[Prev][Next][Index]
Aham Brahmasmi 4
From: sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda)
Manishji writes:
>>I was eternal, but not any more! there is a logical contridiction. Well,
>>several questions can be raised and explanations put forward, so I will
>>analyse some of those too (btw that Lord Krishna also tells is the Bhagavad
>>Gita about the eternal nature of the soul - 'jiva bhuta sanatanah')
>Let us examine the whole sloka, which is from B.G. Ch. 15. -
>Mamaivamsho jeevaloke jeevabhutah sanatanah|
>ManahsasthanIdriyani prakrtistani karshati||
>Mama = my, Eva = even or alone, amsah = portion, Jeevaloke = in the world
>of life, jeevabhutah = having become a soul, sanatanah=eternal,
>manahsasthani = with the mind as the sixth, indriyani = the (five) sense
>organs, Prakritistani = abiding in the prakriti, karshati = draws (to
>itself)
In this verse Krishna says that the living entities are His eternal
fragmental parts. Your speculation of "having become a soul" is
ridiculous. Nothing "becomes" anything, that is what Krishna says in 2nd
chapter of Bhagavad-gita:
na tv evAhaM jAtu nAsaM
na tvaM neme janAdhinapA:
na caiva na bhaviShyAma:
sarve vayam ata: param
"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these
kings; nor in the futureshall any of us cease to be."
Krishna clearly says that the aMSa is eternal, "nor in the future shall it
cease to be." The word jIva-bhUta: and the word jIva-loke both indicate
that the jIva has become conditioned, as the rest of the verse explains,
conditioned by the senses including the sixth sense the mind. That is what
the jIva has "become", he has become conditioned. But it clearly says
mamaivAMSo jIva-loke, jIva bhUta: sanAtana:. The individual parts and
parcels that are the living entities are sanAtana:. But, due to
conditional life (having come under the nature of the loka, the materila
world), "they have become conditioned by the senses including the sixth
sense, the mind." You are trying so hard to screw some strange meaning
from a verse that is completely clear. Bhagavad-gI tA is simple, literal
sanskrit. The language used in Bhagavad-gItA is very, very elementary
sanskrit, Krishna never uses complex sanskrit throughout the entire
conversation. That is why there is no confusion about what a verse means,
it is plain simple. Y our "interpretation" falls short, it is in no way
supported by the verse. And that is confirmed by the verses comming in the
second chapter, which deal more directly with the difference between the
body and the soul. Neither does your conclusion fit in w ith the
individual verse, nor does it fit in with the chapter (puruShottama-yoga,
the very name destroys advaita), nor does it fit in with the entire text
of Bhagavad-gItA. All three of this must allign in order for it to be
correct, and your "translation " clearly falls short of all three.
>The point in question and the sloka can be understood easily with the space
>analogy. It is like space declaring, that a portion of myself became the
>space in the various rooms or compartments (rooms and compartments are not
>eternal)- In reality, space is not divisible and I have already discussed
>that.
Please explain where the walls came from? Who made them? And the fact that
the matter that makes the walls is eternal kind of dappens your whole
analogy. Previously you mentioned the law of conservation of energy, and
that most definitely applies to the m atter that makes the walls as well.
You analogies imply duality at every step.
>There are no two Au
>(gold) it is Ekameva adviteeyam swarnam. The same gold can declare it is
>my amsha that became the bangle, ring, necklace etc.
Does the gold ring ever become the gold necklace? Does the gold ring ever
become the gold mine? Does the gold ring ever cease being gold? The answer
to all of these is no.
>The divisions
>are superficial and for utility and for transactions purposes as explained
>using space and rooms as an example.
And what is the purpose for creating the transactional divisions in the
first place? Your Brahman is a useless fellow, why did He need to enter a
transitional stage? Must be attrated to the result of that transitional
stage. Ooops, there goes Brahman, now it cannot be Brahman.
>There is no question of individual soul merging with the Brahman.
Exactly my point, they _always_ stay as individuals.
>It is saying that bangle has to merge with
>the gold and till then it is not gold!
