atma

[Guest guest]

namaskar,lord krishna is universal teacher.he gave

sacred Gita to Arjuna when Arjuna was in deep

frustration.atma is allpervading.it is in all and

outside.narayanopanishd -narayana

everyahere.kalascha..i have a doubt.how an

atma,allpervading ,omnipresent will leave the body?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, kuchibhotla subrahmanyam wrote:

> atma is allpervading.it is in all and

> outside.narayanopanishd -narayana

> everyahere.kalascha..i have a doubt.how an

> atma,allpervading ,omnipresent will leave the body?

 

There are two types of atma: jivatma (us) and paramatma (God). These two are

also called anu-atma (many small, individual living beings) and vibhu-atma (the

Supreme Lord), as well as svamsa (the Lord Himself) and vibhinnamsa

(the separate living beings). There is tremendous difference between these two

categories of atma.

 

The Lord never leaves His body, which is eternal and transcendentally pure. On

the other hand, the jivas are forced by karma to transmigrate in repeated births

and deaths, because they are bewildered by illusion on account of their

infinitesimal size. The Lord is great, infallible, all-pervading and

omniscient; we are tiny, with limited independence, and therefore can become

subject to so much inebriety.

 

The scriptures don't always clarify just which type of atma is referred to in a

given passage.

 

Mukunda Datta dasa

[Guest guest]

> The Lord never leaves His body, which is eternal and

transcendentally pure. On the other hand, the jivas are forced by

karma to transmigrate in repeated births and deaths, because they are

bewildered by illusion on account of their infinitesimal size. The

Lord is great, infallible, all-pervading and omniscient; we are tiny,

with limited independence, and therefore can become subject to so

much inebriety.

>

> The scriptures don't always clarify just which type of atma is

referred to in a given passage.

>

> Mukunda Datta dasa

 

dear mukunda prabhu,

 

hare krishna. thanks for clarifying the ambiguous statements of the

scriptures. but i still have a question. even a jivatma is brahman

and is transcendental to matter and therefore time and space, which

are properties of matter. therefore, how is it possible for a jivatma

to go from one place to another when it is beyond space ?

 

best regards

rajaram v.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

>

> dear mukunda prabhu,

>

> hare krishna. thanks for clarifying the ambiguous statements of the

> scriptures. but i still have a question. even a jivatma is brahman

> and is transcendental to matter and therefore time and space, which

> are properties of matter. therefore, how is it possible for a

jivatma

> to go from one place to another when it is beyond space ?

 

What makes you think the jiivaatma is the all-pervasive Brahman?

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

> achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > dear mukunda prabhu,

> >

> > hare krishna. thanks for clarifying the ambiguous statements of

the

> > scriptures. but i still have a question. even a jivatma is

brahman

> > and is transcendental to matter and therefore time and space,

which

> > are properties of matter. therefore, how is it possible for a

> jivatma

> > to go from one place to another when it is beyond space ?

>

> What makes you think the jiivaatma is the all-pervasive Brahman?

>

> - K

 

i am just asking how a transcendental jivatma beyond time and space

is going from one place to another. if it is achintya, why speak

philosophy ?

[Guest guest]

*************** dear mukunda prabhu, > > hare krishna. thanks for clarifying the

ambiguous statements of the > scriptures. but i still have a question. even a

jivatma is brahman > and is transcendental to matter and therefore time and

space, which > are properties of matter. therefore, how is it possible for a

jivatma > to go from one place to another when it is beyond space ? What makes

you think the jiivaatma is the all-pervasive Brahman?- K

>>> Haribol, I thought he is just talking about brahman, which jiva is - what

makes you think he is talking about para-brahman? am I missing something here?

Aravind

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> i am just asking how a transcendental jivatma beyond time and space

> is going from one place to another. if it is achintya, why speak

> philosophy ?

 

Rajaram,

 

There is a fundamental disconnectedness in your reasoning. Let me

dissect your argument so we can understand it better.

 

You said:

 

1) The jiivaatman is brahman * (your opinion, not an obvious fact)

2) Therefore, jiivaatman is transcendental to matter (no one would

argue this)

3) ... and also "beyond time and space" (the meaning of which is not

clear -- what does it mean to be "beyond time and space?")

4) Therefore how can a jiivaatman go from one place to another?

 

Finally, when I asked you to substantiate point #1, which is the

basic premise of your question, you ignored that and asked "if it is

achintya, why speak philosophy ?" Obviously, you think you are on to

some kind of major inconsistency, and you think I am going to

invoke "inconceivability" to explain it.

 

Actually, there is nothing "inconceivable" here. All we need to do is

pay attention to shaastra. Regarding the jiivaatman, the shrutis say:

 

baalaagrashatabhaagasya shatadhaa kalpitasya cha |

bhaago jiivaH vij~neyaH sa chaanantyaaya kalpate || sv up 5.9 ||

 

When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and

again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts,

each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit

soul. (shvetaashvatara upaniShad 5.9)

 

This may seem inconceivable to you, but it is an obvious fact

according to the shruti that the jiivaatman is a discrete unit having

discrete dimensions in space.

 

Now you may not like this. But this is what the shrutis say. So there

is no point arguing with it.

 

Having distinct measurements in terms of space does not preclude

being transcendental to matter, however. You may no doubt be aware of

the descriptions of Lord in the Giitaa as being larger than the

largest and smaller than the smallest, and of Upanishadic

descriptions of Him as being the size of a thumb. Why complain about

the jiiva's measurements in terms of space when you do not complain

about the "person in the Heart who is the size of a thumb" (see Katha

Upanishad 2.4.12, Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.8).

 

To summarize, jiivaatmaas are discrete spiritual entities who can

move from one place to another. The shaastras say this. So it is not

for us to question that.

 

On the other hand, one might reasonably ask this question of those

who hold that the jiivaatmaas are actually the all-pervasive Brahman

+ a limiting adjunct or upaadhi. How does the jiiva, which according

to some philosophers is actually the all-pervading Brahman, "move"

from one place to another?

 

This is yet another example of how an inconsistency you think you see

in Achintya Bedha-Abedha tattva, is in fact an inconsistency in

Advaita.

 

* of course, depending on how you define "Brahman," perhaps we could

argue that jiiva = Brahman in some sense. A gold nugget and a gold

mine are both gold, but a gold nugget is not a gold mine. Anyway, you

have not defined "brahman" in this case, so from context I am

assuming you are referring to "Brahman" as most Vedaantists define it.

[Guest guest]

krishna,

 

your reasonable objection with respect to advaita may be easily

explained as due to illusory perception of birth, transmigration

etc., with respect to Self who is by definition birthless.

 

it is a good advice that you gave me to read the sastras carefully.

your translation of sveteshvatara upanishad does not take in to

account the word bhago anantyaya in the second line. if you take that

in to account then it will not be 10000 parts of the tip of the hair

as you said but it will be 10000 x infinity part of the tip of the

hair. you said that there is nothing incomprehensible here. it is

interesting to note that you find nothing inconceivable in inifinity.

what a brilliant mind ?!!! no doubt you are able to defeat

the "foolish" teachings of adi sankara bhagavath padaal!

 

also what is the size of the tip of the hair ? even matter is

inconceivable at very small dimensions as it is in the form of sound.

 

more importantly, my question is not just with respect to measure but

how can a transcendental being be locked up in space ?

 

also your interpretation is against the statements of vedanta sUtrAs

3.2.33 buddhyArth : pAdavat. the size etc., is said with respect to

brahman only for the purpose of comprehension by buddhi. you are not

only contradicting sankara but also sri ramanuja here. take care.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> your reasonable objection with respect to advaita may be easily

> explained as due to illusory perception of birth, transmigration

> etc., with respect to Self who is by definition birthless.

 

This is not a very easy explanation.

 

If there is only one Brahman who by illusion appears to take birth as

different jiivas, then several incongrueties remain:

 

1a) How does Brahman fall under this illusion when Brahman is

superior to everything else?

1b) Where does this illusion come from? Is it an entity that exists

alongside Brahman, or is it a property of the otherwise nirguna

Brahman?

1c) Who is experiencing the illusion of bondage? The singular

Brahman, or the multiple jiivas?

1d) If it is Brahman only which experiences the illusion, then why is

it that most jiivas are in bondage while others are getting

liberation - why is not the liberation or bondage experienced

simultaneously since it is only the one Brahman that experiences the

illusion as multiple jiivas?

1e) Where in the shaastra is it said that taking birth in a material

body, transmigration, etc, is an illusion?

1f) If the experience of samsaara is not real, then what point is

there in performing any religious duties, which, by logical

extension, are also unreal? Unreal things cannot yield real results.

 

> it is a good advice that you gave me to read the sastras carefully.

> your translation of sveteshvatara upanishad does not take in to

> account the word bhago anantyaya in the second line. if you take

that

> in to account then it will not be 10000 parts of the tip of the

hair

> as you said but it will be 10000 x infinity part of the tip of the

> hair.

 

No, that is not what it says. Once again, the Sanskrit:

 

vaalaagrashatabhaagasya shatadhaa kalpitasya cha |

bhaago jiivaH sa vij~neyaH sa chaanantyaaya kalpate || sv up 5.9 ||

 

The Sanskrit is very clear - a hundredth part of a tip of a hair

divided hundred times (vaala-agra-shata-bhaagasya shatadhaa) - this

is what is to be known (vij~neyaH) as the size of the jiiva.

 

It would be illogical to say that the soul is of infinite size,

especially after giving such minute dimensions to it. This would be

self-contradictory. Anyway, that is not what it is saying here - sa

cha anantyaaya kalpate can be interpreted in multiple ways. The idea

that it is saying that the jiiva is of infinite size is also rejected

by the Bhaagavatam:

 

aparimitaa dhruvaas tanubhR^ito yadi sarvagataas tarhi na shaasyateti

niyamo dhrava netarathaa |

ajani cha yanmaya.m tad avimuchya niyantR^i bhavet samam

anujaanataa.m yad amata.m mataduShTatayaa || bhaa 10.87.30 ||

 

This reinforces the idea that the jiivas are individual units,

exactly as the Sv U 5.9 says, and that it is the infinite Lord who is

the master of them all.

 

you said that there is nothing incomprehensible here. it is

> interesting to note that you find nothing inconceivable in

inifinity.

 

I never said there was nothing incomprehensible about the infinite

Lord. I said there was nothing incomprehensible about the finite

jiiva moving from one body to the next.

 

> what a brilliant mind ?!!! no doubt you are able to defeat

> the "foolish" teachings of adi sankara bhagavath padaal!

 

My only interest here is in answering your question about how a jiiva

can move from one body to another. If memory serves, your doubt was

based on the premise that the jiiva is the infinite Brahman. Despite

my asking you twice now, I seem to have missed the part where you

proved this to be true.

 

> also what is the size of the tip of the hair ? even matter is

> inconceivable at very small dimensions as it is in the form of

sound.

>

 

An electron microscope can easily measure the diameter of a shaft of

hair. See any biochemical textbook if you want that measurement. As

far as "tip," this would depend on what length of a shaft of hair

constitutes a tip, wouldn't it?

 

Anyway, the point is not to determine the exact numerical measurement

of its size, otherwise "vaalaagra" would at least be defined in terms

of its length. The point rather, is that the jiiva does have a

discrete, minute size, and thus it can transmigrate from one place to

another (in contrast to an all-pervasive entity which by definition

should not move anywhere since it already is everywhere).

 

> more importantly, my question is not just with respect to measure

but

> how can a transcendental being be locked up in space ?

 

I don't know. I don't know what you mean by "locked up in space."

 

> also your interpretation is against the statements of vedanta

sUtrAs

> 3.2.33 buddhyArth : pAdavat. the size etc., is said with respect to

> brahman only for the purpose of comprehension by buddhi.

 

The Sv 5.9 is referring to the minute size of the jiivas, not

Brahman. So there is no contradiction.

 

you are not

> only contradicting sankara but also sri ramanuja here. take care.

 

That suutra refers to the size of Brahman, not to the size of the

jiiva.

 

There is no contradiction.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

> No, that is not what it says. Once again, the Sanskrit:

>

> vaalaagrashatabhaagasya shatadhaa kalpitasya cha |

> bhaago jiivaH sa vij~neyaH sa chaanantyaaya kalpate || sv up 5.9 ||

>

> The Sanskrit is very clear - a hundredth part of a tip of a hair

> divided hundred times (vaala-agra-shata-bhaagasya shatadhaa) - this

> is what is to be known (vij~neyaH) as the size of the jiiva.

 

krishna,

 

your translation is wrong. you are missing the words bhaago

chaanantyaaya in the second line. you cannot build a thesis if you

cannot translate incorrectly.

 

this verse says the jiva is infinitesimal and does not point to a

material dimension. have you at least checked with existing gaudiya

acharyas if they agree with a material dimension for the soul ?

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

> > No, that is not what it says. Once again, the Sanskrit:

> >

> > vaalaagrashatabhaagasya shatadhaa kalpitasya cha |

> > bhaago jiivaH sa vij~neyaH sa chaanantyaaya kalpate || sv up 5.9

||

> >

> > The Sanskrit is very clear - a hundredth part of a tip of a hair

> > divided hundred times (vaala-agra-shata-bhaagasya shatadhaa) -

this

> > is what is to be known (vij~neyaH) as the size of the jiiva.

>

> krishna,

>

> your translation is wrong. you are missing the words bhaago

> chaanantyaaya in the second line. you cannot build a thesis if you

> cannot translate incorrectly.

 

"...cannot translate incorrectly."

 

Ok...

 

My "thesis" is that the jiiva is like a particle. Hence, there is no

difficulty believing it can move from one place to another, in

contrast to an omnipresent entity for which "moving from one place to

another" would be meaningless.

 

I'm not sure where it is you see an inconsistency. As I mentioned

before, the last part "sa chaanantyaaya kalpate" can be interpreted

in various ways, but interpreting it to mean that the jiiva is of

infinite size is wrong. I noticed that you did not conceed this

point, nor did you address the supporting evidence and logic provided

already. Are you suggesting that SU 5.9 contradicts itself and is

inconsistent with what Vyaasa wrote in the Bhaagavatam already quoted?

 

> this verse says the jiva is infinitesimal

 

Bingo. Now let's think back to your original question. And what was

my answer to your question? That the jiiva is a discrete entity, not

omnipresent, and hence can move from one place to another. Seems like

we agree.

 

You see how a simple question can have a simple answer when the goal

is to learn instead of to derail?

 

and does not point to a

> material dimension. have you at least checked with existing gaudiya

> acharyas if they agree with a material dimension for the soul ?

 

This is becoming a tired refrain. I have no idea what you mean

by "material dimension." You might have noticed that I am quite

conservative in what I will argue. I don't invoke concepts that are

nebulous or vaguely defined.

 

My point is only that the jiiva is a discrete unit and thus there is

absolutely no problem believing the jiiva can move from one body to

another, or from one place to another.

 

Having shown this to be the case, I don't see what further scope

there exists for discussion on this point. But, do not fear. Lest I

be once again accused of censoring you or hiding the alleged faults

of Achintya Bheda Abheda, you are welcome to continue arguing about

imagined inconsistencies in this simple position to your

satisfaction.

 

K

 

p.s. You still have not shown that jiiva = Brahman, or how you

define "Brahman" in this case. You will recall this was the original

premise for your doubt. Not that I'm expecting an answer to that at

this point.