Identity of jIva and Ishvara?

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Identity of jIva and Ishvara?

>

>

>

> Some time ago there was a discussion on this forum as to whether it

would be

> correct to speak of 'jIva-Ishvara aikyam'—the identity of the jIva and

> Ishvara, since the shruti lays down only the identity of jIva and

brahman.

>

>

>

> Strangely, Shri Shankara himself uses the expression 'Atma- Ishvara

> aikyam' in his commentary on gIta, 4. 41. He describes jnAnam

(knowledge) as

> 'AtmeshvarekatvadarshanalakShaNam'—knowledge is the realization of the

> identity of AtmA and Ishvara. Here AtmA means the indwelling self.

Therefore

> the word 'Ishvara' has to be understood as referring to brahman by

> implication, since the identity is of AtmA and brahman.

>

>

>

> Thus it follows that the meaning of words has to be understood

taking

> into account the context.

>

>

>

> S.N.Sastri

 

Namaste Sastriji,

 

In our Vedanta classes we speak of the identity of

the jiva and Ishwara. Tat tvam asi is translated

as 'You are Ishwara.' My teacher is a disciple

of Swami Dayanandaji.

 

I have also heard Swamiji say 'jiva Ishwara aikaym'

the equation is between the jiva and Ishwara.

 

" You are the Whole, " is what we are taught.

" You are Ishwara, " meaning that the truth

of the jiva and the truth of Ishwara are

one and the same.

 

I have yet to completely understand these

statements, and yet I take them as true,

and try and understand them, because this

is what I have heard both Swamiji and my

teacher say over and over again.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

List Moderators's Note: Please do not include the entire messages of the

previous posters while sending your reply. Your posting is edited below and

follow this as an example. Some existing members and new members do not follow

this simple guideline inspite of repeated appeals.

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

 

> Ishwarahood is valid only in reference to jIvAhood. It is the

> limitations of the jIvA that demand a contrast in omnipotence and

> omniscience.

>

 

>

>

Dear all

 

Ishwara is the Personal Form of the Brahman, created so that one can

interact with God. If the difference between Personal God and Brahman

is understood, the issue of non duality becomes simple to comprehend

and to practice.

 

Shantanu Panigrahi

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sastriji.

 

Kindly reconfirm the exact verse number (4.41). I read Shankara's

commentary on it translated by S. Gambhirananda. It does not mention

anything about Atma-Ishwaraikyam.

 

My Rupantar fonts don't work properly. Hence,I couldn't look at the

Sanskrit original. The fonts were installed only today after

reformatting my laptop. However, they don't show properly. Can anybody

help?

 

Also, it looks like you were talking about the unity of Atman and

Ishwara. How did it get changed to jIva-Ishwara in Durgaji's message

to which I responded earlier?

 

Best regads.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Identity of jIva and Ishvara?

>

>

>Strangely, Shri Shankara himself uses the expression 'Atma- Ishvara

>aikyam' in his commentary on gIta, 4. 41.

> S.N.Sastri

 

Hari Om! Pranaams!

Jiva is said to be vAcyArtha and AtmA the lakShyArtha of tvam pada.

Isvara is said to be vAcyArtha and Brahman the lakShyArtha of tat

pada.

1. When caitanya the underlying principle of both jiva and

Isvara is known samAna-Ashraya-niyamAt the knowledge of identity

known is called jiveshvara-aikyam. (mahAvakya: prajnAnaM brahma).....

jIva-IsvarayoH caitanyarUpena abhede bAdhaka-abhAkaH (Since there is

no difference in the form of consciousness between jIva and Isvara,

absence of difference(between them)-Tattva bodhaH.

2. When the real nature of Jiva as Atman is ascertained and thus

knowing its non-difference with Brahman is called jIva-brahma-aikyam.

(mahAvakya: aham brahmAsi or ayam AtmA brahma)

ithamanyonyatAdAtmyapratipattiryadA bhavet.

abrahmatvaM tvamarthasya vyAvarteta tadaiva hi. vAkyavrtti 40.

Thus when their mutual identity is comprehended the non-brahmanhood

of `tvam' will immediately cease to be.

3. When the lakShyArtha of tat and tvam are ascertained thro

bhAgatyAga lakShaNa by mahAvAkyavicAra is called Atma-brahma-aikyam.

(mahAvAkya: tat tvam asi)

tattvamasyAdivAkyam ca tAdAtmyapratipAdane.

lakShyau tattvaMpadArthau dvAvupAdAya pravartate. vAkyavrtti 42.

Sentences like `that thou art' etc. go to establish the identity of

what are indirectly expressed by the two words `thou' and `that'.

 

These are not strict definitions or differences in teaching but just

explanations given traditionally.

 

But vArtikakAra by mere definition of Isvaratva brings identity of

jIva and Ishvara in mAnasollAsa I.20,21.

 

Yadyat-karoti jAnAti tasmin-tasmin-pareshvaraH.

rAjA vidvAn sva-sAmarthyAt-Ishvaro'yam-itIryate..

jnAnakriye shivenaikyAt samkrAnte sarvajantuShu.

