[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 1, Issue 22

[kalyan chakravarthy]

>
>I am afraid you do not understand bhagavad gItA too. See chapter 7, verses 
>4-5. There is a lower prakRti, which consists of earth, water, fire etc. 
>and is therefore quite "material" (me bhinnA prakRtir ashTadhA). There is 
>also another (anyA), higher prakRti, which is the jIva (jIvabhUtA). It is 
>as this jIva, the higher prakRti, that brahman pervades all, vide chAndogya 
>upanishad, but it is as the lower prakRti, that brahman IS the "all". Both 
>the lower and the higher are described as prakRti-s of bhagavAn in the 
>gItA. You cannot wish away the material attributes. See also chapter 13 - 
>sarvataH pANipAdaM ... sarvendriyaguNAbhAsaM sarvendriyavivarjitaM asaktaM 
>...


The misunderstanding is yours.

Brahman is pervading in the body anyway(not necessarily as a form of 
prakRti) - from the mundaka anology of two birds (jIva and paramAtma)  and 
the katha up statement about *two* entering the body. That should positively 
negate one of your conclusions.

>From the same chapter in BG- prakRti and purusha are eternal and forms and 
qualities are born of prakRti.

BTW, just to clarify again, by material attribues, I meant attributes like 
sattva etc.

>I said that jIva is sa-guNa brahman, in a sense, depending on the guNa-s 
>that you associate it with. If you choose to misinterpret me as above, and 
>also want to insist that saguNa brahman is only ISvara, never jIva, then it 
>is your problem. Please re-read my earlier post, dispassionately, and do 
>not twist what I said in order to raise a strawman argument.


See above. In general it is not argued that way because jIva suffers.


>So the answer has to be jIva, right? If the jIva who realizes his own self 
>as brahman is essentially different from brahman, then the jIva would be 
>deluding itself only if it thinks its own self is brahman. No advaita in 
>that case. Perfectly fine for you to believe that if you are not an 
>advaitin. But if you are an advaitin, you have to eventually accept that in 
>essence, the jIvA IS brahman. In the final analysis, it is brahman who 
>realizes his own self as brahman. There is nothing that is not brahman, as 
>you should know from the upanishad-s.


*There is nothing that is not brahman* means that the world is a 
superimposition.

And if you accept that the answer is not brahman you cannot say that brahman 
is deluded.

The essence of jIva is the Atman which is nothing but brahman. However, that 
does not mean brahman is deluded. Logic going against vedAnta is logic gone 
astray.


>Who are the "we"? "You" have already seen the above, erroneously. None of 
>the others who has been discussing with you has seen this. And please, 
>there is no reason to get so hot under the collar. All I can say is, if you 
>claim to be an advaitin at heart, then you would do well to read Sankara 
>and sureSvara well before jumping to conclusions about who is contradicting 
>whom.


No erroneous conclusions here. avidya includes mistaken identity. That 
should close the issue. I have already written on this matter some time back 
in response to another member.


>You don't have to guess anything. People revered as jIvanmuktas have said 
>that they sleep and dream and wake up and sit in samAdhi. You pick the 
>person you want to accept as a jIvanmukta ...


You misunderstood me. My intention is not that jIvanmukta does not sleep 
etc. It is just that you cannot say that he is deluded even if he sleeps 
etc. No guesses - like comparing this with a normal jIva.


>Even without the above express testimony, even if you don't accept that 
>so-and-so is one, a jIvanmukta is, by definition, a living being, and 
>therefore one who goes through the waking, dreaming and sleeping states. 
>According to YOUR definition, the jIva-brahman identity is true only in the 
>turIya state, but NOT in these other states.


This is not about bhedas as such. It is just that jIva itself is unreal. 
why? abhAsa eva cha. Even you would agree that jIva loses its individuality 
in turIya. That is as good as passively admitting the unreality of jIva. The 
point is that any such analysis carried in the backward direction, leads you 
directly against vedAnta. You disagree?


>Your logic dictates that If delusion were to be fully removed, the body of 
>the mukta either has to die, barring which the person is not really 
>liberated at all.


Not necessary. It is enough if he is able to discriminate *properly* between 
the Self and non-Self.


>As you want to completely divorce material attributes from brahman and as 
>the body (even of a jIvanmukta) is clearly a material thing, the jIvanmukta 
>remains deluded jIva, and can never be undeluded brahman, therefore he is 
>not mukta at all.


A jIvanmukta is never going to identify himself with his body. All your 
reasoning collapses.


>In other words, according to YOUR definitions, or shall we say, loose 
>descriptions, a jIvanmukta is quite an impossibility, and the very term 
>jIvan-mukti is an oxymoron. So, it is you that has no alternative.

Already refuted. See above.


I think the rest of the mail is based on your incorrect understanding of my 
position. So I close the issue here.

_________________________________________________________________
Himalayan holiday! Waiting to be won. 
http://server1.msn.co.in/sp03/summerfun/index.asp Find out more.