[Advaita-l] RE: self-realization/moksha

ramesh badisa badisa66 at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 30 11:02:16 CDT 2006

Namaste sri Bhaskar ji and others,

“Yes, for ajnAni-s like us it appears we have mulitple jIvAtma-s & 

They have to achieve salvation one after another etc” 

Badisa: Prabhuji! I am not saying that they are separate entities. But I am saying they are the multiple forms or reflections of the same, from a relative perspective, which will merge in it where the forms came originally. They are not separate entities in absolute sense.   

“But in paramArtha jnAna there is no question of multiplicity in undivided consciounsess (akhanda chaitanya)” 

Badisa: Prabhuji! Did I say that paramartha gyana has multiplicity and divided consciousness in any of my postings? 

“jAtasyahi dhruvO mrutyuH...dying differently OK acceptable according 

To vayOdharma (age, health temperament etc.)...but I dont think there is a difference in paramArtha jnAna/absolute realization ("salvation" in your terminology) is different..if the absolute jnAna itself different for different individuals then it cannot be called as saMyag jnAna”

Badisa: That’s not my intention here prabhuji. I never said that absolute Gyana will be different for different individuals. For example, if you experience your true self in this very life itself luckily, and if another person also experiences it, then what I am saying is that both you and him will have the same experience. It means that absolute gyana is the same for all. Nevertheless, your self-experience cannot make other unlucky souls to have the same experience in the case of yEka jIva vAda in the samsar. yEka jIva vAda is correct in a different perspective, but not when concerned with samsar. I am not saying existence of multiple and separate individual entities in samsar. What I am saying is the existence of multiple forms of the same in the samsar. Therefore, in the above context of my answer, I am referring to existence of multiple forms in the samsar.

“Yes but this difference is because of upAdhi-s (upAdhi kruta)...As 

Said above, there is absolutely *no difference* between ghatAkAsha


Badisa: Prabhuji! When we call a person ‘poor’, we are only interested to convey the meaning that he is ‘poor’. We do not look for the reasons to say, “yes he is poor because he spent all his money luxuriously”. We are not asking here, “why”, but we want to know “how is he now” Our primary interest in this example is not to know the reasons how he became poor. Nor to say that he would become rich in future. He may become very rich in future. But that is not the intention at this moment. We want to know, “Is he poor now? Does he have upadhi? If yes, then he is different. In your reply, you also agreed that jivatma is different from paramatma due to upadhi-s. I was only referring that when jivatma is bonded, then it is finite and limited. I never said that this difference is permanent in absolute sense. You are welcome to check any of my postings.

 “For that matter, prabhuji shankara himself transactionally approves both yEka jIva vAda and nAnA jIva vAda..The deliberations with regard to relative merits of both yEka & nAnA jIva vAda is futile since from the transactional view point we do believe & behave as if there are multiple jIva-s..(this discussion group itself is an standing example for that :-))

Badisa: Sri Shankara agreed the existence of one and multiple forms of jives. From a relative perspective, not from absolute sense, he agreed multiple forms. You yourself gave an outstanding example in your reply, of course, from a relative perspective, to show the existence of multiple jIva-s. When we raise the questions or doubts from a relative level, the answer should also be given in the same level. For example, if someone asks you about the details of devyan marg, then, would you prefer answering in a relative sense or absolute sense? Arguments and counter arguments will be made when you explain it in a relative sense. However, if you prefer to answer it from absolute point of view, then there is nothing to answer or explain. Thus, when I, you or others frame the questions or arguments or doubts, everything is done from a relative perspective. I believe in the existence of Brahma Lok, for example. Because it is mentioned in our shastras. But you or others may say that
 it is not existing. Although, it is understandable that from nirgun Brahman’s point of view, nothing is existing, but again, are we all at that highest level now to negate every thing from absolute point of view. See, sri Shankara, who is a jeevan mukta, looked the world in different perspectives. In absolute point of view, there is no clash at all. But, since we all are not at the highest level, we need to explain the existence of multiple forms and equate them finally to the absolute sense. In this respective, existence of multiple forms is acceptable. Because, as per shastras, every thing originates from divine, and again goes back to it. For example, a river originate from the sea, and goes back to it. A spark arises from the fire and goes back to it. When there is no karma, then there is no question to come back to samsar. When the spark has not come out the fire, then there is no spark to be looked for in the fire. It is the fire, homogeneous fire, without any
 distinction. Every where it the same fire. 

 “But these names & forms are kEvala avidyA kalpita says explicitly

 shankara...we cannot hold it as an ultimate reality & drag them to

 destination of nirguNa brahman...vAchAraMbhaNam vikAro 

nAmadhEyaM..asserts shruti” 

Badisa: Prabhuji! I never said that these forms are ultimate reality. If you check my previous postings it would be clear. What I said earlier was that all forms manifest from divine and go back into him without any distinction. For example sparks emerge from fire and go back into the fire. There is no decrease or increase in fire nor is there any difference between fire or spark. Once the spark merges in fire, then there is no spark there. When we see a fire, can we see any distinction in it? No. It means that there would be no rupas and no namas in this state. Rather it is the fire, present every where homogeneously and undivided.

“As said above, shruti while describing creation of jIva-s & jagat 

Does not maintain consistency since it is not the primary intention of

 shruti-s...for example, as you quoted mundaka says *yakhAgnE kshudra

 vispulingAH ...sarva yEtE AtmAnO uccharaNte...but chAndOgya says na 

jIvO mriyatE (6-11-3), kaTha says (1-2-18) na jAyatE mriyatE vA 

vipaschit...and again chAdOgya (6-3-2) says anEna jIvEna Atman anupravishya nAma rUpE vyAkaravANI... Which one of the above you think an authentic definition of jIva concept??  How do you reconcile these apparent contradictions in shruti assertions??”

Badisa: As you have also quoted earlier, Ch. Up. 6.3.2 implies that multiple origin of forms from one Brahman. This is true from relative point of view, that is, in connection with creation etc. Similarly, Mundaka Up. 2.1.1 is also talks from relative point of view. However, as you have quoted earlier, Katopanishad 1.2.18 says differently. Similarly, Gita 2/20 also talks the same topic like Kata. Up. But we should remember, here, both these are referring from absolute point of view. Mixing of these references would make us to think that the sruti is talking in contradicting ways. That is not right. For example, if you take Gita 2/20 and Kath. Up 1.2.18 from relative perspective, then both will clash with Gita 14/4 sloka. The best way to reconcile is to understand both Gita 2/20 and Ka. Up 1.2.18 from absolute point of view, while Gita 14/4 from relative point of view. Then, there won’t be no contradictions at all.  

“Yes, we cannot stretch any analogy unduly...Likewise, we caanot not 

jIva has been spilled as spark from *fire brahma*..if we literally take 

this analogy then we will have to admit that brahman is subject to 


Badisa: Prabhuji! Which Brahman are you referring to? Is it the saguna (s) or nirguna (n) Brahaman (B)? Obviously, you have to mention only one. Which aspect of it is involved in the creation? Are you saying that creation (origin of sparks from fire) and subsequent merging are vikaras of Brahman? Are you saying that Brahman has an intention, which is a vikara, for the purpose of creation etc? Please refer Mundaka Up. 1.1.7 to know that creation is spontaneous, without purpose or without any effort. 



Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business. 

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list