Talk:Jñāna

Self-realization

I've proposed moving some content about this tradition's view of Self-realization from that article onto this page. Discussion is on the self-realization article's talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

how is "jnana" pronounced? It's an unusual spelling for an English speaker, and various Web pages I've found are unclear and/or contradictory. 75.15.112.174 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

During my time in India I was invariably told that it was pronounced 'gyan'. Anandavala (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'gyan' is in Hindi and probably other modern languages, but is distinct from the original Sanskrit due to language change. The Sanskrit / IAST is jñāna which does give the correct pronunciation if you can read it. I've removed the incorrect IPA which gave an unsuitable approximation of, roughly, 'jaana'. A better approximation would be gnana when read by a French speaker, though I don't believe that the French 'gn' consonant occurs at the start of a word in that language. Imc (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhaktin propaganda out of place in this article on gnana

The final three paragraphs are examples of bhaktin propaganda designed to belittle gnana and promote bhakti. I suggest that these paragraphs be removed and replaced with comments by gnani's on gnana rather than bhaktin's on gnana. To indicate exactly which paragraphs I mean, they are repeated below:

Narottama dasa Thakura compares the paths of karma-kanda and jnana-kanda to pots of poison (karma-kanda, jnana-kanda, kevala visera bhanda). Liquor and poison are in the same category. According to this verse from Srimad-Bhagavatam, a person who has heard a good deal about the path of devotional service, but who is not attached to it, who is not Krsna conscious, is like a pot of liquor. Such a person cannot be purified without at least a slight touch of devotional service.

Jnanis are those who cultivate jnana, speculative knowledge about Brahman. "There are two kinds of jnanis. One is inclined to devotional service and the other to impersonal realization. Impersonalists generally undergo great endeavor for no tangible benefit, and therefore it is said that they are husking paddy that has no grain (sthula-tushavaghatinah). The other class of jnanis, whose jnana is mixed with bhakti, are also of two kinds -- those who are devoted to the so-called false form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and those who understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead as sac-cid-ananda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1], the actual spiritual form." [6]

Jnana refers to the cultivation of knowledge. The jnani sees the shortcomings of karma and begins to inquire into higher truth. Jnanis are generally philosophers and meditators. They are not interested merely in material results, but in knowledge for its own sake. By cultivating jnana through the study of Vedic sastras or through meditation, the jnani can come to the brink of spiritual knowledge, awareness of eternal Brahman. But unless he goes further and understands his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he will suffer the same defeat as the karmi -- confinement within the cycle of birth and death. A prayer to Krsna by the demigods points up the jnanis' shortcoming: O lotus-eyed Lord, although nondevotees who accept severe austerities and penances to achieve the highest position may think themselves liberated, their intelligence is impure. They fall down from their position of imagined superiority because they have no regard for Your lotus feet. [Bhag. 10.2.32][7]

Does anyone object to their removal? Anandavala (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that the whole article needs to be rewritten in a more cohesive and organized manner. Yworo (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree Yworo! This important subject deserves a far better article. For now I propose we at least remove the inappropriate paragraphs (mentioned above) and also the paragraph “As per Hinduism, Jnana means a divine wisdom or total knowledge of everybody, everything, everywhere and every time in the entire cosmos. This wisdom can only be given by God to a qualified human being.” which is just plain nonsense. If nobody has any coherent objection I will perform the removal shortly. Anandavala (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is a right mess... I may take it upon myself to clean this up in the near future. Kobresia (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted a massive removal of text in this article, thinking it was some inappropriate action, but then I saw that this was a terrible mess and reverted myself. I agree with this removal, but I disagree that now most of what remains is cited to Blavatsky, whom I do not consider any expert on the Vedas. The removal should be accompanied by some non-biased improvements. If within the Vedas there are diverging views about Jnana, they should all be mentioned with no preaching about which is more correct than the other. This section should describe jnana according to the vedic philosophy. Blavatsky should be quoted in some other section. Hoverfish Talk 16:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Plural form?

I came here while searching for the meaning of "jnani". Is it the plural of "jnana"? --Sleety Dribble (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sleety Dribble: There's no way to tell its meaning without context. Can you say where you found it? Jñāna doesn't have a plural in -i. The Sanskrit ending -in means "of or relating to, possessing" and appears as jñānin "possessing jñāna". It's a sound rule that nouns ending in -n# often lose the n and gain a long vowel.

There is also the a very, very common use of the Persian-origin suffix -i "of, relating to" (Pars/Fars "Iran", Parsi/Farsi "Iranian") in modern Indo-Iranian languages (and English!) that could be used in the modern context: Newari is a person who speaks Newar, Hindi originally meant "of Hind (the Sindh river), aka 'an Indian person'", and so forth. So context would maybe help. Ogress _smash! 16:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

According to Meher Baba, a dnyani (jnani) is a person who has attained the goal of Dnyana (Jnana) Yoga, a Knower, a Seer, "possessor of the Knowledge", "one who has realized God". I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 01:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, for the help. @Ogress: It is in Douglas Harding's "On Having No Head", where he quotes Ramana Maharshi. The relevant part in Harding is as follows (and @Hoverfish: the following usage seems consistent with your description, no?):

"Is it possible -- after enough practice -- to be vividly Self-aware all the while, and never lose sight of the Absence right here? Ramana Maharshi, when asked about this, gave a highly significant answer. Sometimes, he explained, the Self-awareness of the jnani is to the forefront like the treble melody in music. At other times in lies in the background like the bass accompaniment..." Sleety Dribble (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Jñana outside of religion

Although Jñāna will almost always come up in a religious context (the philosophies and religions of Hinduism and Buddhism), the first sentence of the article is already untrue. Jñāna is of importance to all schools of Indian Philosophy, not just religiously affiliated schools. It is central to both classical atheistic Saṃkhya (where metaphysical knowledge is the only means to liberation) and to the Carvaka school (where knowledge is only obtained by direct perception). Not to mention the exclusion here of several heterodox schools like the Jainas and Sikhs. If no one objects I will rewrite the opening.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)