First Sūtra - First Section - Commentary

"...Thus, due to the negation of humanity in that [context], the perception of being human in the Self is an illusion. That is not so [in the case of reality]; otherwise, if one were to apprehend 'a broken piece of a cow' with the form of 'brokenness' imposed on the cow's attribute, and later negate that as 'this is not a fragment,' then the perception of brokenness would also have to be considered an illusion..."

Read further...

Nyāyarakṣāmaṇi - First Chapter - First Section - Sūtra 17 - Commentary

"...In expressions such as 'This is a pot' or 'This is a cloth,' the words 'pot' and 'cloth,' which are used in conjunction with the mind engaged in such conceptualization, do not attain the state of akhaṇḍākāra [unbroken cognition]. When the śruti declares negation through statements like 'Now the instruction is—Not this, not this' (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.3.6), the mental modifications that arose before are withdrawn..."

Read further...

Kṛṣṇālaṅkāra

"...According to this view, in the case of the individual self conditioned by the mind and the consciousness limited by the object it reflects, the non-difference is not manifested through mental modifications. Unlike the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti, the mental modifications relating to objects like pots cannot negate the conditioning adjuncts, and thus, since the distinguishing adjuncts—namely the mind and its object—persist, the non-difference between the individual self and Brahman does not manifest. This is the intended meaning..."

Read further...🙏🙏🙏

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA6q6ted73tCyA41GMCrUsrN0x8VMcEB40GXTZ%2B6Nwwow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

I did not look up your Chandogya reference. I have rarely taken recourse to search PTB in Sanskrit. If you can point me to searchable PTB, I would be most appreciative. 

The objection to phala vyapti is that it is an unnecessary assumption and not found in PTB. 

"When one tries to get the knowledge of a particular thing with the help of teachings, observations etc, then the vritti pervades the thing

with Chidabhasa. Without being pervaded by the nature of consciousness of the Self, it is impossible
to imagine the very existence of the vritti. Whenever there is any knowledge of any object,
the knowledge of the object pervaded by the pure conciousness of Arman alone is obtained. So
when the Vritti with consciousness (i. e. with Chidabhasa ) pervades the thing, then automatically
rhe Phala Bhuta Jnana or Phalabhuta Anuhhava generates in the mind. Hence. once the
pramana removes the non-perception apd misconception of a· tbing the Phala Bhuta . In.na will

result and that alone is the func;tion of a praz:nana." Kulkarni, Teaching of Brahman through avidya and maya, p36

Kulkarni further clarifies that akhandakara vritti is discerning atma from anatma and as a vritti it is pervaded by Brahman and not vice versa 

"If all this duality be illusory, how is the knowledge of the Self to be realised? It is thus replied:—The Knowers of Brahman describe knowledge, i.e., the mere essence of thought, which is unborn and free from all imaginations as1 non-different from Brahman, the ultimate Reality, which is also the object of knowledge. MKbh3.33"

This knowledge of the Self (meaning, the firm conviction about the Real nature of the Self, which is called ‘Atmapratyaya’ – see Mantra No.7 of Mandukya), becomes one with the object, that is the Transcendental Reality of Brahman. Here the knowledge itself becomes one with the Self. "HH SSS on MKbh3.33

If this is what is intended by phala vyapti and akhandakara vritti, so be it, and I will rest. In fact, I have spent an inordinate amouint of time responding to you and others on this thread and with the greatest respect, will have to excuse myself from further input. 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste  Venkarraghavan.

//I do not wish to play this game // But still you play! There are many of "you," few of "us" - it can be overwhelming. Below you have given citations without source - not the way to encourage a response. Regardless, HH SSS is the game - it is his insights and logic that needs to be considered. Here we write paragraphs and an occasional page - that's not the way to determine the truth of Vedanta. It takes a teacher particularly when confronted with 1200 years of entrenched thinking that somehow missed a fundamental  - ignorance is an error, not some positive causal shroud.

