Weekly Definition - jIva

[Guest guest]

Below is this week's definition - jIva. A few recent posts have

mentioned the differing interpretations of Advaita, in particular

those of the bhAmatI and vivaraNa schools but neglected to say what

they are - this definition also incorporates a brief definition of them.

 

jIva

 

The Sanskrit term that is used for our present condition is jIva, the

"embodied Self." It literally just means "living" or "alive" but is

often equated with the idea of an individual soul as encountered in

Christianity. The word jIvAtman, the "personal or individual soul" is

also sometimes used (as opposed to paramAtman, the supreme spirit). In

the book 'advaita bodha dIpaka' (dIpa is a lamp, providing bodha,

knowledge, through its illumination), this is explained as follows:

 

<<In the body appears a phantom, the "false-I," to claim the body for

itself and it is called jIva. This jIva always outward bent, taking

the world to be real and himself to be the doer and experiencer of

pleasures and pains, desirous of this and that, undiscriminating, not

once remembering his true nature, nor inquiring "Who am I?, What is

this world?," but wandering in the saMsAra [the continual cycle of

death and rebirth, transmigration etc. to which we are supposedly

subject in the phenomenal world until we become enlightened and

escape] without knowing himself. Such forgetfulness of the Self is

Ignorance. (Ref. 1)>>

 

Who we really are is the non-dual Self, the Atman, but because of this

covering of ignorance, we believe ourselves to be limited to a

separate soul, contained in a body and mind. The jIva could thus be

thought of as the Atman, together with the upAdhi (limiting adjunct)

of avidyA (ignorance). An upAdhi is something that appears to restrict

or limit but does not really.

 

A metaphor that is used to explain this is that of a jar being an

upAdhi for the space apparently contained within it. If we have a

one-litre jar, then it can clearly only hold one litre of liquid and

we might regard the space within it as being similarly limited. But

space is really everywhere, totally unaffected by the presence of the

jar. If we move the jar a foot to the right, the space that was

previously occupied by the jar is now seemingly free but nothing has

really changed from the point of view of the space. If you now place a

plant pot where the jar has previously been, the space will now seem

to be conditioned by the pot.

 

The jIva is really the Atman but, because of the limiting form of body

and mind, it appears to be a separate entity, just as the space

appears to be limited by the jar. If the jar should break, the space

that previously "occupied" it is found to be quite unaffected.

Similarly, on the death of the body, the Atman remains untouched. This

way of explaining the nature of the jIva is called avachCheda vAda

(vAda is a thesis or doctrine; avachCheda literally means "cut off."

It could be called the theory of limitation.) This is the theory held

by one of the two traditional schools of Advaita, the bhAmatI school

[bhAmatI means "lustrous" and is the word that was applied to the

philosopher vAchaspati mishra's brilliant exposition of Shankara's

commentary on the brahma sUtra-s. The school is also called the

vAchaspati school.]

 

Another metaphor for explaining the jIva was also used by Shankara.

This says that avidyA or ignorance acts like a mirror. Who we really

are is the Atman but this is only normally seen in the mirror. The

essence of the reflection is, of course, the Atman, our true Self. It

is not the actual Self but effectively an illusion, just as the image

of our body in the mirror is not the actual body. This theory is

called pratibimba vAda and is associated with the vivaraNa school of

Advaita. pratibimba means a "reflection." In logic, bimba is the

object itself, with the pratibimba being the counterpart with which it

is compared. [vivaraNa means "explanation" or "commentary." This is

from the vivaraNa on PadmapAda's pa~nchapAdikA, produced by

prakAshAtma yati in the 13th century AD. PadmapAda was one of the four

principal disciples of Shankara and his book, the pa~nchapAdikA was a

commentary on Shankara's commentary on the first part of the brahma

sUtra. It can be understood how, with commentaries upon commentaries

stretching through the ages, divergences of interpretation and

understanding have developed.]

 

1. Advaita Bodha Deepika [Lamp of Non-dual Knowledge], Sri Karapatra

Swami translated into English by Sri Ramanananda Saraswathi, Sri

Ramanasramam, 2002. Electronically available from

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/.

 

 

*** The above is extracted from the book, `Back to the Truth: 5000

Years of Advaita', now available from Amazon.com. See

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/backto_truth/backto_truth.htm for

details, endorsements and extracts. ***

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaskarams to the Advaitins. I am a new member; I will go either by

Thollmelukaalkizhu or putranm. I joined to have philosophical doubts

answered.

 

For this present topic, as I understand:

 

The world and body are experienced through the senses and analyzed in

the mind. The Atma (space) when inferred as knower or witness through

a particular mind/body (pot) is said to be a particular jiva. The

Atma when referred as known or witnessed through the mind is said to

be prakrithi.

 

There are an important questions of how exactly the world and mind

are reduced to Atma (the space may be same, but the pot nevertheless

appears there), but I will ask them later if I formulate properly.

Here are a couple of lighter ones on reincarnation that often are

skipped and yet formally accepted. Can anyone put this theory to

light, since it is very much involved with the jiva?

 

1. When death happens, the jiva is said to transmigrate. The body

remains behind lifeless. What transmigrates: a collection of subtle

adjuncts? The mind is stopped, and the ego is gone.

2. If transmigration happens of some limiting adjuncts from one body

to another, then it must be a transferrence within space, making

these limiting adjuncts part of Prakrithi or subject to its realm.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins wrote:

>

> <<In the body appears a phantom, the "false-I," to claim the body

for

> itself and it is called jIva. This jIva always outward bent, taking

> the world to be real and himself to be the doer and experiencer of

> pleasures and pains, desirous of this and that, undiscriminating,

not

> once remembering his true nature, nor inquiring "Who am I?, What is

> this world?," but wandering in the saMsAra [the continual cycle of

> death and rebirth, transmigration etc. to which we are supposedly

> subject in the phenomenal world until we become enlightened and

> escape] without knowing himself. Such forgetfulness of the Self is

> Ignorance. (Ref. 1)>>

>

> Who we really are is the non-dual Self, the Atman, but because of

this

> covering of ignorance, we believe ourselves to be limited to a

> separate soul, contained in a body and mind. The jIva could thus be

> thought of as the Atman, together with the upAdhi (limiting adjunct)

> of avidyA (ignorance). An upAdhi is something that appears to

restrict

> or limit but does not really.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

 

>

> 1. When death happens, the jiva is said to transmigrate. The body

> remains behind lifeless. What transmigrates: a collection of subtle

> adjuncts? The mind is stopped, and the ego is gone.

> 2. If transmigration happens of some limiting adjuncts from one body

> to another, then it must be a transferrence within space, making

> these limiting adjuncts part of Prakrithi or subject to its realm.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

 

 

I managed to get to the reincarnation link in advaitin.net where the

past discussion was posted. That is enough on that, thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin, "putranm" <putranm@> wrote:

>

> >

> > 1. When death happens, the jiva is said to transmigrate. The body

> > remains behind lifeless. What transmigrates: a collection of subtle

> > adjuncts? The mind is stopped, and the ego is gone.

> > 2. If transmigration happens of some limiting adjuncts from one body

> > to another, then it must be a transferrence within space, making

> > these limiting adjuncts part of Prakrithi or subject to its realm.

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

> >

>

>

> I managed to get to the reincarnation link in advaitin.net where the

> past discussion was posted. That is enough on that, thanks.

>

 

Maybe one word of thought. Advaita seems to enjoy a safety cushion, in

holding to the paramaarthika standpoint as Reality and the

vyavahaarika as ultimately ignorance, superimposition, etc. This means

that the Advaitin can bypass certain unknowns at the mind/objective

level, as the particular details there do not affect his/her ultimate

assessment of Truth. There may be an acceptance of certain scripture

or reason, but the particular vyavahaarika version ultimately does not

matter.

 

For practical purpose, this is ideal. This also helps to unify a

variety of subthoughts under one banner. But I sometimes do wonder: am

I avoiding serious questions just to stick to this philosophy? What if

the other person's version of vyavahaarika was true? Would I still

approach this in the same manner?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins wrote:

..

>

> A metaphor that is used to explain this is that of a jar being an

> upAdhi for the space apparently contained within it. If we have a

> one-litre jar, then it can clearly only hold one litre of liquid

and

> we might regard the space within it as being similarly limited. But

> space is really everywhere, totally unaffected by the presence of

the

> jar. If we move the jar a foot to the right, the space that was

> previously occupied by the jar is now seemingly free but nothing

has

> really changed from the point of view of the space. If you now

place a

> plant pot where the jar has previously been, the space will now

seem

> to be conditioned by the pot.

>

> The jIva is really the Atman but, because of the limiting form of

body

> and mind, it appears to be a separate entity, just as the space

> appears to be limited by the jar. If the jar should break, the

space

> that previously "occupied" it is found to be quite unaffected.

> Similarly, on the death of the body, the Atman remains untouched.

This

> way of explaining the nature of the jIva is called avachCheda vAda

> (vAda is a thesis or doctrine; avachCheda literally means "cut

off."

> It could be called the theory of limitation.) This is the theory

held

> by one of the two traditional schools of Advaita, the bhAmatI

school

> [bhAmatI means "lustrous" and is the word that was applied to the

> philosopher vAchaspati mishra's brilliant exposition of Shankara's

> commentary on the brahma sUtra-s. The school is also called the

> vAchaspati school.]

 

Response:

 

The above example is used by Shankara in the Brahmasutra

bhashya:II.i.14:

 

//We therefore must adopt the following view. In the same way as

those parts of ethereal space which are limited by jars and

waterpots are not really different from the universal ethereal

space, and as the water of a mirage is not really different from the

surface of the salty steppe--for the nature of that water is that it

is seen in one moment and has vanished in the next, and moreover, it

is not to be perceived by its own nature (i. e. apart from the

surface of the desert 1)--; so this manifold world with its objects

of enjoyment, enjoyers and so on has no existence apart from

Brahman//

 

Thus we find the ShAnkara Bhashya as containing the basis for the

BhAmati view of the jiva.

 

 

 

Again:

 

>

> Another metaphor for explaining the jIva was also used by Shankara.

> This says that avidyA or ignorance acts like a mirror. Who we

really

> are is the Atman but this is only normally seen in the mirror. The

> essence of the reflection is, of course, the Atman, our true Self.

It

> is not the actual Self but effectively an illusion, just as the

image

> of our body in the mirror is not the actual body. This theory is

> called pratibimba vAda and is associated with the vivaraNa school

of

> Advaita. pratibimba means a "reflection."

 

Response:

 

The above view has its basis in Shankara's commentary for the

MundakOpanishad mantra: II.ii.4:

 

(Here, the Acharya is explicitly stating that the jiva is actually

the Seupreme Self, the ParamAtman)

 

//...the soul which is but the Supreme Self in Its conditioned

state, that has ENTERED here into the body as the witness of all the

modes of the intellect, like the SUN, ETC., INTO WATER.//

 

Thus we are able to see that both the BhAmati view and the Vivarana

view have their basis in the Shankara Bhashya and they are not

baseless concoctions of these Advaitin Acharyas. In fact, when we

see this 'reflection' mentioned by Shankara as : the Supreme SElf

has 'entered' the body-mind complex, we get the confirmation to the

vivarana view that the ignorance is associated with Brahman, the

Supreme. For, why should the Supreme Self, in the words of

Shankara, 'enter' the finite body-mind complex and make itself

available there? Unless 'avidya' is brought in to explain this,

this statement of Shankara will be meaningless.

 

Further, the Gita says: Purusha and Prakriti are BOTH Anaadis

(13.19). How can Two principles be beginningless? Does the Gita

suggest that just because Prakriti (Maya, Avidya, Shakti) is anAdi

like Purusha, Prakriti will never be destroyed? The Gita itself

provides the answer: mAmeva ye prapadyante MAyAmetAm taranti te

(7.14): Whoever surrenders to ME (the Lord, the Supreme Self) alone,

to the exclusion of everything else in creation, he shall cross over

this Maayaa.

 

Thus, we have the basis for AnAdi Avidya/MAya and the possibility

and mode of its eradication through knowledge, in the Gita, in

Bhagavan's own words. The anAdi Avidya theory is also not a

baseless concoction of later Advaita Acharyas.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Subbuji writes :

 

(Does the Gita suggest that just because Prakriti (Maya, Avidya,

Shakti) is anAdi like Purusha, Prakriti will never be destroyed?

 

Prakriti has many synonyms - shakti and maya are some of them !

 

but for you to equate shakti???(prakriti with ''avidya is very

offensive to the ears of a shakta devotee!

"

please read the Mahanirvana tantra , chapter 4 , Sadashiva says to

Devi ?:

 

Listen, O Thou of high fortune and destiny, to the reasons why Thou

shouldst be worshipped, and how thereby the individual becomes

united with the Brahman ). Thou art the only Para Prakriti of the

Supreme Soul Brahman, and from Thee has sprung the whole Universe –

O Shiva – its Mother "). O gracious One ! whatever there is in this

world, of things which have and are without motion, from Mahat to an

atom, owes its origin to and is dependent on Thee ). Thou art the

Original of all the manifestations; Thou art the birthplace of even

Us; Thou knowest the whole world, yet none know Thee ."

 

SUBBUJI, PRAKRITI IS NOT 'AVIDYA' -SHE IS THE MULA VIDYA ... SHE IS

SRI VIDYA ... FOR PRAKRITI IS ALSO 'DIVINE FEMININE' - MOTHER

NATURE !

