Gangajal says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, an omniscient being is aware of all future. Sri Krishna showed Arjuna
the fate of all the Kaurava warriers before the war even started.
...
Ishwara is very powerful
compared to Jivas but does not have infinite power.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
omniscient but not omnipotent? Most people would claim even omnipotence with the Ishvara.
I had also thought of the example from Gita that you mentioned. But the Ishvara who is omniscient and the Ishvara who advices the Arjuna on right conduct seem so separated. From the level of omniscient, whatever choices Arjuna is going to make are all determined. While on his level Arjuna sees many options of actions open to him, and ShrI Bhagavan teaches him the "correct" path, meaning at that level even Shri Bhagavan accepts the freedom of choice.
Many questions boil down to the nature and scope of "free will" or "icchaa-shakti". Is it really free or is it predetermined.
"ichha-shakti" makes sense only within time, in the realm of MahA-kAla or mahA-kAlI. For a timeless being, there is no meaning to iccha-shakti, or for that matter any purpose, dharma etc. Omnicience implies a sort of timelessness. While Ishvara also acts within time. Hence the difficulty. Ishvara apparently combines within himself timelessness as well as a temporal aspect.
Sunder says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The merger is always vertical, and never horizontal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what the upside-down Ashvattha tree model would also imply. But the shloka from the Gita does mention that branches of this tree go in all directions, even 'tiryak'.
To further probe the example of two people in love, lovers feel the image of their beloved in their hearts, just as devotees do regarding the deity. Their bodies obviously don't merge, but the sense of 'self' seems to have merged in a substantial way. According to the advaitic view, the true final Self is one and all other 'selves' are mere supposed selves, our idea of who we are. Even if a mother doesn't physically merge with the baby, the identification with the baby is very strong. Every little joy or pain of the baby is felt acutely by the mother too. In this sense the mother has extended her idea of her 'self' to include the baby. Isn't merger of a devotee in the Ishvara similar? An extension of the idea of 'self'?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Dhoorastham, cha anthike cha thath". It is far, yet it is the closest. It is the one that makes you aware of the layers in the first place. It cannot be any further from you than yourself smile.gif I like Sri Rubhu's words, "Yathra Yathra mano yathi, thathra Brahmaiva darshanam." This can be practised during self enquiry, or while travelling in the skytrain, or local bus etc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point Sunder. But there can still be uncountable layers of sagunas to cross to reach the nirguna. An accomplished natarAja-AtmA ( <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> ), could easily jump past those layers at will, but for most the distance could still be huge. How many people manage to actually see themselves as the only true Self, even though it is prsent there all the time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Isn't any saguna based on Nirguna as it's substratum? If a saguna has another saguna as it's substratum, then I am confused. Thus the hierarchy that we talk about cannot be saguna-based-on-saguna model. It has to be saguna-with-nirguna-substratum model alone. If that is the case, then the merger can be easily explained. Just as your dream objects merge back into your mind when you awake, there is no hierarchical mergers of dream objects.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nirguna is of course the substratum for all the sagunas. But the process of subration doesn't immediately take you from any saguna directly to the nirguna. It can take you from a saguna level to another higher saguna level too. In the example of the rope and snake, subration makes the snake unreal, but that saguna snake is now replaced by a saguna rope. The snake doesn't just get subrated all the way to nirguna in one shot.
In the example of dream, when you wake up from dream, the reality of dream is subrated by the waking reality. But isn't it the point of advaita that even the waking reality can be subrated further?
Therefore it is quite alright to say that a saguna when subrated can still lead to a saguna. The whole process leads through a sequence of sagunas with a limit in the nirguna.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Sandhaanam (joining) of the Ishwara with the kosha is not the same as a physical link between them. As Shri Bhagavaan says in the Geetha, "Yatha akaasha stitho nithyam vayu sarvatrago mahaan" in BG 9.6. (I think I had mentioned this earlier.
If all quarks, electrons and protons are in contact with space, then how come space does not get charged by the +ve and -ve charges of the electron/protons ? If something is OMNIpresent, then it naturally will be the encapsulation point for any and all classes below it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was the view in classical newtonian mechanics that the presense of matter doesn't affect the underlying space. Einstein's relativistic mechanics has shown that the time as well as space get affected by the presence of matter. Curvature of space induced by matter is the general Relativity's description of gravity. So the analogy of space as the unaffected substratum doesn't quite work.
Nirguna brahman as the unaffected substratum works, as the nirguna and the other sagunas couldn't be present simultaneously for any observer. The problem with Ishvara/Narayana I have been mentioning is that he is supposed to be present simultaneously with all the jivas and jagat and still remains unaffected.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Getting affected here would mean mutation of Ishwara. This does not happen. However, all your prayers and sufferings go away because of the WILL and Compassion of Ishwara.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a different view on the WILL.
I will expand on it more carefully in a subsequent post. [Edited by author]
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Feb 2 2005, 03:35 AM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Feb 2 2005, 03:35 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> omniscient but not omnipotent? Most people would claim even omnipotence with the Ishvara.
I had also thought of the example from Gita that you mentioned. But the Ishvara who is omniscient and the Ishvara who advices the Arjuna on right conduct seem so separated. From the level of omniscient, whatever choices Arjuna is going to make are all determined. While on his level Arjuna sees many options of actions open to him, and ShrI Bhagavan teaches him the "correct" path, meaning at that level even Shri Bhagavan accepts the freedom of choice.
Many questions boil down to the nature and scope of "free will" or "icchaa-shakti". Is it really free or is it predetermined.
"ichha-shakti" makes sense only within time, in the realm of MahA-kAla or mahA-kAlI. For a timeless being, there is no meaning to iccha-shakti, or for that matter any purpose, dharma etc. Omnicience implies a sort of timelessness. While Ishvara also acts within time. Hence the difficulty. Ishvara apparently combines within himself timelessness as well as a temporal aspect. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Yes, most people will claim Ishwara is also omnipotent. Of course, compared to a Jiva Ishwara is more powerful. I, however, side with the Buddhists that Ishwara is not omnipotent. I do not agree with the Buddhists that Ishwara can not reduce karmic suffering. I do not believe in omnipotence because an omnipotent Ishwara would be able to save genuine devotees from karmic suffering. That is not the case in the world.
2. At the level of Ishwara everything is known. At the level of a Jiva very little is known.
3. Jiva does not have absolute free will. After all a Jiva can not will death away. A Jiva has limited free will. The point is that whatever be the Jiva's choice the omniscient Ishwara knows what will happen.
I do not think omniscience necessarily involves timelessness. Let me tell you a personal story. I had an American friend, Mark, when I was in graduate school. I did not see him for almost 13 years. I met him again in 1997 in San Francisco. At that time I had some problem. I told Mark about my problem. He told me what would happen to me in future. His prediction came true. I have asked him about his prediction powers. He told me that thoughts arose when he concentrated about something. He then told me that when he tried to know about his own future, he saw complete darkness. Mark died on December 31, 1998. Mark was definitely not Ishwara and yet he had predictive powers. So I suspect that omniscience has nothing to do with time but is some kind of psychic power.
After the last bout of a flurry of posts, I had an overload of information on which I was (and am still) meditating. Meanwhile, while refering to Panchadasi, I found that Nrusimha Uttaratapaniya upanishad mentions that Ishwara and Jeeva are reflection of Brahman on Maya/Avidya. I am posting the relevant link from Panchadasi Chapter Eight (verses 60-64)
It will take me a while to compose anything close to a rebuttal of the Duality concept.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Panchadasi Chapter VIII. (Kootastha Deepa)
http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/other_boo...dasi_4.htm
60. The Shruti declares that Jiva and Ishvara are both reflections of Brahman in Maya. They are, however, different from material things in that they are transparent (i.e., revealing) just as a glass jar is different from earthen ones.
61. Though both are products of food, the mind is subtler and purer than the body. Similarly, Jiva and Ishvara are more transparent than the grosser products of Maya.
62. Jiva and Ishvara, because they manifest the power of revealing, must be considered to be endowed with consciousness. For, nothing is difficult for Maya, that is endowed with the power to create all things.
63. When we sleep, our dreams create even Jiva and Ishvara. What wonder is there then that the Great Maya creates them in the waking state ?
64. <b>The Maya creates omniscience and other qualities too in Ishvara. When it can create Ishvara, the receptacle of these qualities, is it difficult to conceive that it can also create these qualities in Him ?</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunder,Feb 10 2005, 04:42 AM Wrote:64. <b>The Maya creates omniscience and other qualities too in Ishvara. When it can create Ishvara, the receptacle of these qualities, is it difficult to conceive that it can also create these qualities in Him ?</b> [/quote]
Sundar ji,
Panchadasi 6.197 says:
Another Sruti says that Isvara, the Lord of Maya, creates the universe, whereas the Jiva is controlled by Maya. So Isvara, associated with Maya, is the creator.
The Sruti in question is Svetasvatara Up 4.9. So the above quotation and the quotation 8.64 suggest that Isvara is both the Lord of Maya and has been created by Maya. Can both be true? Or is it a fancy way of saying that Brahman seems like Isvara when seen through Maya.
I have an interesting story to tell about the attitude of Ramakrishna Order monks towards the Dualists. I once asked Swami Sarvadevananda about his opinion about dualist monks. Swami told me that those monks also reach high spiritual status but they stop when they feel the strong attraction of Brahman since they do not want the Advaita experience.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Panchadasi 6.197 says:
Another Sruti says that Isvara, the Lord of Maya, creates the universe, whereas the Jiva is controlled by Maya. So Isvara, associated with Maya, is the creator.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no conflict of this statement with the earlier ones. For Ishwara is but the reflection of Brahman on Maya, just as jeeva is Brahman's reflection (chidabhasa) on Avidya. Ishwara controls maya, while jeeva is controlled by avidya.
Your statement that Ishwara, that is associated with maya is the Creator is not contrary to my earlier posting. Rephrasing it, Chid, reflected in Maya, assumes the work of Creation etc. The work is distributed as follows:
Srushti (Creation) is done by Brahma - who was created from Vishnu.
Sthithi (Maintenance) is the responsibility of Vishnu.
Samharam (constructive destruction) is done by Rudra.
Anugraham (Granting) is done by Ishwara.
Thirodhanam (Revoking) is done by Sadhashiva, or Mahamaya.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Isvara is both the Lord of Maya and has been created by Maya. Can both be true? Or is it a fancy way of saying that Brahman seems like Isvara when seen through Maya.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have asked the question and also given the answer ji. When you say maya has 'Created' Ishwara, it is not a creation out of nowhere. Ishwara is manifestation of Consciousness, which is made possible only because of Maya. This Consciousness alone can be the master of Maya. As maya is insentient, it cannot recognize itself without the aid of PURUSHA (according to samkhya), or without Brahma-Chaithanya according to Vedanta. Terminology apart, both are the same.
Maya cannot Lord-over Ishwara as matter depends on Consciousness for it's existance. I hope I am wording it right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Swami told me that those monks also reach high spiritual status but they stop when they feel the strong attraction of Brahman since they do not want the Advaita experience.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a digression, but the Swamiji's statement is very true. Maya's prabhaava is so strong that only the courageous venture into the unknown. Most of us are happy with the comfortable 'groove'. There is a term called 'abhinivesha' in samskrit. It means 'the wish to live', or 'holding on to life'. Patanjali says, that this Abhinivesham is one of the impediments to Yoga. Ppl are afraid to lose the Samsaram and attain Kaivalyam.
Remember Swami Vivekananda too screamed that he did not wish to die, and that he had his mother waiting for him at home when he first had 'THE Experience'? Arjuna was shaking with fear when he saw the Vishvaroopa Dharshanam. No philosophy is going to prepare you for what you see when you cross the border into the Nirvikalpa.
Lessons in Vedanta - Excellent link.
In the previous lesson, while discussing about Atma and Anatma, we had raised a question as to how Atma - which is one and only one - appears as different Jeevatmas. The answer to that question was given by using the analogy called <b>Avachchinna Vaada</b>. The name of another analogy called <b>Pratibimba Vaada</b> was also mentioned there. What is meant by Pratibimba Vaada?