This is great, your own analogies are showing that it is truly oneness and
difference. The bangle is _always_ gold, the bangle is _never_ the gold
mine. Even after realizing that it is gold, it remains a small fraction of
the total gold. Yet, still it is one in quality with the gold mine.
>Even if the bangle does not know it
>is gold and suffers as a consequence of that lack of knowledge, it was gold
>all the time.
Yes, in quality. Just as all the jIvas are one in quality with Krishna.
But we never become one in quantity. We are eternally His servants, and
though some people are scared by that, that is the conclusion of the
SAstra. RAvaNa was also scared by that, so was hiranyakaSipu, a lot of
people didn't like the idea.
>Yes your
>statements are devoid of logic and not advaitic philosophy that I
>understand.
Yes, your statements are devoid of philosophy, and are _not_ advaitic
philosophy at all. (Just repeating your words, not a personal attack).
>Just as the ornaments do not become gold when they realize, because they
>are gold all the time, whether they realize or not, jeevas do not become
>Brahman when they realize.
The Jivas never _become_ brahman. They are by constitution the same
quality as Brahman, but they never become the para-tattva. That would be
like a gold ring suddenly becoming a gold mine because it realized it was
gold. There is no logic in advaita, and the Srutis do not support such
nonsense (no-sense).
>They were Brahman all the time even when they
>are not realized. There are no two golds.
Now you are not even sticking to your own analogy. Your analogy said there
is a ring, there is a bangle, there is a bracelet. Suddenly one realizes
it is gold, so how do they become one gold? They _never_ become one. Even
after realization the ring is a r ing, the bangle is a bangle, and the
necklace is a necklace. They are only one in quality.
>Similarly, there are no two Brahmans.
No one has made such a statement. There is one Brahman, we are His parts
and parcels (remember the verse this started with, mamaivAMSa? The train
of thought has to be put back on track.) From the begining the contention
was never that we are each a sepera te para-brahman, there is one brahman
and we are its aMSa's.
>Nothing else has happened. The notion that I am jeeva is gone
>once my identification with the upadhies that I am only this body, I am
Let us see some practical application:
The gold realizes it is not brass, it is actually gold. Poof, it is gone,
there is no more ring. What a bunch of useless gossip.
>also sat and ananda, my search is complete. No more jeeva bhavana for me.
>It is similar to the ornament having a notion that I am only a bangle or
>ring or necklace. It does not have to become something to become gold. It
>was gold even when it does not know that it was gold and feels that it is
>only the limited bangle different from the ring.
But the ring _never_ becomes the bangle, how hard is this to understand?
If you can not figure this out then your vedAnta sUtra is othing but
vedAndha-mUtra. You are using no logic what so ever and you statements are
not supported by Sruti, nor by Nyaya, nor by pratyakSha.
>Manishiji your statement related to eternity is true and applies only to
>Brahman which alone is all the time. Ekameva adviteeyam Brahma.
Please explain how the prakRti is not eternal, since time itself is a
product of prakRti. You are just running around with your definitions,
changing them to suit your whim.
>It is not 'knowledge of'..any more. It is knowledge itself.
And knowledge implies an object of knowledge as well as the process of
knowledge and the knower. And Krishna says in Bhagavad-gItA, "I am _also_
the knower of all bodies." There are 2 knowers, not one.
>These are again not attributes as I have already pointed out.
Swamiji, they are both _adjectives_ which therefore are qualifying the
noun Brahman.
>Based on your
>statements I get the feeling that yours too is a half-baked knowledge from
>hearsay than through understanding of it to see if that is really different
>or the same as what advaita says.
(Again, simply repeating your own words. Not a personal attack). I have
the same idea about your knowledge of advaita. But then again, the idea
ceases to be an idea and becomes the idea itself.
>Most of the criticisms including
>branding Sri Bhagawan Sankaracharya as RPrachanna BouddhaS a disguised
Since you don't like that term, I will change it to "pracchana atheism".
>I do not know
>whether they understand Buddism or not, but definitely they do not
>understand what advaita is, based on their statements.
Oh yes, that Madhva didn't know anything. He must have been a fool, he
certainly didn't know advaita like you do.
