Jñāna

sākṣād-upāsanā-lakṣaṇas tad-bhedo’pi bahu-vidho darśyate | atra sāmmukhyaṁ dvividhaṁ—nirviśeṣamayaṁ saviśeṣamayaṁ ca | atra pūrvaṁ jñānam | uttaraṁ tu dvividham—ahaṅgrahopāsanā-rūpaṁ, bhakti-rūpaṁ ca | asya jñānasya lakṣaṇaṁ—‘jñānaṁ caikātmya-darśanam’ iti | abhedopāsanaṁ jñānam ity arthaḥ | tat-sādhana-prakāraś caivaṁ bahu-vidhas tatra tatroktaḥ | sa ca jñānam evocyate | tatra śravaṇaṁ śrī-pṛthu-sanat-kumāra-saṁvādādau draṣṭavyam | tad-anusāreṇa mananaṁ ca jñeyam | prathamataḥ śrotṝṇāṁ hi vivekas tāvān eva yāvatā jaḍātirikta-cin-mātraṁ vastūpasthitaṁ bhavati | tasmiṁś cin-mātre’pi vastuni ye viśeṣāḥ svarūpa-bhūta-śakti-siddhā bhagavattādi-rūpā vartante, tāṁs tu te vivektuṁ na kṣamante, yathā rajanī-khaṇḍini jyotiṣi jyotir-mātratve’pi ye maṇḍalāntar bahiś ca divya-vimānādi-paraspara-pṛthag-bhūta-raśmi-paramāṇu-rūpā viśeṣās tāṁś carma-cakṣuṣo na kṣamanta ity anvayaḥ, tadvat | pūrvavac ca yadi mahat-kṛpā-viśeṣeṇa divya-dṛṣṭitā bhavati, tadā viśeṣopalabdhiś ca bhavet | na cen, nirviśeṣa-cin-mātra-brahmānubhavena tal-līna eva bhavati | tathaiva nididhyāsanam api teṣām | tad yathā—‘sthiraṁ sukhaṁ cāsanam āsthito yatir yadā jihāsur imam aṅga lokam | kāle ca deśe ca mano na sajjayet prāṇān niyacchen manasā jitāsuḥ || manaḥ sva-buddhyāmalayā niyamya kṣetra-jña etāṁ nilayet tam ātmani | ātmānam ātmany avarudhya dhīro labdhopaśāntir virameta kṛtyāt ||’
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 214–215)

“The division of that [i.e., of intentness (sāmmukhya) upon the Para-tattva] in the form of direct approach (upāsanā) [thereof] is shown [throughout the śāstras] to be of numerous types. In this regard, intentness (sāmmukhya) is [in general] of two types: [one] related to the unqualified [alt., non-differentiated] (nirviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva], and [the other] related to the qualified [alt., differentiated] (saviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva]. Herein, the former is [referred to] as jñāna. The latter, on the contrary, is of two types: ahaṅgrahopāsanā [i.e., taking oneself as the object worship in the approach], and that the form of which is [referred to as] bhakti. The characteristic of this [aforementioned type known as] jñāna is [described as follows by Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa in SB 11.19.21], ‘And vision of oneness [of the self with the Supreme Self] is [known as] jñāna,’ the meaning being that an approach (upāsanā) of non-distinction [between the self and Supreme Self, i.e., a form of upāsanā focused realization of this non-distinction] is [known as] jñāna.
“The manner of practice (sādhana) thereof, furthermore, is similarly said to be of many types in various places [throughout the śāstras]. That [i.e., jñāna-sādhana in various forms] also is called jñāna itself. Therein, hearing (śravaṇam) [i.e., the first part of the sādhana] is to be observed in the conversation of Śrī Pṛthu and Sanat-kumāra [described in the Fourth Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam] and elsewhere. Contemplation (manana) in accord with that [i.e., with the hearing done in the first step] is also to be understood [i.e., should be understood as the second step in the process]. Firstly, listeners’ discernment reaches to the extent whereby the Existent constituted solely of consciousness distinct from matter [i.e., unqualified Brahman] is regarded [to exist]. [In this state] They are not able to discern in that Existent constituted solely of consciousness the qualities (viśeṣāḥ) existing [in that Existent] by virtue of [its] inherent potency (śakti) the forms of which are Bhagavattā [lit., ‘Bhagavān-ness,’ i.e., the quality of existing as Bhagavān] and so forth, just as those possessed [only] of eyes of flesh are not able to [discern] in the luminary constituted [solely] of light that is [known as] the sun [lit., ‘the dispeller of night,’ i.e., darkness] the qualities inside and outside the orb [thereof] in the form of divine airplanes and the like, and the mutually distinctly existent particles in the light-rays [thereof]. This is the purport [i.e., those who take up the path of jñāna and hear and contemplate the teachings related to it acquire an understanding of the existence of the Para-tattva such that they consider the Para-tattva to exist only without qualities (viśeṣa) and thus seek to realize the aspect of the Para-tattva known as unqualified (nirviśeṣa) Brahman rather than the qualified (saviśeṣa) aspect known as Bhagavān].
“Furthermore, as [was discussed] previously, if one [i.e., someone engaged in jñāna-sādhana] becomes endowed with divine vision by the special grace of a mahat [i.e., a bhakta-mahānta], then realization of the qualities (viśeṣāḥ) [of the Para-tattva, viz., Bhagavattā and so forth] shall also occur. If not, then by means of experience of Brahman as unqualified (nirviśeṣa) and constituted solely of consciousness one merely becomes absorbed in that [aspect of the Para-tattva without manifest qualities, viz., nirviśeṣa Brahman]. Their [i.e., jñāna-sādhakas’] meditation (nididhyāsanam) is also in the very same manner. That is [described in SB 2.2.15–16] as follows: ‘O dear one, when an ascetic, having become situated in a stable, comfortable posture, intends to leave this plane [i.e., body], he should not fix the mind on the time or the place. Having mastered the vital air, he should regulate the senses with the mind, regulate the mind with his own taintless intellect, merge this [i.e., the intellect] into the perceiver of the field (kṣetrajña), [merge] this [i.e., the perceiver of the field (kṣetrajña), meaning, the observer of the intellect] into the self (ātmā) [i.e., the pure jīva], merge the self (ātmā) [i.e., the pure jīva] into the Self (Ātmā) [i.e., Brahman], and, becoming steadfast and possessed of tranquility, [finally] withdraw from action [entirely, since there is nothing more for him to attain].’”

Read on →