<b>Pratibimba Vaada</b>
It is true that Atma is only one and pervades everywhere. But it is only when it reflects in the inner instrument of cognition that we will be able to recognise it. If it were to pervade everywhere without reflecting in the Antahkarana (inner instrument of cognition), we can not recognise Atma Chaitanya. When the same Atma reflects in different Antahkaranas we tend to believe that there are many Jeevatmas and forget that all the reflections come from the same Atma.
When an object reflects in a mirror, the original object is called as Bimba and the reflection is called as Pratibimba. Only when there is Pratibimba (reflection) we call the original object as Bimba. Otherwise, it is called as an object only.
There is only one sun in the sky. We are able to see sunâs reflection in a sea, a pond, a pot and a small plate. A child which sees these reflections says that because the sunâs reflection in the ocean gives out more rays, it must be a big sun and that because the reflection in a cup of water gives fewer rays, it must be a small sun. indirectly, he implies multitude of suns. On the other hand, an elderly person says that there is only one sun and to think that there are many suns by looking at his reflections in different places is only an illusion. Similarly, men of knowledge assert that the seeming multitude of Jeevatmas is only an illusion and that there is only one Atma just as there is only one sun.
<b>Question:</b> While presenting Avachchinna Vaada, it was mentioned that the Anatma Padartha is only one in the Karana (causal) state, but many in the (Karya) effect state. Now in this doctrine of Pratibimba Vaada, you say that the sun reflected in water. In all the examples, the sun reflects in the same object - i.e., water. Water is the same whether it is in the sea or in a cup. But such sameness can not be attributed to Antahkaranas. Each is different from the other. Therefore, the above example of reflection may not be apt.
<b>Answer:</b> Agreed, water is one. But when you see the same water in one place, you call it as sea. In another place, you call it as pond. In another place, you call it as well. Does anything other than water make the sea? Does anything other than water make the pond? Does anything other than water make the well? No. similarly, although Anatma Padartha is only one, it behaves differently. It is because of this that different Antahkaranas exist. The Atma is reflected in them and appears as different Jeevatmas.
<b>Question:</b> What was elucidated in Avachchinna Vaada is not different from this. Where is the need to present another doctrine - Pratibimba Vaada?
<b>Answer:</b> Although sun reflects in water, he does not acquire the qualities like coolness, mobility etc., which are the characteristics of water (in which he reflects). Similarly, the qualities of Kartritva (doership) and Bhoktritva (enjoyership) do not be transferred to Atma. Donât you know that the movement of sun in the reflection is only illusory and that in reality the sun is stationary? Similarly, to assume that the Atma (which reflects as Jeevatma in the beings) assumes Kartritva (doership) and Bhoktritva (enjoyership) is due to illusion. Therefore Jeevatma is also referred to as âChidabhaasaâ (imagination). It is to make this point clear that the doctrine of Pratibimba Vaada had to be presented.
It is clear from the above that there is no independent existence to the reflections of the Sun. What exists is only one sun. similarly, the Jeevatma is merely a chidabhasa (imagination). Therefore, Paramatma is none other than Jeevatma and Jeevatma is none other than Paramatma.
<b>Question:</b> While presenting Avachchinna Vaada, you did not say that the space in the pot was imaginary. But here, you say that Jeevatma is Chidaabhaasa (imaginary). In other words, Jeevatma is non existent. How can you say that Jeevatma (which is non existent) and Atma (which always exists) are one and the same? Is it not a mistake to say that the non existent is existent?
<b>Answer:</b> Are not water, wave and bubble different entities? What is a wave? Is it different from water? Is there anything other than water in it? No. When there is nothing other than water, why is it being given another name? If it is said that there is something else, it must be possible to show it. There is no substance other than water in the wave. Because of its special form, we call it a wave. Similar is the case with water bubble. Because of its special shape, it is called as a bubble. The wave is the substratum for the bubble. Similarly water is the substratum for the wave. The three are different states of water.
Similarly there are three states for Jeevatma. They are Paramarthika (real) state, Vyavaharika (practical existence) state and Praatibhaasika (appearing as though existing) state.