// No one is claiming that akhaNDAkAra vRtti objectifies Brahman for you to point them to us as though we are in disagreement. 

Rather, the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the knowledge of the absolute identity of the self,//

Sir, aren't these two sentences contradictory? if it's a vritti, it has an object. 

// No one is claiming that akhaNDAkAra vRtti objectifies Brahman for you to point them to us as though we are in disagreement. 

Rather, the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the knowledge of the absolute identity of the self,//

If sastra is the pramana, where is the need for a special vritti? Tat twam asi dispels all apparent vrittis. Otherwise, I do not have difficulty with what you have written. This business of vritti vyapti and phala vyapti along with AKV are never mentioned in sastra or bhasya. Though I see how these notions can be reconciled, I still find them as unnecessary complications. 

I have spent the better part of the day responding to you and other comments in this thread.  I must excuse myself from further 'play'  despite worthy conversations/ 

🙏🙏🙏

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Michael 

Namaste  Venkarraghavan.

//I do not wish to play this game // But still you play!

Indeed - the nature of samsAra in a sentence!  

 

There are many of "you," few of "us" - it can be overwhelming.

However, I see that again you have chosen to respond by ignoring the substantive argument in the email and have resorted to a non sequitur.

Below you have given citations without source - not the way to encourage a response.

What do you mean? I have provided 3 references in my two emails and even quoted the actual words from BSB. adhyAsa bhAShya, BSB 1.3.19 and BSB 1.1.4. Sorry, I thought that for a student of Vedanta, providing the texts verbatim was sufficient. 

Regardless, HH SSS is the game - it is his insights and logic that needs to be considered. Here we write paragraphs and an occasional page - that's not the way to determine the truth of Vedanta. It takes a teacher particularly when confronted with 1200 years of entrenched thinking that somehow missed a fundamental  - ignorance is an error, not some positive causal shroud.

Fail to see the relevance of the above to the topic.

// No one is claiming that akhaNDAkAra vRtti objectifies Brahman for you to point them to us as though we are in disagreement. 

Rather, the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the knowledge of the absolute identity of the self,//

Sir, aren't these two sentences contradictory? if it's a vritti, it has an object. 

No. In the second statement, it is not Brahman that is being objectified - i.e revealed - but identity. The self is ever available and so, is not revealed by the vRtti. 

// No one is claiming that akhaNDAkAra vRtti objectifies Brahman for you to point them to us as though we are in disagreement. 

Rather, the akhaNDAkAra vRtti is the knowledge of the absolute identity of the self,//

If sastra is the pramana, where is the need for a special vritti? Tat twam asi dispels all apparent vrittis.

Sir, all vRtti means is the thought generated about something representing the comprehension of that thing. I hear the word cat, and the word meaning appears as a thought. That thought is cat vRtti. 

pramANa simply means that which generates such a valid thought. Does the sentence tattvamasi create an understanding "I am Brahman" or not? If it doesn't, it is you who is denying the prAmANya of such a sentence. If you admit it creates a valid understanding, the thought that the understanding represents is akhanDAkAra vRtti. That is all.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvF9pytD6ZT6zkJpWHzZgLybA%3DsfT2kHFxAp1Y%3DU-b%3DYiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

<< Samyak jnana is opposed to it's opposite - viparita & samshaya jnanan. It cannot be ekatvam or else it would not qualify as an ever-changing vritti. At the same moment, samakala eva, as the dissolution of viparita jnanam, Ekatvam consumes all distinctions. >>

Looks like you disagree on the 5th point, while agreeing on the 4 earlier points.
Agreement: Samyak jnana, distinct from Brahman-svarupa-jnana, arises through Sruti pramana, operates within the triputi framework, and serves as the antagonistic jnana that removes ignorance.
Disagreement: 5th point - "The content of this samyak jnana is the oneness (ekatvam) of Brahman-Atman - Brahman-Atman-ekatvam (BAE) jnana."

To quote the 5th point from PTB, Bhagavan Bhashyakara says -

In BU-Intro:
"संसारहेतुनिवृत्तिसाधनब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये । सेयं ब्रह्मविद्या उपनिषच्छब्दवाच्या"
"the knowledge of the identity of the individual self and Brahman, which is the means of eradicating the cause of this world (ignorance). This knowledge of Brahman is called 'Upanisad'"
Note: BAE jnana removes ignorance. This is the Sruti pramana jnana.

In BSB-Intro:

"अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते"

"It is for the annihilation of the cause of this error and for attaining the knowledge of the oneness of the Self that all Vedanta teachings are initiated."
Note: Purpose of all Vedanta teachings is to gain BAE jnana for the removal of ignorance.

In BSB-1.1.4:
"मिथ्याज्ञानापायश्च ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानाद्भवति"
"The annihilator of mithyajnana, arises from the knowledge of the oneness of Brahman and Atman."
Note: BAE jnana removes mithyajnana.

In SBG-6.29:
"योगयुक्तात्मा समाहितान्तःकरणः सर्वत्र समदर्शनः सर्वेषु ब्रह्मादिस्थावरान्तेषु विषमेषु सर्वभूतेषु समं निर्विशेषं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविषयं दर्शनं ज्ञानं यस्य स सर्वत्र समदर्शनः"
"The person who is united in yoga, whose antahkarana is completely absorbed, is one who, everywhere, has equal vision. In all things — whether in Brahma and similar objects, in the stationary or the moving, in the diverse beings — he sees, without any difference, the vision and knowledge concerning the oneness of Brahman and Atman. Such a one is equally seeing everywhere."
Note: BAE jnana is samyak jnana and leads to sama-darshana.

In AU-Intro:
"अतः केवलनिष्क्रियब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविद्याप्रदर्शनार्थमुत्तरो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते"
"Therefore the following text is commenced in order to reveal the knowledge of the oneness of the Self and Brahman that is absolute and actionless"
Note: Purpose of the Upanishad is to reveal the BAE knowledge.

in KU-1.1.20:
"स्वाभाविकस्याऽज्ञानस्य संसारबीजस्य निवृत्त्यर्थं तद्विपरीतब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानं ... वक्तव्यमित्युत्तरो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते"
"For the purpose of the cessation of inherent ignorance — the seed of saṃsara — it is necessary to expound the opposite (तद्विपरीत) knowledge of the oneness of Brahman and Atman; thus, the highest treatise is commenced."
Note: BAE jnana is the opposite of the ignorance and is capable of removing ignorance.

Kindly review and provide references from PTB where Bhagavan Bhashyakara 1) explicitly denies that samyak jnana - the opposite one that removes ignorance - is not the ekatvam jnana or 2) explains this samyak jnana is something other than the ekatvam jnana. On the other hand, if you feel convinced and agree on the 5th point, please proceed in reviewing the remaining 5 points.

prostrations,
Vikram

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:24 AM Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Vikram,
Excellent, I appreciate the style of your presentation.

//5. The content of this samyak jnana is the oneness (ekatvam) of
Brahman-Atman.//
Samyak jnana is opposed to it's opposite - viparita & samshaya jnanan. It
cannot be ekatvam or else it would not qualify as an ever-changing vritti.
At the same moment, samakala eva, as the dissolution of viparita jnanam,
Ekatvam consumes all distinctions.

“Thus also it is a fact that, although the knowledge of the Self results in
instantaneous liberation, yet its instruction is imparted with the help of
some relationship with some conditioning factor.” BSB1.1.12
Thus, a clear distinction between samyak jnanam and atma jnanam

//Specific technical details can be found in Vedanta Sara as well.//
Yes, I am sure but seeking confirmation outside of PTB is the essence of
the problem. If we strictly limit our understanding to PTB, these issues
should not arise.
🙏🙏🙏