Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
14Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Jeevatma Advaitic View

Jeevatma Advaitic View

Ratings: (0)|Views: 485 |Likes:
Published by raj

More info:

Published by: raj on Mar 27, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/27/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Source: evaaspervarioussystems.blogspot.com/Analysis of Jeevas as per Various systems (Advaita etc).. (This is mostlyAdvaitic based.. So anybody interested in knowing the jeevatma concept asper Advaita , would find this useful)Jeeva as per Charvaakas - 1
Hari OM,This topic is very vast but can be easily concluded with Sankara’s statement that “jeevo brahmaiva na parah” – Jeeva is Brahman alone and not different from Brahman. But lotof analysis goes before coming to this conclusion. There is a very progressive approachwhere Jeeva is termed something as per some system & this being refuted in the nextsystem – thus finally leading to the ultimate reality of Brahman.Let’s start off with the theory of Charvaakas who accept only the four bhootas (not ghostJ but gross elements) of Earth, Water, Air and Fire. Ether or Space is not accepted becauseit is not perceived (Materialists have only pratyaksha pramaana – whatever they see aloneis valid for them). For these people, the Self is the body composed of the mixture of thefour elements of Earth, Water, Air and Fire.Thus Jeeva (or the Tvam pada in TAT TVAM ASI) is SHAREERA or body composed of the four elements. Now let’s try to analyze why the jeeva or “I” cannot be the body.AHAM or “I” is what is called as jeeva or conscious being in all the systems. Thefollowing can be said to be various reasons for jeeva not being the body.“I” cannot be the body as body is jadam or insentient whereas I am sentient“I” cannot be the body as body is something caused (out of annam and hence it is annamalone)“I” cannot be the body as the body is accidental (aagantuka) – accidental because itseems to be temporarily present – before the body too I was present & after bodyvanishes too I will be present. Else we cannot say that “I” am born – this statement is possible only I witness by birth which is getting a new body. Thus Body is accidental or nimittam alone whereas “I” is eternal“I” cannot be the body as the body gets destroyed whereas “I” am beyond anydestruction.“I” am not the body as body changes whereas I am changeless from birth till death andeven beyond that (as recollection of previous births also do happen).“I” am not the body because of the experience of “my body” even like “my house”. SinceI am different from the house, similarly I am different from the body too.
 
“I” have no parts whereas body has parts – therefore I am not the body.The gross body is not there is dream where there is only subtle body. Both these bodiesare not there in deep sleep (as it isn’t experienced due to perception etc.) but still in deepsleep I exist as after waking up it is said “I slept well, I did not know anything”.Therefore I am not the body which was not present in deep sleep but I was present.The above are the various reasons (original in Sanskrit using anumaana or inference)given by various Acharyas like Sankara, Sureshwaracharya in Tattva bodha, NaishkarmyaSiddhi etc. In Naishkarmya Siddhi, sureswaracharya gives almost 5-6 reasons saying that“I am not the body” and that too to instigate vairagya in the seeker.Apart from the above mentioned inferences, there is one proof as per scriptures and logicwhich acharyas use to show that “I” am not the body.Quoting from Panchadashi 3.4Purva janmani asat etat janma sampaadayet kathamBhaavi janmani asat karma bhunjeeta iha sanchitamIf there was no previous birth, then how can this birth be attained (as it is alreadyattained)?If there is no next birth, then the fruit of all actions should be enjoyed in this birth itself.Both the above are not possible if I am the body. If I am the body, then the body takes birth and deaths. Scriptures tell that body is due to karmas alone and the karma that we donow may not fructify this birth itself (this is experience of each person). Thus the bodythat has been attained now has to have some cause which should be karma before the body – since I am the body, there is nothing before birth – this means there was no karma before birth & so how can this birth be got???????The second thing is I do actions and some of those are fructified whereas some are not.So those which are not fructified are completely destroyed in that case. This is illogicaland against law of karma that all actions have reactions (since there is no reaction in this birth, next birth should be there to enjoy that reaction or fruits).The above both prove thus that I am not the body.The Sanskrit terminologies used for this is:For the first point of how this body is achieved – akritha abhyaagama – what I haven’tdone or performed, I reapJ As good as telling that without sadhana, I will realized – without working, infy will pay me money Hope the CCD are not tracking this mail (just joking).Thus without any action, I get fruit which is impossible and wrong.For second point, the body vanishes without enjoying all fruits of karmas – kritha haani – 
 
whatever has been done is destroyed without giving its efforts. As good as telling that Iwill type this mail but the mail will vanish after I type I will work but infy will not payme this is also not possible.(The above points are taken from Ramakrishna’s pada dipika commentary onVidyaranya’s Panchadashi as well as from Tattva anusandhaanam, another advaitic work)To conclude (in anumaana form):Dehah na atmaa bhavathi, anyathaa “kritha haanih” “akritha abhyaagama” prasangaathThe body is not the Self, as if it is the Self there are the faults of “actions not givingfruits” and “getting fruits for those actions which are not performed”.Dehah na atmaa, karyatvaat, ghataadi vat (this is how Ramakrishna concludes hiscommentary to the above sloka of Panchadashi)The body is not the Self as it is an effect like pot (any effect is not the Self as the Self cannever be caused or it can never become an effect).Hope the above part clearly and convincingly proves that the body is not the Self and thusthe jeeva of charvaaka (which is the body) is wrong, against all pramaanas and thusshould be renounced (renunciation of the thought that “I am the body”).
Jeeva as per Charvaakas - 2
Hari OMWe can start analysis of the other types of charvaakas who claim that “indriyaas or senseorgans are the Self” and “pranaas are the Self” – the logic for this will be very similar toone another (if sense organs are proved to be not-Self, then pranas also can be proved asnot-Self). As we have already discussed about body being not the Self – it is very mucheasy to prove the sense organs and prana are not the Self. Not getting into details over here as to why the Self is not the body etc. but shortly wantto mention as to why the Self is not the sense organs (either individual or their mixture).Self is not individual sense organs because sense organs are mere instruments which areinsentient whereas self is sentient. When an object is made up of parts which areinsentient, that object is also insentient alone. Body has various parts of legs, hands etc.which are insentient – therefore the body itself is insentient.Since sense organs are individually insentient, therefore their mixture too has to be

Activity (14)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
samc108 liked this
Shivashankar liked this
pkbt liked this
akhilgarg1969 liked this
vvijayakrishnan liked this
suresh10000 liked this
bcchingangbam liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->