When the Jeeva is in the dream state, he is called as Praatibhaasika Jeeva (Jeeva appearing as though existing). In the wakeful state, he is called as Vyaavahaarika Jeeva (a state accepted for the purpose of Vyavahaara - transactions). In the state of sushupti (deep sleep state), he is called as Paaramaarthika Jeeva (a truly existing state).
The Paaramaarthika is like water, while the Vyaavahaarika is like the wave. The Praatibhaasika is like the bubble. Just as wave form came from water and the bubble form came from the wave, so also the Praatibhaasika comes from the Vyaavahaarika and the Vyaavahaarika comes from the Paaramaarthika existence.
The qualities of water - namely sweetness, coolness etc., are present in the wave also and in the bubble too. Similarly the cardinal attributes of Atma - namely âSatâ, âChitâ and âAnandaâ are present in all the three states of the Jeeva.
No bubble without the wave and no wave without water. Similarly, Praatibhaasika can not exist if there is no Vyaavahaarika and Vyaavahaarika can not exist in the absence of the Paaramaarthika. Thus, just as water is the basis for both the wave and the bubble, so is Paaramaarthika the base for both Vyaavahaarika and Praatibhaasika.
Whether we call it a wave or a bubble, what exists there is nothing but water. Similarly, whether we call it Vyaavahaarika or Praatibhaasika, what exists there is nothing but the Paaramaarthika.
Another name of the Paaramaarthika Jeeva is âParamatmaâ. Another name is <b>âKootasthaâ</b> (koota - a raised iron platform on which the gold smith places gold for beating). The goldsmith places gold on the platform and subjects it to different processes while making an ornament. The gold undergoes modifications while the platform remains unchanged. It is to denote such changeless nature that the name Kootastha is given.
The water bubble is not different from water. We do not see any reason why the can not be considered as one and the same. Similarly we do not see any reason why we should not consider Jeevatma as Paramatma.
The same truth was deduced in the Avachchinna Vaada when it was said that the Ghataakaasha and Mathaakasha are not different.
We can understand one more aspect in this doctrine of reflection (Pratibimba Vaada).
When the Paramatma Chaitanya reflects in the Anaatma Padartha, (i.e., in ignorance), it is called as Ishwara. When it reflects in the Antahkarana, it is called as Jeeva.
When we place a small red rose flower behind a big and crystal-clear Shivalingam, we do not see the flower. But the Lingam appears red. "Because of its proximity to the flower, it causes an illusion which makes us think as though the lingam itself if red" - say knowledgeable persons.
If we consider the Paramatma Chaitanya to be the crystal lingam, the rose is like the ignorance which is of the nature of Anatma. It means to say, when the Atma Chaitanya is close to Ajnaana (ignorance), it gets the name Ishwara. When it reflects in the Antahkarana of the nature of ignorance, it is called as Jeeva.
When an object reflects in a mirror, the original object is called âBimbaâ, while its reflection is called as âPratibimbaâ. Extending the same logic, it can be said that the Bimba Chaitanya (the original principle) is Paramatma. When this becomes Ajnaana Upahita (appearing as though influenced by ignorance - just as the crystal lingam appears as though it is red), it is called Ishwara or Bhagavanta. When it reflects in the Antahkarana, it is called as Jeeva.
By this discussion, it becomes clear that Jeeva, Ishwara and Paramaatma are merely different names and not different entities. This is the use of presenting the doctrine of reflection (Pratibimba Vaada).
Thus, when we apply the Avachchinna Vaada and Pratibimba Vaada, to analyse Atma Padartha and Anaatma Padartha, it becomes clear that the Atma is only one and that it is real. It also becomes evident that it is not different from âIâ. This is the conclusion that we have arrived at in the previous lessons.
Some more information about Vishistadvaita
*****************************************************
1. Everything, including dreams and illusions, is real. When one sees water in the desert, one is actually seeing water since through panchikarana water is present even in the desert.
2. Savikalpa means determinate seeing. Nirvikalpa means non-detreminate seeing. So any time one sees something for the first time one has a nirvikalpa experience. It takes repeated seeing to have a savikalpa experience.
3. Jnana, consciousness, is nether spiritual nor material. Jnana is the only way to see everything but there is no way to see Jnana itself. Jnana is present as an attribute of both Isvara and Jiva. Hence it is called dharmabhutajnana. Isvara's dharmabhutajnana is not constrained while Jivas who are not liberated have their dharmabhutajnana constricted.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Everything, including dreams and illusions, is real. When one sees water in the desert, one is actually seeing water since through panchikarana water is present even in the desert.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is true, then "mithya" has no meaning at all. Delusion (viparyaya), Imagination (Vikalpa), and Pramana (Authoritative Proof such as Prathyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, and Shabdha) have no distinction and become synonyms of each other.
Else.... when you state that dream and illusion are "real", you will have to explain the meaning of "reality". does it mean temporarily/relatively real, or Permanently/Absolutely real? Advaita contests the theory and says the DREAMER is real, while the dream is not. The water in a mirage is not imagined to be an illusion by the deluded one, but thinks it is REAL. If one sees the water as an illusion and knows it's a mirage, then we have absolutely nothing to contest, for we are on the same side. So also, as long as you know that the Jeeva/Jagath/Eeshwara are like the mirage in a desert, and are not mistaking them to be real, we are on the same side. If you think you can drink the water from the mirage, and think that the Jeeva and Jagath are parmanent, then we have something to debate.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Feb 15 2005, 12:47 AM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Feb 15 2005, 12:47 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> If this is true, then "mithya" has no meaning at all. Delusion (viparyaya), Imagination (Vikalpa), and Pramana (Authoritative Proof such as Prathyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, and Shabdha) have no distinction and become synonyms of each other.
Else.... when you state that dream and illusion are "real", you will have to explain the meaning of "reality". does it mean temporarily/relatively real, or Permanently/Absolutely real? Advaita contests the theory and says the DREAMER is real, while the dream is not. The water in a mirage is not imagined to be an illusion by the deluded one, but thinks it is REAL. If one sees the water as an illusion and knows it's a mirage, then we have absolutely nothing to contest, for we are on the same side. So also, as long as you know that the Jeeva/Jagath/Eeshwara are like the mirage in a desert, and are not mistaking them to be real, we are on the same side. If you think you can drink the water from the mirage, and think that the Jeeva and Jagath are parmanent, then we have something to debate. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Real, according to Vishistadvaita, means that it is not a construct of the mind but has an independent existence. Vishsistadvaita distinguishes between two kinds of real, real with practical value and without any practical value. The water seen in a mirage in the desert is real but is of no practical value.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Real, according to Vishistadvaita, means that it is not a construct of the mind but has an independent existence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is the case, you contradict yourself in the statement "Everything, including dreams and illusions, is real." Does Vishistadvaitha claim dreams to have an independent existance outside the realm of the mind?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Feb 15 2005, 02:59 AM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Feb 15 2005, 02:59 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
If this is the case, you contradict yourself in the statement "Everything, including dreams and illusions, is real." Does Vishistadvaitha claim dreams to have an independent existance outside the realm of the mind? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good question. I will have to check on that.
Yes, dream objects are real objects according to Vishistadvaita. Of course, the dream objects are purely temporary and are seen only by the person who dreams.
The dream objects are not created by human mind but by Ishvara. They give the following quotation of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to defend their position:
" In this dream world, there are no chariots. There are no horses to draw the chariots. There are no
roads on which the chariot can go. Then the Brahman creates chariots. He creates horses to draw the chariot and He Creates roads. In this dream world, there are no joys or delights or raptures. Again, Brahman creates joys , delights and raptures. In the dream world, there are no pools, no tanks and no
rivers. Again, Brahman creates pools, He creates tanks and He creates rivers. Indeed Brahman creates all these, in the dream world".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The dream objects are not created by human mind but by Ishvara. They give the following quotation of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to defend their position:
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gangajal ji, in the above quote from the Brihadaranyaka there is no mention that Ishwara creates the dream objects. It mentions that Brahman (the Observer) is the one who creates dream objects. Where these objects exist except in the mind? So also the real world's existance. It is as real as the dream world according to Advaitins and Vishistadvaithins. Here we are harping on the same statements with different interpretations.
Advaitins say that as dream is "unreal", so is the waking state. Vishistadvaitins seem to say that as the waking state is real, dreams too are real. Terminologies vary, but the agreement of the states being similar seems to be common among both schools.
Now, an Advaitin's argument of reality is this.. When you take away the changeable or modifiable components of an object, what remains that does not change or mutate or vanish is REALITY. This is called Brahman. Now, instead of breaking my head over the terminological diffrences, I should probably start reading the Sri Bhashyam and THEN start talking about the differences.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Feb 15 2005, 05:51 AM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Feb 15 2005, 05:51 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Gangajal ji, in the above quote from the Brihadaranyaka there is no mention that Ishwara creates the dream objects. It mentions that Brahman (the Observer) is the one who creates dream objects. Where these objects exist except in the mind? So also the real world's existance. It is as real as the dream world according to Advaitins and Vishistadvaithins. Here we are harping on the same statements with different interpretations.
Advaitins say that as dream is "unreal", so is the waking state. Vishistadvaitins seem to say that as the waking state is real, dreams too are real. Terminologies vary, but the agreement of the states being similar seems to be common among both schools.
Now, an Advaitin's argument of reality is this.. When you take away the changeable or modifiable components of an object, what remains that does not change or mutate or vanish is REALITY. This is called Brahman. Now, instead of breaking my head over the terminological diffrences, I should probably start reading the Sri Bhashyam and THEN start talking about the differences. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundar ji,
Yes, the difference between Advaita and Visistadvaita depends on their definition of Brahman. Visistadvaita says Brahman could mean Narayana, Jiva or Jagat. Since here the text is talking about the creation of the dream objects, and it is well known that neither Jiva or Jagat can create anything, that implies that Narayana or Isvar has created the dream objects.
02-16-2005, 02:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2005, 02:36 AM by Sunder.)
<!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Feb 15 2005, 11:55 PM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Feb 15 2005, 11:55 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Visistadvaita says Brahman could mean Narayana, Jiva or Jagat. Since here the text is talking about the creation of the dream objects, and it is well known that neither Jiva or Jagat can create anything, that implies that Narayana or Isvar has created the dream objects. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch/panch_08a.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The scripture declares that both Jiva and Isvara are created by the Cosmic Power, called Maya. From the time there was the Primeval Ideation of the Supreme Being, till the animation of every diversified thing in this world by the Consciousness of this Being, it is to be regarded as Isvara-srishti (God's creation). From the time the waking state commenced till the freedom of the is achieved finally, it is Jiva-srishti (individual imagination). things as they are in themselves are Isvara-srishti, and things invested with the psychological reactions of the various individuals are Jiva-srishti. Kutastha, however, is unattached, and does not undergo increase or decrease at any time. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both of us agree on this. Still the reality of Ishwara is not clear as an entity outside Brahman.
I have a question for anyone who understands "Directions" (Dhig in samskritham).
Sri Shankaracharya's Atmabodha Shloka 46 goes as follows:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/adi_sanka..._bodha.htm
46. The ignorance characterised by the notions âIâ and âMineâ is destroyed by the knowledge produced by the realisation of the true nature of the Self, <b>just as right information removes the wrong notion about the directions.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We know from our ancestors that there are Dhig-palakas (Indra, Agni, Yama, Nairuthi, Varuna, Vayu, Gubera, and Eeshana, who guard the East, SE, South, SW, West, NW, North, and NE respectively.) The shastras prescribe that we ought not to do achamanam facing south or west. Similarly, there are Sayings that one should not sleep facing the south etc.
I was talking with a rationalist friend of mine (who believes in vedanta, but wants to reason it out), and he asked if there was a "RATIONAL" reason behind the assignment of Dhig-palakas to the particular directions, and whether it is THAT important that we face only east in the morning and that we SHOULD NOT do achamanam facing west as in the Cosmic level, there are no directions, and what is east now has changed 1 second later (owing to earth's rotation.)
