Hindu Advaita? - Re-incarnation

[Guest guest]

Apologies - I had not intended to begin a discussion on reincarnation. I had

assumed that my words would not provoke dissent.

V.M.Sundaram wrote: -

"The Pure Consciousness Atman / Universal Self ( which according to advaita

is the same as Brahman ) does not undergo birth and death. But when it

appears as a Jivaatama / individual self , tenanting a body-mind

complex,it is under the spell of ego consciousness. When the body dies, the

jivaatama , along with ego , is reborn in another body. This repetitive

cycle of birth and death continues until the jivaatama gets out of the spell

of the ego.

This cycle is beginning-less (anaadi). The question "when was it born in

the first place ? " has no answer. The cycle ends with mokshha.

This is the advaita view, as I understand it. The concept of re-incarnation

is not rejected by advaita."

 

Surely, Shankara's teaching is that there is only the Self. There are no

'individuals' only adhyaasa causing this mistaken belief. This being the

case, irrespective of what might be thought, there is no one who could

reincarnate.

 

This topic is clearly overlapping with the one of last week on aatman,

jiivaatman and paramaatman. I had meant to respond to this having recently

come across the following in an excellent book by Swami Muni Narayana Prasad

called "Vedaabta Suutras of Narayana Guru" (Has anyone heard of Narayana

Guru - I do not recall anyone mentioning him on the lists.) I think the

members will find it interesting.

 

Jiva, Jivaatman and Paramaatman

 

The common misconception that aatman is a synonym for jiiva obscures the

metaphysical sense of the word aatman given in the paragraph above. Jiva,

understood as an indwelling and animating principle of living beings, is a

concept readily acceptable to most people, especially to those with

religious views. In Indian thought philosophy and religion are indivisible.

Therefore the shift, over time, from the philosophical to the theological

sense of aatman was not generally noticed or seriously considered. It is the

view of the multiplicity of souls held by the theological schools of

Vaisnavism and Saivism which has been most responsible for that shift. In

later Vedaanta, especially after ShaNkara, it resulted in the emergence of

the concepts of jiivatman and paramaatman, signifying respectively

individual soul and universal or supreme soul. These two words do not appear

in any of the major Upanishhads nor in the Bhagavad-Gitaa and although the

Bhagavad-GItaa mentions the word jiiva four times, it is used in a sense not

at all related to the concept of jivaatman.

 

Most of the introductory textbooks of the ShaNkara School of Vedaanta use

the word jiiva-brahmaikya (the oneness of soul and Brahman) to express the

vision of VedUnta, but the word aatmabrahmaikya (the oneness of Self and

Brahman) would have been a more correct expression of that vision. The words

jiivo brahmeti naapara.h (the soul is nothing other than Brahman) are often

repeated in these textbooks, which, in the understanding of the ShaNkara

School, means that in an individual being, the soul only is real and the

body (perceived as non-Self, separate from the soul) is unreal. This,

despite the fact that ShaNkara asserts:-

 

The soul and all the worlds are Brahman indeed.

Such is the summary of the teaching of Vedaanta. (vivekacuuDaamaNi 478)

 

It should be clearly understood that Vedaanta's concept of aatman, the

pervasive reality of all that appears (gross, subtle, physical, vital and

mental), does not exclude the body. Only nonexistent nothingness is unreal.

 

In discriminating between Self and non-Self, ShaNkara examines the

perceptions of gross-body. subtle-body and causal-body and concludes that

having no existence apart from the Self they are, if considered apart,

non-Self. He saw that the transcendental inner content of all bodies is the

Self which, in this context, he referred to as jivaatman. Misunderstanding

his use of the word, his followers took 'inner content' to mean an

individual, indwelling soul. This error arose from confusing ShaNkara's

vision with his methodology. At an initial stage of his thinking he

discriminates between Self and non-Self as a methodological device to show

that both are aspects of one non-dual Self. This subtle distinction between

the methodology and axiology of ShaNkara's thought was lost on his followers

and they began to identify aatman with jiiva, obscuring the truth that

aatman is also the reality of the matter considered by them as unreal. The

view of a multiplicity of individual souls having individual, separate and

independent realities is contrary to the teaching of Advaita-Vedaanta which

holds that one Self alone exists and there are no others. Coupled with the

erroneous view of the existence of individual souls is the equally erroneous

view that multiplicity, arising from one ultimate reality, is appearance

only and hence unreal. Appearances too are Brahman.

 

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

Is it not that there is Brahman and then the illusion, the thought

construct of the entity or human soul. Atma is just another name

for Nirguna Brahman. Unless you regard the 'I', as the Jiva then one

is discussing Saguna Brahman. All illusion and concepts anyway, but

useful for discussion's sake......Om Namah Sivaya....Tony.

 

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Apologies - I had not intended to begin a discussion on

reincarnation. I had

> assumed that my words would not provoke dissent.

> V.M.Sundaram wrote: -

> "The Pure Consciousness Atman / Universal Self ( which according to

advaita

> is the same as Brahman ) does not undergo birth and death. But when

it

> appears as a Jivaatama / individual self , tenanting a body-mind

> complex,it is under the spell of ego consciousness. When the body

dies, the

> jivaatama , along with ego , is reborn in another body. This

repetitive

> cycle of birth and death continues until the jivaatama gets out of

the spell

> of the ego.

> This cycle is beginning-less (anaadi). The question "when was it

born in

> the first place ? " has no answer. The cycle ends with mokshha.

> This is the advaita view, as I understand it. The concept of

re-incarnation

> is not rejected by advaita."

>

> Surely, Shankara's teaching is that there is only the Self. There

are no

> 'individuals' only adhyaasa causing this mistaken belief. This being

the

> case, irrespective of what might be thought, there is no one who

could

> reincarnate.

>

> This topic is clearly overlapping with the one of last week on

aatman,

> jiivaatman and paramaatman. I had meant to respond to this having

recently

> come across the following in an excellent book by Swami Muni

Narayana Prasad

> called "Vedaabta Suutras of Narayana Guru" (Has anyone heard of

Narayana

> Guru - I do not recall anyone mentioning him on the lists.) I think

the

> members will find it interesting.

>

> Jiva, Jivaatman and Paramaatman

>

> The common misconception that aatman is a synonym for jiiva obscures

the

> metaphysical sense of the word aatman given in the paragraph above.

Jiva,

> understood as an indwelling and animating principle of living

beings, is a

> concept readily acceptable to most people, especially to those with

> religious views. In Indian thought philosophy and religion are

indivisible.

> Therefore the shift, over time, from the philosophical to the

theological

> sense of aatman was not generally noticed or seriously considered.

It is the

> view of the multiplicity of souls held by the theological schools of

> Vaisnavism and Saivism which has been most responsible for that

shift. In

> later Vedaanta, especially after ShaNkara, it resulted in the

emergence of

> the concepts of jiivatman and paramaatman, signifying respectively

> individual soul and universal or supreme soul. These two words do

not appear

> in any of the major Upanishhads nor in the Bhagavad-Gitaa and

although the

> Bhagavad-GItaa mentions the word jiiva four times, it is used in a

sense not

> at all related to the concept of jivaatman.

>

> Most of the introductory textbooks of the ShaNkara School of

Vedaanta use

> the word jiiva-brahmaikya (the oneness of soul and Brahman) to

express the

> vision of VedUnta, but the word aatmabrahmaikya (the oneness of Self

and

> Brahman) would have been a more correct expression of that vision.

The words

> jiivo brahmeti naapara.h (the soul is nothing other than Brahman)

are often

> repeated in these textbooks, which, in the understanding of the

ShaNkara

> School, means that in an individual being, the soul only is real and

the

> body (perceived as non-Self, separate from the soul) is unreal.

This,

> despite the fact that ShaNkara asserts:-

>

> The soul and all the worlds are Brahman indeed.

> Such is the summary of the teaching of Vedaanta. (vivekacuuDaamaNi

478)

>

> It should be clearly understood that Vedaanta's concept of aatman,

the

> pervasive reality of all that appears (gross, subtle, physical,

vital and

> mental), does not exclude the body. Only nonexistent nothingness is

unreal.

>

> In discriminating between Self and non-Self, ShaNkara examines the

> perceptions of gross-body. subtle-body and causal-body and concludes

that

> having no existence apart from the Self they are, if considered

apart,

> non-Self. He saw that the transcendental inner content of all bodies

is the

> Self which, in this context, he referred to as jivaatman.

Misunderstanding

> his use of the word, his followers took 'inner content' to mean an

> individual, indwelling soul. This error arose from confusing

ShaNkara's

> vision with his methodology. At an initial stage of his thinking he

> discriminates between Self and non-Self as a methodological device

to show

> that both are aspects of one non-dual Self. This subtle distinction

between

> the methodology and axiology of ShaNkara's thought was lost on his

followers

> and they began to identify aatman with jiiva, obscuring the truth

that

> aatman is also the reality of the matter considered by them as

unreal. The

> view of a multiplicity of individual souls having individual,

separate and

> independent realities is contrary to the teaching of

Advaita-Vedaanta which

> holds that one Self alone exists and there are no others. Coupled

with the

> erroneous view of the existence of individual souls is the equally

erroneous

> view that multiplicity, arising from one ultimate reality, is

appearance

> only and hence unreal. Appearances too are Brahman.

>

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

 

...................

> Surely, Shankara's teaching is that there is only the Self. There are no

> 'individuals' only adhyaasa causing this mistaken belief. This being the

> case, irrespective of what might be thought, there is no one who could

> reincarnate.

 

In BG 2.13 and 2.22, the word *dehin* is used.

This dehin (occupier of deha) is described in verse 2.13 as acquiring

another body

(dehaantara praaptih). In verse 2. 22, it is described as going from

one body to

another body (samyaati is the word used ) .

Sankara in his bhashhya calls this dehin as atma. It is commonly

translated as

jiivaatamaa (embodied self in english).

If as you say there is no jiivataman , what would you call this *dehin*

?

Whatever name you call it by,

Is not this migration of the dehin from one body to another

re-incarnation ?

 

V.M.Sundaram

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: /local/news.html

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: advaitin

> File folder: advaitin

> Link Folder: advaitin/links

> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to