[Advaita-l] RE: self-realization/salvation

[bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com]

Namaste sri Bhaskar ji and others,

Humble praNAms Sri Ramesh Badisa (RB) prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Kindly pardon me for the delay in reply..had to do some research work on
jIva-Ishwara vibhAga in prasthAna traya:-))


RB prabhuji:

  Badisa: Yes prabhu ji. We did discuss, and I had addressed those queries.
  But, I never got any response from you later. For verification, you may
  please check the Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30, Wed, 31 Aug 2005. For the sake
  of your convenience, I am copying and pasting below:

  bhaskar :

  I've searched the list archieves but could not find it prabhuji..The last
  post which I had posted about this topic under the subject heading *Exit
  of Soul (Badisa)* does not have subsequent reply...The same can be found
  at the following link :

  http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2005-August/015710.html


  Anyway, since you have answered those queries in the below mail, kindly
  permit me to share my thoughts on it. Bit lengthy, kindly have enough
  patience to go through it.

  RB prabhuji:

  Badisa: All jivatmas are identical. But they are layered with different
  levels of ignorance.

  bhaskar :

  Yes, all jIva Atma-s (kindly note the split) are identical since brahman
  as their svarUpa is yEkaM yEva advitIyam (one without second)...different
  layers of ignorance are due to upAdhi saMbhaNdha (wrong identification
  with limited adjuncts) but it does not have to do anything with that of
  jIva-svarUpa or jIva-Atma.

  RB prabhuji:

  The qualified jiva gets the salvation and is divine in very absolute
  sense, without any type of limitations. The nirgun Brahman gets
  manifested into sagun Brahman for the sake creation etc activities. So
  long as the souls are bonded in karma, for that long, they are finite and
  have limitations.

  bhaskar :

  I would like to see the appropriate quotes from bhagavadpAda's prasthAna
  trayi bhAshya for these observation prabhuji.  For that matter, shruti
  itself is not consistent in propagating the concept of creation
  prabhuji...it gives different accounts at different places..and Ishwara
  as the *srushti karta* stands tall only in vyavahArik sense and meant for
  those believe in *real* action of creation from parabrahman!! shankara
  confirm this in mAndukya kArika bhAshya by saying : sarva srushti
  prakAraH jIvaparamAtmaikatvabuddhyavatArAya *upAyaH* asmAkaM...it is only
  *mAyika srushti* shruti saying here..for further details kindly see
  kArika bhAshya 3-15 to 23).

  RB prabhuji:

  On the other hand, if there is only one jivatma, as you are saying, then,
  its exit from one physical body should also make exit from all other
  upadhis at the same time.

  bhaskar :

  No prabhuji that is not my contention...my line of thinking is not based
  on yEka jIva vAda (only one jIvAtma) but it is based on paramAtma
  yEkatva...yEkamEvAdvitIyam brahma asserts shruti..apart from this nitya,
  shuddha, buddha, mukta chaitanya there is nothing else deserved to be
  called as chaitanya or jIvAtma or whatever it is...

  RB prabhuji:

  This would result death of all upadhis at the same time. Also attaining
  of salvation for one jivatma should also make salvation for all. But,
  these are not happening in this world.

  bhaskar :

  Yes, for ajnAni-s like us it appears we have mulitple jIvAtma-s & they
  have to achieve salvation one after another etc.  But in paramArtha jnAna
  there is no question of multiplicity in undivided consciounsess (akhanda
  chaitanya)..that is the reason why sri gaudapAda says there is no
  aspirant not even mukti in paramArtha...The difference between ghatAkAsha
  (pot ether) and mahAkAsha  is mere upAdi in the form of nAma & rUpa such
  as ghata, pata etc. not in the all pervading space itself..

  RB prabhuji:

  We see every body dying differently, getting salvation differently.

  bhaskar :

  jAtasyahi dhruvO mrutyuH...dying differently OK acceptable according to
  vayOdharma (age, health temperament etc.)...but I dont think there is a
  difference in paramArtha jnAna/absolute realization ("salvation" in your
  terminology) is different..if the absolute jnAna itself different for
  different individuals then it cannot be called as saMyag jnAna.

  RB prabhuji:

  The souls are identical but present more than one. It is like this.
  Suppose, there are ten pots, then the ether present in all these pots is
  one and the same, but present in different pots. Once, the pot is broken,
  the pot ether gets manifested its true essence as divine.  I agree that
  the very svarupa of jivatma is Brahman. But, when it is surrounded by
  ignorance of different levels, each may be called a jivatma. Now, they
  cannot be called Brahman in absolute sense. Because of limited nature and
  due to lack of powers as Brahman.

  bhaskar :

  Yes but this difference is because of upAdhi-s (upAdhi kruta)...As said
  above, there is absolutely *no difference* between ghatAkAsha
  mahAkAsha...If you construct a house in an open field, you cannot declare
  that "the house space" is different from *open space*..the *seeming*
  difference is due to *upAdhi* in the form of house...not space..space is
  space nothing more nothing less even before/after house construction. The
  *house space* what you are calling as jIva is mere imagination like
  blueness of sky...shankara in sUtra bhAshya (1-3-19) says *nitya shuddha
  buddha mukta svabhAvE kUtasthanityE yEkasmin asaNge paramAtmani
  tatviparItaM jaivaM rUpaM vyOmnIva *talamalAdi parikalpitaM* *...

  Shruti without any ambiguity declaring that paramAtman is ONE without
  second..but still shruti at some places says there is difference between
  jIva-Ishvara...why??  it is just because the concept of
  *jIva/jIvatva/jIvAtma* is more prevalent among us..By holding this
  widespread belief i.e. jIvatva..shruting drags us to ultimate reality &
  shown that *YOU ARE THAT* nothing else..shankara beautifully explains
  this in sUtra bhAshya (1-3-7) * kshEtragnO hi katrutvEna  bhOktrutvEna
  cha prati sharIraM *buddhyAdi upAdhi saMbhandhO lOkata yEva prasiddhaH* n
  asaU shrutyA tAtparyENa vivakhyate*..& in sUtra (1-3-19) * jIvasya tu na
  parasyAt anyatvaM pratipipAdayati kiN tu anuvadatyEva avidyAkalpitaM lOka
  prasiddhaM jIvabhEdaM*..shankara very clearly saying here shruti does not
  have *real intention* in advocation of concept of jIva & it is mere
  avidyA kalpita.

  RB prabhuji:

  You have asked if apart from deha, indriya, manah, buddhi and antakara,
 is there any finite number of jives? But we need to know that these are
 nothing but prakruti. Brahman is above buddhi. Let me put a question in a
 different way. By asking if any finite number of jivas apart from deha
 ??etc, you are implying clearly that there is only one jivatma, with many
 dehas, indriyas ? etc.

  bhaskar :

  No not that way prabhuji...I am not upholding *yEka jIva vAda* for the
 reasons mentioned above...For that matter, prabhuji shankara himself
 transactionally approves both yEka jIva vAda and nAnA jIva vAda..The
 deliberations with regard to relative merits of both yEka & nAnA jIva vAda
 is futile since from the transactional view point we do believe & behave
 as if there are multiple jIva-s..(this discussion group itself is an
 standing example for that :-))

  Kindly refer shankara's bhAshya on sUtra 3-2-9 wherein he says " we have
 explained at length again and again that it is pure being alone that is
 spoken of as a jIva owning to connection with a conditioning associate.
 This being so, we talk of one particular jIva, so long as bondage
 continues as attaching itself to one upAdhi ( limited adjunct).  But in
 the case of bondage continuing to attach ifself to another upAdhi, the
 talk of another jIva becomes necessary ".

  From the above it is quite evident that shankara accepts both the views.
 If we hold the samashti or collective antaHkaraNa as the upAdhi for Atman
 then it is yEka jIva vAda.  But instead of this, if we hold the individual
 antaHkaraNa-s as they are many then it is nAnAjIva vAda....So, both views
 are acceptable transactionally & there is no point in debating on no. of
 jIva-s in shankara's philosophy.


  RB prabhuji:

  Also see Mundaka
 up, where it says the origination of many jivas from divine (2.1.1). IMHO,
 it can be acceptable because, see sutra 4.4.15. This sutra indicates the
 multiplying of several forms at the same time. The saguna Brahman can
 assume n number of forms and be like jivatmas. I agree fully that all
 these forms are identical. But that is not the point here. The point is
 existence of many forms of the same thing. This is what I am saying
 jivatmas.

  bhaskar :

  But these names & forms are kEvala avidyA kalpita says explicitly
 shankara...we cannot hold it as an ultimate reality & drag them to
 destination of nirguNa brahman...vAchAraMbhaNam vikAro nAmadhEyaM..asserts
 shruti.

