Sri Nanda Chandran's Question

[S. V. Subrahmanian]

Sri Nanda Chandran wrote:

But the problem arises when you try to view the Atman from vyavahaara and
identify the paramaarthic "I" with the vyavahaaric "I" - all such theories are
logically flawed.

Response:

I may not be qualified to intrude in this enlightening discussion in which a
scholar like Sri H. Dave is particiapting.  But I would like to test my
understanding.  So kindly bear with me -:)

Vedanta is not equating vyavhAric "I" with paramArthic "I".  It only says that
the "CONTENT" of vyavahAric "I" is paramArthic "I", just as the sea is the
content of the wave.  In vyavahAra when you say "I" it is "DEPENDENT" on the
"I" of paramArtha.  The vR^tti "I" - has Atman("I") as its content like
"chakhsusha chakshuH, srotrasya srotram, manaso manaH".

Not only is Atman the content of vyavahAric "I", but every other vR^tti
(thought).  In Taittiriya's pancha koSa prakriya of Bhriguvalli, this idea of
Atman being the content of all the 5 koSAs is elucidated, if my understanding
is right.

But advaita literature, uses the word "I" in both senses without prefixing with
what it is refering to.  The confusion mostly arises in translations where "I"
is used without clarifying the readers as to what it is refering to.

My 2c worth.

=====
Regards,
SVS.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Fri Feb  1 00:08:55 2002
Message-Id: <FRI.1.FEB.2002.000855.0500.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:08:55 -0500
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Sri Nanda Chandran's Question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

>Vedanta is not equating vyavhAric "I" with paramArthic "I". It only says
>that the "CONTENT" of vyavahAric "I" is paramArthic "I", just as the sea is
>the content of the wave.

That's the reason that in the beginning of the post called "Tat tvam asi?"
I've already noted the distinction between jiva and the atman. But the
problem is that though Advaita teaches that the Atman is the essence of the
"I", still Atman is taught in the personal sense - the best example is the
adhyaasa theory where it is said that YOU as the pure consciousness
superimpose on yourself the qualities of objects that you experience. A
jnaani can say this because he is subjectively paramaartha - but will such a
theory benefit an aspirant in vyavahaara where the "I" necessarily includes
the psycho/physical unit?

Again I quote the great Gaudapaada : "Only he who see the Lord untouched by
the concepts of Self, not-Self, both or neither is omniscient".

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx