clarification re achethanam and jadam

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas,

Adiyen has got some doubt in understasnding the

meanings of achethanam and jadam , the difference

between chethanam and acethanam, between achethanam

and jadam.

I understand that chethanam is jeevathma, that which

has got an intellect. Achethanam has got no

intellect. My doubt is whether chethanam means that

which has got a life and achethanam has no life. If

so, lower forms of life like worms, germs, viruses,

trees etc which have got life but no intellect--Are

these to be classified as achethanam or chethanam.?

 

Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams

or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of

moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given

moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or

is it to be taken as poetic fallacy?

 

With regards,Adiyen,

Rajagopalan.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Vignapanam,

with the blessings of my acharya Sri.U.Ve Goshtipuram swami let me attempt

to answer this.

 

1. There are many types in classifying 'tatvas'. Swami Desikan has handled

these in 'Chillarai Rahasyam'.

2. In that, classification in terms of 'chetana' and 'achetana' in one type,

'jadam' and 'ajadam', and 'para tatva', 'avara tatva' in another.

3. Before going in to these let us understand 'ganam' and its types. There

are two types of 'gnanam' - one - 'dharmi-gnanam' (eg. atma swaroopam)

second - 'dharmabhootha gnanam', 'suddhsatvam' (the achetana in Vikunta).

here first one is 'chetanam' and others are achetanam.

4. Hence 'atma' itself is a ganam also has another type of 'gnanam' as its

quality (dharmam). Swami desikan has extensively and lucidly dealt this in

Rahasyatrayasara. Note: without the blessings of acaharya this will not

become clear to one.

5. "gnanam' means 'swayamprakasam'. 'swayamprakasam' means the one shows

itself without the help of other. eg. for seeing a table we require light

(in the day it is sun light and in the night it is torch etc.). Hence, table

is not swayamprakasam. that means it requires another object to show itself.

However, to see a light we dont require another light. while it is showing

other objects, it is showing itself. This is the common definition for

'ganam'.

 

Now let us come back to point # 2.

6. 'ajadam' is defined as the one which is 'swayam-prakasam'. eg.

'dharmabhoota ganam', 'suddha-satvam'. pl note that these two are

'achetanams' also. Hence, the jadam and ajada classification is only in

'achetana'. there is no 'jadam' in chetana as all chetana is swayamprakasam

(pl look at the next point for a classification in this).

 

7. Refer to pt#3: Let us look in to the difference between 'dharmi-gnanam'

and 'dharmabhootha gnanam'. One is chetana and another is achetana, but both

are 'ajada' since swayamprakasa. The only difference is that this

'swayamprakasa' to whom. only to 'itself' or only to others. If it is to

itself then it is 'dharmi-gnanam' (this is the actual atma swaroopa and it

is common for 'jevatma' and 'paramatma'. there is no differnec in this

aspect). If swyamprakasa is only for others and not to itself, then it is

'dharmabhootha gnanam' which is 'achetana'. The atma is able to gain

knowledge only because of the 'dharmabhootha gnanam'. The only knowledge

gained because of 'dharmi-gnanam' and that too ONLY to itself is "I"

('aham'). There is no increase or decrease to this knowledge "I" even in

this world or at moksha. There are increases and decreased to 'dharmabhootha

gnanam'. It is total and complete (like 'paramatma') at moksha state.

 

8. The advaithi's only atma (they call it as 'samvit' or 'Brahmam') is

something LIKE our 'dharmabhootha gnanam'. For them "I" is agnanam and that

is not there at moksha stage. This is what swami bhashyakara asks, if "I"am

not there why should I work hard to be there.

 

To answer the second question, we need to get the following context.

 

9. In our Bhashyakara philosophy, if there is a name ('nama') and shape

('roopa') it has all the three, 'chetana', achetana' and 'iswara'. If

achetana is more we call it achetana. eg., in water, we have other tatvas

exist (pritivi, theja, vayu, akasam), but we call it as water because it has

'water' 50%. This is an excellent treaty of swami bhashyakara. There is a

strong vedic verse for this.

 

10. 'Akhalya' was a stine at the time of 'upaya' (Rama's toch is the upaya).

Even in the stone state 'akhalya' atma was there. We know the stone grows

over the time. Also, there exist a 'frog' inside stone, born and dead

thereitself.

 

There many be many mistakes in the above explanation. If so, it is mainly

because of my 'agnanam'. Kindly correct me.

 

dasan

sridharan (Ramnujan)

 

 

Rajagopalan Iyengar [mayuramtsr]

Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:30 PM

; Oppili Appan

clarification re achethanam and jadam

 

 

Dear Bhagavathas,

Adiyen has got some doubt in understasnding the

meanings of achethanam and jadam , the difference

between chethanam and acethanam, between achethanam

and jadam.

I understand that chethanam is jeevathma, that which

has got an intellect. Achethanam has got no

intellect. My doubt is whether chethanam means that

which has got a life and achethanam has no life. If

so, lower forms of life like worms, germs, viruses,

trees etc which have got life but no intellect--Are

these to be classified as achethanam or chethanam.?

 

Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams

or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of

moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given

moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or

is it to be taken as poetic fallacy?

 

With regards,Adiyen,

Rajagopalan.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

 

 

 

 

Srirangasri-

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

----------

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the

intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail

and destroy all copies of the original message.

Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly

prohibited and may be unlawful.

 

Visit us at http://www.cognizant.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Rajagopalan Iyengar <mayuramtsr wrote:

 

> Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams

> or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of

> moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given

> moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or

> is it to be taken as poetic fallacy?

> With regards,Adiyen,

> Rajagopalan.

 

Dear Sir,

 

The story of DadhipAndan's earthen pot getting 'mOksham' is a good

story indeed but it would be unfortunate

 

 

 

"After listening to DadhipAndan's

> story we should not ask ourselves "How can I too, like the claypot,

> secure God's Grace effortlessly?". Instead, we should ask "If God

in > His compassion is willing to hear even the muted pleas of a

lifeless > claypot longing for 'mOksha' and reward it accordingly,

why doesn't > this proud and steely heart beating within my breast,

with its > vast power of eloquence, still not cry out to Him in

desperate > prayer and seize the same opportunity"?

> > It was only after I'd heard Mukkur Swamy's explanation did the

true > significance of DadhipANdan story sink into me.

> dAsan,

> Sudarshan

 

 

Dear friends,

 

Adiyane forgot to mention one other fact in the above posting of

mine.

 

While explaining the point above, and more especially to underscore

the fact of "this proud and steely heart beating within my breast",

Sri.Mukkur Swamy used to remind us of the oft-quoted and most

poignant 'pAsuram' from Tondar-adi-podi's "tirumAlai":

 

"virumbi ninru aettha maatane, vidhi illane, madhi onru illai;

irumbu-pOl valiya nenjam irai irai urugam vannam

karumbu amar sOlai suzhntha aranga mA koyil konda

karumbinai kandu konda, en kaNNiNai kaLLikumArE" !

("tirumAlai" -Verse 17)

 

(Translation):

 

"Many years have passed, my head not once did bend in prayer,

My mind refused to turn Godward; these hands never served Him...

This heart of mine was but hard, cold, unbending silent steel --

 

But then my eyes feasted upon the temple of Arangam

Amidst those sweet cane-groves swarming with bees --

My eyes rejoiced! My spirit leapt

And my heart melted... bit by bit"!

 

Mukkur Swamy used to explain the delightful phrase "irumbu-pOl valiya

nenjam irai irai urugam vannam" very movingly indeed, saying that

even DadhipAndan's claypot obviously had more "heart" to earn the

Grace of God than the "steely-hard hearts" of human-beings who, alas,

have no yearning whatsoever for the 'parama-gatih' which is the Feet

of our Lord at Arangam!

 

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

--- Rajagopalan Iyengar <mayuramtsr wrote:

 

> Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams

> or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of

> moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given

> moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or

> is it to be taken as poetic fallacy?

> With regards,Adiyen,

> Rajagopalan.

 

Dear Sir,

 

"achEtanam" and "jada" both refer to matter without what is called

(in Vedantic terminology) as 'chith' -- meaning "intelligence",

"discriminative faculty" or what may be called the "flame of

consciousness".

 

By the way, the famous story of DadhipAndan's earthen pot getting

'mOksham' is a good one indeed but it would be a mistake to take it

very literally.

 

After listening to DadhipAndan's story one shouldn't be asking "How

can a claypot, a jada, attain 'mOksham'.

 

Instead, we should ask "If God in > His compassion is willing to hear

even the muted plea of a lifeless claypot longing for 'mOksha' and to

reward it accordingly, why doesn't this proud and steely heart

beating within my human breast, with its vast powers of eloquence,

still not cry out to Him in prayer and seize the same opportunity"?

If 'mOksha' is within the reach of insentient 'jada', surely it is

also within reach of an intelligent being like Man?

 

While explaining the point above, and more especially to underscore

the fact of "the proud and steely heart beating within the human

breast", Mukkur Lakshminarasimhachari Swamy used to remind us of the

poignant 'pAsuram' from Tondar-adi-podi's "tirumAlai":

 

"virumbi ninru-aettha maatane, vidhi illane, madhi onru illai;

irumbu-pOl valiya nenjam irai irai urugam vannam

karumbu amar sOlai suzhntha aranga mA koyil konda

karumbinai kandu konda, en kaNNiNai kaLLikumArE" !

("tirumAlai" -Verse 17)

 

(Translation):

 

"Many years have passed, my head not once did bend in prayer,

My mind refused to turn Godward; these hands never served Him...

This heart of mine was but hard, cold, unbending silent steel --

 

But then my eyes feasted upon the temple of Arangam

Amidst those sweet cane-groves swarming with bees --

My eyes rejoiced! My spirit leapt

And my heart melted... bit by bit"!

 

Mukkur Swamy used to explain the delightful phrase "irumbu-pOl valiya

nenjam irai irai urugam vannam" very movingly, saying that

even DadhipAndan's claypot obviously had so much more "heart" within

itself than the "steely-hard silent hearts" of human-beings.

 

Regards,

dAsan,

 

Sudarshan

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

, Rajagopalan Iyengar <mayuramtsr> wrote:

 

> Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams

> or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of

> moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given

> moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or

> is it to be taken as poetic fallacy?

 

 

These are important issues that must be properly understood

only by careful study under a qualified Acharya. This exact

matter was discussed by Srimad Azhagiya Singar during the

tele-upanyasam of Thirunedundandagam, Pasuram #2. Let

me try to present a gist based on my recollection.

 

Any object that has a unique name and a form has a jIvatma

in it. When that object loses the form it loses its name,

and the jIvatma that resided in it transmigrates to the next

birth. For example, let us take a neem tree. It has a jIvatma

in it. Suppose that the tree dies and whithers away. It is no

longer a neem tree, it is just a stump. The jIvatma that was

in it has now departed. Another example, consider a human

with a name say, Rama. At the time of death the jIvathma

leaves the body. The body now loses its name, it is no longer

called Rama. Further, it also loses form. In a similar fashion,

a pot when in the form of a pot has the name "pot" and has a

jIvatma in it. When the pot breaks, the jIvatma departs from

the pot. The broken pieces do not have a unique form or a name.

It becomes part of panca bootham. At that stage it does not

have a jIvatma in it, like in the case of a dead human body.

 

As lump of mud there is no jivatma in it, but when given the

shape of pot a jIvatma begins its residence in it. A stone

has no jIvatma, but when you build a house with it, there is

a jIvatma in the house. A tree has jIvatma, but when it is

felled, the jivatma departs. If the wood is then made into

a doll, the doll will then have a jIvatma in it. If the doll

is broken, the jIvatma departs. In all these cases, like in

the case of human beings and animals, we must distingish

between the acetanam which is the body, and the cetanam

that is the jIvatma. Our body is as much an acetanam as

the doll. The jIvatma inside the doll is as much a chetanam

as the jIvatma inside our body.

 

Now, in the case of Dadhipandan, he was the jIvatma in the pot.

Since he was granted moksham by Lord Krishna, when he left the

pot, he got moksham. The pot did not get moksham, only the

jIvatma in the pot got it. This is no different from human

beings, when a human being who is a prapanna dies, it is only

the jIvatma who goes to mOksham, not the body of the human

being.

 

If you are interested in learning about such matters consdider

attending Srimad Azhagiya Singar's tele-upanyasam. The next

one is scheduled for two weeks from this Saturday. For more

information and for registering please visit:

 

http://www.ahobilamutt.org/upan/upanyas.asp

 

-- dileepan

 

p.s. Things correctly stated here are due to the grace of

Srimad Azhagiya Singar. If there are any errors they are

due to my misunderstanding.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Dileepan,

Before I start, I pay due respects to all seers and Acharyas. Nothing I

write below is meant to show anybody in a lower light. I am writing below

things that I felt were reasonable. My apologies to anyone this email may

offend. That was not intended.

 

I was reading your explanation of the presence/absence of jIvAtma in

living/non-living things. It struck me as strange that the atman should be

there in a pot only until it is broken. The pot was but clay until the

potter gave it shape. In this is sense, it is an artificial thing. So when

does the Atma decide to enter a pot or any other thing? And why should it

enter the pot in the first place? And does the potter have the strength to

control when a jIvAtma will enter an achetana object?

Secondly, if the jIvAtma stays in the pot only as long as it has its proper

shape, there is a precise time at which it enters and leaves, that can be

controlled by us humans. So it seems to me that Atman is bound by time and

space and its presence can be controlled by mere mortals like us. This seems

contrary to what Sri Baghavan said in the Gita. An argument that the Atman

is present in all things at all times seems to be more plausible.

Sincerely,

Narayanan

 

>

> dileepan [dileepan]

> Friday, September 13, 2002 1:01 PM

>

> Re: clarification re achethanam and jadam

>

>

> , Rajagopalan Iyengar <mayuramtsr> wrote:

>

> > Secondly stones, lump of mud, pot etc are achethanams

> > or jada. But in the Vishnuputanam, in the story of

> > moksham of Dadhipandan, we find the pot was given

> > moksham. If so, can achethanam also get moksham? Or

> > is it to be taken as poetic fallacy?

>

>

> These are important issues that must be properly understood

> only by careful study under a qualified Acharya. This exact

> matter was discussed by Srimad Azhagiya Singar during the

> tele-upanyasam of Thirunedundandagam, Pasuram #2. Let

> me try to present a gist based on my recollection.

>

> Any object that has a unique name and a form has a jIvatma

> in it. When that object loses the form it loses its name,

> and the jIvatma that resided in it transmigrates to the next

> birth. For example, let us take a neem tree. It has a jIvatma

> in it. Suppose that the tree dies and whithers away. It is no

> longer a neem tree, it is just a stump. The jIvatma that was

> in it has now departed. Another example, consider a human

> with a name say, Rama. At the time of death the jIvathma

> leaves the body. The body now loses its name, it is no longer

> called Rama. Further, it also loses form. In a similar fashion,

> a pot when in the form of a pot has the name "pot" and has a

> jIvatma in it. When the pot breaks, the jIvatma departs from

> the pot. The broken pieces do not have a unique form or a name.

> It becomes part of panca bootham. At that stage it does not

> have a jIvatma in it, like in the case of a dead human body.

>

> As lump of mud there is no jivatma in it, but when given the

> shape of pot a jIvatma begins its residence in it. A stone

> has no jIvatma, but when you build a house with it, there is

> a jIvatma in the house. A tree has jIvatma, but when it is

> felled, the jivatma departs. If the wood is then made into

> a doll, the doll will then have a jIvatma in it. If the doll

> is broken, the jIvatma departs. In all these cases, like in

> the case of human beings and animals, we must distingish

> between the acetanam which is the body, and the cetanam

> that is the jIvatma. Our body is as much an acetanam as

> the doll. The jIvatma inside the doll is as much a chetanam

> as the jIvatma inside our body.

>

> Now, in the case of Dadhipandan, he was the jIvatma in the pot.

> Since he was granted moksham by Lord Krishna, when he left the

> pot, he got moksham. The pot did not get moksham, only the

> jIvatma in the pot got it. This is no different from human

> beings, when a human being who is a prapanna dies, it is only

> the jIvatma who goes to mOksham, not the body of the human

> being.

>

> If you are interested in learning about such matters consdider

> attending Srimad Azhagiya Singar's tele-upanyasam. The next

> one is scheduled for two weeks from this Saturday. For more

> information and for registering please visit:

>

> http://www.ahobilamutt.org/upan/upanyas.asp

>

> -- dileepan

>

> p.s. Things correctly stated here are due to the grace of

> Srimad Azhagiya Singar. If there are any errors they are

> due to my misunderstanding.

>

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

> ---------------------~-->

> Plan to Sell a Home?

> http://us.click./J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/VkWolB/TM

> -----------------------------

> -------~->

>

>

> Srirangasri-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Narayanan:

 

One of the important things we need to clearly understand is, there

are things that cannot be established only through arguments, i.e.

logic. Take for instance the existence of God. One cannot

establish this one way or another through logic alone. We need the

verification of Shashtras. Similarly, the nature of jIvatma is not

something that can be understood by mere speculation or argument.

It can be properly understood only through a thorough study of

sashtras under a qualified Acharya.

 

However, in this instance, logic also can be used to find answers at

least for some of your objections.

 

The reason for your doubts is improper understanding of body and

soul. This confusion is confounded by the term "living" in the

English language. The terminologies we need to be familiar with are

chit-achit-Iswaran. These are the only three realities. Among

these three, chit (jIvatma) and Iswaran are jnyana swaroopam, i.e.

sentient. Achit is not. This achit is what becomes the human

body. It is the same achit that becomes a pot. In both forms, i.e.

human body or pot, the achit is not the one that is sentient. If

this is properly understood, it will become clear that what was said

in my earlier post is perfectly consistent with Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

 

Let me explain further. Body of jIvathama is always achetanam,

whatever the body may be, human, animal, vegetation, or inanimate

objects. Whatever the body is, whether human body or a pot, the

body is never the "chetanam". When we say a human being is a living

object we never mean the body is living (cetanam), only the soul

inside the body is living (cetanam). The human body is just a

shell. As a shell it is no different from a pot. Now, the human

body is able to move about and make decisions and act upon those

decisions because the jIvatma (cetanam) present in it is able to do

those things due to bhagavad sankalpam. Once the jIvatma leaves the

body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus, when we say a

human being is living, we do not mean the human body is living, but

only the soul that is present in the body. The soul is the one that

is "cetanam" not the body.

 

Similarly, a pot is another body. The pot is not a living (cetanam)

entity just as a human body is not a living entity. Only the soul

present in the body is cetanam, whether in the body of a pot or a

body of a human being. How do we know there is a jIvatma in the

pot? The answer is, "Only through shasthras", just as we know that

there is a God only through shatras. When and how does the jIvatma

enter the pot and why and how does it leave the pot when the pot

gets broken? Once again, only shashtheas give us the answers. The

answers cannot be found only by logic (arguments).

 

The fact that a pot is unable to move about on its own or make

decisions, do make the pot an inanimate object, but the jIvatma

residing in it is no less cetanam than a jivatma residing in a human

body. The reason why a pot is unable to move about on its own or

make decisions, is because the jIvatma present in the pot is

constrained by that body. Such a constrained or dormant state is

quite common for a jivatma bound by it own karma. The abilities of

expression for a jIvatma is very much a function of the body in

which it resides. In an animal body the jIvatma is constrained to

perform only certain tasks such as eating and procreation. In the

body of a tree the jIvatma is further constrained and cannot move

about. Similarly, in the body of an inanimate object the jIvatma is

in an extremely constrained state. Which body a jIvatma gets to

enter is a function of his own karma and is under the control of

Paratma Sriman Narayana. How and when he enters such bodies is also

under the control of Paratma Sriman Narayana. Even in births

commonly referred to as "living", when and how the jIvatma enters or

leaves the body can only be determined from shasthtas with the

guidance of a qualified Acarya. Similarly, the circumstances under

which a jIvatma enters or leaves a body such as a pot must be

understood only through shasthras.

 

In due course of time, all jIvatmas will get a birth in which he

will have access to faculties required to perform prapatti and reach

Sri vaikuntam. This is the reason why we must be impatient to adopt

bhara nyasam. Getting a human birth is very rare, and we have

that. Who can say what our next birth will be? If we miss this

opportunity when will we get another human birth, and that too a

human birth with access to Sri Vaishnava Acharyas?

 

As regards, space and time limitations, jIvatma is "aNu" swaroopam

and therefore is always constrained by space. It is present only in

objects that have shape and name. Only Paramatma is vibhU.

Paramatma Sriman Narayana will be present due to his nature as vibhu

in matter that do not have shape or name. The objects that have

shape and name, both a jIvatma and Paramatma Sriman Narayana as

vibhu, will be present. These facts are determined directly from

shashtras.

 

Time will always act upon the body made of matter of this world,

whatever the body may be, a human body or that of a pot. However,

the jIvatma is not affected, whether the jIvatma is present in a

human body or a pot. A pot is considered man made because a man had

to give shape to clay. Similarly, the birth of a child is also

caused by actions of human beings. But, both acts are not possible

without Iswara sankalpam. Therefore, for both acts only Paramatma

Sriman Narayana is the ultimate cause.

 

The circumstances under which a jIvatma leaves the body, whether a

human body or a pot body, is also to be understood only through

shashthras. Once we agree there is a jIvatma present in a pot, then

we have to agree it will depart at some time. Otherwise, we have to

condemn that jIvatma to eternal "pothood" with no chance for Sri

vaikuntam. This is contrary to shasthras. Our Nammazhvar says in

Thiruvaymozhi, "vaikundham pughuvadhu maNNavar vidhiyE", (the chance

to enter Vaikuntam is available for all.)

 

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan (dileepan)

[Guest guest]

--- dileepan <dileepan wrote:

Once the jIvatma leaves

> the > body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus, when we

say a > human being is living, we do not mean the human body is

living, but> > only the soul that is present in the body. The soul

is the one

> that > is "cetanam" not the body.> Similarly, a pot is another

body. The pot is not a living> (cetanam) > entity just as a human

body is not a living entity. Only the soul > present in the body is

cetanam, whether in the body of a pot or a > body of a human being.

***********************

 

Granting everything explained above, it still largely leaves

unanswered the original questions posed by Sri.Narayanan at the

beginning of this very interesting thread of discussion triggered by

DadhipAndan's 'pot' viz.

 

-- Is the body (the shell of 'acetanam'), insentient Matter, too

capable of aspiring to 'mOksham' no less than the jIva (the

indwelling spirit of 'cetanam')?

 

>From the detailed explanations given, the 'jIva' exists independently

of the 'sarIra'. It survives the latter's extinction. But the reverse

is not true. The 'sarira' does not survive after the 'jIvA' exits

from it... until and unless another 'jIva' happens to come by and

uses it to clothe itself. The 'sarira' really serves no purpose other

than as a "shell", as explained. ("AdAram/AdEyam" principle). Hence,

while 'cetanam' exists to seek its ultimate purpose in 'mOksha',

'acetanam' exists merely to subserve the interest of the 'cetanam'.

Unlike the 'cetanam', the 'acetanam' is incapable of independently

aspiring to the state of 'mOksha'. This is because while 'jIva' is IN

the 'sarira', it is not OF the 'sarira'. And 'sarira', on the other

hand, is neither "in" nor "of" the 'jIva'. The "jiva" is "jiva"; the

'jada' is 'jada' and the never the twain shall meet. In which case,

the question of 'mOkshA' for the 'sarira' a.k.a the 'acetanam' or

'jada' does not arise at all?

 

(This point is well illustrated in the famous answer NammAzhwAr gave

Madhura-kavi who asked "settatin vayittril siriyadu pirandAl, ettai

tinggu engay kidakkUm?"; pat came the answer, "atthai tinggu aangay

kidakkum!").

 

-- The interesting 'purAnic' story of DadhipAnda on the other hand

seems to suggest to us, in a vague sort of way, that both 'cetanam'

(DadhipAnda himself) and 'acetanam' (his famous pot) can both equally

aspire to (and they indeed did) attain 'mOkshA'?

 

So how are we to reconcile the strictly philosophical position with

that of the 'purAnic' incident and narrative? It was that question

which I think was originally posed and remains, to my mind at least,

still unaddressed.

*******************

 

The problem seems to be we are mixing up a question of pure

philosophy with one of theological belief.

 

To my mind, DadhipAndan's story was never meant to illustrate the

metaphysical categories of 'cit', 'acit' and 'isvara'. The story is

really intended to illustrate (through platonic exaggeration) God's

'nirhetuka-krupa' -- that He is ever willing to shower his Grace

freely (to the point of saying 'indiscriminately' even) on those who

are his true devotees --- them, their families and indeed everything

associated with them.

 

PeriAzhwAr expressed this very beautifully : "yennaiyUm, yen

udaimaiyai-yUm wUn sakkaraporiyOtrikondu ninnarulE

purinthirundhane..."

(senniyOngu)

 

We should carefully note the word "yennaiyUm, yen udaimaiyai-yUm ..".

Not only I, but everyone/everything associated with me, O Lord, are

in receipt of your unbounded Grace, exults the AzhwAr.

 

In Dadhipandan, the potter's case, he probably had none except his

famous 'pot' to call as family --- the 'ghattam' perhaps was the only

"yen udaimaiyai-yUm ..".

 

Regards,

dAsan,

 

Sudarshan

 

 

 

 

 

 

News - Today's headlines

http://news.

[Guest guest]

Jai Sriman Narayana!

 

First, by giving moksham to the dadi-bandam (the pot

used to carry yougurt), Lord Krishna showed that the

bandam (pot) made of Jadam is NOT MAYA, but is REAL

(may be transitory but real). The advaithins or

mayavadis think that all the achethana or jadam is

maya and does not exist in reality. Contrary to the

advaithic thought, Lord Krishna SHOWED that the JADAM

(achethanam) is REAL, thus supporting and proving the

Viaishnava thought.

 

Second, Lord Krishna's power is beyond conception. He

can covert Jadam into spirit. When ordinary scintists

can covert matter (jadam) into energy, it is not

surprising that Lord Krishna transformed matter

(energy) into spirit. Although from time immemorial,

the three thathavas (parmathma, chethana, and

achethana) existed, the sastras do not say that the

super soul (Paramathma; thripada vibhuthi)

can not tranform the achethana into chethanam or

spirit. Lord Sriman Narayana can transform at will

anything into anything. He can transform the

meru-parvatham (mountain Meru)into thin air and air

into a mighty parvatham (mountain). Even Loird Brhama

can not comprhend His actions, and how can we mortals

fully comprehend His actions.

 

In the service of Lord Sri Venkateswara, I remain,

 

Sincerely

Narender Reddy

 

--- dileepan <dileepan wrote:

> Dear Sri. Narayanan:

>

> One of the important things we need to clearly

> understand is, there

> are things that cannot be established only through

> arguments, i.e.

> logic. Take for instance the existence of God. One

> cannot

> establish this one way or another through logic

> alone. We need the

> verification of Shashtras. Similarly, the nature of

> jIvatma is not

> something that can be understood by mere speculation

> or argument.

> It can be properly understood only through a

> thorough study of

> sashtras under a qualified Acharya.

>

> However, in this instance, logic also can be used to

> find answers at

> least for some of your objections.

>

> The reason for your doubts is improper understanding

> of body and

> soul. This confusion is confounded by the term

> "living" in the

> English language. The terminologies we need to be

> familiar with are

> chit-achit-Iswaran. These are the only three

> realities. Among

> these three, chit (jIvatma) and Iswaran are jnyana

> swaroopam, i.e.

> sentient. Achit is not. This achit is what

> becomes the human

> body. It is the same achit that becomes a pot. In

> both forms, i.e.

> human body or pot, the achit is not the one that is

> sentient. If

> this is properly understood, it will become clear

> that what was said

> in my earlier post is perfectly consistent with

> Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

>

> Let me explain further. Body of jIvathama is always

> achetanam,

> whatever the body may be, human, animal, vegetation,

> or inanimate

> objects. Whatever the body is, whether human body

> or a pot, the

> body is never the "chetanam". When we say a human

> being is a living

> object we never mean the body is living (cetanam),

> only the soul

> inside the body is living (cetanam). The human body

> is just a

> shell. As a shell it is no different from a pot.

> Now, the human

> body is able to move about and make decisions and

> act upon those

> decisions because the jIvatma (cetanam) present in

> it is able to do

> those things due to bhagavad sankalpam. Once the

> jIvatma leaves the

> body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus,

> when we say a

> human being is living, we do not mean the human body

> is living, but

> only the soul that is present in the body. The soul

> is the one that

> is "cetanam" not the body.

>

> Similarly, a pot is another body. The pot is not a

> living (cetanam)

> entity just as a human body is not a living entity.

> Only the soul

> present in the body is cetanam, whether in the body

> of a pot or a

> body of a human being. How do we know there is a

> jIvatma in the

> pot? The answer is, "Only through shasthras", just

> as we know that

> there is a God only through shatras. When and how

> does the jIvatma

> enter the pot and why and how does it leave the pot

> when the pot

> gets broken? Once again, only shashtheas give us

> the answers. The

> answers cannot be found only by logic (arguments).

>

> The fact that a pot is unable to move about on its

> own or make

> decisions, do make the pot an inanimate object, but

> the jIvatma

> residing in it is no less cetanam than a jivatma

> residing in a human

> body. The reason why a pot is unable to move about

> on its own or

> make decisions, is because the jIvatma present in

> the pot is

> constrained by that body. Such a constrained or

> dormant state is

> quite common for a jivatma bound by it own karma.

> The abilities of

> expression for a jIvatma is very much a function of

> the body in

> which it resides. In an animal body the jIvatma is

> constrained to

> perform only certain tasks such as eating and

> procreation. In the

> body of a tree the jIvatma is further constrained

> and cannot move

> about. Similarly, in the body of an inanimate

> object the jIvatma is

> in an extremely constrained state. Which body a

> jIvatma gets to

> enter is a function of his own karma and is under

> the control of

> Paratma Sriman Narayana. How and when he enters

> such bodies is also

> under the control of Paratma Sriman Narayana. Even

> in births

> commonly referred to as "living", when and how the

> jIvatma enters or

> leaves the body can only be determined from

> shasthtas with the

> guidance of a qualified Acarya. Similarly, the

> circumstances under

> which a jIvatma enters or leaves a body such as a

> pot must be

> understood only through shasthras.

>

> In due course of time, all jIvatmas will get a birth

> in which he

> will have access to faculties required to perform

> prapatti and reach

> Sri vaikuntam. This is the reason why we must be

> impatient to adopt

> bhara nyasam. Getting a human birth is very rare,

> and we have

> that. Who can say what our next birth will be? If

> we miss this

> opportunity when will we get another human birth,

> and that too a

> human birth with access to Sri Vaishnava Acharyas?

>

> As regards, space and time limitations, jIvatma is

> "aNu" swaroopam

> and therefore is always constrained by space. It is

> present only in

> objects that have shape and name. Only Paramatma is

> vibhU.

> Paramatma Sriman Narayana will be present due to his

> nature as vibhu

> in matter that do not have shape or name. The

> objects that have

> shape and name, both a jIvatma and Paramatma Sriman

> Narayana as

> vibhu, will be present. These facts are determined

> directly from

> shashtras.

>

> Time will always act upon the body made of matter of

> this world,

> whatever the body may be, a human body or that of a

> pot. However,

> the jIvatma is not affected, whether the jIvatma is

> present in a

> human body or a pot. A pot is considered man made

> because a man had

> to give shape to clay. Similarly, the birth of a

> child is also

> caused by actions of human beings. But, both acts

> are not possible

> without Iswara sankalpam. Therefore, for both acts

> only Paramatma

> Sriman Narayana is the ultimate cause.

>

> The circumstances under which a jIvatma leaves the

> body, whether a

> human body or a pot body, is also to be understood

> only through

> shashthras. Once we agree there is a jIvatma

> present in a pot, then

> we have to agree it will depart at some time.

> Otherwise, we have to

> condemn that jIvatma to eternal "pothood" with no

> chance for Sri

> vaikuntam. This is contrary to shasthras. Our

> Nammazhvar says in

> Thiruvaymozhi, "vaikundham pughuvadhu maNNavar

> vidhiyE", (the chance

> to enter Vaikuntam is available for all.)

>

> -- adiyEn ramanuja dasan (dileepan)

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

News - Today's headlines

http://news.

[Guest guest]

Emotion is a wonderful thing, it elevates us to a high level

of devotional ecstasy. However, when it comes to philosophy,

emotion has no place. We must be guided only by pramANAs.

Great Acharyas decorating Sri Ramanuja Darshanam are

meticulous in this regard.

 

There are only three pramANAs, namely, Shastras, anumanam

(logic), and pratyaksham (observation). Of these three, Shashtras

are the foremost pramANam.

 

In this matter of chetanam v. achetanam we must be guided only

by shashtra pramANam as taught to us by our great Acharya

parapmaparai of Bhagavad Ramanuja. The Acharyas of this

great tradition have taught us that there are three realities, chetanam,

achetanam, and Iswaran. All three are real. Achetanam is as

real as Iswaran.

 

In the case of dadhipandan, let me repeat again, only the jIvatma

in the pot got mOksham, not the pot. So, this act of granting

moksham has nothing to do with the pot itself. Lord Krishna did

not grant moksham to the clay pot, only to the jIvatma residing in

the pot. Therefore granting mOksham to the jIvatma i.e. chetanam,

could not prove or disprove that the clay pot (jadam) is real. Indeed

the clay in the pot is real, but that fact comes from shashthras not

from the fact Sri Krishna granted moksham to the jIvatna residing

in the pot.

 

Also, please note, for an advaitin, not only the clay pot (jadam)

is unreal, the jIvatma (ajadam) as a separate entity from Paramatma

is also equally unreal. So the argument that Krishna (Paramatma)

granting moksham to one "unreal" entity, proves the reality of

another "unreal" entity will be unconvincing to an advaitin.

 

Let me also submit that statements such as Lord Krishna

can convert matter (achetanam) to spirit (chetanam) are

emotional exaggerations. These emotions cannot stand up

to careful scrutiny. The three realities chit, achit, and Iswaran

are eternal, i.e. they were not created by anyone. There is

no pramANam to claim that Iswara can create chit from

achit [matter (energy) into spirit (sic)]. Absence of pramANam

precluding a claim cannot be offered as its proof. If this is

the standard for proof anyone can claim anything that is not

explicitly denied. Vishnu puranam or Bhagavadam does

not deny anywhere that Krishna hated Gopikas. So can we

say Krishna hated Gopikas? After all, shashthras don't deny

this. But this is obviously absurd. Even though the original

statement was well motivated, the line argument if accepted

will inevitably lead to untenable conclusions.

 

We have to be careful when we make claims for Sri Vaishnavam.

Great Acharyas of our tradition such as Swami Sri Desikan

overcame enormous opposition by strictly adhering to the

truth without diminishing or exaggerating anything. So, the

least we could do to respect this great tradition is to not give

in to emotional speculations on matters that are philosophical.

Before making sweeping statements in the name of Sri Vaishnavam,

please check and make sure such statements are indeed

supported by Sri Vaishnavam.

 

-- adiyEn

 

 

At 07:45 PM 9/17/2002 -0700, Narender Reddy wrote:

 

>maya and does not exist in reality. Contrary to the

>advaithic thought, Lord Krishna SHOWED that the JADAM

>(achethanam) is REAL, thus supporting and proving the

>Viaishnava thought.

 

 

>.... the sastras do not say that the

>super soul (Paramathma; thripada vibhuthi)

>can not tranform the achethana into chethanam or

>spirit.

[Guest guest]

we cannot condem advaitic philosophy by this. beacuse in advaitic philosophy

Lord Krishana is also a Maya and then where is the question of He giving

moksha. All these they 'vyavaharika-satya'. it is not true, but for the sake

of arguement.

 

In the following passage by Narendar, the following are not acceptable in

the Bagavt Bhashyakara Philosophy.

- The 'swaroopa' and 'swbhava' of tatvas are constant and no one can change

including Paramatma. To put it in other words, Pramatma (satyasnkalpa) has

this sankalpa and hence these things cannot change. Bhattar 'iccha ta yeva

tava visva padartha sattha'. The power beyond conception of paramatam

(agatitha-gadanba-samarthyam) has a different meening and not that He can do

what is not at all possible, eg. converting achetanam in to chetanam or vice

versa.

 

- 'matter..energy' concept: matter always has energy..every pdartham has

inbuild sakthi (quality). one can only bring out what is already there..from

'abhava' one cannot bring 'bhava'. Sri Bhashyakara has dealt 'bhava roopa

gnanam' and 'abhava roopa gnanam' extensively is Sri Bhashya.

- "the sastras do not say that the super soul can not tranform the achethana

into chethanam or

spirit". In the Chapter 13 of Bagavt Geeta Lord Krisna deals extensively on

tatva and all tatvas are 'real' (nityam, satyam). Hence, for the argument

sake if the tatava bill of material is like this:

Tatva-1: Paramatma -1 (In desika sampradaya it is 2, narayana and lakshmi.

one sheshi)

Tatva-2: Jivatma- Nitya + Mukta = 1 million

Bhaddha = 2 million

Tatva-3: Achetana = 3 million Kg.

 

There will not be any change to this count. Changes only in combination and

forms.

Paramatma initially had a sankalpa that there shall be no change in the

tatva. if He decides otherwise, then He is not 'satya-sankalpa'. But this is

no way limits His 'sarva-sakthi'. Swami Bhattar has dealt this question.

 

- "He can transform the meru-parvatham (mountain Meru)into thin air and air

into a mighty parvatham (mountain)". Yes agreed. Here He is changing the

state and not chetana to achetana. In any matter all the five substances are

there (panch bhoota) and that is why the creation is called

'pancheekaranam'. If Meru is 'pritivi' alone, then even the Lord cannot make

'prativi' (mountain) in to 'vayu' (air). Mountain has all the five (prativi,

appu, tejas, vayu and akasam). But we call it mountain since prativi is

substantial. in 'air' you have prativi (that is why you get smell- quality

of pritivi), water particles (appu), hot air (tejas). This world (leela

vibhuthi) in pralaya state it is very tiny - no weight. Hence, size and wt

are not the criteria.

 

- "Even Loird Brhama can not comprhend His actions, and how can we mortals

fully comprehend His actions". Yes. That is why we have to go fully by what

pramanas (prtayakha, anumana and sabdha-veda) says and as interpreted by our

Sadcharyas. In bhashyakara philosophy, for us, pratyaksha is foremost, next

anumana, and next is Veda. Kindly hold on here..veda will not say anything

that can be got by pratyaksha or anumana. Mokshopaya and paramatma, can be

got ONLY thro sabdha. That is why in extablishing these we have to rely on

'veda' and only veda.

 

With blessings of acharyas, i got this gana. If anything wrong it is purely

my ignorance (papa). Bhashyakara is the only acharya who gave prominanace to

prayaksha (lokaprateeti) while kept the vedas intact (sruteh sabdhamoolatvat

- Brhmasutra).

 

Regards,

sridhara dasan.

 

 

 

Narender Reddy [reddynp]

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:15 AM

dileepan;

Re: Re: clarification re achethanam and jadam

 

 

Jai Sriman Narayana!

 

First, by giving moksham to the dadi-bandam (the pot

used to carry yougurt), Lord Krishna showed that the

bandam (pot) made of Jadam is NOT MAYA, but is REAL

(may be transitory but real). The advaithins or

mayavadis think that all the achethana or jadam is

maya and does not exist in reality. Contrary to the

advaithic thought, Lord Krishna SHOWED that the JADAM

(achethanam) is REAL, thus supporting and proving the

Viaishnava thought.

 

Second, Lord Krishna's power is beyond conception. He

can covert Jadam into spirit. When ordinary scintists

can covert matter (jadam) into energy, it is not

surprising that Lord Krishna transformed matter

(energy) into spirit. Although from time immemorial,

the three thathavas (parmathma, chethana, and

achethana) existed, the sastras do not say that the

super soul (Paramathma; thripada vibhuthi)

can not tranform the achethana into chethanam or

spirit. Lord Sriman Narayana can transform at will

anything into anything. He can transform the

meru-parvatham (mountain Meru)into thin air and air

into a mighty parvatham (mountain). Even Loird Brhama

can not comprhend His actions, and how can we mortals

fully comprehend His actions.

 

In the service of Lord Sri Venkateswara, I remain,

 

Sincerely

Narender Reddy

 

--- dileepan <dileepan wrote:

> Dear Sri. Narayanan:

>

> One of the important things we need to clearly

> understand is, there

> are things that cannot be established only through

> arguments, i.e.

> logic. Take for instance the existence of God. One

> cannot

> establish this one way or another through logic

> alone. We need the

> verification of Shashtras. Similarly, the nature of

> jIvatma is not

> something that can be understood by mere speculation

> or argument.

> It can be properly understood only through a

> thorough study of

> sashtras under a qualified Acharya.

>

> However, in this instance, logic also can be used to

> find answers at

> least for some of your objections.

>

> The reason for your doubts is improper understanding

> of body and

> soul. This confusion is confounded by the term

> "living" in the

> English language. The terminologies we need to be

> familiar with are

> chit-achit-Iswaran. These are the only three

> realities. Among

> these three, chit (jIvatma) and Iswaran are jnyana

> swaroopam, i.e.

> sentient. Achit is not. This achit is what

> becomes the human

> body. It is the same achit that becomes a pot. In

> both forms, i.e.

> human body or pot, the achit is not the one that is

> sentient. If

> this is properly understood, it will become clear

> that what was said

> in my earlier post is perfectly consistent with

> Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

>

> Let me explain further. Body of jIvathama is always

> achetanam,

> whatever the body may be, human, animal, vegetation,

> or inanimate

> objects. Whatever the body is, whether human body

> or a pot, the

> body is never the "chetanam". When we say a human

> being is a living

> object we never mean the body is living (cetanam),

> only the soul

> inside the body is living (cetanam). The human body

> is just a

> shell. As a shell it is no different from a pot.

> Now, the human

> body is able to move about and make decisions and

> act upon those

> decisions because the jIvatma (cetanam) present in

> it is able to do

> those things due to bhagavad sankalpam. Once the

> jIvatma leaves the

> body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus,

> when we say a

> human being is living, we do not mean the human body

> is living, but

> only the soul that is present in the body. The soul

> is the one that

> is "cetanam" not the body.

>

> Similarly, a pot is another body. The pot is not a

> living (cetanam)

> entity just as a human body is not a living entity.

> Only the soul

> present in the body is cetanam, whether in the body

> of a pot or a

> body of a human being. How do we know there is a

> jIvatma in the

> pot? The answer is, "Only through shasthras", just

> as we know that

> there is a God only through shatras. When and how

> does the jIvatma

> enter the pot and why and how does it leave the pot

> when the pot

> gets broken? Once again, only shashtheas give us

> the answers. The

> answers cannot be found only by logic (arguments).

>

> The fact that a pot is unable to move about on its

> own or make

> decisions, do make the pot an inanimate object, but

> the jIvatma

> residing in it is no less cetanam than a jivatma

> residing in a human

> body. The reason why a pot is unable to move about

> on its own or

> make decisions, is because the jIvatma present in

> the pot is

> constrained by that body. Such a constrained or

> dormant state is

> quite common for a jivatma bound by it own karma.

> The abilities of

> expression for a jIvatma is very much a function of

> the body in

> which it resides. In an animal body the jIvatma is

> constrained to

> perform only certain tasks such as eating and

> procreation. In the

> body of a tree the jIvatma is further constrained

> and cannot move

> about. Similarly, in the body of an inanimate

> object the jIvatma is

> in an extremely constrained state. Which body a

> jIvatma gets to

> enter is a function of his own karma and is under

> the control of

> Paratma Sriman Narayana. How and when he enters

> such bodies is also

> under the control of Paratma Sriman Narayana. Even

> in births

> commonly referred to as "living", when and how the

> jIvatma enters or

> leaves the body can only be determined from

> shasthtas with the

> guidance of a qualified Acarya. Similarly, the

> circumstances under

> which a jIvatma enters or leaves a body such as a

> pot must be

> understood only through shasthras.

>

> In due course of time, all jIvatmas will get a birth

> in which he

> will have access to faculties required to perform

> prapatti and reach

> Sri vaikuntam. This is the reason why we must be

> impatient to adopt

> bhara nyasam. Getting a human birth is very rare,

> and we have

> that. Who can say what our next birth will be? If

> we miss this

> opportunity when will we get another human birth,

> and that too a

> human birth with access to Sri Vaishnava Acharyas?

>

> As regards, space and time limitations, jIvatma is

> "aNu" swaroopam

> and therefore is always constrained by space. It is

> present only in

> objects that have shape and name. Only Paramatma is

> vibhU.

> Paramatma Sriman Narayana will be present due to his

> nature as vibhu

> in matter that do not have shape or name. The

> objects that have

> shape and name, both a jIvatma and Paramatma Sriman

> Narayana as

> vibhu, will be present. These facts are determined

> directly from

> shashtras.

>

> Time will always act upon the body made of matter of

> this world,

> whatever the body may be, a human body or that of a

> pot. However,

> the jIvatma is not affected, whether the jIvatma is

> present in a

> human body or a pot. A pot is considered man made

> because a man had

> to give shape to clay. Similarly, the birth of a

> child is also

> caused by actions of human beings. But, both acts

> are not possible

> without Iswara sankalpam. Therefore, for both acts

> only Paramatma

> Sriman Narayana is the ultimate cause.

>

> The circumstances under which a jIvatma leaves the

> body, whether a

> human body or a pot body, is also to be understood

> only through

> shashthras. Once we agree there is a jIvatma

> present in a pot, then

> we have to agree it will depart at some time.

> Otherwise, we have to

> condemn that jIvatma to eternal "pothood" with no

> chance for Sri

> vaikuntam. This is contrary to shasthras. Our

> Nammazhvar says in

> Thiruvaymozhi, "vaikundham pughuvadhu maNNavar

> vidhiyE", (the chance

> to enter Vaikuntam is available for all.)

>

> -- adiyEn ramanuja dasan (dileepan)

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

News - Today's headlines

http://news.

 

 

 

 

Srirangasri-

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

----------

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the

intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail

and destroy all copies of the original message.

Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly

prohibited and may be unlawful.

 

Visit us at http://www.cognizant.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, "Pillaipakkam, Sridharan (Cognizant)"

If Meru is 'pritivi' alone, then even the Lord cannot make

> 'prativi' (mountain) in to 'vayu' (air).

 

 

dear sri sridharan,

You are right!

 

I am reminded of an old saying of Pascal, the French mathematician,

who is reported to have said more or less the same thing:

 

"God can create a donkey with 3 tails; but He can never create a

triangle with 4 sides."

 

This is the case with the philosophical principles of 'cetana' and

'acetana' too.

 

Regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

[Guest guest]

Namo Sriman Narayana,

 

It is Adiyen's understanding that the knowledge of the tatva trayam

pertains to the Apara Jnana that can be obtained through intense

Shastra Abhyasa and Sadhana.But Brahma Jnana or Mukti pertains to the

Para Jnana which is the Purusha himself who is unthinkable unknowable

and can never be explained through words or mental imagination or

Logic.As this entire Chetana and Acheta entities are inseperable

attributes of the Lord everything at once becomes perfect as they are

all ultimately for His prayojana only.

Brahma Jnanam or the State of Mukti is thus beyond our mental

comprehension and it includes everything and the whole universe at

once becomes devine and full of Life as one starts seeing the Lord

every where.It is like the undifferentiated Prema depicted by the

Gopikas towards the Lord wherin they saw Him in every leaf(Achetana)

and among eachother (Chetana).

When the Lord is reflecting in every entity where is chetana and

where is Achetana?

Sri Mukkur LakshmiNarasimhacharyar in one of his Bhagavatam lecture

says only ajnanis like us will see a mountain as a mountain and a man

as a man etc., But a realised sage like Sri Suka maharshi sees none

of these aparent differences.They see the same concious Brahman

working from within all these different entities.

So Dadhi bhanda when he got Mukti or Brahman realisation he saw the

same Lord who is the antaryami of the inanimate pot also.In that way

the pot is not excluded and it also got Mukti.Scholars, Devotees

please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Namo Sriman Narayana,

 

Suresh

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman suresh,

Mangalani bhavanthu..

I am not sure with what philosophical base you are expressing your opinion.

If you are having Srmath Vhashyakara, then you may have to check the

fundamentals through a rigorous study under an acharya..I get a feeling that

you had gained astiya ganam from various books..particularlly advaitis..exp.

Many places Sri Vishnupurana looks like that it supports Advaitha..But only

after listening to Bhgavat Ramnuja and Engalazhvan you how strong they are

for Visishtatvaitha...Kindly forgive me if this is not the case.

 

The same argument holds good for your reference to Mukkr swami's upanyasa.

There is a sloka in Bhagat Gita end with 'panditha: sama darsina;". This

what Gandiji's quoted saying that all are one..If one has dharma-dharmi

ganam the meaning is entirely opposite.. Lord Krishana aware of this and not

Gahandhiji...

 

dasan sridharan

ps: i am typing this mail in haster...there are many spelling mistakes...pl

....

 

 

sureshsmr [sureshsmr]

Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:42 PM

 

Re: clarification re achethanam and jadam

 

 

Namo Sriman Narayana,

 

It is Adiyen's understanding that the knowledge of the tatva trayam

pertains to the Apara Jnana that can be obtained through intense

Shastra Abhyasa and Sadhana.But Brahma Jnana or Mukti pertains to the

Para Jnana which is the Purusha himself who is unthinkable unknowable

and can never be explained through words or mental imagination or

Logic.As this entire Chetana and Acheta entities are inseperable

attributes of the Lord everything at once becomes perfect as they are

all ultimately for His prayojana only.

Brahma Jnanam or the State of Mukti is thus beyond our mental

comprehension and it includes everything and the whole universe at

once becomes devine and full of Life as one starts seeing the Lord

every where.It is like the undifferentiated Prema depicted by the

Gopikas towards the Lord wherin they saw Him in every leaf(Achetana)

and among eachother (Chetana).

When the Lord is reflecting in every entity where is chetana and

where is Achetana?

Sri Mukkur LakshmiNarasimhacharyar in one of his Bhagavatam lecture

says only ajnanis like us will see a mountain as a mountain and a man

as a man etc., But a realised sage like Sri Suka maharshi sees none

of these aparent differences.They see the same concious Brahman

working from within all these different entities.

So Dadhi bhanda when he got Mukti or Brahman realisation he saw the

same Lord who is the antaryami of the inanimate pot also.In that way

the pot is not excluded and it also got Mukti.Scholars, Devotees

please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Namo Sriman Narayana,

 

Suresh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Srirangasri-

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

----------

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the

intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail

and destroy all copies of the original message.

Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly

prohibited and may be unlawful.

 

Visit us at http://www.cognizant.com