Question on Jiva and Ignorance

January 13, 2004

Dear Sirs

I am new to this forum and to advaita.So I dont have much understanding.I have

few questions ,I would be glad if some one could explain them to me.

1.What came first Jiva or Ignorance?.If we say that ignorance then question

arises that who has this ignorance.Brahman cant have ignorance because it is

unchanging and jiva is not yet born.If we say that jiva came first then if he

did not have ignorance how can he be a jiva?If we say that both are simultaneous

then the question who is ignorant still remains.Similar question that arises in

mind is "who is released".Is it brahman?But brahman is ever free.In reality only

brahman exists?Then who else is there who "is released?

2.Time appears within maya.If that is true then we can never say that maya no

more exists.Then is it eternal?.We cant say that it is "asat" ....only all

"asat" appears in it.Then what is it?

Regards

Sumanta

India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download

now.

January 13, 2004

--- sumanta bhowmik <sumantkb wrote:

> 1.What came first Jiva or Ignorance?.If we say that ignorance then

> question arises that who has this ignorance.Brahman cant have

> ignorance because it is unchanging and jiva is not yet born.If we say

> that jiva came first then if he did not have ignorance how can he be a

> jiva?If we say that both are simultaneous then the question who is

> ignorant still remains.Similar question that arises in mind is "who is

> released".Is it brahman?But brahman is ever free.In reality only

> brahman exists?Then who else is there who "is released?

Sumantaji,

Welcome to the group. Your questions are deep rooted and it is obvious

that you have been deeply thinking about these problems. The questions

you have posed are those asked by Shree Raamanuja in his Shree Bhaashya.

Now before you seek answer to that first question, can you answer me

whether seed came first or tree came first - since seed comes from the

tree and tree comes from the seed. Jiiva and ignorance have the same

problem here - The first explanation for these puzzles is it is

anirvacaniiyam - in explicable just as for seed-tree or egg-chicken

situation. Creation has no beginning nor end; it is a cyclic process

and therefore no beginning. Second you are asking the cause-effect

relation and that itself is within the realm of time - since cause is

before the effect. But even the time concept is part of the creation.

Hence anaadi or beginning less is one answer. Third, any explanation is

within the realm of the intellect. Even the intellect is itself in the

creation. So any explanation itself gets limited, therefore it is

anirvachaniiyam, or mathematically an indeterminate problem.

Now 'who realizes?' - The one who is asking the question is the one who

realizes. I, who think that I am this - body, mind and intellect,

realizes that I am not an object but the very subject that cannot be

objectifies. The one who has wrong notions and identify with the wrong

notions, realizes that they are all notions and not truth. The truth is

I am satchidaananda swaruupam - not this body and this mind and this

intellect. Who says that - obviously who right now says I this body,

this mind and this intellect. Now you tell me, who is the one who thinks

I am this body, this mind or this intellect and the world out there is

different from me and I am this limited entity - and that one is the

one who realized that I am not this body, I am not this mind and I am

not this intellect and this world is not separate from me; they are all

in me.

>

> 2.Time appears within maya.If that is true then we can never say that

> maya no more exists.Then is it eternal?.We cant say that it is "asat"

> ....only all "asat" appears in it.Then what is it?

Maya means that appears to be there but not there in realty. The

reality, Brahman, is there as the very substantive of Maya. So it is

neither sat nor asat. Sat part is the Brahman on which the appearances

takes place. When we know the truth, Maya can remain as parameswara

Shakti or my glory, but no more delusion that Maya is real. The

substratum of Maya is Brahman only since there is nothing other than

Brahman and I am that Brahman becomes true knowledge. You can say like

Krishna saying - Maya adhyakshena prakRiti suuyate sa chaara charam|

PrakRiti is nothing but maaya - maayantu prakRitim vidyaat - says

upanishad. So time - space - are resolved into me that is eternal. I

pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form. Forms that are

manifested are appearences and are due to power of maaya, which is my

own power.

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.

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

January 13, 2004

advaitin, sumanta bhowmik <sumantkb>

wrote:

>

> I am new to this forum and to advaita.So I dont have much

understanding.I have few questions ,I would be glad if some one

could explain them to me.

>

> 1.What came first Jiva or Ignorance?.If we say that ignorance then

question arises that who has this ignorance.Brahman cant have

ignorance because it is unchanging and jiva is not yet born.If we

say that jiva came first then if he did not have ignorance how can

he be a jiva?If we say that both are simultaneous then the question

who is ignorant still remains.Similar question that arises in mind

is "who is released".Is it brahman?But brahman is ever free.In

reality only brahman exists?Then who else is there who "is released?

