[Advaita-l] In Advaita alone the jiva is not jaDa

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:28 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:


> In Advaita alone the jiva is not jaDa
>
> For the above mantra, Shankara concludes the bhashyam thus:
>
> नेदं ब्रह्म यदिदम् इत्युपाधिभेदविशिष्टमनात्मेश्वरादि उपासते ध्यायन्ति ।
> तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि इत्युक्तेऽपि नेदं ब्रह्म इत्यनात्मनोऽब्रह्मत्वं
> पुनरुच्यते नियमार्थम् अन्यब्रह्मबुद्धिपरिसङ्ख्यानार्थं वा ॥  That is not
> Brahman which people meditate upon as 'this', which is characterized by a
> differentiating upadhi, which is anatma, not-self, that is Ishvara, etc.
> You have to know that alone as Brahman which is not of the above
> description.  In other words, if something is known as 'this', that is
> anatma, abrahma. The Upanishad wants to preclude the aspirant from
> realizing something that is not his own self.
>

This is not correct understanding of 'Atma'.

In fact Br.U  ask this question quite explicitly  -- `katama aatma iti ?'
The same Upanishad is answering in the same breath that ;

yOayAm vijnAna maya prANEshu hridyAnta jyOtirtiH | purushaH sa samAnaH san
ubhoU lOkoU anusaMcharati | dhyAtIva |
lElAyativa | sa hi swapnO bhUtvEmaM lOkamati kramati mrutyO rUpANi ||

"Whomever is pUrNa-jnAna-svarUpa and residing in heart and instigate from
within, is Atma. "

Note, upansihadic idea that Atma is "vijnAna maya". This idea is in direct
collision Shanakara's understanding of nature of Atma in which he denies
the pramaritvaM -- na cha agneriva AtmA Atmani viShayaH: (Shankara
in BU2.4.14). The Self is not an object of knowledge for the Self.

Given that Shankara's understanding about Atman itself is highly
questionable and anti-vEdic, you cannot argue Dvaitic position about jIva
whether it si chEtana or not.

In my opinion -- the title of this thread should be " In Advaita alone the
Atma is jaDa"



> The teaching culminates in
> emphasizing that it is this impelling consiciousness that one should
> realize oneself to be, as Brahman
>

How can a nishkriya Brahman impel anything at all? Let alone impelling,
such Atma/Brahman is not aware of itself.
Do not tell such impelling is only in vyavahAra. If it is only vyvahAra,
then your charge about Dvaita is based on vyavahAra hEtu, which is not
final anyways as per you again.





> A look at the Antaryami Brahmanam of Br.Up. 3.7.3 too gives us the same
> conclusion:
> यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरो यं पृथिवी न वेद यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं यः
> पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ३ ॥   mantra.  Bhashya:
>
> देवताकार्यकरणस्य ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन हि नियमेन प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती
> स्याताम् ; य ईदृगीश्वरो नारायणाख्यः, पृथिवीं पृथिवीदेवताम् , यमयति नियमयति
> स्वव्यापारे, अन्तरः अभ्यन्तरस्तिष्ठन् , एष त आत्मा, ते तव, मम च सर्वभूतानां
> च इत्युपलक्षणार्थमेतत् , अन्तर्यामी यस्त्वया पृष्टः, अमृतः
> सर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जित इत्येतत् ॥
>
> The 'antaryami' is the consciousness that impels the 'body-mind' complex of
> the devataa.  This impelling consciousness is taught as the Atma of the
> aspirant. From the Kenopanishad we understand that one should not realize
> oneself as the 'Narayana' who is different from oneself but only that which
> is the Atman.  [Therefore, this 'Narayana' is impelling merely by the
> presence as witness and therefore is not any deity.]
>

Wrong understanding again.

Shruti has clearly linked Atman with Hari and also assert positive action
to Hari.

AtatatvAchha mAtrutvAdAtmEti paramO hariH |  AtmA bhAsAstadanyE tu na
heYtEShAM tatA guNAH ||
-iti paramOshanishadi

Hari is called 'Atma' because He is vyApta and nirmAta of this jagat. Since
all other beings do not have such qualities, they are called amukhya Atma.
This is said in param upanishad. (Madhva in His Vishnu Tatva Vinirnaya).






>
> Thus, the impelling Consciousness is the Atman, the true nature of the jiva
>

True nature of impelling Consciouness is not the true nature of jIva.
Shruti clearly says --
yasya prasAdAtparamArtirUpAdasmAtsaMsArAnmuchyate nApareNa  |
nArAyaNo.asau paramo vichi.ntyo mumuxubhiH karmapAshAdamushhmAt.h ||

(By whose grace alone, the greatly suffering are rid of the world, and not
otherwise; He is NârâyaNa, the Supreme, and the one fit to be contemplated
upon by those who seek to be liberated from the binds of karma.)

If you think true nature of Jiva is this Atman, why you have to out of
misery yet?


>
> On a perusal of the commentary of Madhva for the Kenopanishad mantra we
> find that the impeller is the 'niyamaka' of the jiva, devatas, etc.
>

You should also study other works of Madhva for better understanding.


> We see that Madhva specifies that the impeller is the controller of the
> jiva.  We get the impression that the jiva is impelled, like the inert
> mind, prana, sense organs, etc. That means the jiva in such a construct is
> not something that is completely divested of the not-self, anatma, that is
> called kshetram in the BG 13th chapter:
>

Just because jada vastus are impelled by chaitanya vastu, you extend that
logic and say Dvaita's jIva is also a jaDa?
There is no saadhaka pramAna for the rule "if something is impelled from
within, it has to be only jaDa". On the contrary, we have pramANa to say
those are impelled not necessarily jaDa vastus.

aj~nAnAM j~nAnado vishhNoH j~nAninAM moxadashcha saH  | Ana.ndadashcha
muktAnAM sa evaiko janArdanaH

If Jiva is another jaDa vastu, then shruti's usage of ajnAnAM jnAnadO is
useless as we never seen jada vasthu will get knowledge.

Then what exactly is the impelling withing the jIva-s mean?

Commenting on Bhagavat Gita # 2.20, Acharya, in his tAtparya, quotes
MahAvishhnu-purANa:

"alpashakti asArvaj~naM pAratantrayaM apUrNatA | upajIvakatvaM jIvatvaM
IshatvaM tadviparyayaH |
svAbhAvikaM tayoretannAnyathA syAt.h kathaJNchana | vadanti
shAshvatAvetAvat.h eva mahAjanAH"
(The jIva is extremely limited in his power and knowledge, dependent on
Hari, incomplete, and needs support whereas Ishvara is just the opposite.
These being intrinsic [laxaNa-s], they never ever change. Hence learned
call it shAshvata.)




>
> महाभूतान्यहङ्कारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च।
> इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः।।13.6।।
> The great elements, egoism, intellect and the Unmanifest itself; the ten
> organs and the one, and the five objects of the senses;
> इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं सङ्घातश्चेतनाधृतिः।
> एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम्।।13.7।।
> Desire, repulsion, happiness, sorrow, the aggregate (of body and organs),
> sentience, fortitude- this field, together with its modifications, has been
> spoken of briefly.
>
>
Again, this interpretation is based on your Advaitic framework. You cannot
question Dvaita's position based on your framework. The correct way is to
question, do they have valid pramANa which is niravAkSha (meaning it cannot
be interpreted in alternate way) when they arrive what they arrived.



> Nowhere in the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita we have a situation where
> the jiva, having discriminated the inert kshetra, not-self, from the
> kshetrajna, the sentient self, is still something who is not just pure
> consciousness, prakriti sambandha rahita atma.  If such a jiva is not just
> pure consciousness, then it is evident that the kshetra amsha has not been
> completely separated from the jiva.

This is because, any possibility of
> knowing an entity, objects, enjoying, experiencing, etc. will have to be
> only with a set of mind, sense and motor organs.


That is a flawed logic.

RgvEda contradicts your logic when it says in 7th maNDala 'axaNvantaH
karNavantaH sakhAyo manojaveShvasamAbabhUvuH'.

Taittiriya(2.1) also says the released selves experiences all joys in the
company of Brahma (so.ashnute sarvAn.h kAmAn.h saha brahmaNA vipashchitA).
Also ChandOgya (8.12.3) saying the released sports, plays etc. 'sa tatra
paryeti jaxan.h krIDan.h ' etc.

Advaitins have difficulty to understand these vivid descriptions of
mukta-s, is due to the fact that in their epistemology, in all pramANa
prakriyas, the final entity which is responsible for perception of
knowledge is anthakaraNa only. Jiva or chaitanya is just witness only and
has quite passive role attributed to it in all these prakriyas. Since
anthakaraNa is jada vastu and stays as long as one in banda and does not
exist in mOksha, a advaitin have difficulty in explaining these
descriptions of mukta-s in mOksha. As a result, they bring such vivid
descriptions of mOksha under karma-mukti and attribute to brahma-lOka
(saty-lOka).

Because of Advaita has passive role for chit jIva -- advaita's mOksha can
not be called vijnAnamaya, anAndamaya etc. at all. For that matter there is
no experience to be experienced. As sated above, Shankara denies the
pramAtR^itva for Self in mOksha, including pramAtR^itva of its own
existence. That's the reason I suggested only in Advaita Atman is jaDa
padhArtha.


> If such a mind-body-organs
> complex is going to be an inseparable part of the jiva even in liberation,
> then such a jiva cannot be free from jaDatva.  The Upanishads do not teach
> a bhoga-vishishta mukti. Bhoga can happen only within the realm of the
> fourteen lokas which are bhautika.  Abhautika loka with bhoga is not the
> teaching of the Upanishads.
>
>
Upansihads talk about vivid nature of mukthi, that part is true, but on
what basis you deny such mukthi is NOT ultimate and bring it under
karma-mukti and attribute it to brahma-lOka? That part is not in shruti. It
is just a inference by Advaita based on unsupported anumAana. Dvaita and
VisistAdvaita is correct based on laghuttva criteria.

/sv