I am not an expert nor have read all the scriptures that all of you have been quoting.. I am a simple minded person and the I know the basics and do believe that the soul once it leaves the body, it comes back to pretty much the same world it left, and pays its debt.. I feel this very much looking at so many things in my life that I have observed that even if someone has taken some money from me I feel I am giving it back from the last birth.. so many people that I have met and the duty in which I am bound.. and when my duty towards someone ends in such a way that I had not expected.. so many examples I can site, but that would need to write my life history.. which is not bad, but I consider myself very lucky for having such an experience that has shaped me not to hate, be jealous, not want more, not that I am a sanyasi, but when I was 3 1/2 years old a major turning point in life, I felt, nothing is mine.. and lived like that until today. I am attached in a detached way, that always has been my motto..
I strongly feel that my past life, must have been such, that this life I had to learn the lessons the hard way, too trusting has its own downfall.. but I have learned, I have felt a connection to certain things in this life, which has no bearing to my personal life.. but I feel there is a reason for all this.. I am sure all of us have to analyze our life and feel the inner gut and know what is the purpose of our existence.. I used to wonder a lot why I am here, and I know the answer..
namaste shrI Sarmaji and others.
I suggest we drop the 'ji' in addressing each other, since we often address BhagavAn himself by just a name name without any title.
As I have said in my post #45 addressed to Govinda, I have no in-depth familiarity with our scriptures, and barely literate in Sanskrit. Besides, I belong to the sampradAya--tradition--of Shankara-smArta-advaita. I have no problems at all with being countered, since we both and most others here are seekers, not scholars, and most of the time we voice only our own free thoughts, irrespective of what the scriptures say.
• Nevertheless, I also believe in the validity of the dvaita and vishiShTAdvaita and other Hindu siddhAntas. Since advaita is the apex, these other traditions can be reconciled to form a hierarchy below the apex, inasmuch as such a hierarchy exists from the nirguNa brahman through the saguNa brahman, devas and other subtle beings, to JIvas and Jagat.
• Thus, IMHO, all the three interpretations of statements in the vedas and upaniShads have their own truth under the given circumstances, not necessarily contradicting one another.
• It seems to me that the apparent duality of the dvA suparNa as two birds is understood better by the PanchAdashI explanation of Brahman as the chaitanya and jIvAtman as the chidAbhAsa. I have attempted a compilation of some essential terms in this post:
Hindu Dharma Forums - View Single Post - Practical Advaita
• In this connection, I would be grateful if you--or any other member--could explain what Kanchi ParamachArya has said of this verse in the KaThopaniShad,
angushTa mAtraH purushaH jyotirivaadhUmakaH |
IshAno bhutabhavyasya sa evAdya sa u shvaH
in this post:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philos...paramacharya-devotees-who-sought-jnana-3.html
As regards your observation in post #39:
Will it not, therefore, be more appropriate to say that the JeevAtma is like a power supply which makes the human being machine work in accordance with the programme written down for it in accordance with karmas and vAsanas? If this is agreed upon, and we also take not of the fact that in the Supreme Brahman, there can be no differentiation of its constituent parts, and so it may not be possible to identify any particular jeevAtma as a separate entity like the arils in a pomegranate. It will be more like taking a spoonful of water from the ocean - you will not get the same water again.
Tat tvam asi is, in my view, to be taken as the effort being made to urge the conscious mind or "I"ness to look within and experience the witnessing jeevAtma.
• I have no problem with the concept that Brahman and Jiva are essentially the same, whether we seek to illustrate it by the example of a power supply, or the I-ness of Jiva being in the field of universal consciousness of Brahman. Differences arise only with the nature of the reality of the apparent limitations of material adjuncts like the body and mind.
• Surely, JIvas are not like the arils in a pomogranate (a good example)--specially when they are the reflected consciousness of brahman--but the limitations of arils do exist in manifest creation, though as a conditional/pracital reality. This I think is due to the play of mAyA--that which (apparently) measures out the brahma chaitanya.
• It seems to me that Jiva is permanently different from Brahman due to its material adjuncts in dvaita, integrated into the divine body of Brahman on liberation in vishiShTAdvaita and irretrievably lost into Brahman as a spoon of water from the ocean in advaita. Please correct me where I am wrong.
• The spoon of water from the ocean analogy has this problem: that you don't get the same water again when you dip the spoon into the ocean a second time might well be true on the ultimate liberation of the Jiva, but it may not be not the case with the rebirth cycles of a Jiva.
I don't think that bodies of different karmic models are ready beforehand for any Jiva to enter any body (so in this sense one need not be worried about bad karma he/she generates in this life). If the spoon of water example is true at all times, we also ask the question, "Does the same soul returns to the body after deep sleep?"
I am not an expert nor have read all the scriptures that all of you have been quoting.. I am a simple minded person and the I know the basics and do believe that the soul once it leaves the body, it comes back to pretty much the same world it left, and pays its debt.. I am attached in a detached way, that always has been my motto..
I used to wonder a lot why I am here, and I know the answer..
I am not an expert nor have read all the scriptures that all of you have been quoting..
One might have passed the entrance to IIT/AIIMS, unless he pursues the degree in the standards of that Institute, he may not achieve a successful career. In the same lines, though our own personal experiences shape us, the scriptures could shape us faster towards the right goal. Once we have a considerable experience in life (schooling, marriage, social life), we can relate our experiences to the scripture/philosophy. I try to understand the upanishads/gita etc. thru english translations, for me tamil would be time-consuming.
I try to help as much as possible, I am there for my friends and family, there is nothing I won't do for them and when you are almost in the happy state, what more could I want in life..
Shri Govinda sir,
Some confusion; you say that "jeeva is similar to Nirguna Brahman" is un-advaitic, whereas according to Sankara Jeeva is non-different from Brahman. Are these not the same?
If the reference is here to the vijnAnamaya kOSa, I have been under the impression that it is an outer sheath covering the AnandamayakOSa with the jeeva inside. So the relevance of this to the dvAsuparnA verse is not clear to me, sir.
namaste shrI Sarmaji and others.
• It seems to me that the apparent duality of the dvA suparNa as two birds is understood better by the PanchAdashI explanation of Brahman as the chaitanya and jIvAtman as the chidAbhAsa. I have attempted a compilation of some essential terms in this post:
Hindu Dharma Forums - View Single Post - Practical Advaita
• In this connection, I would be grateful if you--or any other member--could explain what Kanchi ParamachArya has said of this verse in the KaThopaniShad,
angushTa mAtraH purushaH jyotir eva dhUmakaH |
IshAno bhuta-bhavyasya sa-eva (HE only) adya sa u shvaH
in this post:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philos...paramacharya-devotees-who-sought-jnana-3.html
As regards your observation in post #39:
Will it not, therefore, be more appropriate to say that the JeevAtma is like a power supply which makes the human being machine work in accordance with the programme written down for it in accordance with karmas and vAsanas? If this is agreed upon, and we also take not of the fact that in the Supreme Brahman, there can be no differentiation of its constituent parts, and so it may not be possible to identify any particular jeevAtma as a separate entity like the arils in a pomegranate. It will be more like taking a spoonful of water from the ocean - you will not get the same water again.
Tat tvam asi is, in my view, to be taken as the effort being made to urge the conscious mind or "I"ness to look within and experience the witnessing jeevAtma.
The spoon of water from the ocean analogy has this problem: that you don't get the same water again when you dip the spoon into the ocean a second time might well be true on the ultimate liberation of the Jiva, but it may not be not the case with the rebirth cycles of a Jiva.
Sai sir, Your analogy is little off. Jiva is not the powersupply, it is the prana (creative life force) that is the 'common' powersupply. It is the different bulbs that work acc. to the voltage/design (knowledge/bodily makeup - karma). We replace/recycle the bulb when loses its life. You may extend the example to different appliances that derive the same power, but functions differently than the bulb. Thus, the funtions are based on it own individual design, it was intended for.
Every aril/seed in the pomegrate will make one tree, which implies a life/jiva. The spoon of water and the ocean are the same object, hence that example is not of much help.
/QUOTE]
Even the one, the highest jnani (Lord's beloved), Krishna says, 'attains me, or attains my being, comes to me, enjoys my bliss, becomes omniscient' but never says 'he become me'. Thus, the individuality should remain, but the 'enlightened' jiva attains the same nature of Brahman.
Dear sister Renu,
It is believed that the cases of folks who remember their purva janma details because they took their rebirths very soon after their deaths, so the memory was more or less intact. I read it somewhere.
Regards,
KRS