Isvaratvam ca jIvAnAM siddham sacchakti-sangamAt..

 

Whenever one does or knows a thing independently by one's own power,

it is then that Parameshvara is said to be a king, a sage, a lord.

All jivas are endued with intelligence and activity, because they are

one with Siva. Because jivas are endued with the powers of Isvara, we

may conclude that they are identical. (Translation by Shri. Alladi

Mahadeva Sastry – Samata Books).

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

PranAms

"...jnanasamchinnasamshayam jnanena atma-ishwara-ekatvadarshanalakshanena ..."is the exact words used.

Atma (in this context) refers to jivAtma alone aka jivA.

So jivAtma - paramAtma aikyam is what is being referred to.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

--- On Sat, 1/17/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

snsastri <sn.sastri Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara?advaitin Date: Saturday, January 17, 2009, 10:49 AM

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair@ ...> wrote:>> Namaste Shri Sastriji.> > Kindly reconfirm the exact verse number (4.41). I read Shankara's > commentary on it translated by S. Gambhirananda. It does not mention > anything about Atma-Ishwaraikyam.> > My Rupantar fonts don't work properly. Hence,I couldn't look at the > Sanskrit original. The fonts were installed only today after > reformatting my laptop. However, they don't show properly. Can anybody > help?> > Also, it looks like you were talking about the unity of Atman and > Ishwara. How did it get changed to jIva-Ishwara in Durgaji's message > to which I responded

earlier?> > Best regads.> > Madathil NairDear Nair-ji,It is gItA, 4. 41, the shloka starting with - yogasanyastakarmANa m-- Swami Gambhirananda' s translation says--knowledge characterized as the realization of the identity of the individual Self and God-- which is a true translation of Atma-Ishvara- ekatvadarshanam- - on page 230 of the book. Regards, S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyamji:

 

Thanks for the link to Swami Paramathmananda's discourse on " Jiva

Iswara Aikyam. " I listened the audio (both parts) of his talk

carefully and take some notes. I recommend everyone who wants to get

a glimpse of the essence of Vedanta and Vedantic learning to listen

to this discourse at least once. After listening to his discourse, I

am feeling ashamed to open my mouth without knowing an iota of the

basics of Vedanta. I have no doubt that those who are sincere will

have the same feeling that I have.

 

I have been very fortunate to get a very systematic education on

mathematics which I found was quite helpful for me to have a clear

understanding of all the mathematical concepts. With that foundation,

I was able to grasp all the definitions and logic surrounding

algebra, calculus and geometry. This systematic learning has helped

me to clear my doubts and enable me clear the doubts of my students

when I started teaching at high-school, college and at university

level. Vedanta like the mathematics is a complex subject matter and

without systematic learning and assimilating the knowledge, it can't

be understood. Swamiji's discourse was quite refreshing and I hope

that the members take few moments to listen to Swamiji and assimilate

what he has said.

 

Fundamental principle of the study of vedanta as recommended by Swami

Paramathmanandaji:

 

Systematic and continuous study of Vedanta with the help of a

competent teacher is necessary for a reasonable length of time. This

process of learning through listening is sravanam.

Assimilating the knowledge through enquiry to the full conviction of

the intellect. (mananam).

Apply the assimilated intellectual knowledge to attain emotional

strength in order to stabilize the mind (free the mind from

oscillations) is nididhyaasanam.

Only the assimilated knowledge becomes jnanam

 

It is very important that we get a full understanding of the

following concepts: (Swamji's discourse provides the basic lessons on

these topics, but we do need more systematic learning and

understanding before we can get an iota of Vedanta):

 

Sravanam (listening),

mananam (enquiry) and

nididhyaasanam (contemplation)

 

Jivathma (atman plus individual matter) and

paramathma (atman and total matter)

 

Jiva Ishwara Aikyam (the equality of jivaathma and paramathma)

 

Atman (spirit) and anatman (matter)

 

Support and supporter and also dependent and independent

 

Sathyam (Absolute Truth) and Nithyam (relative truth)

Sthula sariram (gross body) and

Sukshma sariram (subtle body)

 

Jivanmuktha and viveka muktha

 

Jnanai and ajnani

 

Essence of Vedanta in three statements:

Paramathma is satyam

Anathma is nithyam

Jivathma is identical with the paramathma

 

 

In my concluding remarks, I want to pay my respect to Swamiji for

clearing my doubts on key fundamental concepts of Vedanta.

Hopefully, his motivation will help me to stop questioning the

learned members of the list before assimilating the fundamentals. I

once again request sincere seekers to listen to Swamiji before

raising any questions or starting a new debate.

 

I recommend the entire series of talks on Introduction to Vedanta:

 

http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/talks.html

 

The Jiva Iswara Aikyam is the Talk no. 14

 

Please note that each discourse consists of two parts (audio 1,2) and

please listen to both.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Talk no. 14 by Swami Paramarthananda-ji on this website (click on

previous talks)

>  

> http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/

>  

> is titled jiva ishwara aikyam.

>  

> You, and others, may perhaps find it useful in helping in your

understanding.

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

 

In your post to Shyam-ji, you wrote:

 

" If you admit that there is a difference between my getting stabbed and a

jnAni's getting stabbed, as an experience experienced by the stabbed, then

please describe the difference to the List as rationally as you can. I

can't because I am not a jnAni. I can only surmise that the jnAni's

`experience' would be totally different (as he has `realized' that

everything is he himself) from my experience involving an ajnAni's

pedestrian perception afflicted by the knower- knowing-known divide. "

 

The following may be relevant to what you are saying. An incident which

happened towards the end of Sri Ramana's life.

 

" Once the doctors were about to cut some tissue from the tumor so that tests

could be done. When they were about to inject a local anaesthetic to dull

the pain, Bhagavan refused and told the doctors to simply cut and take what

they wanted. The doctors protested, explaining to Bhagavan that the pain

would be severe without the anaesthetic. Bhagavan again refused and told

them to just do it. They cut into the tumor and Bhagavan winced in pain. The

doctors said:

 

'Bhagavan, we told you it would be painful.'

 

Bhagavan replied:

'Yes, the body experienced pain. But am I the body?' "

 

(Balarama Reddy: My Reminiscences, p. 106)

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda-ji,

 

Thank you for your explanations. I enjoy and value what you write.

 

Just to say... I shared this because it was relevant to Nair-ji's question,

not to support any particular viewpoint.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of kuntimaddi sadananda

18 January 2009 15:21

advaitin

Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara?

 

--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

They cut into the tumor and Bhagavan winced in pain. The

 

doctors said:

 

'Bhagavan, we told you it would be painful.'

 

Bhagavan replied:

 

'Yes, the body experienced pain. But am I the body?' "

 

-------

Peter - That is true - now who experienced that pain? not the doctors - they

might have emotionally felt pain seeing Bhagavan's body paining.

 

Pain and pleasure are experienced by the mind as internal perceptions - see

the analysis presented in Knowledge series. Bhagavan's mind is different

from that of doctors - is it not. Anesthesia is only to cut of electrical

communication from the nerve systems to the mind - is it not? That is the

reason why people take to drugs to cut of the nerves communications so that

get 'stoned'! or become stones.

 

<snip>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri. Ram Chandranji: Pranams. I request you to forgive me for

posting this mail, without having the benefit of listening to

Swamiji's talk # 14.

 

I request you to clarify a doubt. As you know well, the prefix 'a' in

Sanskrit means the opposite of the suffix. In your notes, you have

stated that nithya is relative truth and anathma is nithya. In Tatva

Bodha, the expression nitya anitya vastu viveka is translated as

viveka(discrimination) between nithya (eternal) and anithya(

ephemeral) in vastu(object). It seems mithya may be a more appropriate

word to describe matter. Did Swamiji elaborate why he may have used

the word nithya in this context?

I will listen to Swamiji's lecture. Your reply will be useful to those

who may not have the time to listen to the full lecture.

Thank you. Regards. Jan Nagraj

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

 

Namaste Shyamji:

Thanks for the link to Swami Paramathmananda's discourse on " Jiva

Iswara Aikyam. " I listened the audio (both parts) of his talk

carefully and take some notes.

Jivathma (atman plus individual matter) and

paramathma (atman and total matter)

Jiva Ishwara Aikyam (the equality of jivaathma and paramathma)

Atman (spirit) and anatman (matter)

Sathyam (Absolute Truth) and Nithyam (relative truth)

Essence of Vedanta in three statements:

Paramathma is satyam

Anathma is nithyam

Jivathma is identical with the paramathma

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Nagarajiji:

 

Swamiji said

> with respect to Sathyam and Nithyam.

>

> I have just taken some quick notes and noted down the following from

> Swamiji's audio: He mentioned that Paramatma is satyam and Anatma is

> nithyam. Atma is the spirit and anatma is the matter. Sathyam is

> independent and nithyam is dependent. Sathyam is depender and nithyam

> is dependent. Sathyam is the supporter and nithyam is supported.

> Sathyam is consciousness and matter depends upon consciousness.

>

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ramachandran

 

Namaste Ramachandranji,

 

Are you sure Swamiji didn't say mithya, not nithyam?

 

When I first read your post, I thought you were

intending to write 'mithya' but somehow misspelt

the word.

 

I can't listen to the recording as for some reason

I don't seem to be able to down load it.

 

As far as I know that which is satyam is also

nityam (timeless). That's one way we recognize

that which is satyam, because it never varies

in time.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri. Ram Chandranji: Pranams. Thank you for confirming what

Swamiji had said. My intention was not to point out errors, if any,

but to ensure that my understanding was correct.

I request members who want to know the distinction between mithya and

sathya to refer to the following chart by profvkji.

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/Orders_of_Reality_chart.html

Regards. Jan Nagraj

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

 

Namaste Durgaji:

 

I listened once again with a good stereo earphone and you are right.

Swamiji did say Mithya and not Nithya.

Thanks again,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108@> wrote:

 

 

Are you sure Swamiji didn't say mithya, not nithyam?

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter-ji.

 

We need to develop this a little further:

 

Doctors: " But we saw you wince, Bhagawan? "

 

Bhagawan: " The body winced. Did I? "

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 quoted:

 

> " Once the doctors were about to cut some tissue from the tumor so

that tests could be done. When they were about to inject a local

anaesthetic to dull the pain, Bhagavan refused and told the doctors

to simply cut and take what they wanted. The doctors protested,

explaining to Bhagavan that the pain would be severe without the

anaesthetic. Bhagavan again refused and told them to just do it. They

cut into the tumor and Bhagavan winced in pain.

 

The doctors said:'Bhagavan, we told you it would be painful.'

Bhagavan replied:'Yes, the body experienced pain. But am I the body?' "

 

(Balarama Reddy: My Reminiscences, p. 106)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyam-ji.

 

I am replying to your posting on Poornamadam , being directed

by you w.r.t.ongoing discussions herein

 

Istrongly share the Concern of Nair Ji

 

I find a lot mixing up of certain points which seem to negate the

major conviction.

 

MY COMMENTS ARE IN BOLD)

 

For example …

 

That this is a fictitious character who is relevant

only as long as my duality delusion lasts…..

The trouble with this sort of a …..

 

YES ,THIS WORLD AS I SEE IT IS AN ILLUSION , IFONLY BECAUSE I

HAVE SUPERIMPOSED NAMES & FORMS OVER IT

 

This jagat that we cognize is not my mental

projection but Ishwara srshti.

 

THE JAGAT THAT I COGNISE IS MY MENTAL PROJECTION , SINCWE IT

IS PROJECTED ALONGWITH NAMA – ROOPA

 

…… and would disappear in a poof with self-realization - what would

be left would be nothingness - now misguided interpreters of

ajAtivAdA will say - this is precisely what GaudapAda talks about -

that nothing IS, and again i am afraid this is incorrect

 

GAUDAPADA WHEN HE SAYS NOTHING 'IS' , HE HAS NEGATED WHAT IS

SEEN BY US . ie . WHAT EVER IS INCLUDED ALONGWITH SAT CHIT

ANANDA ,WHICH ALONE 'IS'

 

The truth is that the world remains the same….… The sun still rises

in the east and sets in the west……

 

WORLD REAMINING THE SAME WOULD BEAT THE VERY MEANING OF THE WORD

JAGAT ! THESUN RISES IN THE EAST …. BECAUSE WE CALL IT EAST

AND , AGAIN , CALL IT THE SUNRISE .

 

The realization is this and this only, that there is no separate

subtantive thing called world. Everything is the Self alone,

everything is Ishwara alone, and everything is I alone. ……

 

TRUE . INFACT THIS IS THE ONLY TRUTH . EVERYTHING IS SELF ALONE.

THEN ISVARA IS ALSO THE SELF . IN CASE ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THE

CAUSE OF ALL CAUSES , ONE MAY CALL USE ANY NOMENCLATURE –

BRAHMAN OR ISVARA. HOWEVER , IF THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN

THE TWO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT , THEN ONE HAS TO ACCEPT THAT

ISVARA IS ALSO AN EFFECT .

 

It is infinity alone that I as a conscious entity

cognize and categorize, assign names and forms, and

interact with. All these names and forms are in

essence I, or Ishwara. ….., i suffer from a sense of

separation from the Infinite, the Whole……

 

THE VERY CRUX OF MY IGNORANCE IS THESE NAMES AND FORMS .

I AM NOT THESE NAMES AND FORMS . I SUFFER BECAUSE OF THISNAMES

AND FORMS – THE VERY ILLUSION I HAVE TO CROSS TO HAVE THIS

SEPERATION FROM THE INFINITE CEASE .( SO IT IS NOT MY CONSCIOUS

WORK BUT AVIDHYAJANITH WORK )

 

The culmination of vichArA can only result in an

absorption into the Total - ….What remains? Truth, God,

Consciousness….

 

TRUE .BUT SEE , THE NAMES AND FORMS HAVE VANISHED

 

When One realizes the truth about Himself he cannot

but discover it to be the Truth of the whole Jagat.

 

I CANNOT BE THE JAGAT THAT I COGNISE (AS AN AGYANI) , BECAUSE THE

JAGAT IS NOT TRUE

 

A BHAKTHA ( AS DEFINED BY KRISHNA IN CHAPTER 12 OF THE

Bhagavad Gita ) IS A JNANI , SINCE HE HAS RISEN ABOVE DVANDAs

AND HAS DISCARDED NAMES AND FORMS

 

From the standpoint of the ego he is Personal. From an absolute, He

is Impersonal. Either way He Alone is.

 

I AM UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THIS PHRASE . EGO IS AVIDHYA AND

ANYTHING CREATED ON ACCOUNT IGNORANCE CANNOT HAVE ANY

VALIDITY - PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL.

 

KANCHi SWAMIGAL'S LECTURE NOTES ARE VERY EMPHATIC ON THESE

ISSUES.PL REFER TO 'ADVAITA SADHANA' OF SWAMIGAL POSTED BY

VK Ji. ALSO KINDLY RECALL YOUR SPLENDID POSTING ON AVIDHYA

SOMETIME BACK..!

 

 

 

Sri Gurubhyo Namah

 

KRISHNAN

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

 

---- Original Message -----

Madathil Rajendran Nair

advaitin

Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:53 PM

S

 

ubject: Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

>

>

> I read your blog-post. I am commenting here because you quoted

the

> link here.

>

> I am afraid you have created a new species of detractors who think

> that this world of duality is something akin to a hallucination

and

 

> advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md@> wrote:

> >>  

> > For a humble perspective on this subject readers may visit

> >

> > http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/04/ishwara-and-brahman.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nagarajiji:

 

The purpose of the list is to correct our mistakes and enhance our

understanding. I am thankful to you for correcting the error and it

will certainly benefit others to avoid unnecessary confusions.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " jannagraj " <jannagraj wrote:

>

> Dear Shri. Ram Chandranji: Pranams. Thank you for confirming what

> Swamiji had said. My intention was not to point out errors, if any,

> but to ensure that my understanding was correct.

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

Doctors: " But we saw you wince, Bhagawan? "

 

Bhagawan: " The body winced. Did I? "

---------------------

Nariji - PraNAms

 

You are perfectly right - Body winced and not I. But I do hope that you do not

that Body by itself being inert can wince.

 

Body by itself cannot wince without the support of I. I by itself cannot wince

whether it is jnaani or ajnaani, right?

 

Body supported by witnessing consciousness is the one that is winced - it

requires I am plus this is for wince- It is the reflected consciousness that is

chidaabaasa that winces - part of kshetra - but not without the support of

kestrajna

 

Nairji - Then what is in your opinion the difference between the wincing of the

jnaani's body vs that of ajnaani?( Do not answer this - I have some other

suggestion, if you are interested.)

 

Whether it is jnaani or ajnaani - physiological functions takes place by the

presence of reflected consciousness - as the Upanishads put in the form of

anupravesha statement- He enters - that is he is getting reflected in the mirror

of I, M and B - in that order. This remains as long as upaadhiis exist. I wince

yet I do not wince - depending on where I put the I- at paaramaarthika level or

vyavahaarika level. Jnaani can put it with knowledge that as pure consciouness,

I do not wince, but in I as reflected consciousness in the body winces. Yet the

jnaani cannot make other bodies to wince, can he, unless he has some siddhis to

do that which is different from jnaana? Ananani not knowing the paarmaarthika

satyam, puts I only in vyavahaara, is it not?

 

Realization is the realization of that I am - pure consciousness and in my

presence the BMI are active and not otherwise. As long as BMI exist things

reflection will go on. Body will be wincing with my support.

--------

Bhaskarji - we are not going around in circles - we are going straight only each

stating the same thing again and again- either points are missed or ignored.

---------

I suggest that - Let us warp this up.

 

I have a proposition to all: Nariji, Bhaskar, Shyam, Sastriji, Dennis,

Brahmacariji, Mouna and any other who would like to present

 

Describe the position, with as much scriptural support as possible, providing

the English translation of the sloka, or Bhashya if you are quoting. Keep it to

one or two pages. I do not want individual mahatmaas stated opinions only

because these can be subject to further interpretations and they are not here to

clarify our interpretation of their statement.

 

This position papers will be reviewed and will be presented as point and counter

point format, without any reference to individuals who are makingf the points

and this will stored for future reference that can downloaded by those who are

interested. This is our tradition.

 

Please give a serious thoughts leaving out any personalities. I would like this

to be wrapped up in a week or two. Thanks to all.After two weeks no more

discussion on this topic will be entertained since no new input is being

presented in support of the views.

 

We are requesting Shree Shamji to collect point/counter point and prepare the

position paper on this. That will be final.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

PranAms Nair-ji

Thank you for your comments. I shall present my understanding.

***

My contention is that it doesn't need any big REALIZATION to understand repeat understand this. Does a person of average intelligence need any big effort to understand repeat understand the simple statement of Maharaj? If he "understands" (as I do), is that Enlightenment? We have to admit that there is a big distance between a simple understanding and `realization' . While understanding is just understanding the fact of something like we understand so many things in our daily life, true realization is totally being the knowing without the subject-object divide or sense of separation. One has to really `do' it and when it is done (or, rather when the realization dawns and takes effect), at least one thing is sure, and that is that the Universe will not be perceived repeat perceived as one does it pre-Enlightenment. The Universe will reveal itself in its true nature and that will be the real nature of the enquirer himself. Where is there anything

to `perceive' then?

***

Just as the Sun does not need any other light in order to illumine itself, Knowledge does not require any other knowledge except that which is its own nature to reveal itself. Brahman, my own nature, is ever known to me. It is ever-present - no question of it revealing itself at some time in the future, when It is Self-revealing, all the time. Understanding Vedanta means to understand that I, the witnessing consciousness, the knowing which enlivens every perception, am akarta-abhokta. If after this "simple" understanding I still feel the need to "DO something to reach a state where realization will "dawn" - after which the perception of the Universe is decidedly different", then my own understanding needs more clarity. In Vedanta, in my humble opinion, self-realization is a sarvatrika anubhava, a Universal experience - there is no place here for some extraordinary experience that is unique only to a

jnAni, and that too at a particular point in time when "realization" happens. That is where mananam comes in - to improve upon and complete that "simple" understanding. And inspite of our right understanding perfunctory modes of thought keep coming back - why? - because of lack of sadhanachhatushtaya sampatti - and so, viveka-vairagya shatsampatti needs to be cultivated, the mind made more singlepointed, and nidhidhyasana is needed to gain an abidance or nishta in that verisame understanding - until that verisame understanding is complete in spirit and there is a spontaneity in that understanding characteristic of a Knower of Truth - a tatvavit or a Brahmavit. If by understanding a Self-evident fact, that I am Brahman, I dont realize Brahman, then nothing I "do" can ever make me realize it. Self-realization is the immediate culmintaion of a understanding of tat tvam asi - please refer to the tat

tvam asi prakaranam of the Upadesa Sahasri where the purvapakshin makes a very similar argument to the one you, and many others make, about the importance of karma after jnana in order for self-realization - something Shankara strongly rejects.

 

***If someone stabs me, I will moan in unbearable pain. I understand that my misery arises from my identification with my body and my separation from the stabber and the sharp knife. What will a jnAni `feel' if he is stabbed? The sense of separation having completely gone, the jnAni doesn't `see' his body, the stabber, knife and pain as something aside from himself.He dwells in all of them. For him pain being consciousness is non-different from pleasure. He is pure knowing when he `sees' the stabber, when the knife `plunges' into his flesh and when the pain `afflicts'. I am talking about his `experience' per se (sorry to use that much detested word for want of a better alternative) – not about what you or I would see him doing in such a situation (calling for help, getting hospitalized, fainting, etc.). If you admit that there is a difference between my getting stabbed and a jnAni's getting stabbed, as an experience experienced by the stabbed,

then please describe the difference to the List as rationally as you can. I can't because I am not a jnAni. I can only surmise that the jnAni's `experience' would be totally different (as he has `realized' that everything is he himself) from my experience involving an ajnAni's pedestrian perception afflicted by the knower-knowing-known divide.***

Please not Nair-ji Pure Knowing, or Jnanam, does not see anyone or anything, let alone a stabber and a knife. If a jnAni sees such a thing, it is the reflected consciousness alone that is doing the seeing - just as in you and me - only difference being that the reflected consciousness, in the case of the jnAni, has an abidance in understanding that the knife, this body, its pain, and the stabber, are all mithyA, reflections as it were, in the substratum of Knowing, which is His own Real nature. When you say "For him pain being consciousness is non-different from pleasure" - Nair-ji - I can only go with what Bhagwan Krishna says about this.:BG:12:13 - "sama sukhadukha kshami" - He is the same in pleasure AND in pain and is long-suffering [note Bhagwan does not say his PERCEPTION of pain and pleasure is the same] To make sure there is no confusion Adi Shankara also clarifies: He looks upon pain and pleasure

with detachment. He is not moved to act by pain and pleasure. He is long-suffering, i.e. reacts without emotion even when abused and smitten (transl by A.G.Krishna Warrier) I leave it to your judgement Nairji whether these words of both Bhagwan Krishna and Bhagwan Shankara are consistent with the position you are advocating.

 

Just as an aside Nair-ji I really do not think there is anyone who I would call a detractor, either real, and far less imagined, nor am I beating anyone to pulp! - i think there is plenty of detraction and distraction going on in our respective fields of Samsaric living off the list :-), - this is just a general statement so please do not read any implications into it.

 

Once again my thanks to you for posing some well-thought out questions to me, which allowed me a few minutes of time for dwelling on Vedanta.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara?advaitin Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 7:02 AM

 

 

Namaste Dr. Shyam-ji.I read your blog-post. I am commenting here because you quoted the link here.Best regards.Madathil Nair

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

9

New Members

 

1

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Find helpful tips

for Moderators

on the

Groups team blog.

 

 

Special K ChallengeJoin others who are losing pounds.

..

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

>

> This is where I am finding it difficult to do samanvaya between

> shruti/shankara siddhAnta & your presentation/understanding of the

same. The anupravesha shruti-s (tatsrushtvA, tadevaanuprAvishat..I

think you are talking about taitireeya shruti here), jiva is amsha of

brahman shruti-s, jeeva-s are like sparks from fire etc. etc. are

there just to convey the fact that Atman is yeka and there is no

bedha between kAraNa & kArya and kAraNa is the ONLY reality. Hari

Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

Hari Om Shri Bhaskarji, Pranaans!

 

pravesha shruti(tat srSHTvA..) & dvA suparNA.. are called atat

pradhAna shrutis. i.e. not denoting the upaniShad-prakrta viShaya

(brahman).

 

You can notice Bhagavan concluding the bAShya after examining all the

possible ways of entering, concluding as anuprAviShTam iva

antarguhAyAm buddhau draShTr shrotr mantr vijnAtr ityevam visheShavat

upalabhyate. The purpose of shruti quoting is for the to meditate

that brahman in antarguhA i.e.

hrdayAkAshe.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

The purpose of shruti quoting is for the to meditate that brahman in antarguhA i.e. hrdayAkAshe.

praNAms Sri chaitanya prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks for your inputs prabhuji....This also reminds us the taitireeya mahAnArAyaNa : aNoraNeeyAn mahato maheeyAn Atma guhAyAM nihitOsya jantOh...is it not?? Since these srusti shruti-s is there only for upAya ( as a device) to drive home the point that Atman is yekam eva adviteeya... shankara says in sUtra bhAshya : evaM prAptE bhrUmaH na AtmA jeevaH utpadyate iti..Same line of thinking we can find in gaudapAda kArika also : mrullohavispulingAdyaiH srushtiryA chOditAnyaThAH..*upAyaH* sOvatArAya na asti bedhaH kaThanchana..(3-15)..While commenting on this kArika shankara concludes that : sarva srushti prakAraH jiva paramAtma ekatvabhuddhyavatArAya upAyaH asmAkaM.....na hi anyaprayOjanavatvaM saMvAdOtpatti shruteenAM shakyaM kalpaitum..So these shruti-s are there for some different purpose, not to hold the jeeva srushti literally & his indentification with his limited adjuncts eternally:-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji and Moderators,

 

 

There seems to be an increasing tendency for our very learned members to quote sanskrit passages without offering a translation. Is this to be the norm of the group that the elite write mainly for the elite?

 

Bhaskar-ji - You have proven yourself to be very adept at debating and arguing over very subtle points of theory with people who write in English. It appears therefore that your grasp of English language is very good indeed. Yet increasingly your own emails are written mostly using sanskrit.

 

Which part of the following should those of us who only speak English be able to understand?

 

- the taitireeya mahAnArAyaNa : aNoraNeeyAn mahato maheeyAn Atma guhAyAM nihitOsya jantOh...is it not??

 

- to drive home the point that Atman is yekam eva adviteeya... shankara says in sUtra bhAshya : evaM prAptE bhrUmaH na AtmA jeevaH utpadyate iti.

 

- Same line of thinking we can find in gaudapAda kArika also : mrullohavispulingAdyaiH srushtiryA chOditAnyaThAH..*upAyaH* sOvatArAya na asti bedhaH kaThanchana.

 

- While commenting on this kArika shankara concludes that : sarva srushti prakAraH jiva paramAtma ekatvabhuddhyavatArAya upAyaH asmAkaM.....na hi anyaprayOjanavatvaM saMvAdOtpatti shruteenAM shakyaM kalpaitum..

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Peter

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Bhaskar YR20 January 2009 11:07advaitin Subject: Re: Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara?

 

The purpose of shruti quoting is for the to meditate that brahman in antarguhA i.e. hrdayAkAshe.

praNAms Sri chaitanya prabhuji Hare Krishna Thanks for your inputs prabhuji....This also reminds us the taitireeya mahAnArAyaNa : aNoraNeeyAn mahato maheeyAn Atma guhAyAM nihitOsya jantOh...is it not?? Since these srusti shruti-s is there only for upAya ( as a device) to drive home the point that Atman is yekam eva adviteeya... shankara says in sUtra bhAshya : evaM prAptE bhrUmaH na AtmA jeevaH utpadyate iti..Same line of thinking we can find in gaudapAda kArika also : mrullohavispulingAdyaiH srushtiryA chOditAnyaThAH..*upAyaH* sOvatArAya na asti bedhaH kaThanchana..(3-15)..While commenting on this kArika shankara concludes that : sarva srushti prakAraH jiva paramAtma ekatvabhuddhyavatArAya upAyaH asmAkaM.....na hi anyaprayOjanavatvaM saMvAdOtpatti shruteenAM shakyaM kalpaitum..So these shruti-s are there for some different purpose, not to hold the jeeva srushti literally & his indentification with his limited adjuncts eternally:-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Peter prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly pardon me for Sanskrit quotes without translations...I thought those who are participating in this discussion are well versed in Sanskrit language and was under the impression that my purpose would be served without translation ( I am also afraid of *pickings* from prabhuji-s if I do the translations on my own:-))...That is the reason why I've given references for my quotes...However,I do agree that there are somany prabhuji-s who are silently following these threads & they donot want to have over dose of unfamiliar language...I shall take care of that in future postings...

 

With regard to my latest post, you may please be noted that it deals with the subject matter i.e. Atman & theory of creation in scriptures & the clarification provided by our advaita teachers such as Shankara bhagavadpAda & Sri gaudapAdAchArya...In short, quoted statements such as jeeva-s have been created like sparks from fire etc. (mrusphulinga....)support the advaita stand that creation theories are just a device to prove secondless nature of Atman...Atman is subtlest in subtle, biggest in big (aNOraNeeyAm mahato maheeyAn etc.) this mantra appears in taitireeya mahAnArAyaNa upanishat..And finally shankara's quote sarva srushti prakAraH jiva paramAtma etc. here shankara says all creation theories are there in scripture to prove the point that brahma & jeeva (self) are one and the same...And any other interpretation of the same would not be logical & impossible also...