>

> 2.Time appears within maya.If that is true then we can never say

that maya no more exists.Then is it eternal?.We cant say that it

is "asat" ....only all "asat" appears in it.Then what is it?

>

Namaste, Sumanta-ji,

Sadanandaji has given you all the answers. I only want to supplement

it.

You say "If we say that both are simultaneous then the question who

is ignorant still remains". Your question now is because you are

separating jIva and ignorance as two separate things. The very

definition of jIva has inbuilt into it Ignorance. Jiva without

ignorance is Brahman. Ignorance without jIva has no meaning.

Secondly "Time appears within mAyA" is only an under-statement. The

same type of answer as above. The very definition of Time has

inbuilt into it 'MAyA'. For, the very passage of time is mAyA. Those

who have transcended mAyA, are not subject to the concept of Time --

this is what the sages say. So 'eternal' has no meaning in that

case.

All these questions bother us because we want to 'understand'

everything in terms of our intellect. In other words we want

to 'bring' something beyond mAyA to something within mAyA. And

therefore we are using words to say what cannot be said in words --

'anirvacanIyaM'!

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

January 14, 2004

Dear Sirs

I thank you for explaining it.

By your explaination most of it has become clear.But I still have some doubts.

1.If we say that jiva without ignorance is brahman..then are we not concluding

that the brahman has been covered by ignorance.How can that happen to the

associationless brahman?

Also it seems that all the discussions are within the intellectual realm and so

within maaya.So all explanations are finally false.Then what is the point of

discussion?Using falsity we can never reach truth.Someone one once told me that

we use falsity to cancel falsity(all the knowledge is finally false because if

there is no other then what is the knowledge about and so brahman is not gyan

swarup)and what is left is the truth.The truth is always known because everyone

knows that it exists,no one denies his own existence.Now a new question arises

"what about inanimate objects like vessels?"I read an argument in a book that

they neither have ignorance nor the knowledge about themselves.This confused

me.So what is the answer? Is it "How do you know that they dont have knowledge

about themselves? Because there is no fullproof method to determine that."

I would be glad if you could enlighten me.This confusion arised because I had

heard from some saint that sadhna is just removing the falsity.Recently I read

in panchadashi that lack of ignorance is not as important as knowledge of the

self.

Thank you

Sumanta

India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download

now.

January 14, 2004

Namaste

With regard to cancelling a false knowledge by from false level, i.e. ignorance

of jiva from maya level, is like understanding mirage i.e. mirage is also false

and our knowing that is also from maya level. For vyharik purpose we are not

fooled by mirage and like that for the same purpose we are not fooled by jiva

and projections of jiva. I am not very knowledgeable, but this is my

understanding of the situation.

Pranams to all

R.S.Mani

sumanta bhowmik <sumantkb wrote:

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

January 15, 2004

--- sumanta bhowmik <sumantkb wrote:

> 1.If we say that jiva without ignorance is brahman..then are we not

> concluding that the brahman has been covered by ignorance.How can that

> happen to the associationless brahman?

Sumantaji -You are right - nothing can happen to association-less

Brahman.

One can examine your question using an example. Remember that example

is only to illustrate the problem but should not be extended beyond its

utility.

(a) Ignorance covering association-less Brahman is just like clouds

covering the brilliant Sun - Shankara gives this example in Atma Bhodha.

Clouds obviously can never cover the sun. Sun is so large and clouds

are so limited that there is no way clouds can cover the Sun. Yet we say

I cannot see the sun because the clouds are coving the sun. In what

light can you see that clouds are covering the sun - of course in the

Sunlight only. Clouds arise because of the sun, exist because of the

sun and are seen because of the Sunlight only and yet I say I cannot see

the sun because the clouds are covering the Sun. The Sun that I cannot

see due to clouds could be seen brilliantly shining once the clouds are

removed by the blowing winds. It is not that winds bring the Sun back -

Sun is self-shining and ever brilliant and was association-less is now

visible due to winds removing the clouds. The blowing of the winds is

again due to the presence of the Sun only. Neither winds nor the clouds

are pertinent when the ever shining Sun is seen.

Even the ignorance that appears to cover is also part of maaya. Maaya

is a factor brought in to explain that which cannot be explained

otherwise. But even the concept of Maaya is within Maaya itself.

There is a beautiful example given - when the house is on fire, we do

not want to sit down and enquire who set the house on fire, how did it

come etc. The first thing to do is to get out of the house and save

oneself and then inquire about the house and the fire. But once one

gets out of the house, there is neither house nor fire to inquire about.

Hence Shankara says any inquiry about ignorance is within the realm of

ignorance. Our interest should be focused on the knowledge rather than

ignorance.

The problem is we know that happiness is not in objects nor comes with

any objects, yet we desire for objects thinking that we are going to be

happy with those objects. We know that we are subjects and not objects

but we take ourselves as I am 'this' or 'that' - when we try to

introduce ourselves in terms of who we are. Why do we take ourselves

what we are not - That Sumanta is the fundamental problem and one can

give whatever name you want to give - the problem remains. Brahman is

not something out there. I am conscious entity and conscious entity is

Brahman says the scriptures. Now how can I, a conscious entity, take

myself as this which is unconscious entity. Ignorance is only an

explanation of this dichotomy - if you do not have it, you do not need

to worry about it.

We are not really interested in 'some Brahman' whether he has ignorance

or not. We are talking about ourselves and how do we solve our problem.

Why do I mistake myself what I am not. If that problem is solved, all

problems are solved. No need to worry about Brahman either in that

case.

> Also it seems that all the discussions are within the intellectual

> realm and so within maaya.So all explanations are finally false.Then

> what is the point of discussion?Using falsity we can never reach

> truth.

Yes you are right. Through falsity we can never reach anything. Sumanta

if we know that it is false we have already solved the problem. False

can never become a problem. The problem is the false is taken as real

and there exists our problem. False snake can never bite us but if we

take the false snake real, all the fear will come. How can the false

snake cause fear? Well, false snake can never cause fear. But it can if

we take the false snake are real snake - and Sumanta there lies the real

problem! We cannot kill the false snake by stick. Fall snake can only be

removed by knowledge that it is false! Hence solution to the problem is

to recognize the false as false.

If the false is recognized as false, the problem is already solved.

Saying that it is false is different from recognizing that it is false.

It is like our Mr. Jones who says - I know I am a man and not a rat, but

I am still afraid of that cat since I am not sure if the cat knows that

I am not a rat and I am man.

Hence JK's statement - 'it is not understanding as understanding as a

thought but it is an understanding as an understanding as a fact'. For

that only nidhydhyaasana is required since ignorance is firmly rooted

due to lack of viveka.

>Someone one once told me that we use falsity to cancel

> falsity(all the knowledge is finally false because if there is no

> other then what is the knowledge about and so brahman is not gyan

> swarup)and what is left is the truth.

Yes - that is knowledge - if we know the false as false then the problem

is solved. It is like using soup powder to clean a dirty plate. The

dirt is only superimposition on the plate and soap we are putting is

another dirt but an antidote to the previous dirt - we do not want soup

either on the plate. Both get washed away leaving the plate as it is

with any dirt. The example Shankara gives is 'kaTakarenuvat' - they use

to use kaTaka powder for purification of drinking water. Water that had

dirt floating is not suitable for drinking. By putting KaTaka nut

powder, which spreads and forms a slim on top and start soaking and

collecting all the dirt and becomes heavy and sinks to the bottom

leaving the water free from dirt and kaTaka powder. Sadhana is exactly

like that.

The truth is always known because

> everyone knows that it exists,no one denies his own existence.Now a

> new question arises "what about inanimate objects like vessels?"I read

> an argument in a book that they neither have ignorance nor the

> knowledge about themselves.

Sumanta there was discussion - Benjamin, myself and Michael on the

existence of the world out there. Please study them if you can. From

the absolute point, consciousness alone is there and that is

infiniteness. Hence any inanimate objects are only 'appearances' on

Brahman taken as real due to ignorance - and that is Maaya - related to

your first question. Hence their apparent reality is due to ignorance

only.

This confused me.So what is the answer? Is

> it "How do you know that they dont have knowledge about themselves?

> Because there is no fullproof method to determine that."

Yes - What is real is that which remains the same in all three periods

of time - Only what remains is 'I am' - the worlds - waking, dream and

deep-sleep states gets sublated by each since they are not real. What

is unsublated is only myself, the conscious entity. As long as I take

world is real, my ignorance remains.

>

> I would be glad if you could enlighten me.This confusion arised

> because I had heard from some saint that sadhna is just removing the

> falsity.Recently I read in panchadashi that lack of ignorance is not

> as important as knowledge of the self.

Yes sadhana is removing the falsity, but which is taken as real, by

another falsity which is as real as the first falsity. Remember falsity

is only at the absolute level. The ignorance and knowledge are

ontologically have the same degree of reality in vyavahaara. We are at

the vyavahaara stage and we need to take the sadhana seriously until we

recognize the 'Ignorance I never had, I lost'.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> Thank you

>

> Sumanta

>

> India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and

> more.Download now.

>

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

January 15, 2004

Dear Prof KVK,

Just want to express our deep appreciation of the clarity of your explanations

....

Mohan

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote: