[Advaita-l] Re:Exit of soul (Badisa)

[Shyam Venkataraman]

On 8/30/05, ramesh badisa <badisa66 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> Namaste:
> 
> 
> 
> "The jivatma (reflected consciousness,) identified with the sukshma-sarira 
> leaves the physical body in death and assumes a new body" 
> 
> 
> 
> "soul refers to the sukshma sarira and the reflected consciousness only"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: To the jivatma, I am saying soul, because, it is easy to type. So, 
> where ever the soul is referred, the existence of subtle body to it is 
> automatically understood. When I say that that soul moves from one place to 
> another, it needs to be understood the movement of the soul along with 
> subtle body. To this effect, I have even quoted the Gita reference 15/8 to 
> show the movement of soul with its elements of subtle body. When I say the 
> exit of soul upon death of gross body, I mean the exit of soul with subtle 
> body. Since you are saying the same thing as mine in different terminology, 
> I do not see any clash between yours and mine. I did not come across the 
> terms like reflected consciousness in Gita, BS etc. 
> 
> *Shyam: OK Good so there is agreement.
> *
> *So from this, it is very clear that the The sukshma sarira is finite, 
> whereas the original consciousness is infinite. So this proves what I said 
> earlier"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: When you are referring subtle body being finite, then you have to 
> mention the finite or infinite nature of reflected consciousness only but 
> not original consciousness. Because, original consciousness is not concerned 
> with subtle body. It makes good sense when finite or infinite nature of 
> reflected consciousness is mentioned. I say that the reflected consciousness 
> is also finite. Please let me know your opinion on this. 
> 
> *Shyam: Yes, since sukshma sarira is not eternal and not all pervading, 
> and the mind is in the sukshma sarira, so once the sukshma sarira is 
> resolved, the reflected consciousness also goes away. Original consciousness 
> transcends the subtle body, but subtle body depends on the original 
> consciousness for existence, it cannot have an independent existence, so it 
> is maya. This is even said in the BG: Krishna says: All Beings are in me But 
> I am not in them. 
> *
> "When a jivanmukta dies, he attains videha mukti. What videha mukti means 
> is that he merges into the all pervading Brahman (like pot space merging 
> into total space). So the jivanmukta's subtle body does not travel after 
> death, it dissolves into the subtle pancha bhutani" 
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: This is what the Upanishads say. I agree to it. Before dissolving 
> of the subtle body in pancha bhutani, can you say that the state of gyani is 
> in sampurna mukti? Please let me know.
> 
> *Shyam: I'm not sure what you are meaning by Sampurna Mukti.
> 
> *"Only in the case of an ajnani, the subtle body travels"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: Not the subtle body alone please. But, along with the soul (that 
> is, reflected consciousness, as per your understanding). In other words, 
> reflected consciousness + the subtle body will travel at the time of death 
> of gross body. 
> 
> *Shyam: Yes*
> 
> "So krama mukti means that the ajnani gets self knowledge in brahma loka 
> and then the ajnani's subtle body is dissovled there and he becomes free 
> there.*"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: The agyani gets self experience at BL. I agree to it. Because, it 
> is declared by the scriptures. The subtle body at this point does not get 
> dissolved, as you contended, but it only will happen at the time of pralaya. 
> Other wise, in the absence of subtle body (as per your understanding), and 
> on account of self-realization, the state is nothing but the essentially the 
> reflection of original consciousness only. This means divine. That means in 
> the absence of any attributes, it should not have limitations for any thing. 
> Do you agree for this? Please let me know. 
> 
> *Shyam: Yes, the subtle body will get dissolved at the time of pralaya. 
> One more thing, the agnani will get self knowledge, not self experience as 
> you've said. I'm not really clear about the latter part of your argument.
> *
> "The atma or Brahman is understood only by the subtle body;"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: It is not clear. By saying the subtle body, are you implying the 
> reflected consciousness + the subtle body together? Or subtle body alone? 
> Please let me know. 
> 
> *Shyam: In this context, I'm referring to the upadhi (medium). The subtle 
> body is a medium through which all the activities take place. But without 
> the atma, the subtle body cannot perform any activity. Therefore, the atma 
> "as though" becomes doer. The atma is not a doer but without the atma there 
> is no doer. Krishna says in the BG: "Iam the doer (with reference to the 
> upadhi), but (without any reference to upadhi) Iam non-doer.(4.13)
> *
> "From the above you are implying that there are multiple jIva-s which One 
> after another as an individual self identify themselves with the Absolute …"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: The plural word, jivas or atmas or souls can be also found in the 
> Phala Adhyaya of BS. 
> 
> Namaste
> 
> Badisa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options: 
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>