Fwd: [t'vengadam] clarification re achethanam and jadam

[Guest guest]

> --- "I.V.K. CHARY" <ivkchary wrote:

>

> > >Dear Sri Sudharsan,

> > >This discussion is interesting indeed. I am just wanting to look

> > at it in > >another way, albeit, unsure how far this can stand a

> scrutiny from> Sastraic > >view.> >What or who is Achetanam? Is it

> not again a body which is> suscptible to > >changes like

> human/animal/plant bodies? Is it mandatory that all> Jeevas > >have

> got to enter only a Chethana body? If so, how come Ahalya, as> a >

> >Jeeva, entered the body of a rock to be retrieved by Lord Rama?>

> What about > >various narrations in Puranas where

> Deva/Manushya/Rakshasaas> getting into

> > >bodies not of their own as a result of a curse? When once the

> > curse is > >revoked, the jeeva in it getting back to its earlier

> form and the> cursed > >body facing dilution or destruction? Please

> throw some light> >Regards,

> > >Dasan

>

>

> Dear SrimAN Chari & Smt.Kalaivani,

>

> After reading through both your interesting viewpoints, I can only

> say you have got me thinking very hard but not convinced. Perhaps,

> adiyane lacks the mental or spiritual capacity to grasp the

> 'sUkshmam' of the 'cetana-acetanam' dichotomy.

>

> My knowledge is very small in these matters and is restricted to

> the

> following:

>

> (1) The "tattva-traya" is a fundamental cornerstone of Vedanta

> philosophy.

>

> (2) "cit', "acit" and "Isvara" are 3 realities of existence.

>

> (3) 'cit' is what is alive, intelligent, conscious and

> regenerative.

> 'jIvAtmA' is 'cit'.

>

> (4) "acit" is also real but is un-intelligent, lacking in

> consciousness and is degenerative. Matter is 'acit'.

>

> (5) "Iswara" is absolute intelligence, absolute consciousness and

> it

> is eternal. It never undergoes degeneration because it is

> indestructible. It never undergoes regeneration because it needs no

> regeneration.

>

> From my limited understanding of the 'tattva-traya', I conclude

> that Matter and Spirit, "acit" and "cit" are both real. They are

> also

> definitely both related to Isvara. But that does not mean they are

> related to Isvara in exactly similar ways.

>

> If the 'cit' and the 'acit' are conceived to be both related to

> Isvara in exactly the same way (as in the way they attain 'mOksha',

> for example), then what is the need for the concept of

> "tattva-traya"? What is the need for distinguishing at all between

> 'sarira' and 'atma' or Matter and Spirit? If Matter possesses a

> spirit too within itself, then what is the need to distinguish

> between 'cit' and 'acit'? Why would Madhura-kavi ask Maran the

> question "cettatin vayitril siriyadu pirandhAl, ettai tinggu engay

> kidakkum?", if both "cettadhu" and "siriyadhu" possessed 'atmA'?

> Everything that exists becomes 'cit', in that case. Why bother to

> posit something called "acit" at all?

>

> I am therefore unable to find credible answers for the above

> questions from both your arguments. Please remember that the

> 'tattva-traya' is the very bedrock of Vedantic philosophy. If one

> posits arguments which tend to confuse this foundation, then the

> whole edifice of Vedantic philsophic will come tumbling down.

>

> ******** ******** *******

>

> With regard to the story of Ahalya that Sri.Chari alludes to, I

> humbly submit that once again we are confusing theological doctrine

> with philosopical axiom.

>

> The story of Ahalya appears in the 'Ramayana' which is considered

> to

> be an encyclopaedia of "saranagati-sAstra". The main purpose of the

> story is only to ilustrate that the path of self-surrender,

> 'saranagati', that 'upAYa' is available for even the most lowly

> of

> beings. Anyone can resort to 'saranagati' if the mind is made up,

> one has abiding faith in it and waits patiently (like an inert

> 'stone'!) to ultimately reap its benefit viz. salvation or

> 'mOksha'.

> Even if a being were to be accursed (as Ahalya was), even if a

> being

> were full of evil or demonaic nature (rakshasa) or even if a being

> were as severely limited in intelligence as a dumb animal -- the

> story of Ahalya reveals to us that the being still need not worry.

> There is still spiritual hope for such a being because redemption

> is

> available through 'saranagati'.

>

> 'saranagati' is profound theological doctrine. "tattva-traya" is

> profound philosophical principle. The story of Ahalya, in adiyane's

> humble opinion, illustrates the theological doctrine of

> 'sarangagati'; not the philosophical principle of "tattva-traya".

> Since we have confused one with the other, it is only natural that

> we

> have ended up with the confusion we presently have on our hands (or

> should I say minds!).

>

> ******* ********** ********

>

> Some persons in the other cyber-lists have buttressed their views

> in

> this debate by conveniently stating that their position is advanced

> by Srimadh Azhagiyasingar himself, and hence their view is true and

> authoritative.

>

> Well, adiyane can only respond saying that I am also an ardent

> follower of the present Azhgiyasingar and would gladly accept his

> word to be truth. But in this matter I am not sure if those who

> claim

> they are quoting the Azhgiyasingar are quoting him correctly or

> faithfully. Who can say for sure in what exact context the AchArya

> really said what is being reported as being his words/views?

>

> Until adiyane has had an opportunity to get this doubt clarified

> personally with a qualified person (or perhaps with Srimadh

> Azhagiyasingar himself on my next trip to the Mutt), and have the

> matter explained to me more clearly and authoritatively, I choose

> to

> reserve judgment on the matter.

>

> Thanks and regards,

> dAsan,

>

> Sudarshan

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

A very interesting discussion indeed. Chetana means movement. Achetana

means without movement. All living beings move. Insects, animals, etc.

Trees come actually in between animal kingdom and inert matter. What is

moksha? Liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Regeneration implies

degeneration too. A chetana cannot exist without the 'prop' of an achetana.

We can't exist without our bodies. We are the chetanas and our bodies are

achetanas. Without life, our bodies are as degenerative as a piece of

stone, which also degenerates into sand over a long time. And the atma is

tied to the sukshma sarira, which goes from one prop to another, till it is

also dissolved by god's grace. Then only the Jivatma is free from the

shackles.

 

Ahalya's story conveys a slightly differrent meaning to me. Ahalya's mind

wavered for a short time and thus she sinned. So she was blessed (the curse

of a sage is always a blessing in disguise) to be 'rocksteady' in her

meditation about Sri Rama. Till He came and blessed her. What a wonderful

purification?

 

Yours

 

Swamy SV

 

 

 

 

At 03:38 19/09/02 -0700, Sri Sudarshan wrote:

>

>> --- "I.V.K. CHARY" <ivkchary wrote:

>>

>> > >Dear Sri Sudharsan,

>> > >This discussion is interesting indeed. I am just wanting to look

>> > at it in > >another way, albeit, unsure how far this can stand a

>> scrutiny from> Sastraic > >view.> >What or who is Achetanam? Is it

>> not again a body which is> suscptible to > >changes like

>> human/animal/plant bodies? Is it mandatory that all> Jeevas > >have

>> got to enter only a Chethana body? If so, how come Ahalya, as> a >

>> >Jeeva, entered the body of a rock to be retrieved by Lord Rama?>

>> What about > >various narrations in Puranas where

>> Deva/Manushya/Rakshasaas> getting into

>> > >bodies not of their own as a result of a curse? When once the

>> > curse is > >revoked, the jeeva in it getting back to its earlier

>> form and the> cursed > >body facing dilution or destruction? Please

>> throw some light> >Regards,

>> > >Dasan

>>

>>

>> Dear SrimAN Chari & Smt.Kalaivani,

>>

>> After reading through both your interesting viewpoints, I can only

>> say you have got me thinking very hard but not convinced. Perhaps,

>> adiyane lacks the mental or spiritual capacity to grasp the

>> 'sUkshmam' of the 'cetana-acetanam' dichotomy.

>>

>> My knowledge is very small in these matters and is restricted to

>> the

>> following:

>>

>> (1) The "tattva-traya" is a fundamental cornerstone of Vedanta

>> philosophy.

>>

>> (2) "cit', "acit" and "Isvara" are 3 realities of existence.

>>

>> (3) 'cit' is what is alive, intelligent, conscious and

>> regenerative.

>> 'jIvAtmA' is 'cit'.

>>

>> (4) "acit" is also real but is un-intelligent, lacking in

>> consciousness and is degenerative. Matter is 'acit'.

>>

>> (5) "Iswara" is absolute intelligence, absolute consciousness and

>> it

>> is eternal. It never undergoes degeneration because it is

>> indestructible. It never undergoes regeneration because it needs no

>> regeneration.

>>

>> From my limited understanding of the 'tattva-traya', I conclude

>> that Matter and Spirit, "acit" and "cit" are both real. They are

>> also

>> definitely both related to Isvara. But that does not mean they are

>> related to Isvara in exactly similar ways.

>>

>> If the 'cit' and the 'acit' are conceived to be both related to

>> Isvara in exactly the same way (as in the way they attain 'mOksha',

>> for example), then what is the need for the concept of

>> "tattva-traya"? What is the need for distinguishing at all between

>> 'sarira' and 'atma' or Matter and Spirit? If Matter possesses a

>> spirit too within itself, then what is the need to distinguish

>> between 'cit' and 'acit'? Why would Madhura-kavi ask Maran the

>> question "cettatin vayitril siriyadu pirandhAl, ettai tinggu engay

>> kidakkum?", if both "cettadhu" and "siriyadhu" possessed 'atmA'?

>> Everything that exists becomes 'cit', in that case. Why bother to

>> posit something called "acit" at all?

>>

>> I am therefore unable to find credible answers for the above

>> questions from both your arguments. Please remember that the

>> 'tattva-traya' is the very bedrock of Vedantic philosophy. If one

>> posits arguments which tend to confuse this foundation, then the

>> whole edifice of Vedantic philsophic will come tumbling down.

>>

>> ******** ******** *******

>>

>> With regard to the story of Ahalya that Sri.Chari alludes to, I

>> humbly submit that once again we are confusing theological doctrine

>> with philosopical axiom.

>>

>> The story of Ahalya appears in the 'Ramayana' which is considered

>> to

>> be an encyclopaedia of "saranagati-sAstra". The main purpose of the

>> story is only to ilustrate that the path of self-surrender,

>> 'saranagati', that 'upAYa' is available for even the most lowly

>> of

>> beings. Anyone can resort to 'saranagati' if the mind is made up,

>> one has abiding faith in it and waits patiently (like an inert

>> 'stone'!) to ultimately reap its benefit viz. salvation or

>> 'mOksha'.

>> Even if a being were to be accursed (as Ahalya was), even if a

>> being

>> were full of evil or demonaic nature (rakshasa) or even if a being

>> were as severely limited in intelligence as a dumb animal -- the

>> story of Ahalya reveals to us that the being still need not worry.

>> There is still spiritual hope for such a being because redemption

>> is

>> available through 'saranagati'.

>>

>> 'saranagati' is profound theological doctrine. "tattva-traya" is

>> profound philosophical principle. The story of Ahalya, in adiyane's

>> humble opinion, illustrates the theological doctrine of

>> 'sarangagati'; not the philosophical principle of "tattva-traya".

>> Since we have confused one with the other, it is only natural that

>> we

>> have ended up with the confusion we presently have on our hands (or

>> should I say minds!).

>>

>> ******* ********** ********

>>

>> Some persons in the other cyber-lists have buttressed their views

>> in

>> this debate by conveniently stating that their position is advanced

>> by Srimadh Azhagiyasingar himself, and hence their view is true and

>> authoritative.

>>

>> Well, adiyane can only respond saying that I am also an ardent

>> follower of the present Azhgiyasingar and would gladly accept his

>> word to be truth. But in this matter I am not sure if those who

>> claim

>> they are quoting the Azhgiyasingar are quoting him correctly or

>> faithfully. Who can say for sure in what exact context the AchArya

>> really said what is being reported as being his words/views?

>>

>> Until adiyane has had an opportunity to get this doubt clarified

>> personally with a qualified person (or perhaps with Srimadh

>> Azhagiyasingar himself on my next trip to the Mutt), and have the

>> matter explained to me more clearly and authoritatively, I choose

>> to

>> reserve judgment on the matter.

>>

>> Thanks and regards,

>> dAsan,

>>

>> Sudarshan

>

>

>

>

>New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

>http://sbc.

>

>

>

>

>Srirangasri-

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>