 

I am in a hurry & have to rush home ...pardon me for the brevity... & also pardon me for the inconvenience caused to you & others in this regard.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hence the later quoted shrutis are tat-pradhAna only they speak of

brahman only. Whereas former which talks of the place i.e. hrdaya-

AkAsha does not talk of the vastu to be meditated brahman hence atat-

pradhAna.

praNAms Sri chaitanya prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I was just recalling those taitireeya mahAnArAyaNa upanishad veda maNtra-s after reading your words hrudaya AkAsha etc. without thinking about the 'vastu' & the place in which this vastu to be meditated upon...Anyway thanks for pointing it out. However, I feel the slight different wha you have pointed out hardly matters to the context of our present discussion i.e. creation theories in shruti is just a device to convey the ultimate ekatva (oneness) of brahman. While on the subject, I'd like to recall shwetAshwatara upanishad wherein it is said paramAtman is there in thumb size in hrudaya AkAsha of aNu mAtra jeevatman (or something like that)..Just I am not able to recall that veda maNtra..but it is an interesting observation by shruti.. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

If it is understood that both jiva and Iswara are mithya, it becomes

clear.

 

Venugopal

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> PranAms Durga-ji

> Talk no. 14 by Swami Paramarthananda-ji on this website (click on

previous talks)

>

> http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/

>

> is titled jiva ishwara aikyam.

>

> You, and others, may perhaps find it useful in helping in your

understanding.

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>

> --- On Sat, 1/17/09, Durga durgaji108 wrote:

>

>

> Durga durgaji108

> Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara?

> advaitin

> Saturday, January 17, 2009, 1:11 AM

advaitin@ s.com, " S.N. Sastri " sn.sastri@ ..> wrote:

> >

> I have yet to completely understand these

> statements, and yet I take them as true,

> and try and understand them, because this

> is what I have heard both Swamiji and my

> teacher say over and over again.

>

> Pranams,

> Durga

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Venugopalji:

 

In his talk, Swamiji says that both Jiva and Iswara are Sathyam. The

name and form (BMI) of Jiva or Iswara are Mithyam. The nirguna

Brahman (Atman) without the name and form is Sathyam.

 

The Vedantic algebra is analogically equivalant to algerbra for

numbers with infinity. Infinity + any finite number will still be

equal to infinity. (Any explanation using an analogy will not be a

complete explanation to the unknown Truth and this is no exception)

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " ven_viji " <ven_viji wrote:

>

> If it is understood that both jiva and Iswara are mithya, it becomes

> clear.

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

2. If Jiva/Jivatva is Satyam there won't be liberation(mukti)

> That's right prabhuji..jIva-Ishwara bedha has been admitted only in avidyA vyavahAra (empirical reality) and concept of jIva has been pressumed in absolute non-dual brahman just like saying the colourless AkAsha (ether) is at the bottom 'blue'..(paramAtmani tadvipareetaM jaivaM rUpaM vyOmneeva talamalinatvAdi parikalpitam..say shankara in sUtra bhAshya -1-3-19). However, going by the lOka vyavahAra (day to day transactions) shankara says jIva is the owner of this body, he is a conscious entity, he supports the prANa (life force) in body etc. (jivO hi nAma chetanaH, sharIrAdhyakshaH, praNAnAM dhArayitA..tatprasiddheH, nirvachanAccha sUtra bhAshya -1-1-6)...But when this jIva realizes its true nature, it will come to know there is no second entity in absolute chaitanya (in absolute consciousness) that can be called as jIva. So, satyatva of jIva (reality of limited or bordered consciousness) is mere play of this empirical reality.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

You write in your interpretation that there is no dissolution or

creation. Do you therefore mean that the Sun of our Solar System is

infinite, that it will never burn out and bring life on Earth to an

end. This would mean that there is a source of power in the centre of

the sun that is fuelling the burning of the Sun which is the source of

all life on Earth. I find that hard to believe because modern physics

shshows us that suns have a limited life span. Is the sun of our solar

system a special sun created by Brahman?

praNAms Hare Krishna

I dont know anything about modern physics, its scientific explanations & conclusions etc. nor there is any proof from my side to prove that solar system is inifinite..But I have the reference in scriptures to say that *the source of power* that is fuelling the burning of the sun and the source of power in us is ONE and the SAME...And it is by the fear of 'THIS' sun moves, wind waves says our scriptures..(bhIshAsmAvAtaH pavate, bhIshOdeti sUryaH..taitirIya upanishad) and HE is the Sun, He is the fire, He is water, He is prajApati. He is moon and He is everything..(tadevAgnitadAdityatadvAyu tadu chandramAH..ShwetAshwatara upanishad 4-2)..As you say there may be multiple suns & multiple solar systems & each & every one may have its own beginning & end..but we are talking about the source power of it...that is ekaH (one) & advitiyaH (secondless)..and That is the ultimate reality..

For scientific explanations you can wait for some prabhuji's reply, who are familiar & fluent in this subject.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar