Prakruti body?

[Guest guest]

Sri Ananta Padmanabhan wrote:

> nArAyaNA is the "antaryAmI" of jIvAtmA means that He controlls

> it as if someone inside it will control it. He needn't be

> physically inside an entity for Him to function as "antaryAmI".

 

Dear Ananta Padmanabhan,

 

Isn't this a very forced interpretation? I understand

the definition of SarIra (body) you wrote. This is what

Ramanuja proposes in the Sribhashya. Ideally, don't you

think Brahman is best the "AdhAra" of a substance by

pervading it? Therefore, shouldn't the antaryAmi (inner

controller) pervade the subtlest of substances,

including the jIva?

 

On the basis of this idea and many statements from the Veda,

I tend to think that Brahman indeed does pervade even the

jIvAtmA. I realize the jIvAtmA is aNu (atomic); however,

Brahman is described by Vedanta as "aNOr aNIyAn" -- subtler

than the subtlest.

 

In other places, the upanishads teach:

 

"Atmany evAtmAnam paSyet" -- one should see the (Highest)

Self within one's own self.

 

"ya Atmani tishTan" -- [brahman is] that which stands

within the individual self

 

and the Brahma Sutras as well

 

"avasthiter iti" -- [brahman] exists within.

 

How would these be explained otherwise?

 

Mani