I do not yet know a proper reasoning (apart from the magnetic field of earth) as to why Directions are given such prominence in Sanathana Dharma. Anyone ?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Mar 2 2005, 12:35 AM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Mar 2 2005, 12:35 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I have a question for anyone who understands "Directions" (Dhig in samskritham).
I was talking with a rationalist friend of mine (who believes in vedanta, but wants to reason it out), and he asked if there was a "RATIONAL" reason behind the assignment of Dhig-palakas to the particular directions, and whether it is THAT important that we face only east in the morning and that we SHOULD NOT do achamanam facing west as in the Cosmic level, there are no directions, and what is east now has changed 1 second later (owing to earth's rotation.)
I do not yet know a proper reasoning (apart from the magnetic field of earth) as to why Directions are given such prominence in Sanathana Dharma. Anyone ? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could it be that this is merely some kind of popular belief?
Directions are not important if you are floating in empty space. There all directions are equal. This is called isotropy.
On the surface of the earth isotropy doesn't hold. Earth's rotation about its axis clearly defines north-south and east-west directions. Other set of directions come from earth's rotation about the Sun. The plane of ecliptic and earth's direction of motion around sun give another set of directions. In planetary astronomy these two sets of coordinate systems are most widely used. Each coordinate system is based on clear-cut significance for the primary directions.
Even larger coordinate systems can be created. For example the milky-way galaxy has a spiral structure and is rotating about its center. It is easy to define a galactic north-south and galactic east-west direction this way.
So if someone says all directions are equal, then that is obviously not true in any of these coordinate systems.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->in the Cosmic level, there are no directions, and what is east now has changed 1 second later (owing to earth's rotation.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no preferred 'cosmic level'. Einstein's principle of relativity unambiguosly says that all coordinate frames are equivalent to each other. One fixed to a moving mosquito is as valid as one fixed to the galaxy.
For a person sitting in the ecliptic coordinate system, my 'east' direction vector would keep on changing both due to earth's rotation and due to earth's revolution around the Sun. But for a coordinate system fixed to the earth, north-south, east and west are defined by vectors that do not change direction. In this coordinate frame, sun etc move, but earth doesn't.
Post Copernicus, people have developed this misconception that a coordinate system fixed to earth is somehow 'wrong' and a coordinate system fixed to the ecliptic is more 'correct'. This thinking is wrong! As exemplified by the principle of relativity, all the coordinate systems are equally valid. Physics remains same, no matter which coordinate system is chosen. The advantage of heliocentric system is that, computation of planetary orbits is much more simple compared to one based on geocentric system. But there are other calculations for which a geocentric system is preferred. There are other cal;culations (in astronomy) where a coordinate system fixed relative to the galaxy is more convenient. The coordinates differ in their convenience, not in their validity.
It is natural to assume that 'dik' and 'dikpalas' were thought about in a coordinate system fixed to the earth (geocentric system). There is nothing wrong or invalid with this system. And just because the vectors representing these directions keep on changing when viewed from a heliocentric frame of reference doesn't imply that they are invalid. These vectors are fixed in the geocentric reference frame which is as valid a frame as any.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no preferred 'cosmic level'. Principle of reletivity unambiguosly says that al coordinate frames are equivalent to each other. One fixed to a moving mosquito is no less valid than one fixed to the galaxy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the explanation Ashok. It is quite well put. This becomes my next meditation.
My initial question was not so much the validity of dhikpalakas, as much as the importance or significance of performing rituals facing certain directions and avoiding doing things facing other directions. (like the Aachamanam example.) Also, we talk of PRACHEENA Veethi, and Naveena veethi when it coems to circumambulation. The Old school method seems to be Apradhakshinam (coutner-clockwise), while naveena veethi is Pradhakshinam (clockwise). The same applies to wearing of the Yagnopaveetham - the pracheena veethi is done now only for pitru karyam.
The Ritualistic details given to direction is the seed of my quest. I assume good knowledge of Mimamsa / Karmakanda would be able answer this question. Ashok, I would be glad if can expound more on this part of the question.
PS: By now, I am of the firm belief that nothing in the Vedas is superfluous, and things have been said only after thorough analysis.
|
