Vedanta - Discussion Forum I (introductory))

[gangajal]

<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jan 25 2005, 02:32 AM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jan 25 2005, 02:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If we take jiva (or nara) and narayana to be simultaneously real in equal measure, then there appears a problem.  Who does the self (atma) of the jIva belong to?  Does the individual self belong to the jiva or to the narayana?  If the former, what is the need for a separate narayana, and if later what is the need for separate jivas?  If the self belongs to jivas, then the collection of jivas is more like a bunch of flowers.  The flowers provide the essential reality, not the 'bunch'.  Using a term like 'bunch' is then a convenience, the 'bunch' doesn't possess individuality independent of the flowers.  But if the narayana possesses reality independent of jivas, then narayana would simultaneously contain 'unity' in him as well as 'multiplicity'.  Unity because he has an independent individuality, and multiplicity so as to be the self in all the jivas.  In this sense narayana seems to contain within him the 'unity' of brahman as well as the 'multiplicity' of the world.  Unless this grouping of 'unity' and 'multiplicity' in one being is explained further, term 'narayana' may merely stand for a convenient term to group two disparate concepts together without actually explaining how this comes about.  It may then be called as using nomenclature to explain away a problem.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ashok Kumar ji,

Brahman is defined as Narayan plus Jeeva plus Jagat. This fact can not be questioned or explained. This is the nature of Brahman. The Atma belongs to Jeeva and the various Atmas are like bodies of Narayana. Your question about the need for Narayana can not be answered by anybody. Narayana just IS. Yes, Narayana and the various Jeevas all have individuality. However, while Narayana is completely
independent, the jeevas are dependent on Narayana.