[Advaita-l] In Advaita alone the jiva is not jaDa

[Ravi Kiran]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:14 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> In Advaita alone the jiva is not jaDa
>
> In the Kenopanishad there is the opening question:  Impelled by what does
> the mind, prana, sense organs function in their respective fields.?
>
> केनेषितं पतति प्रेषितं मनः केन प्राणः प्रथमः प्रैति युक्तः ।
> केनेषितां वाचमिमां वदन्ति चक्षुःश्रोत्रं क उ देवो युनक्ति ॥ १ ॥
>
> The disciple asked: Om. By whose will directed does the mind proceed to its
> object? At whose command does the prana, the foremost, do its duty? At
> whose will do men utter speech? Who is the god that directs the eyes and
> ears?
>
> And in reply it is said:
>
> श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं मनसो मनो यद्वाचो ह वाचं स उ प्राणस्य प्राणः ।
> चक्षुषश्चक्षुरतिमुच्य धीराः प्रेत्यास्माल्लोकादमृता भवन्ति ॥ २ ॥
>
>  The teacher replied: It is the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind, the
> Speech of speech, the Life of life and the Eye of the eye. Having detached
> the Self from the sense-organs and renounced the world, the Wise attain to
> Immortality.
>
> And further:
>
> यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते ।
> तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ५ ॥
>
> 5     That which cannot be expressed by speech, but by which speech is
> expressed-That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here
> worship.
>
> For the above mantra, Shankara concludes the bhashyam thus:
>
> नेदं ब्रह्म यदिदम् इत्युपाधिभेदविशिष्टमनात्मेश्वरादि उपासते ध्यायन्ति ।
> तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि इत्युक्तेऽपि नेदं ब्रह्म इत्यनात्मनोऽब्रह्मत्वं
> पुनरुच्यते नियमार्थम् अन्यब्रह्मबुद्धिपरिसङ्ख्यानार्थं वा ॥  That is not
> Brahman which people meditate upon as 'this', which is characterized by a
> differentiating upadhi, which is anatma, not-self, that is Ishvara, etc.
> You have to know that alone as Brahman which is not of the above
> description.  In other words, if something is known as 'this', that is
> anatma, abrahma. The Upanishad wants to preclude the aspirant from
> realizing something that is not his own self.
>
>
> From the above we see that the Upanisahad is teaching that the power that
> impels the mind, prana, sense organs, etc. is Consciousness and the ones
> that are impelled are inert entities.  The teaching culminates in
> emphasizing that it is this impelling consiciousness that one should
> realize oneself to be, as Brahman, and not that which is a-brahman and
> an-atman.
>
> A look at the Antaryami Brahmanam of Br.Up. 3.7.3 too gives us the same
> conclusion:
> यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरो यं पृथिवी न वेद यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं यः
> पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ३ ॥   mantra.  Bhashya:
>
> देवताकार्यकरणस्य ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन हि नियमेन प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती
> स्याताम् ; य ईदृगीश्वरो नारायणाख्यः, पृथिवीं पृथिवीदेवताम् , यमयति नियमयति
> स्वव्यापारे, अन्तरः अभ्यन्तरस्तिष्ठन् , एष त आत्मा, ते तव, मम च सर्वभूतानां
> च इत्युपलक्षणार्थमेतत् , अन्तर्यामी यस्त्वया पृष्टः, अमृतः
> सर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जित इत्येतत् ॥
>
> The 'antaryami' is the consciousness that impels the 'body-mind' complex of
> the devataa.  This impelling consciousness is taught as the Atma of the
> aspirant. From the Kenopanishad we understand that one should not realize
> oneself as the 'Narayana' who is different from oneself but only that which
> is the Atman.  [Therefore, this 'Narayana' is impelling merely by the
> presence as witness and therefore is not any deity.]
>
> Thus, the impelling Consciousness is the Atman, the true nature of the jiva
> and that which is impelled is only the anatman consisting of the body,
> mind, sense organs. Even when the Br.up. mantra says
> यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयति, it is only the body-mind-senses of Prthvi devataa
> that is being impelled. The impelling consciousness is the jiva divested of
> the body-mind-senses complex. Thus the jiva is pure chaitanyam without any
> tinge of anatma.
>
> On a perusal of the commentary of Madhva for the Kenopanishad mantra we
> find that the impeller is the 'niyamaka' of the jiva, devatas, etc.
>
> Madhva parsed the word upaasate into three words :-)   upa aasa te:
> (someone who is sitting close to you) [see the second line in the bhashya].
>
> His bhashya:
>
> https://srimadhvyasa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/02-san-talavakaraupanishadbhashyam-27112017.pdf
>
> नेदं जीवस्वरूपं यद् ब्रह्म  विष्ण्वाख्यमव्ययम् |
> * किन्तु यत् ते समीपस्थमास ते विनियामकम्* |   [upa has the meaning of
> sameepe.  Madhva takes the one word upaasate, a verb, as three different
> words: upa aasa te]
>
> [That which is the immutable named Vishnu is not the svarupa of the jiva.
> On the other hand that which is your (jiva's) niyamaka, impeller,
> regulator, controller, who sits near you.]
>
> तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि विष्ण्वाख्यं परमव्ययम् |
> नियामकं तद्देवानां मर्त्यानां किमुतोत्तमम् ||
>
> [That alone you realize as Brahman which is called Vishnu, the immutable
> supreme.  That is the controller of the devas and others and there is none
> other higher than that.]
>
> We see that Madhva specifies that the impeller is the controller of the
> jiva.  We get the impression that the jiva is impelled, like the inert
> mind, prana, sense organs, etc. That means the jiva in such a construct is
> not something that is completely divested of the not-self, anatma, that is
>

Interesting .. how would one explain, atma vidyA/jnAna in such a case ?


> called kshetram in the BG 13th chapter:
>
> महाभूतान्यहङ्कारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च।
> इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः।।13.6।।
> The great elements, egoism, intellect and the Unmanifest itself; the ten
> organs and the one, and the five objects of the senses;
> इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं सङ्घातश्चेतनाधृतिः।
> एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम्।।13.7।।
> Desire, repulsion, happiness, sorrow, the aggregate (of body and organs),
> sentience, fortitude- this field, together with its modifications, has been
> spoken of briefly.
>
> Nowhere in the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita we have a situation where
> the jiva, having discriminated the inert kshetra, not-self, from the
> kshetrajna, the sentient self, is still something who is not just pure
> consciousness, prakriti sambandha rahita atma.  If such a jiva is not just
> pure consciousness, then it is evident that the kshetra amsha has not been
> completely separated from the jiva. This is because, any possibility of
> knowing an entity, objects, enjoying, experiencing, etc. will have to be
> only with a set of mind, sense and motor organs. If such a mind-body-organs
> complex is going to be an inseparable part of the jiva even in liberation,
> then such a jiva cannot be free from jaDatva.  The Upanishads do not teach
> a bhoga-vishishta mukti. Bhoga can happen only within the realm of the
> fourteen lokas which are bhautika.  Abhautika loka with bhoga is not the
> teaching of the Upanishads.
>
> In a nutshell, niyamana by chaitanya is required only for jaDa, the
> niyamya.  If jiva is said to be really niyamya, then the message is: the
> jiva is jaDa. Shankara alone has emphatically said that the niyaamaka
> chaitanya does the niyamana of only the jaDa manas, indriyas, etc. and the
> jaDa rahita jiva is nothing but the niyaamaka chaitanya as per the
> Kenopanishad and the antaryami brahmana of the Brihadaranyaka. If anyone
> says the jiva is different from the niyamaka then it is inevitable that the
> jiva is jaDa.
>
> Om Tat Sat
>
> Thanks