  RB prabhuji :

   The above sruti texts also support for existence of more than one jiva.
 It does not mean that the conditioned soul is different in absolute sense.
 Once the show is finished, the qualified soul will go back to the original
 source, the way several forms merge in the original soul. By saying the
 multiple existence of jivas, their finite nature is invariably implied.
 Indeed, the conditioned soul is finite, as it is not present everywhere at
 all the times. Before salvation, can any conditioned soul be infinite? No.

  bhaskar :

  As said above, shruti while describing creation of jIva-s & jagat does
 not maintain consistency since it is not the primary intention of
 shruti-s...for example, as you quoted mundaka says *yakhAgnE kshudra
 vispulingAH ...sarva yEtE AtmAnO uccharaNte...but chAndOgya says na jIvO
 mriyatE (6-11-3), kaTha says (1-2-18) na jAyatE mriyatE vA vipaschit...and
 again chAdOgya (6-3-2) says anEna jIvEna Atman anupravishya nAma rUpE
 vyAkaravANI...

  Which one of the above you think an authentic definition of jIva
 concept??  How do you reconcile these apparent contradictions in shruti
 assertions??  The only of doing the reconciliation is jIva is nothing but
 brahman (jIvO brahmaiva na paraH), jIva's svarUpa is nothing but
 brahman....to draw our attention to this ultimate truth shruti defining
 jIva-s in various ways...GaudapAdAchArya explains this in his kArika by
 saying *AtmA hyAkAshavajjIvairghatakAshairivOditaH, ghatAdhivaccha
 saMghAtairjAtAvEtannidarshanaM*..How clear jIva definition here is it
 not??  the production process of jIva-s from brahman is just like birth of
 pot space from the ether..what was the status of ether before giving birth
 to pot space?? it is ether, what is the status of ether when there exists
 the *pot space*?? still it is ether..what would be status of ether when
 *pot* is destroyed?? it is again still ether only..no question of separate
 existence of *pot space* at any point of time...Likewise, jiVa was/is/will
 be brahman always nothing else apart from THAT at any point of time.


  RB prabhuji:

  Badisa: Prabhu ji! Mundaka Up. 2.1.1 says origination of multiple forms
  from divine. What do you say to it?

  bhaskar :

  As said above this origination is not in the primary sense...shruti is
  trying to drive home the point that this jIva is nothing but brahman &
  there is nothing apart from that brahman.  Again see kArika 3-6 * rUpa
  kArya samAkhyAccha bhidyaNtE tatra tatra vai! AkAshasya na bhEdOsti
  tadvajjIvEshu nirNayaH!! & 3-10 saNghAtaH svapnavat sarva
  AtmamAyAvisarjitAH! AdhikyE sarvasAmnE vA na upapattirhi vidyatE!! Kindly
  see the translation & let me have your opinion.

  RB prabhuji:

  Badisa: Jivatma is not a separate entity, but is a form of divine. It is
  originated from divine, and so, it is divine in essence. Mundaka up.
  clearly says that all sparks originate from fire, and on the same lines
  it says that all forms originate from divine. So long as they are bonded
  in karma, all forms come again and again in to samsar. Can you say each
  spark in the above reference is a separate entity? They are not separate
  entities, but they are identical forms of the same fire. See, a fire is
  not different from the spark. When a spark is originated from the fire,
  then why don't you think that all sparks eventually would merge into the
  fire? After-all, fire is the source of origin.

  bhaskar :

  Sri gaudapAdAchArya exactly taken this shruti & other creation examples
  in kArika (3-15) & said *mrullOhavispulingAdaiH srustiryA chOditAnyathA!
  *upAyaH sOvatArAya nAsti bhEdaH kathaNchana!!...confirming this shankara
  says in kArikAbhAshya (3-3) that yadA *mandabhuddhipratipAdayishayA
  shrutyA AtmanaH jAtiruchyatE jIvAdInAM tadA jAtaU upagamyamAnAnAM
  yEtannidarshanaM drushtAntaH yathOditAkAshavat ityAdi!!

  From the above it is clear that shruti using different metaphors just to
  say that kArya (effect) is noway different from kAraNa (cause)..It is
  just like AkAsha has become *limited* as ghatAkAsha (pot space) by using
  air, fire, water & earth...Atman has become *limited* jIvAtman due to
  association with body, senses, mind & intellect.

  RB prabhuji:

  Merging should not be analyzed the way you have understood that divine
  will be short of jivatmas, and thus he would be 'asampoorna'. This is
  wrong assumption. See in the above Mundaka reference, can you say that
  fire has reduced to small size once the sparks were originated from it?
  Or do you say that the size of fire will increase once the sparks merge
  in the fire? Please think over it.

  bhaskar :

  Yes, we cannot stretch any analogy unduly...Likewise, we caanot not jIva
  has been spilled as spark from *fire brahma*..if we literally take this
  analogy then we will have to admit that brahman is subject to vikAra!!


  Namaste
  Badisa