Guest guest Posted September 4, 2002 Report Share Posted September 4, 2002 Dear Bhagavathas, Adiyen has got some doubt in understasnding the meanings of achethanam and jadam , the difference between chethanam and acethanam, between achethanam and jadam. I understand that chethanam is jeevathma, that which has got an intellect. Achethanam has got no intellect. My doubt is whether chethanam means that which has got a life and achethanam has no life. If so, lower forms of life like worms, germs, viruses, trees etc which have got life but no intellect--Are these to be classified as achethanam or chethanam.? Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or is it to be taken as poetic fallacy? With regards,Adiyen, Rajagopalan. Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2002 Report Share Posted September 5, 2002 Vignapanam, with the blessings of my acharya Sri.U.Ve Goshtipuram swami let me attempt to answer this. 1. There are many types in classifying 'tatvas'. Swami Desikan has handled these in 'Chillarai Rahasyam'. 2. In that, classification in terms of 'chetana' and 'achetana' in one type, 'jadam' and 'ajadam', and 'para tatva', 'avara tatva' in another. 3. Before going in to these let us understand 'ganam' and its types. There are two types of 'gnanam' - one - 'dharmi-gnanam' (eg. atma swaroopam) second - 'dharmabhootha gnanam', 'suddhsatvam' (the achetana in Vikunta). here first one is 'chetanam' and others are achetanam. 4. Hence 'atma' itself is a ganam also has another type of 'gnanam' as its quality (dharmam). Swami desikan has extensively and lucidly dealt this in Rahasyatrayasara. Note: without the blessings of acaharya this will not become clear to one. 5. "gnanam' means 'swayamprakasam'. 'swayamprakasam' means the one shows itself without the help of other. eg. for seeing a table we require light (in the day it is sun light and in the night it is torch etc.). Hence, table is not swayamprakasam. that means it requires another object to show itself. However, to see a light we dont require another light. while it is showing other objects, it is showing itself. This is the common definition for 'ganam'. Now let us come back to point # 2. 6. 'ajadam' is defined as the one which is 'swayam-prakasam'. eg. 'dharmabhoota ganam', 'suddha-satvam'. pl note that these two are 'achetanams' also. Hence, the jadam and ajada classification is only in 'achetana'. there is no 'jadam' in chetana as all chetana is swayamprakasam (pl look at the next point for a classification in this). 7. Refer to pt#3: Let us look in to the difference between 'dharmi-gnanam' and 'dharmabhootha gnanam'. One is chetana and another is achetana, but both are 'ajada' since swayamprakasa. The only difference is that this 'swayamprakasa' to whom. only to 'itself' or only to others. If it is to itself then it is 'dharmi-gnanam' (this is the actual atma swaroopa and it is common for 'jevatma' and 'paramatma'. there is no differnec in this aspect). If swyamprakasa is only for others and not to itself, then it is 'dharmabhootha gnanam' which is 'achetana'. The atma is able to gain knowledge only because of the 'dharmabhootha gnanam'. The only knowledge gained because of 'dharmi-gnanam' and that too ONLY to itself is "I" ('aham'). There is no increase or decrease to this knowledge "I" even in this world or at moksha. There are increases and decreased to 'dharmabhootha gnanam'. It is total and complete (like 'paramatma') at moksha state. 8. The advaithi's only atma (they call it as 'samvit' or 'Brahmam') is something LIKE our 'dharmabhootha gnanam'. For them "I" is agnanam and that is not there at moksha stage. This is what swami bhashyakara asks, if "I"am not there why should I work hard to be there. To answer the second question, we need to get the following context. 9. In our Bhashyakara philosophy, if there is a name ('nama') and shape ('roopa') it has all the three, 'chetana', achetana' and 'iswara'. If achetana is more we call it achetana. eg., in water, we have other tatvas exist (pritivi, theja, vayu, akasam), but we call it as water because it has 'water' 50%. This is an excellent treaty of swami bhashyakara. There is a strong vedic verse for this. 10. 'Akhalya' was a stine at the time of 'upaya' (Rama's toch is the upaya). Even in the stone state 'akhalya' atma was there. We know the stone grows over the time. Also, there exist a 'frog' inside stone, born and dead thereitself. There many be many mistakes in the above explanation. If so, it is mainly because of my 'agnanam'. Kindly correct me. dasan sridharan (Ramnujan) Rajagopalan Iyengar [mayuramtsr] Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:30 PM ; Oppili Appan clarification re achethanam and jadam Dear Bhagavathas, Adiyen has got some doubt in understasnding the meanings of achethanam and jadam , the difference between chethanam and acethanam, between achethanam and jadam. I understand that chethanam is jeevathma, that which has got an intellect. Achethanam has got no intellect. My doubt is whether chethanam means that which has got a life and achethanam has no life. If so, lower forms of life like worms, germs, viruses, trees etc which have got life but no intellect--Are these to be classified as achethanam or chethanam.? Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or is it to be taken as poetic fallacy? With regards,Adiyen, Rajagopalan. Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance. Srirangasri- Your use of is subject to ---------- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Visit us at http://www.cognizant.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2002 Report Share Posted September 5, 2002 --- Rajagopalan Iyengar <mayuramtsr wrote: > Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams > or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of > moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given > moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or > is it to be taken as poetic fallacy? > With regards,Adiyen, > Rajagopalan. Dear Sir, The story of DadhipAndan's earthen pot getting 'mOksham' is a good story indeed but it would be unfortunate "After listening to DadhipAndan's > story we should not ask ourselves "How can I too, like the claypot, > secure God's Grace effortlessly?". Instead, we should ask "If God in > His compassion is willing to hear even the muted pleas of a lifeless > claypot longing for 'mOksha' and reward it accordingly, why doesn't > this proud and steely heart beating within my breast, with its > vast power of eloquence, still not cry out to Him in desperate > prayer and seize the same opportunity"? > > It was only after I'd heard Mukkur Swamy's explanation did the true > significance of DadhipANdan story sink into me. > dAsan, > Sudarshan Dear friends, Adiyane forgot to mention one other fact in the above posting of mine. While explaining the point above, and more especially to underscore the fact of "this proud and steely heart beating within my breast", Sri.Mukkur Swamy used to remind us of the oft-quoted and most poignant 'pAsuram' from Tondar-adi-podi's "tirumAlai": "virumbi ninru aettha maatane, vidhi illane, madhi onru illai; irumbu-pOl valiya nenjam irai irai urugam vannam karumbu amar sOlai suzhntha aranga mA koyil konda karumbinai kandu konda, en kaNNiNai kaLLikumArE" ! ("tirumAlai" -Verse 17) (Translation): "Many years have passed, my head not once did bend in prayer, My mind refused to turn Godward; these hands never served Him... This heart of mine was but hard, cold, unbending silent steel -- But then my eyes feasted upon the temple of Arangam Amidst those sweet cane-groves swarming with bees -- My eyes rejoiced! My spirit leapt And my heart melted... bit by bit"! Mukkur Swamy used to explain the delightful phrase "irumbu-pOl valiya nenjam irai irai urugam vannam" very movingly indeed, saying that even DadhipAndan's claypot obviously had more "heart" to earn the Grace of God than the "steely-hard hearts" of human-beings who, alas, have no yearning whatsoever for the 'parama-gatih' which is the Feet of our Lord at Arangam! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2002 Report Share Posted September 5, 2002 --- Rajagopalan Iyengar <mayuramtsr wrote: > Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams > or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of > moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given > moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or > is it to be taken as poetic fallacy? > With regards,Adiyen, > Rajagopalan. Dear Sir, "achEtanam" and "jada" both refer to matter without what is called (in Vedantic terminology) as 'chith' -- meaning "intelligence", "discriminative faculty" or what may be called the "flame of consciousness". By the way, the famous story of DadhipAndan's earthen pot getting 'mOksham' is a good one indeed but it would be a mistake to take it very literally. After listening to DadhipAndan's story one shouldn't be asking "How can a claypot, a jada, attain 'mOksham'. Instead, we should ask "If God in > His compassion is willing to hear even the muted plea of a lifeless claypot longing for 'mOksha' and to reward it accordingly, why doesn't this proud and steely heart beating within my human breast, with its vast powers of eloquence, still not cry out to Him in prayer and seize the same opportunity"? If 'mOksha' is within the reach of insentient 'jada', surely it is also within reach of an intelligent being like Man? While explaining the point above, and more especially to underscore the fact of "the proud and steely heart beating within the human breast", Mukkur Lakshminarasimhachari Swamy used to remind us of the poignant 'pAsuram' from Tondar-adi-podi's "tirumAlai": "virumbi ninru-aettha maatane, vidhi illane, madhi onru illai; irumbu-pOl valiya nenjam irai irai urugam vannam karumbu amar sOlai suzhntha aranga mA koyil konda karumbinai kandu konda, en kaNNiNai kaLLikumArE" ! ("tirumAlai" -Verse 17) (Translation): "Many years have passed, my head not once did bend in prayer, My mind refused to turn Godward; these hands never served Him... This heart of mine was but hard, cold, unbending silent steel -- But then my eyes feasted upon the temple of Arangam Amidst those sweet cane-groves swarming with bees -- My eyes rejoiced! My spirit leapt And my heart melted... bit by bit"! Mukkur Swamy used to explain the delightful phrase "irumbu-pOl valiya nenjam irai irai urugam vannam" very movingly, saying that even DadhipAndan's claypot obviously had so much more "heart" within itself than the "steely-hard silent hearts" of human-beings. Regards, dAsan, Sudarshan Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 , Rajagopalan Iyengar <mayuramtsr> wrote: > Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams > or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of > moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given > moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or > is it to be taken as poetic fallacy? These are important issues that must be properly understood only by careful study under a qualified Acharya. This exact matter was discussed by Srimad Azhagiya Singar during the tele-upanyasam of Thirunedundandagam, Pasuram #2. Let me try to present a gist based on my recollection. Any object that has a unique name and a form has a jIvatma in it. When that object loses the form it loses its name, and the jIvatma that resided in it transmigrates to the next birth. For example, let us take a neem tree. It has a jIvatma in it. Suppose that the tree dies and whithers away. It is no longer a neem tree, it is just a stump. The jIvatma that was in it has now departed. Another example, consider a human with a name say, Rama. At the time of death the jIvathma leaves the body. The body now loses its name, it is no longer called Rama. Further, it also loses form. In a similar fashion, a pot when in the form of a pot has the name "pot" and has a jIvatma in it. When the pot breaks, the jIvatma departs from the pot. The broken pieces do not have a unique form or a name. It becomes part of panca bootham. At that stage it does not have a jIvatma in it, like in the case of a dead human body. As lump of mud there is no jivatma in it, but when given the shape of pot a jIvatma begins its residence in it. A stone has no jIvatma, but when you build a house with it, there is a jIvatma in the house. A tree has jIvatma, but when it is felled, the jivatma departs. If the wood is then made into a doll, the doll will then have a jIvatma in it. If the doll is broken, the jIvatma departs. In all these cases, like in the case of human beings and animals, we must distingish between the acetanam which is the body, and the cetanam that is the jIvatma. Our body is as much an acetanam as the doll. The jIvatma inside the doll is as much a chetanam as the jIvatma inside our body. Now, in the case of Dadhipandan, he was the jIvatma in the pot. Since he was granted moksham by Lord Krishna, when he left the pot, he got moksham. The pot did not get moksham, only the jIvatma in the pot got it. This is no different from human beings, when a human being who is a prapanna dies, it is only the jIvatma who goes to mOksham, not the body of the human being. If you are interested in learning about such matters consdider attending Srimad Azhagiya Singar's tele-upanyasam. The next one is scheduled for two weeks from this Saturday. For more information and for registering please visit: http://www.ahobilamutt.org/upan/upanyas.asp -- dileepan p.s. Things correctly stated here are due to the grace of Srimad Azhagiya Singar. If there are any errors they are due to my misunderstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Share Posted September 14, 2002 Dear Sri Dileepan, Before I start, I pay due respects to all seers and Acharyas. Nothing I write below is meant to show anybody in a lower light. I am writing below things that I felt were reasonable. My apologies to anyone this email may offend. That was not intended. I was reading your explanation of the presence/absence of jIvAtma in living/non-living things. It struck me as strange that the atman should be there in a pot only until it is broken. The pot was but clay until the potter gave it shape. In this is sense, it is an artificial thing. So when does the Atma decide to enter a pot or any other thing? And why should it enter the pot in the first place? And does the potter have the strength to control when a jIvAtma will enter an achetana object? Secondly, if the jIvAtma stays in the pot only as long as it has its proper shape, there is a precise time at which it enters and leaves, that can be controlled by us humans. So it seems to me that Atman is bound by time and space and its presence can be controlled by mere mortals like us. This seems contrary to what Sri Baghavan said in the Gita. An argument that the Atman is present in all things at all times seems to be more plausible. Sincerely, Narayanan > > dileepan [dileepan] > Friday, September 13, 2002 1:01 PM > > Re: clarification re achethanam and jadam > > > , Rajagopalan Iyengar <mayuramtsr> wrote: > > > Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams > > or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of > > moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given > > moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or > > is it to be taken as poetic fallacy? > > > These are important issues that must be properly understood > only by careful study under a qualified Acharya. This exact > matter was discussed by Srimad Azhagiya Singar during the > tele-upanyasam of Thirunedundandagam, Pasuram #2. Let > me try to present a gist based on my recollection. > > Any object that has a unique name and a form has a jIvatma > in it. When that object loses the form it loses its name, > and the jIvatma that resided in it transmigrates to the next > birth. For example, let us take a neem tree. It has a jIvatma > in it. Suppose that the tree dies and whithers away. It is no > longer a neem tree, it is just a stump. The jIvatma that was > in it has now departed. Another example, consider a human > with a name say, Rama. At the time of death the jIvathma > leaves the body. The body now loses its name, it is no longer > called Rama. Further, it also loses form. In a similar fashion, > a pot when in the form of a pot has the name "pot" and has a > jIvatma in it. When the pot breaks, the jIvatma departs from > the pot. The broken pieces do not have a unique form or a name. > It becomes part of panca bootham. At that stage it does not > have a jIvatma in it, like in the case of a dead human body. > > As lump of mud there is no jivatma in it, but when given the > shape of pot a jIvatma begins its residence in it. A stone > has no jIvatma, but when you build a house with it, there is > a jIvatma in the house. A tree has jIvatma, but when it is > felled, the jivatma departs. If the wood is then made into > a doll, the doll will then have a jIvatma in it. If the doll > is broken, the jIvatma departs. In all these cases, like in > the case of human beings and animals, we must distingish > between the acetanam which is the body, and the cetanam > that is the jIvatma. Our body is as much an acetanam as > the doll. The jIvatma inside the doll is as much a chetanam > as the jIvatma inside our body. > > Now, in the case of Dadhipandan, he was the jIvatma in the pot. > Since he was granted moksham by Lord Krishna, when he left the > pot, he got moksham. The pot did not get moksham, only the > jIvatma in the pot got it. This is no different from human > beings, when a human being who is a prapanna dies, it is only > the jIvatma who goes to mOksham, not the body of the human > being. > > If you are interested in learning about such matters consdider > attending Srimad Azhagiya Singar's tele-upanyasam. The next > one is scheduled for two weeks from this Saturday. For more > information and for registering please visit: > > http://www.ahobilamutt.org/upan/upanyas.asp > > -- dileepan > > p.s. Things correctly stated here are due to the grace of > Srimad Azhagiya Singar. If there are any errors they are > due to my misunderstanding. > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > ---------------------~--> > Plan to Sell a Home? > http://us.click./J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/VkWolB/TM > ----------------------------- > -------~-> > > > Srirangasri- > > > > Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Share Posted September 16, 2002 Dear Sri. Narayanan: One of the important things we need to clearly understand is, there are things that cannot be established only through arguments, i.e. logic. Take for instance the existence of God. One cannot establish this one way or another through logic alone. We need the verification of Shashtras. Similarly, the nature of jIvatma is not something that can be understood by mere speculation or argument. It can be properly understood only through a thorough study of sashtras under a qualified Acharya. However, in this instance, logic also can be used to find answers at least for some of your objections. The reason for your doubts is improper understanding of body and soul. This confusion is confounded by the term "living" in the English language. The terminologies we need to be familiar with are chit-achit-Iswaran. These are the only three realities. Among these three, chit (jIvatma) and Iswaran are jnyana swaroopam, i.e. sentient. Achit is not. This achit is what becomes the human body. It is the same achit that becomes a pot. In both forms, i.e. human body or pot, the achit is not the one that is sentient. If this is properly understood, it will become clear that what was said in my earlier post is perfectly consistent with Srimad Bhagavad Gita. Let me explain further. Body of jIvathama is always achetanam, whatever the body may be, human, animal, vegetation, or inanimate objects. Whatever the body is, whether human body or a pot, the body is never the "chetanam". When we say a human being is a living object we never mean the body is living (cetanam), only the soul inside the body is living (cetanam). The human body is just a shell. As a shell it is no different from a pot. Now, the human body is able to move about and make decisions and act upon those decisions because the jIvatma (cetanam) present in it is able to do those things due to bhagavad sankalpam. Once the jIvatma leaves the body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus, when we say a human being is living, we do not mean the human body is living, but only the soul that is present in the body. The soul is the one that is "cetanam" not the body. Similarly, a pot is another body. The pot is not a living (cetanam) entity just as a human body is not a living entity. Only the soul present in the body is cetanam, whether in the body of a pot or a body of a human being. How do we know there is a jIvatma in the pot? The answer is, "Only through shasthras", just as we know that there is a God only through shatras. When and how does the jIvatma enter the pot and why and how does it leave the pot when the pot gets broken? Once again, only shashtheas give us the answers. The answers cannot be found only by logic (arguments). The fact that a pot is unable to move about on its own or make decisions, do make the pot an inanimate object, but the jIvatma residing in it is no less cetanam than a jivatma residing in a human body. The reason why a pot is unable to move about on its own or make decisions, is because the jIvatma present in the pot is constrained by that body. Such a constrained or dormant state is quite common for a jivatma bound by it own karma. The abilities of expression for a jIvatma is very much a function of the body in which it resides. In an animal body the jIvatma is constrained to perform only certain tasks such as eating and procreation. In the body of a tree the jIvatma is further constrained and cannot move about. Similarly, in the body of an inanimate object the jIvatma is in an extremely constrained state. Which body a jIvatma gets to enter is a function of his own karma and is under the control of Paratma Sriman Narayana. How and when he enters such bodies is also under the control of Paratma Sriman Narayana. Even in births commonly referred to as "living", when and how the jIvatma enters or leaves the body can only be determined from shasthtas with the guidance of a qualified Acarya. Similarly, the circumstances under which a jIvatma enters or leaves a body such as a pot must be understood only through shasthras. In due course of time, all jIvatmas will get a birth in which he will have access to faculties required to perform prapatti and reach Sri vaikuntam. This is the reason why we must be impatient to adopt bhara nyasam. Getting a human birth is very rare, and we have that. Who can say what our next birth will be? If we miss this opportunity when will we get another human birth, and that too a human birth with access to Sri Vaishnava Acharyas? As regards, space and time limitations, jIvatma is "aNu" swaroopam and therefore is always constrained by space. It is present only in objects that have shape and name. Only Paramatma is vibhU. Paramatma Sriman Narayana will be present due to his nature as vibhu in matter that do not have shape or name. The objects that have shape and name, both a jIvatma and Paramatma Sriman Narayana as vibhu, will be present. These facts are determined directly from shashtras. Time will always act upon the body made of matter of this world, whatever the body may be, a human body or that of a pot. However, the jIvatma is not affected, whether the jIvatma is present in a human body or a pot. A pot is considered man made because a man had to give shape to clay. Similarly, the birth of a child is also caused by actions of human beings. But, both acts are not possible without Iswara sankalpam. Therefore, for both acts only Paramatma Sriman Narayana is the ultimate cause. The circumstances under which a jIvatma leaves the body, whether a human body or a pot body, is also to be understood only through shashthras. Once we agree there is a jIvatma present in a pot, then we have to agree it will depart at some time. Otherwise, we have to condemn that jIvatma to eternal "pothood" with no chance for Sri vaikuntam. This is contrary to shasthras. Our Nammazhvar says in Thiruvaymozhi, "vaikundham pughuvadhu maNNavar vidhiyE", (the chance to enter Vaikuntam is available for all.) -- adiyEn ramanuja dasan (dileepan) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 --- dileepan <dileepan wrote: Once the jIvatma leaves > the > body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus, when we say a > human being is living, we do not mean the human body is living, but> > only the soul that is present in the body. The soul is the one > that > is "cetanam" not the body.> Similarly, a pot is another body. The pot is not a living> (cetanam) > entity just as a human body is not a living entity. Only the soul > present in the body is cetanam, whether in the body of a pot or a > body of a human being. *********************** Granting everything explained above, it still largely leaves unanswered the original questions posed by Sri.Narayanan at the beginning of this very interesting thread of discussion triggered by DadhipAndan's 'pot' viz. -- Is the body (the shell of 'acetanam'), insentient Matter, too capable of aspiring to 'mOksham' no less than the jIva (the indwelling spirit of 'cetanam')? >From the detailed explanations given, the 'jIva' exists independently of the 'sarIra'. It survives the latter's extinction. But the reverse is not true. The 'sarira' does not survive after the 'jIvA' exits from it... until and unless another 'jIva' happens to come by and uses it to clothe itself. The 'sarira' really serves no purpose other than as a "shell", as explained. ("AdAram/AdEyam" principle). Hence, while 'cetanam' exists to seek its ultimate purpose in 'mOksha', 'acetanam' exists merely to subserve the interest of the 'cetanam'. Unlike the 'cetanam', the 'acetanam' is incapable of independently aspiring to the state of 'mOksha'. This is because while 'jIva' is IN the 'sarira', it is not OF the 'sarira'. And 'sarira', on the other hand, is neither "in" nor "of" the 'jIva'. The "jiva" is "jiva"; the 'jada' is 'jada' and the never the twain shall meet. In which case, the question of 'mOkshA' for the 'sarira' a.k.a the 'acetanam' or 'jada' does not arise at all? (This point is well illustrated in the famous answer NammAzhwAr gave Madhura-kavi who asked "settatin vayittril siriyadu pirandAl, ettai tinggu engay kidakkUm?"; pat came the answer, "atthai tinggu aangay kidakkum!"). -- The interesting 'purAnic' story of DadhipAnda on the other hand seems to suggest to us, in a vague sort of way, that both 'cetanam' (DadhipAnda himself) and 'acetanam' (his famous pot) can both equally aspire to (and they indeed did) attain 'mOkshA'? So how are we to reconcile the strictly philosophical position with that of the 'purAnic' incident and narrative? It was that question which I think was originally posed and remains, to my mind at least, still unaddressed. ******************* The problem seems to be we are mixing up a question of pure philosophy with one of theological belief. To my mind, DadhipAndan's story was never meant to illustrate the metaphysical categories of 'cit', 'acit' and 'isvara'. The story is really intended to illustrate (through platonic exaggeration) God's 'nirhetuka-krupa' -- that He is ever willing to shower his Grace freely (to the point of saying 'indiscriminately' even) on those who are his true devotees --- them, their families and indeed everything associated with them. PeriAzhwAr expressed this very beautifully : "yennaiyUm, yen udaimaiyai-yUm wUn sakkaraporiyOtrikondu ninnarulE purinthirundhane..." (senniyOngu) We should carefully note the word "yennaiyUm, yen udaimaiyai-yUm ..". Not only I, but everyone/everything associated with me, O Lord, are in receipt of your unbounded Grace, exults the AzhwAr. In