 

Prakriti and Purusha are the two different aspects of the manifest

Brahman, known as IshwARA.

 

prakriti is made of two words - pra and kri - pra means primary and

kri means one who creates - she is the primary cause of this world -

the jagat janani !

 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT CALL MOTHER NATURE 'AVIDYA'

 

THANX

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Subbuji writes :

>

> (Does the Gita suggest that just because Prakriti (Maya, Avidya,

> Shakti) is anAdi like Purusha, Prakriti will never be destroyed?

>

> >

> SUBBUJI, PRAKRITI IS NOT 'AVIDYA' -SHE IS THE MULA VIDYA ... SHE IS

> SRI VIDYA ... FOR PRAKRITI IS ALSO 'DIVINE FEMININE' - MOTHER

> NATURE !

>

> Prakriti and Purusha are the two different aspects of the manifest

> Brahman, known as IshwARA.

>

> prakriti is made of two words - pra and kri - pra means primary and

> kri means one who creates - she is the primary cause of this world -

 

> the jagat janani !

>

> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT CALL MOTHER NATURE 'AVIDYA'

>

> THANX

>

 

Namaste dhyanasaraswati-ji

 

The word 'prakRti' has been used, particularly in the Gita, in two

connotations. One is in the sense of Shakti, mAyA which you have

mentioned.

The other is in the sense of `our PrakRti', which is the

manifestation of that mAyA individualised to each one of us.

Shankara, in his commentary on the third chapter of the Gita (verse

33) makes this clear. He says that `our PrakRti' is nothing

but `impressions of virtue, vice, knowledge, desires and so on,

acquired in the past lives and which become manifest at the

commencement of the present life'.

 

*prakRtir-nAma pUrva-kRta-dharma-adharmAdi samskAraH vartamAna-

janmAdau abhivyaktiH, sA prakRtiH"

 

In other words, whatever we have done, thought or intended to do –

in our past lives – all these have implanted their footprints in our

past minds in our past lives. A fraction of these comes to fruition

in this life. That is our PrakRti for this life. It is the store of

tendencies with which we are born. In short, it is the indelible

imprint of our irrevocable past. These tendencies could be bad or

good; but our own experience says that mostly the negative tendencies

have a greater pull on us than the positive ones.The aggregate of

these tendencies is what Krishna calls our `svabhAva' (in-born

nature) later in the Gita. When Arjuna argues for laying down his

arms and going to the forest as a renunciate, Krishna points out

that it is not easy to bypass one's in-born nature. Even if he

decides to throw away his arms now and go to the forest to do penance

as a renunciate, his in-born nature, his PrakRti, will overpower him

and prod him on to do what he may not want to do now .

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

> please read the Mahanirvana tantra , chapter 4 , Sadashiva says to

> Devi ?:

>

> Listen, O Thou of high fortune and destiny, to the reasons why

Thou

> shouldst be worshipped, and how thereby the individual becomes

> united with the Brahman ). Thou art the only Para Prakriti of the

> Supreme Soul Brahman, and from Thee has sprung the whole Universe –

 

> O Shiva – its Mother "). O gracious One ! whatever there is in

this

> world, of things which have and are without motion, from Mahat to

an

> atom, owes its origin to and is dependent on Thee ). Thou art the

> Original of all the manifestations; Thou art the birthplace of

even

> Us; Thou knowest the whole world, yet none know Thee ."

 

Namaste Madam,

 

Kindly refer to the Commentary of AdiShankara for the Bhagavadgita

XIV.3. You will find a striking similarity with what you have said

above.

 

Elsewhere, in the Brahmasutra bhashya, the Acharya says: 'avidyaa

eva naH shaktiH' [Avidya itself is Shakti in our system].

 

There is nothing derogatory in this. AmbA, MahAmAyaa, ShaktiH,

Prakriti, is the divine consort of the Lord. Shankara says, without

this consort Brahman cannot do any creative activity.

 

Sri Ramakrishna says: Maya is of two types: Vidyaa Maayaa and

avidyaa maayaa. The former takes us forward in sadhana and

ultimately gives us liberating knowledge. The latter takes us away

from God.

 

The parable of the three robbers (sattva, rajas and tamas) is

pertinent in this context. The robbers accost a lonely traveller.

One of them proposes to kill him. The others say: do not kill him;

we do not gain anything by killing him; we shall bind him to this

tree and rob his wealth. They do that and after some time the third

of them returns alone and releases the man. When the man, in

gratitude, invites him to come to his house for a dinner, this good-

samaritan robber refuses saying: i will not come with you; the

people there will recognize me as a robber.

 

The one who releases him is sattva, also belonging to the prakriti,

maya. In final liberation, even sattva is transcended. That way,

sattva too belongs to the realm of avidya. Release takes place only

when rajas and tamas are left behind and only sattva retained; after

the release, even sattva is left behind.

 

>From the Kanchi Mahaswamigal's discourses you would find that it is

Ishwara (sattva) who gives the liberating knowledge of Nirguna

Brahman to the sadhaka and Himself vanishes.

 

The Mandukya Upanishad seventh mantra negates the third pAda, the

Ishwara, too and retains the Turiya as the Supreme Absolute

Reality.

 

The upshot of all this is: All sadhana, upto liberation, is in the

realm of avidya. Shakti has a role in the realm of creation.

Brahman is beyond creation. From that standpoint, shakti is called

avidya. It is only by worshipping Shakti can one go beyond

avidya.

 

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

thanx subbuji and professorji for the clarification!

 

Subbuji , you have the right idea when you say that

 

"It is only by worshipping Shakti can one go beyond

avidya."

 

Devi herself says in Tripura Rahasya chapter 20 , verses

31-40.

 

"I am the abstract intelligence wherefrom the cosmos originates,

whereon it flourishes, and wherein it resolves, like the images in a

mirror. The ignorant know me as the gross universe, whereas the wise

feel me as their own pure being eternally glowing as 'I-I' within.

This realisation is possible only in the deep stillness of thought-

free consciousness similar to that of the deep sea free from waves.

The most earnest of devotees worship me spontaneously and with the

greatest sincerity which is due to their love of me. Although they

know that I am their own non-dual Self, yet the habit of loving

devotion which is deep-rooted in them makes them conceive their own

Self as ME and worship ME as the life-current pervading their

bodies, senses and mind without which nothing could exist and which

forms the sole purport of the holy scriptures. Such is my

Transcendental State.

 

"My concrete form is the eternal couple - the Supreme Lord and

Energy - always in undivided union and abiding as the eternal

consciousness pervading the three phenomenal states of waking, dream

and sleep, and reclining on the cot whose four legs are Brahma (the

Creator), Vishnu (the Protector), Siva (the Destroyer) and Isvara

(Disappearance) and whose surface is Sadasiva (Grace) which is

contained in the mansion known as 'fulfilment of purpose' enclosed

by the garden of 'Kadamba' trees in the jewel island situated in the

wide ocean of nectar surrounding the cosmos and extending beyond.

 

'Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, Isvara, Sadasiva, Ganesa, Skanda, the gods of

the eight quarters, their energies of her gods, celestials, serpents

and other superhuman beings all manifestations of myself. However,

people do not know ME because their intellect is shrouded in

ignorance."

 

 

DEVI herself is Gunatita (BEYOND GUNAS?) AND TURIYATITA ( BEYOND

TURIYA) SHE DOES NOT BELONG TO MALINA TATTWA... AVIDYA IS MALINA

TATTWA !

 

in any case , my gurudeva used to say " a true mumukshu or sadhaka

never enters into controversies with other systems or religious

scholls' ...

 

professorji, your explanation of 'prakriti' as swabhava or one's own

nature appealed to me in the context in which the term is used in

Srimad bhagwat gita ! thanx

 

 

i worship the ONE whose sound is 'Hrim'

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

 

> Maybe one word of thought. Advaita seems to enjoy a safety cushion, in

> holding to the paramaarthika standpoint as Reality and the

> vyavahaarika as ultimately ignorance, superimposition, etc. This means

> that the Advaitin can bypass certain unknowns at the mind/objective

> level, as the particular details there do not affect his/her ultimate

> assessment of Truth. There may be an acceptance of certain scripture

> or reason, but the particular vyavahaarika version ultimately does not

> matter.

>

> For practical purpose, this is ideal. This also helps to unify a

> variety of subthoughts under one banner. But I sometimes do wonder: am

> I avoiding serious questions just to stick to this philosophy? What if

> the other person's version of vyavahaarika was true? Would I still

> approach this in the same manner?

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Namaste,

 

I have sometimes wondered about this question, that is,

if other systems of philosophy are also true.

 

The conclusion I have come to after being

exposed to many different systems which

purport to explain the true nature of the universe

is that Vedanta, in my experience, is the only

view which has made sense to me so far.

 

Because of that I have resolved to pursue

this study to the end, to explore what

Vedanta has to offer totally. If at some

point, I then feel inclined to look at

other systems, I will. But I would

prefer to understand this one first

as completely as possible (which is probably

at least one lifetime's undertaking) rather than risk

what I feel would be almost certain confusion

by trying to reconcile what Vedanta has to say

with what other systems offer.

 

I am not sure if I understand what you are

saying about bypassing certain unknowns at the

mind/objective level, due to holding the

paramaarthika standpoint as Reality and the

vyavahaarika as ultimately ignorance, but

if I do understand what you are saying,

I think that you have a valid point here,

and it is something which I feel I have

occasionally witnessed.

 

Many who study the teachings of nonduality (especially

westerners IMO) seem to want to `go directly to the

head of the class,' as it were, dismissing the creation

as `unreal' and therefore perhaps using that

dismissal as a convenient excuse not to investigate

various aspects of themselves which might be helpful

for their own sadhana, and for gaining antahkarana

suddhi, and subsequent jnana nishta.

 

However, IMO, if one has a good teacher who

understands the importance of Ishwara and

can show the student that understanding

the orders which apply to vyavaharika is very important,

in order that Knowledge be fully integrated, that as Swami

Dayananda says, 'a light has to shine on it all,'

(meaning a light needs to shine on all of

those parts of the mind which hold incorrect

conclusions against the Vastu in order that

true understanding is fully integrated),

then I do not think there is such a

danger of what might be called 'spiritual

bypassing,' that is bypassing that which

is occurring at the level of vyvahaarika

and needs to be addressed before total

integration of Knowledge can occur.

 

IMO if one finds such a teacher, who can guide

one not only to recognize Reality and to see

the mithytvam of vyavaharika, but also to

resolve (as in to see) that all parts of the individual

body/mind and psyche are part of Ishwara's

divine order then one is extremely lucky.

 

And that IMO is the true 'safety cushion' which Vedanta

offers. It supports total understanding of all levels

reality fully. It provides as it were a 'container'

for all aspects of the individual within which

self-knowledge can blossom and grow. And from what

I have been privileged to observe it produces 'mature'

jnanis.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

> <dhyanasaraswati@> wrote:

 

>

> Elsewhere, in the Brahmasutra bhashya, the Acharya says: 'avidyaa

> eva naH shaktiH' [Avidya itself is Shakti in our system].

>

> There is nothing derogatory in this. AmbA, MahAmAyaa, ShaktiH,

> Prakriti, is the divine consort of the Lord. Shankara says, without

> this consort Brahman cannot do any creative activity.

>

> From the Kanchi Mahaswamigal's discourses you would find that it is

> Ishwara (sattva) who gives the liberating knowledge of Nirguna

> Brahman to the sadhaka and Himself vanishes.

>

> The Mandukya Upanishad seventh mantra negates the third pAda, the

> Ishwara, too and retains the Turiya as the Supreme Absolute

> Reality.

>

> The upshot of all this is: All sadhana, upto liberation, is in the

> realm of avidya. Shakti has a role in the realm of creation.

> Brahman is beyond creation. From that standpoint, shakti is called

> avidya. It is only by worshipping Shakti can one go beyond

> avidya.

>

 

Namaskarams Sri Subbuji,

 

Would I be correct in saying that the identity-associated mind infers

jiva and sees prakrithi? Shiva as witnessed/reflected in the mind is

Shakthi, in the sense of activity and variation. The mind wants to

infer a separate Reality as Shiva whose Shakthi it is witnessing, and

this is the avidya. The jnani "sees" Shiva where the ajnani sees

prakrithi and infers it as the Shakthi of Shiva.

 

Would I be correct in saying that Shankara says that the appearance of

this self-identifying and superimposing mind is an inexplicable

(anirvachaniya) fact of experience for the mind finding itself in such

a position? Does he not give a further objective justification for

this experience of "maya"?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108 wrote:

> I am not sure if I understand what you are

> saying about bypassing certain unknowns at the

> mind/objective level, due to holding the

> paramaarthika standpoint as Reality and the

> vyavahaarika as ultimately ignorance, but

> if I do understand what you are saying,

> I think that you have a valid point here,

> and it is something which I feel I have

> occasionally witnessed.

 

Namaskarams Sri Durgaji,

 

thank you for your kind and detailed response. I also agree with your

sentiment. The distinction need not be between schools of thought; it

can simply be from jnana to bhakthi or viseversa.

 

The jnani sees/"is" Brahman here and now. This is not because he/she

realizes that at some time, there is pralaya and all duality vanishes.

The jnani has transcended the notion of time and space.

 

Now if I am to know that from the vyavahaarika standpoint, that Shiva

and Shakthi are Realities in the mythological sense, would I be

pursuing Advaita in the jnani sense that most ajnanis given to reason

wish to pursue? The answer for a person like me is obviously No; and I

also would not be doing the world based work and justifying it with

big words like karma-yoga. It will be only "Shiva Shiva".

 

That is how I meant. But let Him show the way; I am not committed to

superimposing versions of Him, and Vedanta is the safe way that the

saints have shown.

 

Pranams.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namsaste,

 

In this week's definition of 'jIva', Shri Dennis wrote:

 

<<The Sanskrit term that is used for our present condition is jIva,

the "embodied Self." It literally just means "living" or "alive" but

is often equated with the idea of an individual soul as encountered

in Christianity. The word jIvAtman, the "personal or individual

soul" is also sometimes used (as opposed to paramAtman, the supreme

spirit)....

 

<<Who we really are is the non-dual Self, the Atman, but because of

this covering of ignorance, we believe ourselves to be limited to a

separate soul, contained in a body and mind. The jIva could thus be

thought of as the Atman, together with the upAdhi (limiting adjunct)

of avidyA (ignorance). An upAdhi is something that appears to

restrict or limit but does not really....>>

 

This description has given rise to a piece of verse, which is

appended below. The verse considers the same two aspects that Shri

Dennis describes as: (1) 'personal or individual soul', and (2) 'the

Atman, together with the upAdhi (limiting adjunct) of avidyA

(ignorance)'. But these aspects are described in a slightly

alternative way, as: (1) 'living person', and (2) 'false ego'.

 

Ananda

 

 

'jIva'

------

 

A 'jIva' is a living person

who expresses consciousness

in acts of body, sense and mind.

 

Each act is known by consciousness,

whose knowing light illuminates

all acts where it is found expressed.

 

In every personality,

that consciousness is real self:

the knowing centre of all life

in which it's found to be expressed.

 

That knowing self remains the same,

through a variety of acts

found to express its changelessness

in differing and changing ways.

 

It's the expressions that get changed,

while that which gets to be expressed

stays always utterly unchanged

and utterly indifferent.

 

Where the expressions are confused

with that from which they are expressed,

a living person there appears

mistakenly identified --

 

as a false ego which is thought

to be at once both changeless self

and changing personality.

 

This seeming ego (wrongly thought

to be a person in the world)

is a confusion which gets cleared

by turning back to knowing self,

from where all changing acts are known.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

 

 

The jnani "sees" Shiva where the ajnani sees

> prakrithi and infers it as the Shakthi of Shiva.

 

Response:

 

That is very nicely said.

 

 

>

> Would I be correct in saying that Shankara says that the

appearance of

> this self-identifying and superimposing mind is an inexplicable

> (anirvachaniya) fact of experience for the mind finding itself in

such

> a position? Does he not give a further objective justification for

> this experience of "maya"?

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Response:

 

Your two questions are quite meaningful and have a deep

significance. In my understanding, i would say that the first

question reflects correctly Shankara's position that makes the world-

experience a purely subjective one on the part of the deluded jiva.

That is Advaita's way of looking at the Shruti.

 

The second question is reflective of Shankara's 'explanation' of the

Shruti's depiction of creation. The theistic Vedantic shcools might

hold that God created the universe so that the jivas reap their

karma, etc. and evolve. For Shankara all this is just 'arthavaada',

eulogy, 'pugazhchi'. They have no absolute sense of reality.

 

The problem of samsara is purely that of the jiva and he has to work

his way out with the help of the Shastra and Guru.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm@> wrote:

>

>

> The jnani "sees" Shiva where the ajnani sees

> > prakrithi and infers it as the Shakthi of Shiva.

>

> Response:

>

> That is very nicely said.

 

my responsce

 

Parama jnani Siva himself says to Devi :

 

"Sakti-Jnanam Vina Devi Nirvanam Naiva Jayate—O Devi! Without the

knowledge of Sakti, Mukti cannot be attained""

 

How can the Jiva do or accomplish anything ... He is living in the

body-mind-intellect complex ! Without the grace of the Divine mother

and the grace of the divine mother in the form of human guru , how

can jiva overcome all the fetters of Samsara and progress on the

path of sadhana ? the jiva thinks he is the doer and the enjoyer -

this is Ajnananam !

 

Why would a paramajnani Adi shankara bhagvadapada pray to Mother

Goddess bhavani thus ?

 

Na jânâmi dânam na cha dhyânayogam

Na jânâmi tantram na cha stotramantram

Na jânâmi pûjâm na cha nyâsayogam

Gatistwam gatistwam twam ekâ bhavâni

Na jânâmi punyam na jânâmi tîrtham

Na jânâmi muktim layam vâ kadâchit

Na jânâmi bhaktim vratam vâpi mâtah

Gatistwam gatistwam twam ekâ bhavâni

 

yes!aDI SHANKARA BHAGWAN HIMSELF SAYS 'GATISTWAM TWAM EKA BHAVANI ' -

You alone are my path, you are my goal O Bhavani!

 

Without the grace of Shakti , can you reach the lotus feet of Siva ?

to even think this is Ajnanam!

 

once again, as per Tripura Rahasya

 

"This wisdom in perfection is the realisation of all as the Self.

Intelligence appears as objects by its own virtue, as a mirror

appears as the images on it. This is the whole essence of the

sastras. There is no bondage, no liberation, no aspirant, no process

of attainment. The transcendental Conscious Principle alone subsists

in the three states of being. She remains as the one uniform,

absolute being. She is ignorance; She is wisdom; She is bondage; She

is liberation and She is the process therefor."

 

Even a staunch Advaitin like Totapuri ( sri Ramakrishna's guru)

realized the importance of SHAKTI worship when he was staying at

Dakshineshwer temple .

 

Even six darshanas cannot understand and comprehend the divinity of

the universal mother , how can we jivas even attempt to understand

her !

 

" My Mother is the principle of consciousness. She is akhanda

satchidananda; indivisible Reality, Awareness, and Bliss. The night

sky between the stars is perfectly black. The waters of the ocean

depths are the same. The infinite is always mysteriously dark. This

inebriating darkness is my beloved Kali...."

 

"Reality with attributes, saguna brahman, has been unanimously

declared by the Vedas, Puranas, and Tantras to be Mahakali, the

primordial energy of awareness. Her Energy is like the rays of the

sun. The original sun is attributeless Reality, nirguna brahman,

boundless awareness alone. Proceed to the Original through its

Radiance. Awaken to non-dual Reality through Mother Kali. She holds

the key."

 

Sri Ramakrishna in "Great Swan", by Lex Hixon, p.184

 

Salutations to the Divine mother !

 

(subbuji yo mention about shastras and guru's grace ! The divine

mother is Veda Garbini and Dakshnimurthy rupini ) IT IS BY HER

GRACE , we jivas are here on this planet in this human body )

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Would I be correct in saying that Shankara says that the

> appearance of

> > this self-identifying and superimposing mind is an inexplicable

> > (anirvachaniya) fact of experience for the mind finding itself in

> such

> > a position? Does he not give a further objective justification for

> > this experience of "maya"?

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> Response:

>

> Your two questions are quite meaningful and have a deep

> significance. In my understanding, i would say that the first

> question reflects correctly Shankara's position that makes the

world-

> experience a purely subjective one on the part of the deluded

jiva.

> That is Advaita's way of looking at the Shruti.

 

Sri Subbuji, Thank you very much for this confirmation. The

word "anirvachaniya" with regard to maya forces this type of final

conclusion, as opposed to the personal-God version.

 

Since you had quoted the kanchi paramacharya before, please let me

ask the following. The matha emphasizes Ishvara bhakthi, and in his

talks, he repeatedly tells of Ishvara as granting the fruits of our

action, reincarnation, etc. From the relative standpoint of the mind,

Sri Subbuji is telling me and I am asking him. Is the paramacharya

affirming that from the relative standpoint, there is Ishvara who

responds in a personal manner to the devotee? Or perhaps, the devotee

will experience the response and as far as the devotee is concerned,

the Cause to link to the experience is Ishvara. What is your opinion

from reading his talks as to the paramacharya's viewpoint in all this?

 

 

Also:

 

I would request the group weekly definitions to specifically include

this word "anirvachaniya" and discuss its significance in the

Advaitic context. The dvaitic schools have a starting point: the

personal God, whose Reality is confirmed only through scripture and

otherwise is "anirvachaniya". The Advaita school uses it for "maya".

How is this more justified, if at all? "Maya is in the mind and the

mind is in maya" Why is this "not" a circular argument, and the

term "anirvachaniya" not just an escape? This should bring out the

Advaitic approach to Truth in perspective. When the word "Ishwara"

and "maya" are discussed, please do so from both the absolute and

relative perspectives, bringing out how Shankara really means to link

the two.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

PS Ram Chandranji, thanks for your thoughts on what I had written

earlier.

 

 

>

> The second question is reflective of Shankara's 'explanation' of

the

> Shruti's depiction of creation. The theistic Vedantic shcools

might

> hold that God created the universe so that the jivas reap their

> karma, etc. and evolve. For Shankara all this is

just 'arthavaada',

> eulogy, 'pugazhchi'. They have no absolute sense of reality.

>

> The problem of samsara is purely that of the jiva and he has to

work

> his way out with the help of the Shastra and Guru.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

> >

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

> Parama jnani Siva himself says to Devi :

>

> "Sakti-Jnanam Vina Devi Nirvanam Naiva Jayate—O Devi! Without the

> knowledge of Sakti, Mukti cannot be attained""

>

> How can the Jiva do or accomplish anything ... He is living in the

> body-mind-intellect complex ! Without the grace of the Divine

mother

> and the grace of the divine mother in the form of human guru , how

> can jiva overcome all the fetters of Samsara and progress on the

> path of sadhana ? the jiva thinks he is the doer and the enjoyer -

> this is Ajnananam !

>

> Why would a paramajnani Adi shankara bhagvadapada pray to Mother

> Goddess bhavani thus ?

>

> Na jânâmi dânam na cha dhyânayogam

> Na jânâmi tantram na cha stotramantram

> Na jânâmi pûjâm na cha nyâsayogam

> Gatistwam gatistwam twam ekâ bhavâni

> Na jânâmi punyam na jânâmi tîrtham

> Na jânâmi muktim layam vâ kadâchit

> Na jânâmi bhaktim vratam vâpi mâtah

> Gatistwam gatistwam twam ekâ bhavâni

>

> yes!aDI SHANKARA BHAGWAN HIMSELF SAYS 'GATISTWAM TWAM EKA

BHAVANI ' -

> You alone are my path, you are my goal O Bhavani!

>

> Without the grace of Shakti , can you reach the lotus feet of

Siva ?

> to even think this is Ajnanam!

>

> once again, as per Tripura Rahasya

>

> "This wisdom in perfection is the realisation of all as the Self.

> Intelligence appears as objects by its own virtue, as a mirror

> appears as the images on it. This is the whole essence of the

> sastras. There is no bondage, no liberation, no aspirant, no

process

> of attainment. The transcendental Conscious Principle alone

subsists

> in the three states of being. She remains as the one uniform,

> absolute being. She is ignorance; She is wisdom; She is bondage;

She

> is liberation and She is the process therefor."

>

> Even a staunch Advaitin like Totapuri ( sri Ramakrishna's guru)

> realized the importance of SHAKTI worship when he was staying at

> Dakshineshwer temple .

>

> Even six darshanas cannot understand and comprehend the divinity of

> the universal mother , how can we jivas even attempt to understand

> her !

>

> " My Mother is the principle of consciousness. She is akhanda

> satchidananda; indivisible Reality, Awareness, and Bliss. The night

> sky between the stars is perfectly black. The waters of the ocean

> depths are the same. The infinite is always mysteriously dark. This

> inebriating darkness is my beloved Kali...."

>

> "Reality with attributes, saguna brahman, has been unanimously

> declared by the Vedas, Puranas, and Tantras to be Mahakali, the

> primordial energy of awareness. Her Energy is like the rays of the

> sun. The original sun is attributeless Reality, nirguna brahman,

> boundless awareness alone. Proceed to the Original through its

> Radiance. Awaken to non-dual Reality through Mother Kali. She holds

> the key."

>

> Sri Ramakrishna in "Great Swan", by Lex Hixon, p.184

>

> Salutations to the Divine mother !

>

> (subbuji yo mention about shastras and guru's grace ! The divine

> mother is Veda Garbini and Dakshnimurthy rupini ) IT IS BY HER

> GRACE , we jivas are here on this planet in this human body )

>

 

Namaskarams Sri Dhyanasaraswati,

 

I posed my questions and interpretations from a strictly

philosophical perspective. It is not in an attempt to belittle Sri

Ramakrishna's realizations, etc. If you see the tripura rahasya

quotation that you gave, it is given the bhakthi orientation only by

the introduction of "She". The bhakthi path is ideal for most of us,

but I want to get a coherent picture (albeit intellectual) of the

whole, as stated by Shankara.

 

The point is not only that the jiva should seek liberation by

worshipping Kali, but also from higher point of view (a secret),

"There is no bondage, no liberation, no aspirant, no process

of attainment." In this sort of preliminary forum discussions, we

want to be daring and know the things from both angles.

 

Sri Ramakrishna says "Kali" when he saw Brahman as creating,

preserving and destroying, and only in his highest samadhi, when no

ego persists, is the Reality "Shiva". So for most of us, identified

with ego, the right approach is to go propitiate the Divine Mother.

 

But let me also suggest that the word "mother" is what appeals to the

jiva and pertains to the jiva. It is our interpretation of Her Grace

as we experience it. We need not get into arguments by limiting Her

Reality to our experience.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

Is the paramacharya

> affirming that from the relative standpoint, there is Ishvara who

> responds in a personal manner to the devotee? Or perhaps, the

devotee

> will experience the response and as far as the devotee is concerned,

> the Cause to link to the experience is Ishvara. What is your opinion

> from reading his talks as to the paramacharya's viewpoint in all

this?

 

 

Namaste,

 

To the Great Acharyas, Ishwara is a solid reality. Their lives, even

as jivanmuktas, have been a continuous confirmation of the truth of

Ishwara's presence and undeniable role in each and every activity.

Such was the life they lived that a study of their lives itself is a

great lesson on this topic.

 

In the Kanchi Mutt website, under the section: 'Devotees'

experiences', you will find a lot of material on this topic.

 

Some months ago, the List Moderators had provided a link to a dialogue

between Sri Chandrashekhara Bharathi Swamigal of Sringeri and a layman

devotee, uploaded by Sri Vidyashankar Sundareshan. This excellent

dialogue is on 'who, the why, etc.' of Ishwara. A deeply absorbing

dialogue indeed.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "putranm" <putranm@> wrote:

>

>

> The jnani "sees" Shiva where the ajnani sees

> > prakrithi and infers it as the Shakthi of Shiva.

>

> Response:

>

> That is very nicely said.

 

> Response:

>

> Your two questions are quite meaningful and have a deep

> significance. In my understanding, i would say that the first

> question reflects correctly Shankara's position that makes the world-

> experience a purely subjective one on the part of the deluded jiva.

> That is Advaita's way of looking at the Shruti.

>

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

 

Namaste Sri Subbuji and all,

 

One point I would like to interject here (and it

is something which I am now striving my best

to clearly understand) is this.

 

It is my understanding that there are in

effect three ways which the manifest world

can be viewed.

 

Two are Ishwara shristi and jiva shristi.

 

The first is the creation as it is. Seeing

it objectively, without a personal subjective

overlay (Ishwara shristi).

 

The second (jiva shristi) is a subjective overylay,

or personal projection, onto Ishwara's creation.

For instance, that person raised an eyebrow when I looked

at him, therefore that person doesn't like me.

When in fact, what happened was a speck fell in

the person's eye and causing the eyebrow to be raised.

 

Some combination of the first and the second

seems to be what most of us see. We see the

Ishwara shristi, and then we project our

subjective interpretation onto it. The less

we do this. The more we just accept things

as they are, it seems the happier we are.

IOW the more we can accept Bhagavan's

creation as it is, without judging that it

should be different the happier we are.

 

Then the third way is the way the jnani views

the creation, seeing the nonduality in the

duality. IOW the creation doesn't literally vanish into

some sort of undifferentiated misty mass of oneness.

Objects appear as objects, and yet for a jnani

it is quite clear that the object is the subject.

 

For a long time I thought that seeing the nonduality

in the duality meant that I would literally see

Ishwara's creation as some sort of undifferentiated

mass of something. That literally my eye sight

would somehow shift. (I have a pretty good feeling

this is not the case) :-)

 

I have yet to directly grasp that all of what I see

and perceive is only my Self, and yet I'm pretty sure

that when I do, objects will still appear as objects,

only I will know that they are in fact in reality the

subject alone.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> To the Great Acharyas, Ishwara is a solid reality. Their lives, even

> as jivanmuktas, have been a continuous confirmation of the truth of

> Ishwara's presence and undeniable role in each and every activity.

> Such was the life they lived that a study of their lives itself is a

> great lesson on this topic.

 

Ok. That just indicates I really don't know how to connect the dots,

although independently they seem to be clear. If Ishvara is solid

reality, then Shankara is wrong with the word "anirvachaniya" since

the explanation for everything is that very Ishvara. If reality

appears as Ishvara but ultimately is not, then perhaps there is space

for both, but I would not understand it at the moment by merely

verbalizing such an idea. If one reads the acharyas, Ishvara appears

as a solid reality (in fact, when I first found out about this jnana

approach being connected with Shankara, I could not believe it since

all I knew was heavy Bhakthi sampradaya). And if one reads Sri Ramana

Maharshi or Shankara's approach in Brahma Sutras, the Ishvara notion

could be made a joke (almost).

 

I will contemplate more later as time allows. Thank you for your replies.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v@>

> wrote:

> > Namaste,

> >

> > To the Great Acharyas, Ishwara is a solid reality.

>

> Ok. That just indicates I really don't know how to connect the dots,

> although independently they seem to be clear.

 

Sri Subbuji, I understand as follows.

 

The acharyas confirm in no uncertain manner that in the relative

plane, to the ego-bound mind, the Ultimate Reality corresponds to

Ishvara. In this sense, Ishvara is the Primal Cause for all things

experienced in the mind. As the mind association is ultimately unreal,

so is this sense of distinction of jiva and Ishvara. Therefore the

ultimate realization is Unity/Him alone.

 

The acharyas could recognize Ishvara in everything and behind their

every action, and I cannot. I can accept Sri Subbuji who responds to

email much more easily than the Great God who responds to my prayers.

He does not put a signature, or the one He does put appears in the

mind as ego alone. Hence the doubts.

 

In fact, I would be comfortable if para 1 + line 1,para2 understanding

of Ishvara was all that the Acharyas directed as the guide to

devotion. The problem is this ball rolls down to the "man in the sky"

version so quickly that it becomes very hard to distinguish. (Of

course, I am speaking from a strictly intellectual perspective here.

Thanks again for your responses.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

>The acharyas confirm in no uncertain manner that in the relative

> plane, to the ego-bound mind, the Ultimate Reality corresponds to

> Ishvara. In this sense, Ishvara is the Primal Cause for all things

> experienced in the mind.

 

Dear Sri Thollmelukaalkizhu,

Ishvara is the primal cause not only for all things

experienced in mind, he is the primal cause for the MIND ALSO.

Both mind and matter have a common source of origination

Viz. Pure Consciousness. The TRI BASIC VIEW OF LIFE will help you to

cognize this fact for yourself.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa murthy

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Before embarking with my views on the concept of jIva in advaita, may I

suggest something with regard to *weekly definitions*?? It's been seen

that members are coming out with their own interpretations / understanding

of *key words* in advaita & it may sometime mislead the fresh entrants...to

avoid confusions caused from our own theories, I humbly request, senior

scholars like Sri Sadananda prabhuji, Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji, Sri

Subbu prabhuji, Sri Prof. VK prabhuji, Sri Dennis prabhuji, Sri Ananda Wood

prabhuji, Sri Shyam prabhuji to explain these terms according to Shankara

bhAshya first. I think, we can keep first two days of the week reserved

for the comments from these scholars. Based on their comments with

appropriate AchArya's bhAshya vAkya references, we can subsequently

discuss these issues & share our understanding. I hope, everybody in this

list will agree that *AchArya Shankara bhagavadpAda's* words are the *final

verdict* in understanding of these terminologies from advaita perspective.

 

I'd like to know others' opinion on the above suggestion.

 

And, now, to my part of understanding with regard to concept of jIva :

 

I, certainly but tentatively agree that the jIva/jIvAtma/jIva-s is/are

distinct entity from the paramAtma. But once we deeply analyse this

element called jIva from the strict advaitic yEkamEvAdvitIya Atman

perspective, I think this concept of jIva hardly finds any firm place in

advaita doctrine.

 

Generally, jIva/jIvAtma/soul/atma is popularly known as an individual soul.

But, vEdAnta/advaita confirms that the socalled jIva is nothing but a

reflection of Brahman in avidyA (ignorance). Dualists assert that the jIva

is a finite and

conditioned being, while the paramAtma is the infinite, eternal,

Sat-chit-ananda Brahman & maintain this distinction eternally. But

according to advaita, this jIva is identical with parabrahman when avidyA

is

destroyed. (jivo brahmaiva na paraha). In muNdaka upanishad there is a

maNtra (3.2.8) : As the rivers flowing into the ocean & therein losing name

& form, become one with the supreme being, who is the transcedental

reality. this is how we lost our individual identity when we merge in

ONESELF.

 

This jIva normally we believe is different from the body (i.e. including

physical(stUla),subtle (sUkshma) & casual (kAraNa) bodies) and is a

separate *chaitanya* vastu (sentient entity). But shankara categorically

says there is no *second* chaitanya apart from nItya (eternal) chaitanya

i.e. paramAtma.

 

As we all know, according to advaita, the paramAtman should be recognized

as jIva's own self. We have seen from recent discussions that this doctrine

leads to lot of confusion among advaitins & force us to think that in

advaita, process is recognition

of the individual self (jIva) with that of brahman in a particular state

called samAdhi and at a particular point of time. But IMHO, it is not the

process of identity of the tiny jIva, as a separate entity with paramAtma.

If we believe that this process is true & jIva has to seek brahman, then it

leads to a question like : is it the jIva, a tiny chaitanya entity who

identifies *himself* with brahman & realizes that he/she & brahman are one

& the same (like pot space identifying its *space* (ghatAkAsha) with outer

space (mahAkAsha) ?? OR is it brahman alone is the ONLY ultimate reality

nothing else??

 

If the *process* that jIva & his identification that he is brahman is true

in real sense, then I

think we have to accept anEka jIva chaitanya-s & their association with

different types of antaHkaraNa upAdhi-s (limited adjuncts). Shankara in

sUtra bhAshya accepts nAnA jIvatva vAda while talking about bhOkta-s. Here

*bhOkta* denotes

individual soul which has been taken from the standpoint of various

antaHkaraNa upAdhi-s as said above. If we really accepts *individuality of

consciousness* as jIva & its subsequent *identification* with

paramAtman, then we are forced to accept nAnA jIvatva (individual

consciousness) & their *achievement* of brahma jnAna etc. in the liberation

process & ofcourse, eternal difference between jIvAtma &

paramAtma...evenafter jIvAtma's ultimate realization!!!

 

OTOH, if it is brahman alone is ONE & ONLY reality considering jIvahood

itself is a false appearance due to avidyA then I dont think there is any

need of accepting anEka jIvatva & their liberation & identification with

brahman etc. etc.

 

IMHO, above is what shankara's stand on individual jIvAtman & absolute

non-dual nature of paramAtman is the ONLY reality. Because elsewhere

shankara in sUtra bhAshya says : " In the supreme Atman, which is ever

pure, ever conscious and ever free in nature...the *jIva bhAva* has been

conjured up which is drastically opposed to Atman's real nature..just lika

as a surface and dirt attributed to mahAkAsha (tala malinatvAdi

parikalpitaM).

 

Clarifications & corrections are welcome.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

If Ishvara is solid reality, then Shankara is wrong with the word

"anirvachaniya" since

the explanation for everything is that very Ishvara. If reality appears as

Ishvara but ultimately is not, then perhaps there is space for both, but I

would not understand it at the moment by merely verbalizing such an idea.

 

praNAms Sri thollmelukaalkizhu (is it your name ?? ) prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I think what you said above is true...Ishwara is a reality only in

vyAvahAric plane where we have the jIva bhAva & the platform of

jagat...shankara confirms this and quotes sUtrakAra (bAdarAyaNa) who has

recommended the contemplation on the mutual identity of jIva & Ishvara in

their transcedental aspect..(shankara quotes some minor shruti-s also here

to justify his claims). He says, we do not say that Ishwara is a

tranmigratory being but shruti intended to teach the divine nature of jIva

by negating his apparent transmigratory nature. And he concludes as

siddhAnta here that gods characteristics such as being free from sins are

real and unaffected while the opposite nature of the other (i.e. jIva's

trasmigratory nature etc.) is false.

 

Here established *reality* or solid reality of Ishwara is just to negate

the transmigratory nature of socalled jIva..but not to hold *Ishvaratva* as

an *absolute*

reality.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Prabhuji write :

 

 

(It's been seen > that members are coming out with their own

interpretations / understanding > of *key words* in advaita & it may

sometime mislead the fresh entrants...to > avoid confusions caused

from our own theories, I humbly request, senior scholars like Sri

Sadananda prabhuji, Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji, Sri

Subbu prabhuji, Sri Prof. VK prabhuji, Sri Dennis prabhuji, Sri

Ananda Wood > prabhuji, Sri Shyam prabhuji to explain these terms

according to Shankara bhAshya first. I think, we can keep first

two days of the week reserved > for the comments from these

scholars. Based on their comments with > appropriate AchArya's

bhAshya vAkya references, we can subsequently discuss these issues

& share our understanding. I hope, everybody in this

list will agree that *AchArya Shankara bhagavadpAda's* words are

the *final > verdict* in understanding of these terminologies from

advaita perspective.)

 

Great suggestion! may i please add sri Ramji's name to your exalted

list ?

 

What can Dennisji di ? he has been rquesting senior members

to 'volunteer' and 'volunteer; and for some odd reason those who

know do not want to come up with the explanations ... in fact , to

be quite honest with you , i find Ananda wood's definition on many

concepts in advaita vedanta most pleasing because he is explaining

the concepts in simple language , easy to understand without

introducing other heavy sanskrit terminology which need detailed

explanations themselves !

 

I don't think Adi shankara bhagvadapada would himself like it if he

hears you say that 'shankara bhagvdapada's words are final ' ....

Such is not the stuff great saonts are made of ! if that were the

case , there would not be so many commentaries and sub commentaries

and interpretations of those commentaries ...

 

 

with regards

 

ps if Maya is anirvachaniya , why is she beinng labelled 'avidya' ?