Ekajiiva vaada

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

I posted this yesterday and it did not come in the digest today. There was no
digest yesterday either. I apologize if others have already received this.

Anand wrote:

[ ... ]

>    academic discussions and books on philosophy. So I feel this point can
>    be hardly overemphasized. This is the approach of the Vedas/Vedaanta.
>    This approach is for the benefit of aspirants, and certainly not to
>    mislead them.


[ ... ]

I think this point is very important and has been well put by giving the example
of arjuna from the BG. The sUta sa.nhitA also says "all the paths, vedanta, the
various Agama-s, shaiva, vaishnava etc even the buddhists and that of arhats has
been given by the Lord maheshvara himself. He is supremely compassionate, so
how can he be a deceiver? Like leading a cow by giving grass, the Lord leads
them to the supreme, by giving what is suitable for them. Yet of all paths the
vedAnta is the best since it leads directly to Him" (paraphrased from a
translation which I read). This point, as you mention, is missed by lot of
people.

>    Coming back to the various vaadas, both sR^ishhTi-dR^ishhTi and
>    dR^ishhTi-sR^ishhTi are sublated in the final paaramaartha state.
>    In this case, it is perhaps more sensible to accept the one which
>    appeals to commonsense of the vyaavahaarika level. According to the

Correct! I don't know if I made it clear in my original post, but I am not
"against" sR^ishhTi-dR^ishhTi or any thing like that. It so happens I am more
comfortable with the other vAda, since the explanation of the most important
upanishhad, i.e., the mANDUkya seems more natural to me from this point of
view. Not that the other vAda is un-acceptable, many upanishhad-s including the
pai.ngala upanishhad follow this technique. Also the reasoning process in this
seems more straightforward to me. This is also in part because this was what I
was taught by my father in the very beginning itself.

>    dR^ishhTi-sR^ishhTi vaada, there is only a single jiiva, trying to
>    attain liberation. All other jiivas, Ishvara, Guru and Shruti are all
>    objects imagined by this jiiva. The jiiva must listen to an imaginary
>    Guru's instruction, and follow imaginary scriptures. So the jiiva
>    must cheer itself on toward the final goal of emancipation. This theory
>    looks so absurd from the commonsense viewpoint that it can only be
>    practised by advanced students, as HH Abhinava Vidyatirtha implies.

An example given by sureshvarAchArya and also by HH abhinava vidyAtIrtha
mahAsvAmigaL to show that that the unreal can lead to a comprehension of the
real: a frightening event in the dream can cause one to wake up, though the
frightening event itself is unreal. There are also various other analogies,
which I'll skip here.

In today's issue of the digest

Swami Vishvarupananda wrote:

>What I would really like to know, is, how anyone convinced of this could =
>ever think of teaching it. One who is convinced he is the only jiva, and =
>all else is -- just as in a night's dream -- the lifeless reflection of =

I hope the example I provide suffices. Also note that the jnAni himself does
not raise questions. It is only the non-realized who ask how a jnAni can teach,
eat etc.

BTW, are always some vague attachments with your mails which run to many lines

>------ =_NextPart_000_01BC114B.55246840
>Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
>eJ8+IjIPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy
>b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYA4AEAAAEAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAQAAAAL
>AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAVQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAEFkdmFpdGEgKG5vbi1k

like the quoted part above.

Ramakrishnan.
--
                  http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/