Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 It seems a bit unfortunate that Sadananda pre-empted this discussion with his submission of the other day. Having been asked by Ram, I had intended (and still intend) to prepare a general overview of the topic at a level that all could hopefully appreciate. It seems that, having talked about the subject before on numerous occasions, any new thread should be aimed at those members with less of a background in Advaita who had perhaps been unable to appreciate the earlier talks. As it is, I read quickly through Sadaji's post and found myself asking what on earth he was talking about. (Sorry, Sada - no disrespect intended). Accordingly, I do not intend to contribute to the present discussions. I will submit a summary on 1st April (possibly a little earlier) as previously stated. This will contain no Sanskrit terms and will try to put across the ideas at a practical level to which everyone can relate rather than jumping in at the deep end with all of the old arguments and the extremely complex terminology and concepts. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 --- "S. Venkatraman" <venkat52 wrote: > > 1. Both JIva and Ishwara belong to the vyavahArika level and have the > same ontological status. They are merely two perspectives in that > level. Statements at the vyavahArika level can either be made from > the stand-point of an individual(jIva - as representative of the > group)or from the stand-point of creation (Ishwara - the group > itself). You are right - Since you are asking very deep questions, I want to bring in the perspective of j~naani, since we cannot really talk from the perspective of Iswara since we can become j~naani-s but not Iswara. Krishna can do it since He is avataara and that perspective is also needed as you rightly pointed out to inculcate Bhakti. J~naani comes in between level of jiiva and Iswara in the sense he knows he is Brahman but he also knows that the upaadhi-s (body, mind and intellect) that he has for the time being are limited. He has an understanding that the self in him is the self in all and all are in his self (sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani). The same statement Krishna makes in the very next sloka from Iswara point too - yo mam pastyati sarvatra, sarvatra mayi pasyati - One who seems me everywhere and everything in me - thus both from j~naana point and from bhakti point. > 2. If what is stated above is right, for me as an individual, at > vyavhArika level, reality is jIva perspective. Ishwara perspective > for me is only a concept. i.e. activity takes place only for a jIva > and if we speak of activity for Ishwara, it is only in the manner of > speaking. In a way yes. That is until I have not realized. When I have realised, the perspective shits to that of J~naani's. Here a good book to study is "I am that" by Nisargadatta Majaraj. > 3. If in popular theistic literature Ishwara is described as being > endowed with powers much more than that of jIva, it is only in > recognition of the fact that different jIvas are at different levels > of understanding and Bhakti rather than jnAna is more conducive for > the development of some jIvas. You are right. Ultimately Bhakti is not different from j~naana. Bhagawan Ramanuja call it as 'bhatki ruupaka j~naana' - although his interpretation of what that j~naana is slightly different - it is not the identity but recognition of the dependence as well as His presence in oneself as antaryaami. > Another request. Gita constantly shifts between vyavahArika and > pAramArthika levels and within vyavahArika between jIva and Ishwara > perspectives. For e.g. in a statement like 'prakritim yAnti bhUtAni, > nigrha kim karishyasi', prakriti can either mean human nature or > prakriti from the macrocosmic perspective. The way I have explained > my understanding of these concepts above, this should really not make > much of a difference in understanding Krishna's words in the Gita. > Am I right in this conclusion? You are right. As long as one knows that The differnce between jiiva and Iswara is only in upaadhi's. Bagawan Ramana maharshi in his upadesha saara says: iisha jiivayoH veshadhii bhidaa, sarva bhaavato vastu kevalam - the difference between Iswara and jiiva is only in vesha or costume that one is wearing - from the point of essence - the essence is the same- it is sat chit and ananda swaruupa - no jiiva no Iswara in that understanding. > > Nevertheless it can make a lot of difference in the appreciation of > the slokAs. So it will be useful to know from what perpective the > Lord is talking. May I request you to suggest a commentary or any > other work on Gita, which explains the slokAs taking this very > important aspect into account. I use Swami Chinmayanandaji book "Holy Geeta" for my class. One can get that from Chinmaya Publications - on line. The book by Swami Dayananda saraswati, disciple of Chinmayanandaji is also good - He has his own ashram - aarshya vidhya pitham - and has his own website. Hope this helps. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Dear Dennisji: The subject is of great interest to members, I believe. However, unduly long dissertations take time to read and understand. Time is of the essence for most working people. Please be brief and precise. No post should be longer than ,say, 30 lines. This is one vioew. Shanti - "Dennis Waite" <dwaite <advaitin> Friday, March 28, 2003 4:45 AM Fate and Free Will > It seems a bit unfortunate that Sadananda pre-empted this discussion with > his submission of the other day. Having been asked by Ram, I had intended > (and still intend) to prepare a general overview of the topic at a level > that all could hopefully appreciate. It seems that, having talked about the > subject before on numerous occasions, any new thread should be aimed at > those members with less of a background in Advaita who had perhaps been > unable to appreciate the earlier talks. As it is, I read quickly through > Sadaji's post and found myself asking what on earth he was talking about. > (Sorry, Sada - no disrespect intended). > > Accordingly, I do not intend to contribute to the present discussions. I > will submit a summary on 1st April (possibly a little earlier) as previously > stated. This will contain no Sanskrit terms and will try to put across the > ideas at a practical level to which everyone can relate rather than jumping > in at the deep end with all of the old arguments and the extremely complex > terminology and concepts. > > Dennis > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 --- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > It seems a bit unfortunate that Sadananda pre-empted this discussion > with > his submission of the other day. > Sorry Dennis - it was intended to start the discussion not to preempty it! Since what I wrote is not clear anyway - it is far from pre-emptying rather adding more confusion to the subject. Please go ahead present varous ideas that exist and your perspective of the subject. I will just sit back and enjoy the reading but will only step in if I need to clarify the statements I made, or if my understanding differs! Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.