[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Plurality of Souls (Was Re: Siva as yogi?)
On Fri, 5 Jan 1996 17:13:38 +0000, you wrote:
>Before I begin, I would like to request that anyone who wants me to see
>their reply CC the message to me at
>susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu. Time constraints prevent me from
>regularly reading SRH, so I may no longer do so.
>>>The translation you quoted implies that everything is ultimately one
>>>spiritual being. But this is not possible, because earlier in the Gita Lord
>>>Krishna refuted that idea:
>>>
>>>na tv evaaham' jaatu naasam'
>>> na tvam' neme janaadhipaah.
>>>na caiva na bhavis'yaamah.
>>> sarve vayam atah. param
>>>
>>>"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings;
>>>nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." (Gita 2.12)
>>>
>>>The verse clearly indicates that our individuality has always been so and
>>>always will be so.
>>
>>But that interpretation takes the verse out of context.
>>
>>We know that the body perishes. We know that "the Kings" will not be
>>Kings in a future lifetime.
>>
>>Thus he is addressing Arjuna's concern that he will be doing some sort
>>of grievous harm by killing enemies who are his relatives.
>>
>>Thus he is telling them that they won't really "cease to be". This
>>doesn't necessarily mean that their "individuality" is eternal - it
>>makes just as much sense if their eternal part is common to all.
>
>Actually it is you who have taken the verse out of context. What you are
>implying is that the plurality mentioned in this verse is in reference to
>the body as opposed to the soul. However, this cannot be, since Lord Krishna
>had condemned such a bodily conception in the previous verse.
Actually, in the previous verse He has just started condemning the
bodily conception, and He is continuing to do so in this verse, and in
the verses following.
He continues to condemn the bodily conception for numerous verses,
from many different perspectives.
At the point he starts the verse we are discussing, he has yet to even
say a dozen words on the topic, he has barely started.
So in verse 12, he continues to talk to Arjuna on the level of the
bodily conception that Arjuna just evidenced only moments before.
>The plurality mentioned here refers to the soul, and in support of such an
>understanding, Srila Prabhupada quotes Katha Upanisad 2.2.13: nityo
>nityaanaam' cetanas' cetanaanaam etc which clearly indicates that the
>Supreme Lord is eternal and distinct from the many (plural) living entities.
>Indeed, the purport of this and other Upanisadic verses is that the Supreme
>Lord is the maintainer of innumerable living entities. That is part of His
>excellence. If you say that all the living entities are the same, then you
>are inadvertently providing a limiting definition of God, by saying that He
>only maintains one other living entity.
One soul, many living entities.
>Furthermore, the followers of the four sampradayas mentioned in P.P. all
>except the plurality of the soul. These include such distinguished
>personalities as Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Nimbarka, Visnuswami, and many
>others. So, the odds are against you.
What, numerical odds?
I think I can come up with an equal quantity of equally distinguished
personalities that say that the soul is not plural. :-)
Including Sri Ramanujacarya, since the very basis of his philosophy
was that the Jivas are the body of God and God is the soul of the
Jivas.
But I don't think that this is an issue that is going to be
definitively decided on s.r.h (although stranger things have
happened). :-)
>It makes no sense to suppose that the eternal part is common to all. Have
>you ever thought this through? If we are all the same being, then if one
>person gets liberation all of us should get liberation.
Why? Just because one jiva has removed his conditioning doesn't mean
that the others will automatically do so immediately.
If there is an oil slick in the Pacific Ocean off Japan, and
simultaneously there is another oil slick in the Pacific Ocean off
California, cleaning up the one off California doesn't automatically
cause the one off Japan to vanish, even though both are in the one and
the same Pacific Ocean.
>However, if you remain unconvinced of Lord Krishna's position and insist
>that we are all the same living entity, then I dare you to put your money
>where your mouth is. Since you and I are the same (according to you), why
>don't you give me all your money? After all, you are only giving it to
>yourself, right?
First, I didn't say that we are all the same living entity.
Secondly, the spirit of charity is often exactly as you describe,
namely that since there is a unity underlying diversity, we are not
wholly separate from the poor and disadvantaged.
However, you help others more by giving them a Gita than by giving
them money.
>>And we are clearly talking about one imperishable, not many individual
>>imperishables. This is further confirmed in the next verse (2:18):
>>
>>"These bodies inhabited by the eternal,
>>The indestructible, the immeasurable embodied one,
>>Are said to come to an end.
>>Therefore fight, Descendant of Bharata (Arjuna)!"
>>
>
>Whew! That really is a horrible translation. Here's why:
>
>antavanta ime dehaa
> nityasyoktaaH s'ariiriNaH
>anaas'ino 'prameyasya
> tasmaad yudhyasva bhaarata
>
>anta-vantaH - perishable; ime - all these; dehaaH - material bodies;
>nityasya - eternal in existence; uktaaH - are said; s'ariiriNaH - of the
>emobided soul; anaas'inaH - never to be destroyed ; aprameyasya -
>immeasureable; tasmaat - therefore; yudhyasva - fight; bhaarata - O
>descendant of Bharata.
>
>"The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living
>entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata."
>
>Nowhere in the Sanskrit of this verse does it speak of an "immeasurable,
>embodied ONE" that pervades all bodies. What it is saying is that the soul
>is eternal and cannot be killed, therefore Arjuna should fight, knowing that
>he can only destroy the bodies.
If you look at the Sanskrit:
>anta-vantaH - perishable; ime - all these; dehaaH - material bodies;
These words are all plural forms (as "bodies" acknowledges).
>nityasya - eternal in existence; s'ariiriNaH - of the
>emobided soul; anaas'inaH - never to be destroyed ; aprameyasya -
>immeasureable;
And these words are all singular forms ( as "soul" acknowledges).
Since the translation I use not only has the Devanagiri, the
transliteration, the word-for-word translation, and the English
grammar translation, it *also* has the Sanskrit grammatical form of
each word in the word-for-word (ie noun,verb,plural,singular, etc.).
But the translation you use also acknowledges that "bodies" is plural
and "soul" is singular.
Thus one soul in many material bodies.
Also, your comment about the translation I use being horrible is
pretty silly, considering that, in its final English Translation of
the verse above, it uses more words directly from your word-to-word
translation than does your translation ! If there is anything that
disturbs the Sanskrit scholars about the Bhagavad-Gita-As-It-Is, it is
just this, that the final Translation section is more of a Purport
than a translation. Many of its Translation sections are several
times longer than the length of the corresponding word-for-word
section.
This is undoubtedly because Srila Prabhupada was more concerned with
getting the message across to those who happened upon the book, and so
rightly felt that some will not read the lengthy purports, so for
evangelism purposes it was thought best to get some points across in
the Translation section. In fact, for the same reasons, most of the
copies of B-G-As-It-Is do not even contain the Sanskrit or
word-for-word sections at all.
A good example of this is in the following birds-in-the-tree quote:
>samaane vrikshe purusho nimagnoanishayaa shochati muhyamaanah/
>justam yadaa pashyatyanyamishamasya mahimaa namiti vitashokah//
>
>"Although both of them dwell in the same tree-like body, the jiva-attmaa due
>to his nescience grieves on account of his helplessness but by dint of some
>unknown spiritual virtue when he gainst cognition of his self he turns
>towards the Other, the Lord knowing Him as the Sole Resort and through
>practise of devotion when he realizes His Transcendental Glorious Pastimes
>he becomes free from sorrows and sufferings."
Look at the number of Sanskrit words versus the number of English
words.
And why put the Sanskrit word "jiva-attmaa" in the English Translation
when it does not occur at all in the original Sanskrit portion ??
Although I'd want to see the word-for-word before saying anything
definitively, it seems evident that this "translation" is actually an
interpretation, ie a Purport.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm sure this was done with the best of
intentions, ie "saving of souls", and NOT with the idea of distorting
anything, quite the opposite.
>>>What the Bhagavans are teaching is not what is taught by the verse you just
>>>quoted. The unscrupulous "Bhagavans" are teaching that the jivatama and
>>>Paramatma are one and the same. This idea has no basis in the Gita or the
>>>Vedic literatures.
>>
>>Actually, it is the jivatma and paramatma that have no basis in the
>>Gita. Why? Because those words don't occur in the Sanskrit Gita !
>
>You may be correct in saying that those specific words are not present, but
>nevertheless the distinction is there, and it is obviously referring to
>jiivaatmaa and paramaatmaa. The point is, never in the Gita are the jiiva
>and Supersoul held to be equal. You would be hard pressed to find any such
>verse.
I never said that jiva and Supersoul are equal.
Far from it.
Closer to saying that what you are calling an eternal jiivaatmaa is
actually a non-eternal non-material "body" of which one component is
the mind. The soul of this "body" is the atman.
>What most Hindu groups teach is some form of advaita, which holds that jiva
>and paramaatmaa are the same. Now, Ken, understand that they may not use
>these *specific* words, but nevertheless that is what they are saying.
This is the farthest thing from Advaita, which says that "jiva" is
maya, ie illusion, and "paramaatmaa" is Brahman.
>Basically, they are saying that all of us are the same as God, which is
>absurd.
You keep saying this, but they don't.
You SEEM to have a desire to distort their philosophy, perhaps it is
not a very conscious desire. Perhaps in order to feel good about
your choice of religion, you need to feel that all the other choices
are wrong. Whether or not this is really what you do feel, it is
nevertheless not necessary for anyone to do.
Vaishnavism is a 100% valid path to God, regardless of whether the
other religions are valid or invalid.
Namaskar,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
References:
