the case for jeeva not the same from moment to moment

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

We all know intellectually that the substratum on which the jeeva

is superposed is the same for all jeevas, and that is Atman. Some

blessed ones have this knowledge not only intellectually but also

experientially as well.

 

It is the memory of the jeeva that makes the jeeva think that the

jeeva is the same from birth to death. But, is it really the same

jeeva from birth to death ? I would like to argue that it is not

the same jeeva. Jeeva undergoes changes every moment. The physical

body continuously undergoes changes. The thoughts that pass through

are numerous indeed and are not the same from one moment to the next.

Our discriminating faculty, the intellect, also changes continuously

and the decisions we make now may not be the decision we make in a

few minutes time. Thus the intellect also changes. Then, what is it

that makes the jeeva think that it is the same ?

 

The society and the jagat would function only on the assumption of

the same jeeva in this physical embodiment. The spouse thinks that

the person whom he/she is married to is the same one as on the

marriage day. The employer thinks that the employee who signed the

contract of employment is the same one doing the work and collecting

the salary cheque. Thus, the functioning of the jagat is possible

only if the embodiment is considered the same jeeva from birth to

death.

 

But, as I said above, with so much change taking place in the jeeva

from one moment to the next moment, how can the jeeva be considered

to be the same ? It is true that the substratum is the same not only

for one jeeva (as a function of time) but for all jeevas and all

species and all in this multi-farious jagat. But, that still does

not answer the vyavahAric dilemma that I mentioned above

"is it the *same jeeva* that is functioning in this embodiment

from birth to death ?"

 

I understand the advaitic explanation here: The substratum Atman is

the same (not only for a single jeeva but for all jeevas). The substrtum

+ superposition is the jeeva. The jeeva considers the superposition

to be the real, assumes individuality, and goes through the joys and

sufferings of the superposition and gets attached to these joys and

sufferings.

 

Thus, it seems advaita takes it to be the same jeeva from birth to

death in this embodiment, in spite of the many changes that are taking

place or have taken place. Except, that advaita says that these changes

are not real, the jeeva is identical to the underlying substratum,

the changeless. It allows the world to function, albeit in its

illusory way. If we consider jeeva to be not the same, what are the

implications? Cetainly, the jagat, as we know, does not function.

 

As I reflect on this matter, it seems to me that it is the memory

that makes us think that we are the same jeeva in this embodiment

from birth to death. It is the memory that suffocates us and binds

us to this embodiment. This memory is the cause for the ego and is

the ego. If only we do not have memory, we are free birds. No binding

to the past, no anxiety for the future. We ever live in the present.

I am fascinated how this memory works. If the List members can suggest

any good books on the philosophy of memory and how memory works,

I would be most obliged.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

-

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

Advaitin List <advaitin >

Tuesday, August 31, 1999 1:45 PM

the case for jeeva not the same from moment to moment

 

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> As I reflect on this matter, it seems to me that it is the memory

> that makes us think that we are the same jeeva in this embodiment

> from birth to death. It is the memory that suffocates us and binds

> us to this embodiment. This memory is the cause for the ego and is

> the ego. If only we do not have memory, we are free birds. No binding

> to the past, no anxiety for the future. We ever live in the present.

> I am fascinated how this memory works. If the List members can suggest

> any good books on the philosophy of memory and how memory works,

> I would be most obliged.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

 

( In response)

 

Namaste,

 

I could quickly recall two books which deal with the scientific aspect of

'Memory'.

 

1. An Anthropologist on Mars by Oliver Sacks. - In this book Dr. Sacks

narrates (among other unusual neurological case studies) the story of a real

life patient who loses memory because of a tumor. There is a vivid

description of how he always "lived in the present". It seems he had also

joined an ashram and the other members there mistakenly assumed that he was

a "realized" soul. >

 

2. Memory's Ghost by Philip J. Hilts. - This is the story of 'Henry M' who

had to have an operation for intractable epilepsy . He ended up losing long

term memory and lived entirely in the present. ( I have only read a review

of this book ).

 

Although, I agree with your opinion that the faculty of memory produces and

sustains the self image of an individual ( so called "I - thought" ) , I do

not think that erasing memory or by losing it somehow one can become

"liberated".

 

In deep sleep state there is no memory and there is no "I - thought". But it

is not identical with Samaadhi. Similarly, erasure of memory is only removal

of clutter. True liberation should come when one consciously realizes the

ultimate 'unreality' of memory ,ego, and all of their by-products, lock ,

stock and barrel ; "completely and instantly".

 

Pranams,

Vijayakumar

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> ATTENTION ONElist MEMBERS: Get your ONElist news!

> Join our MEMBER NEWSLETTER here:

> <a href=" http://clickme./ad/newsletter2 ">Click Here</a>

>

> ------

> Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at:

/viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Jyothi Vijayakumar wrote:

> "Jyothi Vijayakumar" <nandini

>

>

> -

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> Advaitin List <advaitin >

> Tuesday, August 31, 1999 1:45 PM

> the case for jeeva not the same from moment to moment

>

>

> > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> > As I reflect on this matter, it seems to me that it is the memory

> > that makes us think that we are the same jeeva in this embodiment

> > from birth to death. It is the memory that suffocates us and binds

> > us to this embodiment. This memory is the cause for the ego and is

> > the ego. If only we do not have memory, we are free birds. No binding

> > to the past, no anxiety for the future. We ever live in the present.

> > I am fascinated how this memory works. If the List members can suggest

> > any good books on the philosophy of memory and how memory works,

> > I would be most obliged.

> >

> > Regards

> > Gummuluru Murthy

>

> ( In response)

>

> Namaste,

>

> I could quickly recall two books which deal with the scientific aspect of

> 'Memory'.

>

> [...]

 

namaste.

 

Thanks for the references. I will pursue them. I am also looking for

advaitic/vedantic discussion of the role of memory, and any reference

thereto is also appreciated.

 

> Although, I agree with your opinion that the faculty of memory produces and

> sustains the self image of an individual ( so called "I - thought" ) , I do

> not think that erasing memory or by losing it somehow one can become

> "liberated".

>

 

I agree. However, I would like to pose the counter-question: If there is

no memory, what is one getting "liberated from" ?

 

> Pranams,

> Vijayakumar

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> If there is no memory, what is one getting "liberated from" ?

>

 

one gets liberated from the trap of being *isolated*

on the past, current, or future limbs of any Particulars.

 

the Particulars are very much real unless they're regarded

apart and isolated from their Substratum, which is the

common habit [to be broken].

 

if this isn't the whole of advaita vedanta, then i will

go to the nearest hat store and eat all their inventory! :-)

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> I agree. However, I would like to pose the counter-question: If there is

> no memory, what is one getting "liberated from" ?

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

 

Greetings Gummuluru:

 

Thanks for bringing the question on ‘memory' and its relationship to

liberation. Some of the issues have been explained scholarly by Jyothi,

Harsha and Frank. I want to add some additional points. In Gita,

chapter 18, verses 72 and 73 discuss the question regarding ‘memory'

beautifully:

 

In verse 72 , the teacher, Lord Krishna asks a question to student,

Arjun:

 

kaccid etac chrutam paarta tvayai ‘kaagrena cetasaa

kaccid ajNaanasammohah praNastas te dhanamjaya

 

O Paartha (Arjun): Have you been able to focus your attention on fix

your thought on one point? O Winner of wealth - Has your distraction

due to the ignorance been dispelled?

 

In Verse 73, the student, Arjun replies affirmatively:

 

nasto mohah smrtir labdhaa tvatprasaadaan mayaa ‘cyuta

sthito ‘smi gatasmdehah karisye vacanam tava

 

My illusion is destroyed and I have regained my true identity through

your Grace. O Achyta (Krishna), I stand firm to complete my commitment

and all my doubts have been dispelled. I shall obey and act according

to your wish.

 

In Vedanta, "Desire" and "Memory" are quite appropriately discussed in

greater length to avoid contradiction and confusion. First Vedanta

doesn't say that we shouldn't have desires. Similarly, Vedanta does not

rule out all memories. Vedanta just asks us not "attach our actions" to

either ‘desire' or ‘memory.' Actually, memory and desire are quite

related. The memory of the taste of a food or drink or any habit

motivates the desire to aspire for it. According to Vedanta, we should

develop an attitude not to become a ‘slave' to our memory and

consequently desire. Essentially, we have to free ourselves from the

distractions of memory and/or desire and act as though we are the

witness of our own actions! That is our liberation!! All desires and

memories may exist and we can detached like the lotus leaf and the

water. People who are detached from desires and memories will have the

‘lotus feet' and they live in this world without touching the world!

 

It is quite possible to describe the Vedantic point of view of

liberation using several alternate mechanisms.

 

A Karma Yogi gets the liberation by disowning the fruits of his/her

action.

 

A Bhakti Yogi gets the liberation with the only desire - Desire to be

with the Lord and serve the Lord to get the Grace.

 

A Jnana Yogi gets the liberation by focusing his attention just like

Arjun's expression in Verse 73 of chapter 18. In Verse 73, Arjun's reply

contain two profound words: "Smrtir Labdha" (memory regained). The human

life is the Grace of God and the seeker forgets this Truth and seeks to

remember the forgotten Truth about his/her Divine ancestry.

 

Finally, we need to be cautious and avoid conducting mechanical

analysis of human ‘memory.' A computer with no memory is dead and a

human being with zero memory becomes a vegetable!

 

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA

[Guest guest]

I have found this thread interesting and valuable,

although certainly not conclusive. As one whose

understanding of Advaita comes largely through the

"non-illusionist" version of Sri Aurobindo, and as

one who largely remains a "Westerner" in thought,

I offer the following reflections/questions:

 

1. Jiva, ego and Atman.

 

It seems that Jiva is virtually equated with ego.

I have acquired the habit of distinguishing between

Jivatman and ego, perhaps influenced by Western psychology.

I view Jivatman as an individualized manifestation of

Atman which manifests/incarnates itself in human life,

and then an ego develops in each incarnation. In my

view, it is not the ego which reincarnates, but rather

the Jivatman, which carries memory-traces of each ego

in its history of human lives. Although it might be

properly said that memory and remembering are constitutive

of the ego in each life, in my view the Jivatman is prior

to the memories it acquires and is not constituted by them.

 

Are these ideas foreign to traditional Advaita?

 

2. Memory and remembering.

 

I think it is useful to distinuish memories, as passive

traces of life experience, from remembering, the active

process of drawing upon these traces in a re-imagining

of them. Remembering doesn't just retrieve memories,

it alters memories. Therefore it is more accurate to say

that remembering (understood as creative re-imagining which

draws upon passive memories in a new context) is constitutive

of ego, rather than that memory is. This view would shift

the focus from memory traces to the dynamic process of

remembering, or of the role of remembering in maintaining

the ego process.

 

Are these ideas Advaidic in tone?

 

-- Max

 

---------------------------

FREE - yourname - Visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

I would like to apply my two points about

Jiva vs. ego and remembering vs. memory

to Ch. 18, v. 73 of the Gita, as cited by Ram:

>In Verse 73, the student, Arjun replies affirmatively:

>

>nasto mohah smrtir labdhaa tvatprasaadaan mayaa ‘cyuta

>sthito ‘smi gatasmdehah karisye vacanam tava

>

>My illusion is destroyed and I have regained my true identity through

>your Grace. O Achyta (Krishna), I stand firm to complete my commitment

>and all my doubts have been dispelled. I shall obey and act according

>to your wish.

>A Jnana Yogi gets the liberation by focusing his attention just like

>Arjun's expression in Verse 73 of chapter 18. In Verse 73, Arjun's reply

>contain two profound words: "Smrtir Labdha" (memory regained). The human

>life is the Grace of God and the seeker forgets this Truth and seeks to

>remember the forgotten Truth about his/her Divine ancestry.

 

If "Smrtir Labdha" can mean "memory regained," it suggests

the following ideas to me:

 

First, that liberation can be accomplished via a remembering

of a deep Truth; hence the act of remembering can be liberating instead of

binding, depending on what is being remembered.

 

Second, If the ego is viewed as a life-specific formation

within a Jivatman which transcends lives, then it might be

said that a remembering which draws primarily from ego-level

memory traces is binding, whereas a remembering which goes

deeper than ego-level memory traces can be liberating. As

the ego grows into the Jivatman and is assimilated by it,

remembering gradually becomes less ego-constitutive and more

more of a Self-realization ("I have regained my true identity").

 

Third, the memory store of the Jivatman is not limited to

the memory traces it acquires from each incarnation, and from

the imaginal activity of each ego formation. The Jivatman

possesses knowledge (memories?) reflective of its origin

and sustaining source. Hence the Truth is within us.

 

-- Max

 

---------------------------

FREE - yourname - Visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

On 9/1/99 at 9:12 AM Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Jyothi Vijayakumar wrote:

[...]

>> Although, I agree with your opinion that the faculty of

memory produces and

>> sustains the self image of an individual ( so called "I -

thought" ) , I do

>> not think that erasing memory or by losing it somehow one

can become

>> "liberated".

>>

>

>I agree. However, I would like to pose the counter-question:

If there is

>no memory, what is one getting "liberated from" ?

>

>

>> Pranams,

>> Vijayakumar

>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

 

Without (cerebral) memory, instantly arising basic feelings

like fear, anger, hunger, thirst, pain etc. would be

overpowering, perhaps devastating because each time they pop

up, they are new and compelling. Liberation doesn't come in

"one package"; ultimately, it is possible to transform

body-consciousness, "disabling" awareness of these basic

feelings; it would make a difference but without memory that

wouldn't be realized

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Greetings Max:

 

I agree with your observation that we do not have any conclusive position and we

can reach a conclusion when we know the TRUTH! I do not agree with your other

two assessments - 'non-illusionist' version

of Advaita and your characterization of your thought as 'westerner.'

 

Sankara's Advaita philosophy doesn't characterize the world as an 'illusion.'

The cause for the confusion is the attempted the English translation of the

Sanskrit word "Maayaa" as 'illusion.' Sankara

forcefully argues that the world is not an illusion. Unfortunately, we forget

that Advaita synthesizes the oneness of Brahman and the World and they can't be

separated! According to Sankara's Advaita

philosophy, Maayaa is neither real nor non-real! Only Brahman can perceive

(and also abandon!) "Maya."

 

I believe that there is no distinction between the description of Advaita by Sri

Aurobindo and Sri Sankara. Ofcourse our understanding of their description

appears different and the reason is due to our

ignorance!

 

Finally, all your postings in this list indicate that you have absorbed most of

the 'Easterner' thought in your memory and consequently you don't need to be

apologistic!

 

Regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

Max Harris wrote:

> "Max Harris" <max_harris

>

> I have found this thread interesting and valuable,

> although certainly not conclusive. As one whose

> understanding of Advaita comes largely through the

> "non-illusionist" version of Sri Aurobindo, and as

> one who largely remains a "Westerner" in thought,

> I offer the following reflections/questions:

>

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran:

 

Thank you for saying that I have absorbed much of Eastern thought.

I take this as a compliment (but I feel a need for a lot more

absorption, especially when it comes to 'Maya').

>Wed, 01 Sep 1999 19:51:44 -0400

>Ram Chandran <chandran

>advaitin

>Re: the case for jeeva not the same from moment to moment

>

>Ram Chandran <chandran

>

>Greetings Max:

>

>I agree with your observation that we do not have any conclusive position and

we can reach a conclusion when we know the TRUTH! I do not agree with your

other two assessments - 'non-illusionist' version

>of Advaita and your characterization of your thought as 'westerner.'

>

>Sankara's Advaita philosophy doesn't characterize the world as an 'illusion.'

The cause for the confusion is the attempted the English translation of the

Sanskrit word "Maayaa" as 'illusion.' Sankara

>forcefully argues that the world is not an illusion. Unfortunately, we forget

that Advaita synthesizes the oneness of Brahman and the World and they can't be

separated! According to Sankara's Advaita

>philosophy, Maayaa is neither real nor non-real! Only Brahman can perceive

(and also abandon!) "Maya."

>

>I believe that there is no distinction between the description of Advaita by

Sri Aurobindo and Sri Sankara. Ofcourse our understanding of their description

appears different and the reason is due to our

>ignorance!

>

>Finally, all your postings in this list indicate that you have absorbed most of

the 'Easterner' thought in your memory and consequently you don't need to be

apologistic!

>

>Regards,

>

>Ram Chandran

>

>

>Max Harris wrote:

>

>> "Max Harris" <max_harris

>>

>> I have found this thread interesting and valuable,

>> although certainly not conclusive. As one whose

>> understanding of Advaita comes largely through the

>> "non-illusionist" version of Sri Aurobindo, and as

>> one who largely remains a "Westerner" in thought,

>> I offer the following reflections/questions:

>>

>

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>You can WIN $100 to Amazon.com by starting a new list at ONElist.

>Drawing is held each week through September 17. For details go to:

><a href=" http://clickme./ad/Teaser116 ">Click Here</a>

>

>------

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing

on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at:

/viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>

 

 

---------------------------

FREE - yourname - Visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Jyothi Vijayakumar wrote:

> "Jyothi Vijayakumar" <nandini

>

>

> -

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> Advaitin List <advaitin >

> Tuesday, August 31, 1999 1:45 PM

> the case for jeeva not the same from moment to moment

>

>

> > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> > As I reflect on this matter, it seems to me that it is the memory

> > that makes us think that we are the same jeeva in this embodiment

> > from birth to death. It is the memory that suffocates us and binds

> > us to this embodiment. This memory is the cause for the ego and is

> > the ego. If only we do not have memory, we are free birds. No binding

> > to the past, no anxiety for the future. We ever live in the present.

> > I am fascinated how this memory works. If the List members can suggest

> > any good books on the philosophy of memory and how memory works,

> > I would be most obliged.

> >

> > Regards

> > Gummuluru Murthy

>

> ( In response)

>

> Namaste,

>

> [...]

> Although, I agree with your opinion that the faculty of memory produces and

> sustains the self image of an individual ( so called "I - thought" ) , I do

> not think that erasing memory or by losing it somehow one can become

> "liberated".

>

 

namaste.

 

In addition to the question I asked in this context "If there is no memory,

what is one getting "liberated from"?", let me emphasize one point here

for clarification.

 

In my original post on this thread, I am not referring to a case where the

jeeva suddenly looses memory or the memory suddenly gets erased. I am

talking about a scenario where there is no memory. My point is: the root

for thinking of being in bondage is the memory. If the memory were not

there (in contrast to memory that is erased), there is no thinking of

one being in bondage. There is no bondage, no liberation. The person

without memory is different from one moment to the next, ever living in

the present. No load of thoughts being brought forward, no thinking of

the future. No karma, no rebirth. If that is not moksha, what is ?

I refer here to Shri Shankara's koupIna pa~ncakam, the catchy verses

all ending with "khalu bhAgyavantah".

> In deep sleep state there is no memory and there is no "I - thought". But it

> is not identical with Samaadhi. Similarly, erasure of memory is only removal

> of clutter. True liberation should come when one consciously realizes the

> ultimate 'unreality' of memory ,ego, and all of their by-products, lock ,

> stock and barrel ; "completely and instantly".

>

 

Yes, there is no memory in the deep sleep state. And also, I agree deep

sleep state is not identical with samAdhi. But, when we bring deep sleep

state into the discussion, we imply (i) that there are wake-up and dream

states, (ii) the same jeeva is going through all the states, (iii) the

deep sleep state is a tamasic state with everything subdued, which gets

into attentive pattern when the "same" jeeva wakes up.

 

But, if we are looking at the possibility of jeeva being different from

one moment to the next even in one state, I hesitate to bring in the

deep sleep and the wake-up (conscious) states into the discussion,

because it pre-supposes the same jeeva.

 

> Pranams,

> Vijayakumar

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Ram Chandran <chandran

>

> Greetings Gummuluru:

>

> Thanks for bringing the question on ‘memory' and its relationship to

> liberation. Some of the issues have been explained scholarly by Jyothi,

> Harsha and Frank. I want to add some additional points. In Gita,

> chapter 18, verses 72 and 73 discuss the question regarding ‘memory'

> beautifully:

>

 

namaste. I am grateful to Shri Ram Chandran for his comments and

explanation using BG 18.72 and 73. While these verses are profound,

I must say that I could not (and still cannot) put the significance

of these two verses to the context of this thread (memory). I would

be grateful if Shri Ram Chandran expands on this aspect.

>

> In Vedanta, "Desire" and "Memory" are quite appropriately discussed in

> greater length to avoid contradiction and confusion. First Vedanta

> doesn't say that we shouldn't have desires. Similarly, Vedanta does not

> rule out all memories. Vedanta just asks us not "attach our actions" to

> either ‘desire' or ‘memory.' Actually, memory and desire are quite

> related. The memory of the taste of a food or drink or any habit

> motivates the desire to aspire for it. According to Vedanta, we should

> develop an attitude not to become a ‘slave' to our memory and

> consequently desire. Essentially, we have to free ourselves from the

> distractions of memory and/or desire and act as though we are the

> witness of our own actions! That is our liberation!! All desires and

> memories may exist and we can detached like the lotus leaf and the

> water. People who are detached from desires and memories will have the

> ‘lotus feet' and they live in this world without touching the world!

>

 

My understanding of the upanishads is that all the desires should drop

out before realization of Brahman; even the desire to realize Brahman.

My favorite verse of the upanishads is

 

Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah

atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14

 

When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal

becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.

 

The same verse appears in Br^hadAraNyaka upanishad also.

 

Yes, one has to develop witness attitude to the actions. But, if these

are desire-generated actions, how can one be a witness? The Brahman is

always a witness to *all* actions. The desire is in the jeeva, and how can

the jeeva be a witness to its own desire-generated actions? Thus, as I

understand, as long as action has its origin in desire, one cannot

develop a witness attitude. That is, having desire and being a witness

cannot co-exist. I do not know much about the memory, but I would

assume that memory falls in the same category as well, may be less

potent. As memory is responsible for the thinking in the jeeva of

apparent continuity of the jeeva and hence to the ego (that I am the

doer), I would assume the witness attitude would not co-exist in that

case either.

 

> [...]

> Finally, we need to be cautious and avoid conducting mechanical

> analysis of human ‘memory.' A computer with no memory is dead and a

> human being with zero memory becomes a vegetable!

>

 

I must say I have difficulty with this. In whose perspective is this man

(with zero memory) a vegetable? Is it in his own perspective (which he

does not have because he does not have memory) Or, is it in *our*

perspective whose minds are prejudicial with the thinking that having

an active mind is the only way to be ? As I mentioned in another post,

having zero memory means one without memory and not one whose memory

is erased (for whatever reason).

> Ram Chandran

> Burke, VA

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I am most grateful to Shri Vijayakumar, Harsha, Frank, Ram Chandran, Max

Harris and Jan Barendrecht for their elaborations on this thread.

 

However, I notice that none of them tackled the main point of my post,

viz. Is the jeeva in this embodiment the same from birth to death?

To clarify my own views, I am looking for arguments counter to my

argument, that is, arguments to show that it is the same jeeva in

this embodiment from birth to death.

 

Is my suggestion (as the thread title shows) too outrageous ?

Or, do List-members agree that it is not the same jeeva from

birth to death ?

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Murthygaru:

 

Your quotation from the Upanishads is beautiful and your understanding

is quite right. However, this quotation does not contradict what I have

posted. Please note that when we detach our actions from desires, the

desires will eventually fall away. But in order for the desires to

fall, we have to develop an attitude of contentment and fulfilment.

This will help us to free our selves from desire-propelled actions. I

want you to recall Gita Chapter II Verse 70:

 

ApuryamAnam acalapratistham samudram Apah pravisanti yadvat

tadvat kAmA yam pravisanti sarve sa sAntim Apnoti na kAmakAmi

 

(He unto whom all desires enter as waters into the sea, which though

ever being filled is ever motionless, attains to peace and not he who

hugs his desires - Translation by Dr. Radhakrishnan)

 

The nerve center for human desires is the mind which undergoes changes

with spiritual growth. Rain waters represent the desires. River

represents spiritual life. . When we adopt the spiritual path of life,

we divert our desires to satisfy community We are able to evolve a sense

of direction and a destination. The waters of the rivers flow through

the planet for the survival of humans, animals, plants and insects. The

spiritual person also proceeds the life with the only desires and

actions for the betterment of the society. When the spiritual person

reaches the ultimate destination, (Brahman) he (she) loses the identify.

The spiritual person attains Brahman with fulfilment of all desires and

reaches the motionless state of the Ocean.

 

In Buddhism, 'no desire' is emphasized to attain the 'nirvana state. In

Vedanta, the emphasis is on fulfilment rather than zero desire.

Ultimately however, 'nirvana' state is equivalent to the state of

'Ananda.' I find the Vedanta more appealing than Buddhis for this

important reason!

 

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA

 

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> My understanding of the upanishads is that all the desires should drop

> out before realization of Brahman; even the desire to realize Brahman.

> My favorite verse of the upanishads is

>

> Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah

> atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14

>

> When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal

> becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.

>

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>I am most grateful to Shri Vijayakumar, Harsha, Frank, Ram Chandran, Max

>Harris and Jan Barendrecht for their elaborations on this thread.

>

>However, I notice that none of them tackled the main point of my post,

>viz. Is the jeeva in this embodiment the same from birth to death?

>To clarify my own views, I am looking for arguments counter to my

>argument, that is, arguments to show that it is the same jeeva in

>this embodiment from birth to death.

 

I will give a try to express my view on this matter.

 

First, I will try to set aside my acquired habit of distinguishing

between "ego" and "Jiva" whereby I see the ego as a this-life

formation on the 'surface' of the embodied Jiva.

 

Equating jeeva with ego, then, my view is that it is best thought

of in 'process' terms rather than in 'entitative' terms. In other

words, jeeva is not a being or thing or entity, but a process.

Jeeva is a process of structuring the experience of self and world.

 

As a process of structuring experience, jeeva is bound to the

body in which it is embodied. In particular, it is involved or

'implemented' in the central nervous system and there it 'stores'

its 'deposits' of its structuring activity. Its continuity lies

in its drawing upon its history of structuring to continue as a

process of structuring of experience (of maya and of itself).

 

So, yes, I would say the jeeva is the 'same' jeeva from birth to

death in this embodiment 'in the sense that' it is a process bound

to a particular entity (the body) and controlled by patterns of

its own history of activity. Hence the sense of continuity is

not illusory: it is the 'same' process continuing in the 'same'

body.

 

I do not see this jeeva(ego) as preceding or surviving its

occurrence in a body, but I do see its activity as being influenced

by an inner 'Atman' and the products of its activity as being

retainable by the 'Atman'(Jivatman) which has preceded it and will

survive it.

 

My views are the result of being influenced by many,

but I don't claim the authority of any great sage

or revered scripture. Its my peculiar synthesis.

 

-- Max

 

---------------------------

FREE - yourname - Visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Murthygaru:

 

When define Jeeva within a time frame-work - time of birth till the time

of death, we can conceive changes. In otherwords, Jeeva with limitations

become measurable and observable. However, it is impossible for any of

us to judge and classify your suggestion as 'outrageous' as long as we

are at the empirical level. At the absolute level with no limitations,

Jeeva, the world and the Brahman get superimposed.

 

While Jeeva is dependent on Brahman, the latter is not dependent on

Jeeva. This one-sided dependence and the logical inconceivability of the

relation between the Ultimate Reality and the Jeeva are brought out by

the word ‘mAyA.' It is safe to say that your suggestion and my

explanation are also caused by mAyA!

 

 

Ram Chandran

Burke VA

 

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> namaste.

>

> However, I notice that none of them tackled the main point of my post,

> viz. Is the jeeva in this embodiment the same from birth to death?

> To clarify my own views, I am looking for arguments counter to my

> argument, that is, arguments to show that it is the same jeeva in

> this embodiment from birth to death.

>

> Is my suggestion (as the thread title shows) too outrageous ?

> Or, do List-members agree that it is not the same jeeva from

> birth to death ?

>

[Guest guest]

At 11:00 AM 9/2/99 , Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

 

However, I notice that none of them tackled the main point of my post,

>viz. Is the jeeva in this embodiment the same from birth to death?

>To clarify my own views, I am looking for arguments counter to my

>argument, that is, arguments to show that it is the same jeeva in

>this embodiment from birth to death.

>

>Is my suggestion (as the thread title shows) too outrageous ?

>Or, do List-members agree that it is not the same jeeva from

>birth to death ?

 

I'm sorry Gummuluru, I too am unable to argue for the jiva's continuity and

identity through time.

 

How does ANYTHING in phenomenality remain the same through time? Any form

is intermittent and mutable. It is never our experience that a form

remains unchanged through time, because to remain unchanged entails that

all its characteristics remain identical. This never happens. The jiva is

no different from anything else in this respect.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

advaitin <advaitin >

Thursday, September 02, 1999 10:00 AM

Re: the case for jeeva not the same from moment to

moment

 

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>namaste.

>

>I am most grateful to Shri Vijayakumar, Harsha, Frank, Ram Chandran, Max

>Harris and Jan Barendrecht for their elaborations on this thread.

>

>However, I notice that none of them tackled the main point of my post,

>viz. Is the jeeva in this embodiment the same from birth to death?

>To clarify my own views, I am looking for arguments counter to my

>argument, that is, arguments to show that it is the same jeeva in

>this embodiment from birth to death.

>

>Is my suggestion (as the thread title shows) too outrageous ?

>Or, do List-members agree that it is not the same jeeva from

>birth to death ?

 

 

Aren't there two different senses of 'same' here? If I say I've lived in the

same house all my life, I certainly don't mean that it has been unchanging

for all that time. It may have had several different colors of paint, a new

roof, and so on. But, besides remaining in the same location, it retains

enough recognizable continuity that I acknowledge it as the 'same' house,

and can even pick it out from photographs of various houses taken over many

years.

 

Similarly, none of us is the 'same' person that we were a second ago, since

we have both aged and added experience during even that brief interval. But

there is enough continuity, even over decades, that others recognize us as

the same person. When we say, "He's a different man," we mean, "This (same)

man has changed dramatically." Even if a person's individual identity

consists only of ego drives, desires, anxieties, and so forth that mask the

inner nonduality, still that constellation has recognizable continuity, both

physical and psychological, usually throughout life, and possibly even over

more than one life.

 

I throw out these thoughts on a mere linguistic basis, but I hope they might

contribute some clarification of the question.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

On 9/2/99 at 12:30 PM Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>namaste.

>

>I am most grateful to Shri Vijayakumar, Harsha, Frank, Ram

Chandran, Max

>Harris and Jan Barendrecht for their elaborations on this

thread.

>

>However, I notice that none of them tackled the main point of

my post,

>viz. Is the jeeva in this embodiment the same from birth to

death?

>To clarify my own views, I am looking for arguments counter

to my

>argument, that is, arguments to show that it is the same

jeeva in

>this embodiment from birth to death.

 

No one will doubt the "I"; it remains the same and the sense

of "same identity" even remains in Alzheimer patients, despite

the awareness that "something" is changing. Those saying to

remember "past lives" never question the "I"; what changes are

assets like character, profession, nationality etc. Paramount

is the "I" that seems to be the experiencer of all.

>

>Is my suggestion (as the thread title shows) too outrageous ?

>Or, do List-members agree that it is not the same jeeva from

>birth to death ?

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

 

Upon recognition of what was never lost, there is no memory of

"separated jiva / ego" whatsoever. Although this is logical

(separateness is illusion), it cannot be verified by the jiva,

who will "disappear/dissolve" just before verification

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

> -

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> Advaitin List <advaitin >

> Tuesday, August 31, 1999 1:45 PM

> the case for jeeva not the same from moment to moment

>

>

> > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> > As I reflect on this matter, it seems to me that it is the memory

> > that makes us think that we are the same jeeva in this embodiment

> > from birth to death. It is the memory that suffocates us and binds

> > us to this embodiment. This memory is the cause for the ego and is

> > the ego. If only we do not have memory, we are free birds. No binding

> > to the past, no anxiety for the future. We ever live in the present.

> > I am fascinated how this memory works. If the List members can suggest

> > any good books on the philosophy of memory and how memory works,

> > I would be most obliged.

> >

> > Regards

> > Gummuluru Murthy

>

 

( In response)

 

Namaste,

 

I could quickly recall two books which deal with the scientific aspect of

'Memory'.

 

1. An Anthropologist on Mars by Oliver Sacks. - In this book Dr. Sacks

narrates (among other unusual neurological case studies) the story of a

real

life patient who loses memory because of a tumor. There is a vivid

description of how he always "lived in the present". It seems he had also

joined an ashram and the other members there mistakenly assumed that he was

a "realized" soul. >

 

2. Memory's Ghost by Philip J. Hilts. - This is the story of 'Henry M' who

had to have an operation for intractable epilepsy . He ended up losing long

term memory and lived entirely in the present. ( I have only read a review

of this book ).

 

Although, I agree with your opinion that the faculty of memory produces and

sustains the self image of an individual ( so called "I - thought" ) , I do

not think that erasing memory or by losing it somehow one can become

"liberated".

 

In deep sleep state there is no memory and there is no "I - thought". But

it

is not identical with Samaadhi. Similarly, erasure of memory is only

removal

of clutter. True liberation should come when one consciously realizes the

ultimate 'unreality' of memory ,ego, and all of their by-products, lock ,

stock and barrel ; "completely and instantly".

 

Pranams,

Vijayakumar

 

>

> > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

> >

> > ATTENTION ONElist MEMBERS: Get your ONElist news!

> > Join our MEMBER NEWSLETTER here:

> > <a href=" http://clickme./ad/newsletter2 ">Click Here</a>

> >

> > ------

> > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

> focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available

at:

> /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message >

> However, I notice that none of them tackled the main point of my post,

> viz. Is the jeeva in this embodiment the same from birth to death?

> To clarify my own views, I am looking for arguments counter to my

> argument, that is, arguments to show that it is the same jeeva in

> this embodiment from birth to death.

 

( In response)

 

Namaste,

Before I begin please let me apologize for reposting my earlier letter

without knowing that it was already posted.

 

I think you had answered your own question in your first posting by saying _

" Thus it seems advaita takes it to be the same jeeva from birth to death in

this embodiment, in spite of the many changes that are taking place or have

taken place. Except that advaita says that these changes are not real , the

jeeva is identical to the underlying substratum the changeless."

 

I agree with this view. Upon realization that jeeva is nothing but Brahman,

birth and death cease to be points of reference. Until such realization

dawns, it should be assumed that the same embodiment continues from birth

to death. I am saying 'assumed' because, it is only a superimposition.

 

To consider Jeeva + Superimposition as a string of momentary ideas with no

connection, would pose several difficulties to the path of sAdhanA. This

view is akin to the "kshaNa bhanga vAda"

of yogachAra school of Buddhism and Shankara has strongly criticised this

view as "an obstacle to the Vedic path leading to the Highest Good". He says

that such a view would render meaningless all phenomenal practices,

cause-effect relations, perceptions and inferences.

 

I feel that once an embodiment has taken place its course is pretty much

decided by the "prArabdha" like the course of an arrow shot from a bow.

 

Millions of light particles emanate from a tube and form a picture on the

screen. Picture is certainly an illusion and particles are by all standards

momentary. But, as long as the picture lasts on the screen, we are

interested in the story that is told.

 

praNAms,

vijayakumar

 

>

>

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA: DOUBLE Rewards points,

> NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9 percent FIXED APR. Apply online today!

> <a href=" http://clickme./ad/nextcard5 ">Click Here</a>

>

> ------

> Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at:

/viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message ( parts of this message are deleted for brevity)

> In my original post on this thread, I am not referring to a case where the

> jeeva suddenly looses memory or the memory suddenly gets erased. I am

> talking about a scenario where there is no memory. My point is: the root

> for thinking of being in bondage is the memory. If the memory were not

> there (in contrast to memory that is erased), there is no thinking of

> one being in bondage. There is no bondage, no liberation. The person

> without memory is different from one moment to the next, ever living in

> the present. No load of thoughts being brought forward, no thinking of

> the future. No karma, no rebirth. If that is not moksha, what is ?

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

 

(in response)

 

Namaste,

 

This is a fascinating thought. I entirely agree with your observations

regarding memory as defined.

A conscious erasure of memory (as opposed to an accidental loss) leads to a

redefined 'personality' of an individual who bodily goes through the motions

as it were, according to his or her "prArabdha" but truly is "liberated". I

realize that our differences of opinion are only due to the way we chose to

define 'memory'.

 

praNAms

vijayakumar

> ------

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.

>

> ------

> Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at:

/viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>

>