Dadhipandan, the potter's case, he probably had none except his famous 'pot' to call as family --- the 'ghattam' perhaps was the only "yen udaimaiyai-yUm ..". Regards, dAsan, Sudarshan News - Today's headlines http://news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 Jai Sriman Narayana! First, by giving moksham to the dadi-bandam (the pot used to carry yougurt), Lord Krishna showed that the bandam (pot) made of Jadam is NOT MAYA, but is REAL (may be transitory but real). The advaithins or mayavadis think that all the achethana or jadam is maya and does not exist in reality. Contrary to the advaithic thought, Lord Krishna SHOWED that the JADAM (achethanam) is REAL, thus supporting and proving the Viaishnava thought. Second, Lord Krishna's power is beyond conception. He can covert Jadam into spirit. When ordinary scintists can covert matter (jadam) into energy, it is not surprising that Lord Krishna transformed matter (energy) into spirit. Although from time immemorial, the three thathavas (parmathma, chethana, and achethana) existed, the sastras do not say that the super soul (Paramathma; thripada vibhuthi) can not tranform the achethana into chethanam or spirit. Lord Sriman Narayana can transform at will anything into anything. He can transform the meru-parvatham (mountain Meru)into thin air and air into a mighty parvatham (mountain). Even Loird Brhama can not comprhend His actions, and how can we mortals fully comprehend His actions. In the service of Lord Sri Venkateswara, I remain, Sincerely Narender Reddy --- dileepan <dileepan wrote: > Dear Sri. Narayanan: > > One of the important things we need to clearly > understand is, there > are things that cannot be established only through > arguments, i.e. > logic. Take for instance the existence of God. One > cannot > establish this one way or another through logic > alone. We need the > verification of Shashtras. Similarly, the nature of > jIvatma is not > something that can be understood by mere speculation > or argument. > It can be properly understood only through a > thorough study of > sashtras under a qualified Acharya. > > However, in this instance, logic also can be used to > find answers at > least for some of your objections. > > The reason for your doubts is improper understanding > of body and > soul. This confusion is confounded by the term > "living" in the > English language. The terminologies we need to be > familiar with are > chit-achit-Iswaran. These are the only three > realities. Among > these three, chit (jIvatma) and Iswaran are jnyana > swaroopam, i.e. > sentient. Achit is not. This achit is what > becomes the human > body. It is the same achit that becomes a pot. In > both forms, i.e. > human body or pot, the achit is not the one that is > sentient. If > this is properly understood, it will become clear > that what was said > in my earlier post is perfectly consistent with > Srimad Bhagavad Gita. > > Let me explain further. Body of jIvathama is always > achetanam, > whatever the body may be, human, animal, vegetation, > or inanimate > objects. Whatever the body is, whether human body > or a pot, the > body is never the "chetanam". When we say a human > being is a living > object we never mean the body is living (cetanam), > only the soul > inside the body is living (cetanam). The human body > is just a > shell. As a shell it is no different from a pot. > Now, the human > body is able to move about and make decisions and > act upon those > decisions because the jIvatma (cetanam) present in > it is able to do > those things due to bhagavad sankalpam. Once the > jIvatma leaves the > body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus, > when we say a > human being is living, we do not mean the human body > is living, but > only the soul that is present in the body. The soul > is the one that > is "cetanam" not the body. > > Similarly, a pot is another body. The pot is not a > living (cetanam) > entity just as a human body is not a living entity. > Only the soul > present in the body is cetanam, whether in the body > of a pot or a > body of a human being. How do we know there is a > jIvatma in the > pot? The answer is, "Only through shasthras", just > as we know that > there is a God only through shatras. When and how > does the jIvatma > enter the pot and why and how does it leave the pot > when the pot > gets broken? Once again, only shashtheas give us > the answers. The > answers cannot be found only by logic (arguments). > > The fact that a pot is unable to move about on its > own or make > decisions, do make the pot an inanimate object, but > the jIvatma > residing in it is no less cetanam than a jivatma > residing in a human > body. The reason why a pot is unable to move about > on its own or > make decisions, is because the jIvatma present in > the pot is > constrained by that body. Such a constrained or > dormant state is > quite common for a jivatma bound by it own karma. > The abilities of > expression for a jIvatma is very much a function of > the body in > which it resides. In an animal body the jIvatma is > constrained to > perform only certain tasks such as eating and > procreation. In the > body of a tree the jIvatma is further constrained > and cannot move > about. Similarly, in the body of an inanimate > object the jIvatma is > in an extremely constrained state. Which body a > jIvatma gets to > enter is a function of his own karma and is under > the control of > Paratma Sriman Narayana. How and when he enters > such bodies is also > under the control of Paratma Sriman Narayana. Even > in births > commonly referred to as "living", when and how the > jIvatma enters or > leaves the body can only be determined from > shasthtas with the > guidance of a qualified Acarya. Similarly, the > circumstances under > which a jIvatma enters or leaves a body such as a > pot must be > understood only through shasthras. > > In due course of time, all jIvatmas will get a birth > in which he > will have access to faculties required to perform > prapatti and reach > Sri vaikuntam. This is the reason why we must be > impatient to adopt > bhara nyasam. Getting a human birth is very rare, > and we have > that. Who can say what our next birth will be? If > we miss this > opportunity when will we get another human birth, > and that too a > human birth with access to Sri Vaishnava Acharyas? > > As regards, space and time limitations, jIvatma is > "aNu" swaroopam > and therefore is always constrained by space. It is > present only in > objects that have shape and name. Only Paramatma is > vibhU. > Paramatma Sriman Narayana will be present due to his > nature as vibhu > in matter that do not have shape or name. The > objects that have > shape and name, both a jIvatma and Paramatma Sriman > Narayana as > vibhu, will be present. These facts are determined > directly from > shashtras. > > Time will always act upon the body made of matter of > this world, > whatever the body may be, a human body or that of a > pot. However, > the jIvatma is not affected, whether the jIvatma is > present in a > human body or a pot. A pot is considered man made > because a man had > to give shape to clay. Similarly, the birth of a > child is also > caused by actions of human beings. But, both acts > are not possible > without Iswara sankalpam. Therefore, for both acts > only Paramatma > Sriman Narayana is the ultimate cause. > > The circumstances under which a jIvatma leaves the > body, whether a > human body or a pot body, is also to be understood > only through > shashthras. Once we agree there is a jIvatma > present in a pot, then > we have to agree it will depart at some time. > Otherwise, we have to > condemn that jIvatma to eternal "pothood" with no > chance for Sri > vaikuntam. This is contrary to shasthras. Our > Nammazhvar says in > Thiruvaymozhi, "vaikundham pughuvadhu maNNavar > vidhiyE", (the chance > to enter Vaikuntam is available for all.) > > -- adiyEn ramanuja dasan (dileepan) > > > > News - Today's headlines http://news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 Emotion is a wonderful thing, it elevates us to a high level of devotional ecstasy. However, when it comes to philosophy, emotion has no place. We must be guided only by pramANAs. Great Acharyas decorating Sri Ramanuja Darshanam are meticulous in this regard. There are only three pramANAs, namely, Shastras, anumanam (logic), and pratyaksham (observation). Of these three, Shashtras are the foremost pramANam. In this matter of chetanam v. achetanam we must be guided only by shashtra pramANam as taught to us by our great Acharya parapmaparai of Bhagavad Ramanuja. The Acharyas of this great tradition have taught us that there are three realities, chetanam, achetanam, and Iswaran. All three are real. Achetanam is as real as Iswaran. In the case of dadhipandan, let me repeat again, only the jIvatma in the pot got mOksham, not the pot. So, this act of granting moksham has nothing to do with the pot itself. Lord Krishna did not grant moksham to the clay pot, only to the jIvatma residing in the pot. Therefore granting mOksham to the jIvatma i.e. chetanam, could not prove or disprove that the clay pot (jadam) is real. Indeed the clay in the pot is real, but that fact comes from shashthras not from the fact Sri Krishna granted moksham to the jIvatna residing in the pot. Also, please note, for an advaitin, not only the clay pot (jadam) is unreal, the jIvatma (ajadam) as a separate entity from Paramatma is also equally unreal. So the argument that Krishna (Paramatma) granting moksham to one "unreal" entity, proves the reality of another "unreal" entity will be unconvincing to an advaitin. Let me also submit that statements such as Lord Krishna can convert matter (achetanam) to spirit (chetanam) are emotional exaggerations. These emotions cannot stand up to careful scrutiny. The three realities chit, achit, and Iswaran are eternal, i.e. they were not created by anyone. There is no pramANam to claim that Iswara can create chit from achit [matter (energy) into spirit (sic)]. Absence of pramANam precluding a claim cannot be offered as its proof. If this is the standard for proof anyone can claim anything that is not explicitly denied. Vishnu puranam or Bhagavadam does not deny anywhere that Krishna hated Gopikas. So can we say Krishna hated Gopikas? After all, shashthras don't deny this. But this is obviously absurd. Even though the original statement was well motivated, the line argument if accepted will inevitably lead to untenable conclusions. We have to be careful when we make claims for Sri Vaishnavam. Great Acharyas of our tradition such as Swami Sri Desikan overcame enormous opposition by strictly adhering to the truth without diminishing or exaggerating anything. So, the least we could do to respect this great tradition is to not give in to emotional speculations on matters that are philosophical. Before making sweeping statements in the name of Sri Vaishnavam, please check and make sure such statements are indeed supported by Sri Vaishnavam. -- adiyEn At 07:45 PM 9/17/2002 -0700, Narender Reddy wrote: >maya and does not exist in reality. Contrary to the >advaithic thought, Lord Krishna SHOWED that the JADAM >(achethanam) is REAL, thus supporting and proving the >Viaishnava thought. >.... the sastras do not say that the >super soul (Paramathma; thripada vibhuthi) >can not tranform the achethana into chethanam or >spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 we cannot condem advaitic philosophy by this. beacuse in advaitic philosophy Lord Krishana is also a Maya and then where is the question of He giving moksha. All these they 'vyavaharika-satya'. it is not true, but for the sake of arguement. In the following passage by Narendar, the following are not acceptable in the Bagavt Bhashyakara Philosophy. - The 'swaroopa' and 'swbhava' of tatvas are constant and no one can change including Paramatma. To put it in other words, Pramatma (satyasnkalpa) has this sankalpa and hence these things cannot change. Bhattar 'iccha ta yeva tava visva padartha sattha'. The power beyond conception of paramatam (agatitha-gadanba-samarthyam) has a different meening and not that He can do what is not at all possible, eg. converting achetanam in to chetanam or vice versa. - 'matter..energy' concept: matter always has energy..every pdartham has inbuild sakthi (quality). one can only bring out what is already there..from 'abhava' one cannot bring 'bhava'. Sri Bhashyakara has dealt 'bhava roopa gnanam' and 'abhava roopa gnanam' extensively is Sri Bhashya. - "the sastras do not say that the super soul can not tranform the achethana into chethanam or spirit". In the Chapter 13 of Bagavt Geeta Lord Krisna deals extensively on tatva and all tatvas are 'real' (nityam, satyam). Hence, for the argument sake if the tatava bill of material is like this: Tatva-1: Paramatma -1 (In desika sampradaya it is 2, narayana and lakshmi. one sheshi) Tatva-2: Jivatma- Nitya + Mukta = 1 million Bhaddha = 2 million Tatva-3: Achetana = 3 million Kg. There will not be any change to this count. Changes only in combination and forms. Paramatma initially had a sankalpa that there shall be no change in the tatva. if He decides otherwise, then He is not 'satya-sankalpa'. But this is no way limits His 'sarva-sakthi'. Swami Bhattar has dealt this question. - "He can transform the meru-parvatham (mountain Meru)into thin air and air into a mighty parvatham (mountain)". Yes agreed. Here He is changing the state and not chetana to achetana. In any matter all the five substances are there (panch bhoota) and that is why the creation is called 'pancheekaranam'. If Meru is 'pritivi' alone, then even the Lord cannot make 'prativi' (mountain) in to 'vayu' (air). Mountain has all the five (prativi, appu, tejas, vayu and akasam). But we call it mountain since prativi is substantial. in 'air' you have prativi (that is why you get smell- quality of pritivi), water particles (appu), hot air (tejas). This world (leela vibhuthi) in pralaya state it is very tiny - no weight. Hence, size and wt are not the criteria. - "Even Loird Brhama can not comprhend His actions, and how can we mortals fully comprehend His actions". Yes. That is why we have to go fully by what pramanas (prtayakha, anumana and sabdha-veda) says and as interpreted by our Sadcharyas. In bhashyakara philosophy, for us, pratyaksha is foremost, next anumana, and next is Veda. Kindly hold on here..veda will not say anything that can be got by pratyaksha or anumana. Mokshopaya and paramatma, can be got ONLY thro sabdha. That is why in extablishing these we have to rely on 'veda' and only veda. With blessings of acharyas, i got this gana. If anything wrong it is purely my ignorance (papa). Bhashyakara is the only acharya who gave prominanace to prayaksha (lokaprateeti) while kept the vedas intact (sruteh sabdhamoolatvat - Brhmasutra). Regards, sridhara dasan. Narender Reddy [reddynp] Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:15 AM dileepan; Re: Re: clarification re achethanam and jadam Jai Sriman Narayana! First, by giving moksham to the dadi-bandam (the pot used to carry yougurt), Lord Krishna showed that the bandam (pot) made of Jadam is NOT MAYA, but is REAL (may be transitory but real). The advaithins or mayavadis think that all the achethana or jadam is maya and does not exist in reality. Contrary to the advaithic thought, Lord Krishna SHOWED that the JADAM (achethanam) is REAL, thus supporting and proving the Viaishnava thought. Second, Lord Krishna's power is beyond conception. He can covert Jadam into spirit. When ordinary scintists can covert matter (jadam) into energy, it is not surprising that Lord Krishna transformed matter (energy) into spirit. Although from time immemorial, the three thathavas (parmathma, chethana, and achethana) existed, the sastras do not say that the super soul (Paramathma; thripada vibhuthi) can not tranform the achethana into chethanam or spirit. Lord Sriman Narayana can transform at will anything into anything. He can transform the meru-parvatham (mountain Meru)into thin air and air into a mighty parvatham (mountain). Even Loird Brhama can not comprhend His actions, and how can we mortals fully comprehend His actions. In the service of Lord Sri Venkateswara, I remain, Sincerely Narender Reddy --- dileepan <dileepan wrote: > Dear Sri. Narayanan: > > One of the important things we need to clearly > understand is, there > are things that cannot be established only through > arguments, i.e. > logic. Take for instance the existence of God. One > cannot > establish this one way or another through logic > alone. We need the > verification of Shashtras. Similarly, the nature of > jIvatma is not > something that can be understood by mere speculation > or argument. > It can be properly understood only through a > thorough study of > sashtras under a qualified Acharya. > > However, in this instance, logic also can be used to > find answers at > least for some of your objections. > > The reason for your doubts is improper understanding > of body and > soul. This confusion is confounded by the term > "living" in the > English language. The terminologies we need to be > familiar with are > chit-achit-Iswaran. These are the only three > realities. Among > these three, chit (jIvatma) and Iswaran are jnyana > swaroopam, i.e. > sentient. Achit is not. This achit is what > becomes the human > body. It is the same achit that becomes a pot. In > both forms, i.e. > human body or pot, the achit is not the one that is > sentient. If > this is properly understood, it will become clear > that what was said > in my earlier post is perfectly consistent with > Srimad Bhagavad Gita. > > Let me explain further. Body of jIvathama is always > achetanam, > whatever the body may be, human, animal, vegetation, > or inanimate > objects. Whatever the body is, whether human body > or a pot, the > body is never the "chetanam". When we say a human > being is a living > object we never mean the body is living (cetanam), > only the soul > inside the body is living (cetanam). The human body > is just a > shell. As a shell it is no different from a pot. > Now, the human > body is able to move about and make decisions and > act upon those > decisions because the jIvatma (cetanam) present in > it is able to do > those things due to bhagavad sankalpam. Once the > jIvatma leaves the > body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus, > when we say a > human being is living, we do not mean the human body > is living, but > only the soul that is present in the body. The soul > is the one that > is "cetanam" not the body. > > Similarly, a pot is another body. The pot is not a > living (cetanam) > entity just as a human body is not a living entity. > Only the soul > present in the body is cetanam, whether in the body > of a pot or a > body of a human being. How do we know there is a > jIvatma in the > pot? The answer is, "Only through shasthras", just > as we know that > there is a God only through shatras. When and how > does the jIvatma > enter the pot and why and how does it leave the pot > when the pot > gets broken? Once again, only shashtheas give us > the answers. The > answers cannot be found only by logic (arguments). > > The fact that a pot is unable to move about on its > own or make > decisions, do make the pot an inanimate object, but > the jIvatma > residing in it is no less cetanam than a jivatma > residing in a human > body. The reason why a pot is unable to move about > on its own or > make decisions, is because the jIvatma present in > the pot is > constrained by that body. Such a constrained or > dormant state is > quite common for a jivatma bound by it own karma. > The abilities of > expression for a jIvatma is very much a function of > the body in > which it resides. In an animal body the jIvatma is > constrained to > perform only certain tasks such as eating and > procreation. In the > body of a tree the jIvatma is further constrained > and cannot move > about. Similarly, in the body of an inanimate > object the jIvatma is > in an extremely constrained state. Which body a > jIvatma gets to > enter is a function of his own karma and is under > the control of > Paratma Sriman Narayana. How and when he enters > such bodies is also > under the control of Paratma Sriman Narayana. Even > in births > commonly referred to as "living", when and how the > jIvatma enters or > leaves the body can only be determined from > shasthtas with the > guidance of a qualified Acarya. Similarly, the > circumstances under > which a jIvatma enters or leaves a body such as a > pot must be > understood only through shasthras. > > In due course of time, all jIvatmas will get a birth > in which he > will have access to faculties required to perform > prapatti and reach > Sri vaikuntam. This is the reason why we must be > impatient to adopt > bhara nyasam. Getting a human birth is very rare, > and we have > that. Who can say what our next birth will be? If > we miss this > opportunity when will we get another human birth, > and that too a > human birth with access to Sri Vaishnava Acharyas? > > As regards, space and time limitations, jIvatma is > "aNu" swaroopam > and therefore is always constrained by space. It is > present only in > objects that have shape and name. Only Paramatma is > vibhU. > Paramatma Sriman Narayana will be present due to his > nature as vibhu > in matter that do not have shape or name. The > objects that have > shape and name, both a jIvatma and Paramatma Sriman > Narayana as > vibhu, will be present. These facts are determined > directly from > shashtras. > > Time will always act upon the body made of matter of > this world, > whatever the body may be, a human body or that of a > pot. However, > the jIvatma is not affected, whether the jIvatma is > present in a > human body or a pot. A pot is considered man made > because a man had > to give shape to clay. Similarly, the birth of a > child is also > caused by actions of human beings. But, both acts > are not possible > without Iswara sankalpam. Therefore, for both acts > only Paramatma > Sriman Narayana is the ultimate cause. > > The circumstances under which a jIvatma leaves the > body, whether a > human body or a pot body, is also to be understood > only through > shashthras. Once we agree there is a jIvatma > present in a pot, then > we have to agree it will depart at some time. > Otherwise, we have to > condemn that jIvatma to eternal "pothood" with no > chance for Sri > vaikuntam. This is contrary to shasthras. Our > Nammazhvar says in > Thiruvaymozhi, "vaikundham pughuvadhu maNNavar > vidhiyE", (the chance > to enter Vaikuntam is available for all.) > > -- adiyEn ramanuja dasan (dileepan) > > > > News - Today's headlines http://news. Srirangasri- Your use of is subject to ---------- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Visit us at http://www.cognizant.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2002 Report Share Posted September 21, 2002 , "Pillaipakkam, Sridharan (Cognizant)" If Meru is 'pritivi' alone, then even the Lord cannot make > 'prativi' (mountain) in to 'vayu' (air). dear sri sridharan, You are right! I am reminded of an old saying of Pascal, the French mathematician, who is reported to have said more or less the same thing: "God can create a donkey with 3 tails; but He can never create a triangle with 4 sides." This is the case with the philosophical principles of 'cetana' and 'acetana' too. Regards, dAsan, Sudarshan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2002 Report Share Posted October 1, 2002 Namo Sriman Narayana, It is Adiyen's understanding that the knowledge of the tatva trayam pertains to the Apara Jnana that can be obtained through intense Shastra Abhyasa and Sadhana.But Brahma Jnana or Mukti pertains to the Para Jnana which is the Purusha himself who is unthinkable unknowable and can never be explained through words or mental imagination or Logic.As this entire Chetana and Acheta entities are inseperable attributes of the Lord everything at once becomes perfect as they are all ultimately for His prayojana only. Brahma Jnanam or the State of Mukti is thus beyond our mental comprehension and it includes everything and the whole universe at once becomes devine and full of Life as one starts seeing the Lord every where.It is like the undifferentiated Prema depicted by the Gopikas towards the Lord wherin they saw Him in every leaf(Achetana) and among eachother (Chetana). When the Lord is reflecting in every entity where is chetana and where is Achetana? Sri Mukkur LakshmiNarasimhacharyar in one of his Bhagavatam lecture says only ajnanis like us will see a mountain as a mountain and a man as a man etc., But a realised sage like Sri Suka maharshi sees none of these aparent differences.They see the same concious Brahman working from within all these different entities. So Dadhi bhanda when he got Mukti or Brahman realisation he saw the same Lord who is the antaryami of the inanimate pot also.In that way the pot is not excluded and it also got Mukti.Scholars, Devotees please correct me if I am wrong. Namo Sriman Narayana, Suresh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2002 Report Share Posted October 3, 2002 Dear Sriman suresh, Mangalani bhavanthu.. I am not sure with what philosophical base you are expressing your opinion. If you are having Srmath Vhashyakara, then you may have to check the fundamentals through a rigorous study under an acharya..I get a feeling that you had gained astiya ganam from various books..particularlly advaitis..exp. Many places Sri Vishnupurana looks like that it supports Advaitha..But only after listening to Bhgavat Ramnuja and Engalazhvan you how strong they are for Visishtatvaitha...Kindly forgive me if this is not the case. The same argument holds good for your reference to Mukkr swami's upanyasa. There is a sloka in Bhagat Gita end with 'panditha: sama darsina;". This what Gandiji's quoted saying that all are one..If one has dharma-dharmi ganam the meaning is entirely opposite.. Lord Krishana aware of this and not Gahandhiji... dasan sridharan ps: i am typing this mail in haster...there are many spelling mistakes...pl .... sureshsmr [sureshsmr] Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:42 PM Re: clarification re achethanam and jadam Namo Sriman Narayana, It is Adiyen's understanding that the knowledge of the tatva trayam pertains to the Apara Jnana that can be obtained through intense Shastra Abhyasa and Sadhana.But Brahma Jnana or Mukti pertains to the Para Jnana which is the Purusha himself who is unthinkable unknowable and can never be explained through words or mental imagination or Logic.As this entire Chetana and Acheta entities are inseperable attributes of the Lord everything at once becomes perfect as they are all ultimately for His prayojana only. Brahma Jnanam or the State of Mukti is thus beyond our mental comprehension and it includes everything and the whole universe at once becomes devine and full of Life as one starts seeing the Lord every where.It is like the undifferentiated Prema depicted by the Gopikas towards the Lord wherin they saw Him in every leaf(Achetana) and among eachother (Chetana). When the Lord is reflecting in every entity where is chetana and where is Achetana? Sri Mukkur LakshmiNarasimhacharyar in one of his Bhagavatam lecture says only ajnanis like us will see a mountain as a mountain and a man as a man etc., But a realised sage like Sri Suka maharshi sees none of these aparent differences.They see the same concious Brahman working from within all these different entities. So Dadhi bhanda when he got Mukti or Brahman realisation he saw the same Lord who is the antaryami of the inanimate pot also.In that way the pot is not excluded and it also got Mukti.Scholars, Devotees please correct me if I am wrong. Namo Sriman Narayana, Suresh Srirangasri- Your use of is subject to ---------- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Visit us at http://www.cognizant.com 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.