[Prev][Next][Index]
ahamadvaitAsmi
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: ahamadvaitAsmi
-
From: nparker@crl.com (Nathan Parker)
-
Date: 26 Feb 1995 12:02:52 -0800
-
From nparker@crl.com Sun Feb 26 14: 53:37 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
From: sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda)
>Manishji, If there is no real self what is that incarnates or suffers is
>your question. If that non-material self is also illusory, than how can it
>get carried over from one body to the another is the follow-up question?
>This requires some more explanation of what advaita says:
Goody, goody, more advaita. :)
>First, let us not use the word Atma and get subsequently confused.
I agree, I think we should use a more universal word like "the life breath
that Jehovah breathed into Adam." It fits nicely in with advaita-vedAnta.
>The
>so-called individual seIf is the pratibimba or reflected consciousness. or
>jeeva.
Then the immediate questions is what is it reflecting on? The must be a
reflected (Brahman), relector, and a reflection (what you claim to be
jIva). Therefore what is that which is reflecting the Brahman, and how is
it that the Absolute is non-dual if the re are three aspects of reflected,
reflector, and reflection. If one of these is not Brahman, then you create
two independent entities. If one of them is mithyA, then it doesn't exist
and is therefore impossible to reflect anything. If there is a reflecto r,
then it must be real, and therefore must be Brahman. So this theory is
ridiculous.
>Because the true self or atman is all pervading Brahman then it
>cannot be only inside the body. It is there in the dead body too as it
>pervades all the chara and achara. both sentient and insentient. Then
>question is what is that, that transmigrates. - It is the subtle and
>causal body - subtle body (sukshma sareera) consisting of mind and
>intellect and the causal body(karana sareera) consisting of vasanas or
And just what was the cause of the causal body? "Don't ask that question
or Ganesha will poke your eyes out!" Your Brahman is really not much of a
Brahman at all. What about the Sruti, where it says that there are two
birds sitting on a branch, and one is trying to enjoy the fruits, whereas
the other is just watching. Or how about where it says the jIva
(individual living entity) is residing within the subtle body, resting in
the 5 kinds of airs? Or maybe you will prefer if I quote the old
testament? I do n't.
>tendencies - these are the ones that gets separated from the gross body
>(bhoutika sareera) at the time of dead. Hence we say he is dead and gone
>(mar-gaya). Since the bhoutika sareera is there, then who is the one who
>has left. That individual who was living in that body.
But the individual soul is seperate from the subtle body. When the body
dies, the jIva along with the subtle body leave the gross body. This is
because the subtle body contains in it your next destinations based upon
your mind, yam yam vApi smaran bhAvam.
>This become clear when I ask you Manishji, who are you? Your answer will
>be I am so and so, I am a Krishna devotee, son of so and so, and all other
>relations etc.
You are completely making a kitchari here. To say "I am son of John Doe"
is an identification with the body, but to say "I am a servant of Krishna"
is the svarUpa of the living entity, therefore it is not temporary, nor is
it materil. Advaitans seem to li ke potato mash alot.
>You can only tell me with reference to your relationships
>with the bhoutica sareera, I am brown, black, white etc, short, long, thin,
>fat etc., or your emotional relationships, son of so and so, husband of so
>and so or father of so and so etc., or your intellectual relationships,
>engineer, doctor, scientist etc. Can you provide anything more beyond
>that? You could even tell me that you are some spiritual soul etc. since
>you are familiar with the sastras.
You, yourself said he can say he is servant of Krishna, therefore you
defeat yourself. That is not in relation to the gross body, the subtle
body, or any other material form. That is the constitutional position of
the jIva.
> But these statements including that I am a soul statement are all
>intellectual statements. That is it is nothing but mental and intellectual
>notions about yourself based on what has been taught to you and what you
>have learned.
Now you are not speaking advaita at all. You are saying that all
realizations are on the level of mind and intelligence, but what about
that cita that you so dearly acknowledge. You can not be conscious of
something beyond the body and mind? Then your jIv an-mukti is useless.
>What J. K. Krishnamurty calls as mental conditioning....
....I call as mental concoction.
"No one needs a guru, we are all looking. I am looking, you are looking,
so don't accept anyone as guru."
Then why is he speaking so much? For someone telling me not to accept any
guru, he sure is acting like a guru. If I follow his instructions, I
should not accept him either, therefore I should reject his instructions.
>What
>advaita calls this identification as conditioned consciousness. I have
>already given how I, sitting in a air-conditioned room, forgetting my self
>who I am, could identify with the hero and heroin in thatJtragic movie.
>In those mements of identification with the characters in the movie, I am
>conditioned to their limitions.
But you can only identify with them if they exist. Therefore the world is
real, and if the world is real, then Brahman cannot be non-dual. You speak
so much in circles that you destroy the very base of your arguments. You
should simply say, "One who knows doesn't speak. Om" And go into a corner
realizing that you are all.
>The ego or ahankara is a
>monovritti and is part of the subtle body;
Please define what is ahaNkAra, and tell me how it is _not_ ahaNkAra to
say that I am janmAdy asya yata:
>I am a jeeva is also a notion
>or vritti or thought too.
"I am" is also a vRtti or a thought, therefore it is impossible to realize
that you are the One without engaging in a vRtti. You make this too easy.
>dentification with the upadhies in this case the subtle body. This
>individual self is also called a reflected consciousness - pratibibmba. The
>reflected medium is the antah karana - subtle and causal body.
And what is the source of the reflector? Is it real (oh, then it is
Brahman) or is it false (oh, then it doesn't have any existence, and
therefore is impossible to be a reflector). One more point for the very
scientific advaita-vadai.
>Jeeva or concept of that I am individual arises when consciousness
>identifies with the gross and subtle bodies.
But that identification is a vRtti, therefore a non-dual One could never
engage in such an activity as that.
>No liberation can occur with death since death does not make me see that I
>am not the upadhies, that is, death does not give the requisite knowledge.
Whether liberated or not liberated you are still the one, so who cares
which state you are in, they are mithyA. If I am gold, I will never become
not gold, if I am not gold, I will never become gold. Therefore I am the
one, and I am eternally sat-cit-ananda, just feel the bliss. Om.
>Atman is Brahman - infinite -
Which AtmA? The jIvAtmA or the paramAtmA? If your answer is the jIvAtmA
then it is a complete joke. How are you infinite? The infinite has been
covered by illusion, what a big cruel joke in the name of vedAnta.
>and hence it is
>achalam - cannot move - because movement is possible only for finite not
>for the all pervading infinite because there is no place where it is not
>for it to move!
Please chant that sentence one hundred times while going to work. "No, but
we are in the vyavahArika platform." We should just leave you at Howra
platform in calcutta. One day there and you will realize it is not one,
the world is real, and you don't like the world.
>From advaita Brahman alone is real and it is ananta not sunyata. So there
So unlimited that it is covered by the illusory non existent. Ho hum.
>It is true the Brahman has "No thing" - that is no or not a
Which, as pointed out before, is itself an adjective and therefore Brahman
is a noun, a thing.
