Dependency of Jivatman on Paramatman.
M Suresh
Hi,
I have a basic doubt regarding dvaita (Tattvavaada) Philosophy.
Two basic principles of Dvaita philosophy are:
1. Paramatman ( Supreme Personality of Godhead ) and Jivatman
( The individual soul ) are eternal distinct entities.
2. The Paramatman is the source of the Jivatman and the Jivatman
is eternally dependent on Paramatman.
My question is what kind of sourcing & dependency is meant in 2?
By logic Jivatman is not dependent on the Paramatman for its
existence since both are eternal. For an entity A to be dependent
on an an entity B for its existence the existence of A must be
temporary, i.e A must have a beginning and an end and B must be the
cause for both the beginning and the end. Since Jivatman is eternal
the Jivatman cannot be dependent on the Parmatman for its existence.
Following the same logic the Paramatman cannot be the source of the
Jivatman as mentioned in 2 above.
Is the dependency of the Jivatman on the Paramatman then only the
dependency of the Jivatman for its state of bondage or liberation?
regards,
Suresh.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bon Giovanni
That looks like an interesting opportunity for discussion, and I hope
it proves pleasant.
In my view, jivatma and paramatma are eternal in that sense that neither
has beginning nor end, and are two parallel lines, never touching.
Both are however symbols, useful for language, but not actual entities
in that only Atma is, actually. Maya allows us to consider that Atma
appears as jiva or paramatma, but that is but for convenience. IN
reality, both are Atma, each playing the role required for this drama
called bawdy consciousness.
Perhaps that is why in Gita, there is mention of Atma, but not of
jivatatma, or paramatma.
Comments of an elucidating insight, are encouraged.
*+*
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
<a href=mailto:Bon_Gi...@EarthSpirit.org>
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Yesterday is a memory. Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift- so let's open the present:
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
M Suresh
On 7 Oct 1996, Bon Giovanni (Bon_Gi...@EarthSpirit.org) wrote:
[..deleted]
> In my view, jivatma and paramatma are eternal in that sense that neither
> has beginning nor end, and are two parallel lines, never touching.
>
> Both are however symbols, useful for language, but not actual entities
> in that only Atma is, actually.
I do not know what you mean by paramatma and jivatma, being symbols
and not actual entities. For an unenlightened person both should be
real entities, as real as a tree, a book, or a person and not just
concepts.
> Maya allows us to consider that Atma
> appears as jiva or paramatma, but that is but for convenience. IN
> reality, both are Atma, each playing the role required for this drama
> called bawdy consciousness.
Yours is an advaitic explanation wherein
jivatma=paramatma=atma=brahman.
I was looking for a dvaitic explanation. I expect some kind of an
attempt to transcend logic using an analogy or something.
The above is easier to explain using advaita. However advaita runs
into problems when describing maya which can be neither put as part
of Brahman or as apart from brahman. Here advaita attempts to
transcend logic by using the term anirvachaniya ( undefinable ) to
describe maya.
I do not know if visishtAdvaita has any problems with it.
Discussions on it are hardly seen on the internet.
[deleted..]
> Comments of an elucidating insight, are encouraged.
regards,
Suresh.
Bon Giovanni
M Suresh noted my viewpoint:
jivatma and paramatma are eternal in that sense that neither
has beginning nor end, and are two parallel lines, never touching.
Both are however symbols, useful for language, but not actual entities
in that only Atma is, actually.
He then noted:
> I do not know what you mean by paramatma and jivatma, being symbols
> and not actual entities. For an unenlightened person both should be
> real entities, as real as a tree, a book, or a person and not just
> concepts.
Perhaps what you say is so for you, I speak for myself in saying that
enlightened or unenlightened, I sense that every person experiences a
tree, a book, a person, and not just concepts. However, who experiences
in that direct way either jivatman or parmatman and then defines them
as being distinctly separate, purely from that experience?
That is why I said the two phrases are concepts, not actualities.
I find that those who have experienced those concepts first hand, as
Krishna has, do as He has done in Gita: refer to both of them as Atma.
Should any find any mention of jivatman or paramtman in Gita, kindly
advise so that I may amend my error.
Thanks.
*+*
*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful." - Samuel Johnson
*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7284
*+*
V. Pai
"Bon Giovanni" wrote:
>Should any find any mention of jivatman or paramtman in Gita, kindly
>advise so that I may amend my error.
BG 6.7
jitatmanah prasantasya
paramatma samahitah
sitosna-sukha-duhkhesu
tatha manapamanayoh
Amend away.
-- V. Pai
Bon Giovanni
In speaking of the relationship obtaining with jivatma and paramatma,
I asked that should any find any mention of jivatman or paramtman in
V Pai wrote:
> BG 6.7
> jitatmanah prasantasya
> paramatma samahitah
> sitosna-sukha-duhkhesu
> tatha manapamanayoh
>
> Amend away.
er, yes the word paramatman is there, but how does that apply to the
position I detailed? or did you mean just the words in the request, not
the idea, need amending? Please, do look at the idea in the verse:
The highest self of him who has conquered himself by Yoga, of
the peaceful man, is steadfast in cold, heat, pleasure and pain,
and the same too in honour and dishonour.
The word paramatma, or highest self, does appear. (Thank you Pai).
Since it does appear, I will now amend
the wording of my request
but not the position, since the verse proves my point, thank you.
Or do any think paramatman refers to other than the *self* of the
Yogi described?
If so, for those with spirit, has anyone yet to find *jivatman*
mentioned in Gita? AND mentioned in the relationship under discussion?
No? Then I hope it is clear to all that the spirit of my request was
to prove the *relationship under discussion*, does not appear in Gita
as
jivatman/parmatman.
Having now made the spirit as well as the letter of my earlier
request clear, having amended the words employed, I do not amend my
position. Why? Why since that use of paramatman in the verse refers to
the individual self, cognized via Yoga! I feel that proves my point
for me.
Should any disagree, kindly elucidate.
Thank you for your attention.
*+*
*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful." - Samuel Johnson
*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
<a href=mailto:BonGi...@delphi.com>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7284
*+*
M Suresh
On 8 Oct 1996, Bon Giovanni (Bon_Gi...@EarthSpirit.org) wrote:
> M Suresh noted my viewpoint:
>
> jivatma and paramatma are eternal in that sense that neither
> has beginning nor end, and are two parallel lines, never touching.
> Both are however symbols, useful for language, but not actual entities
> in that only Atma is, actually.
>
> He then noted:
>
> > I do not know what you mean by paramatma and jivatma, being symbols
> > and not actual entities. For an unenlightened person both should be
> > real entities, as real as a tree, a book, or a person and not just
> > concepts.
>
> Perhaps what you say is so for you, I speak for myself in saying that
> enlightened or unenlightened, I sense that every person experiences a
> tree, a book, a person, and not just concepts.
I was not saying that I have seen the paramatman :-). I was saying
that in the relative sense ( in the realm of maya ) paramatman ( or
Ishvara or God ) is a real entity ( though beyond mundane experience ).
> However, who experiences
> in that direct way either jivatman or parmatman and then defines them
> as being distinctly separate, purely from that experience?
The vaishnava acharya's do so. We have to beleive that men of such
spiritual attainment have seen/experienced god.
advaitin's might say that only atma exists and that paramatman is
brahman identified with the cause of creation etc. But dvaitin
acharya's insist that the individual spirit or atman is different
from god at all times and from all view points.
So I was trying to understand their teachings. Though I cannot
accept eternal separation of the indivual soul and god because it
has problems related to intuition I am trying to understand a little
more of dvaita because the dvaitin acharya's would have understood
advaita thoroughly before refuting it.
> That is why I said the two phrases are concepts, not actualities.
> I find that those who have experienced those concepts first hand, as
> Krishna has, do as He has done in Gita: refer to both of them as Atma.
>
> Should any find any mention of jivatman or paramtman in Gita, kindly
> advise so that I may amend my error.
Nether does the Gita mention that the world is unreal or that
everybody is the same as Krishna. The word maya is rarely found ( I
think one place is where he says that only through devotion to him
that his maya can be crossed. Another place is where he says that
he resides in everyone's heart and works on them through maya like a
machine or some such thing ) and is not defined at all.
Of course the gita also has statements tending to advaita like
"wise is one who sees Myself in all & all in me" ( I find close
resemblence of this with Purnamadah, Purnamidam, Purnaath
purnamudachyate, purnasya purnamdayah purnameva avasishyate, om
shanti shanti shantihi ), "for a wise one the whole world is
vasudeva", "he who thinks of me at death attains my state", "I
consider the bhakta my very self" etc. Also as you say only atma
( and not jivatma paramatma etc. ) is mentioned and is referred to
as "it" and not assigned to a particular person as "your atma, their
atmas, my atma" etc, which could be taken to mean that atma=paramatma.
The thing is that the gita has so much profoundity in so consice
phrases that it needs the interpretations of acharya's and
philosophies taking its support.
> Thanks.
Thanks and regards,
Suresh.
Bon Giovanni
Pranams,
Tandy brought attention to a verse in which the spirit, not the
letter, of this jivatman/paramatman discussion seems to be addressed:
Bhagavad Gita 15.7.
Thanks for presenting the ISKCON translation of that verse. Looking
at the verse word for word, and then considering what has gone before
in the description, especially verse 5, I sense the verse is aptly
presented as:
An eternal fragment of Myself takes birth in
the world of creatures-- born into material
nature, becoming a living self, It pulls to
Itself the senses, of which the sixth is the
mind.
The implication is, apparently, pure spritual being is without
senses, or mind, until that divine fragment incarnates among the
world of men, and like a magnet pulling them, the senses come, with
mind.
Or do you suggest that both paramatman and jivatman, have minds and
senses, always-- counter that verse?
If so, how so, since the next verse clarifies:
When the Lord acquires a body, as when He leaves it,
He goes, taking the six along, like a breeze sharing
fragrances from their origin.
The verses thus seem to show that the giva IS the Lord- both as pure
spirit without senses or mind, while as Man, with them.
At any rate, kindly elucidate what you understand these few verses,
to reveal.
Thanks
*+*
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
<a href=mailto:BonGi...@delphi.com>
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*+*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Whatever it be wherein ye differ, the decision thereof is with
Allah Quran, 42.10a
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*+*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Michael Tandy
In article <53f8ts$6...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Bon_Gi...@EarthSpirit.org says...
>
>In speaking of the relationship obtaining with jivatma and paramatma,
>
>
>> BG 6.7
>
>> jitatmanah prasantasya
>> paramatma samahitah
>> sitosna-sukha-duhkhesu
>> tatha manapamanayoh
>>
>> Amend away.
>
Bon wrote:
> er,
...etc.
> If so, for those with spirit, has anyone yet to find *jivatman*
>mentioned in Gita? AND mentioned in the relationship under discussion?
>
> No?
Not so fast, Bon. Read on. It's very unambiguous and direct.
the spirit of my request was
>to prove the *relationship under discussion*, does not appear in Gita
>as
> jivatman/parmatman.
Try this one:
MAMAIVAMSO JIVA-LOKE JIVA-BHUTA-SANATANAH
MANAH SASTHANINDRIYANI PRAKRTI-STHANI KARSATI
"The living antities in this conditioned world are
My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are
struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind."
Gita, 15.7
>Should any disagree, kindly elucidate.
>
Looks like Lord Krsna disagrees with you again, Bon. Pretty
stubborn one He is, eh?
Hare Krsna,
-m
Vijay Sadananda Pai
"Bon Giovanni" wrote:
> In speaking of the relationship obtaining with jivatma and paramatma,
> I asked that should any find any mention of jivatman or paramtman in
> Gita, kindly advise so that I may amend my error.
... And I advised so that Bon may amend, by citing BG 6.7
> The word paramatma, or highest self, does appear. (Thank you Pai).
> Since it does appear, I will now amend
> the wording of my request
> I hope it is clear to all that the spirit of my request was
> to prove the *relationship under discussion*, does not appear in Gita
> as
> jivatman/parmatman.
The word "jivatman" does not appear in the Gita; the word
"jiva" does. However, as far as the superiority of the Paramatman
goes, consider BG 15.17
uttamah purusas tv anyah
paramatmety udahrtah
yo loka-trayam avisya
bibharty avyaya isvarah
"Besides these two [the fallible and infallible, as discussed in
the previous verse], there is the greatest living personality,
the Supreme Soul, the imperishable Lord Himself, who has entered
the three worlds and is maintaining them." (Translation, except
for part in brackets, by Srila Prabhupada)
This should sufficiently show the position of the Paramatman
(who is described as the Uttama Purusha and also as anya [another])
and who is maintaining the three worlds [and their inhabitants];
it is meaningless to refer to a maintainer without referring to
a maintained or an enterer without positing an entered, so....
Now, to bring this thread back to the question that originally
launched it (rather than digressions), I've heard that the term
jivatman is not used at all in Dvaita, so the questions about
the relationship of the jivatman and paramatman in Dvaita are
potentially misstated to begin with.
-- V. Pai
Bon Giovanni
15.17
But the highest spirit is another, called the Supreme Self,
Who, entering the three worlds as the Eternal Lord, supports them.
Earlier it was revealed that which embodies is Ishwara, the Lord,
so do any suggest the Supreme Self described above, is distinct from
Ishwara?
And by the way Tandy, your assumption that because your translation
of choice apparently disagrees with me, therfore MEANS that Krishna
Himself disagrees with me, does sound a mite presumptious on your part.
Or are you His duly authorized spokesman? If so, say so. If not,
kindly do express your view, but do not use Him or His Word to justify
your smugness. I say smug, because whether He agrees or disagrees with
either of us, is up to Him to tell, not you.
Thanks
*+*
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
<a href=mailto:BonGi...@delphi.com>
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*+*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Whatever it be wherein ye differ, the decision thereof is with
Allah Quran, 42.10a
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*+*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Michael Tandy
In article <53i439$o...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Bon_Gi...@EarthSpirit.org says...
>
seems to be
I sense
> The implication is,
apparently,
>thus seem
Clearly you aren't sure what you're talking about, and
the process of specualting isn't going to help any of us.
It's better if you just follow Krsna's advice throughout the Gita
about hearing submissively from His bona-fide representative.
As far as my understanding is concerned, it is elucidated
in Srila Prabhupada's purports. Please read them without
any regard for the devious mind and infected intelligence.
Hare Krsna,
-m
M Suresh
On 10 Oct 1996, Vijay Sadananda Pai (vija...@rice.edu) wrote:
[..discussion with Bon deleted]
> Now, to bring this thread back to the question that originally
> launched it (rather than digressions), I've heard that the term
> jivatman is not used at all in Dvaita, so the questions about
> the relationship of the jivatman and paramatman in Dvaita are
> potentially misstated to begin with.
It was I who had raised these questions. I should say that the use
of a wrong word does not amount to misstating a concept as long as
it is generally understood what the word means. By jivatman, I had
meant the individual soul & I presume that is what all the readers
would have made out of it. If I have made a mistake, informing of
the correct word to be used, whether it is jiva or atma or whatever,
in the reply would suffice.
I have attached a more detailed query with some corrections to my
earlier one:
----- Modified Version of my Query -----
Subject: Dependency of Jivatman on Paramatman.
I have a basic doubt regarding dvaita (Tattvavaada) Philosophy.
Two basic principles of Dvaita philosophy are:
1. Paramatman ( Supreme Personality of Godhead ) and Jivatman
( The individual soul ) are eternal distinct entities.
2. The Paramatman is the source of the Jivatman and the Jivatman
is eternally dependent on Paramatman.
My question is what kind of sourcing & dependency is meant in 2 and
what is the jivatman in its essense. My reasoning regarding these
points is given in the next 3 paras.
By logic Jivatman is not dependent on the Paramatman for its
existence since both are eternal. For an entity A to be dependent
on an an entity B for its existence there should be a possibility
that A ceases to exist because of B. Since Jivatman is eternal the
Jivatman cannot be dependent on the Parmatman for its existence
because there is no such possibility that a jivatman ceases to exist
because all jivatmans are eternal.
Similiarly Paramatman cannot be the source of the jivatmans because
for an entity B to be the source of an entity A, A must have not
existed at some time and B should be the cause of A coming into
existence. Since the jivatmans are eternal the paramatman cannot be
the cause of jivatmans coming into existence.
Is the dependency of the Jivatman on the Paramatman then only the
dependency of the Jivatman for its state of bondage or liberation,
happiness or misery etc? In that case what is it that is inherent to
the jivatman and not given by the paramatman. If there is nothing
inherent ( eternal ) to the jivatman then is it that the jivatman is
just a bunch of attributes created by the paramatman with sunya as
its essence? If there are inherent and eternal attributes possed by
a jiva then will that not make the jiva made up of those eternal
attributes independent of the paramatma as I have already stated
above?
I would appreciate any clarifications regarding the above points.
regards,
Suresh.
----- End, Modified Version of my Query -----
Also I was told that it is wrong to say that Paramatman is the
source of Jivatman as I have done in my statement:
> 2. The Paramatman is the source of the Jivatman and the Jivatman
> is eternally dependent on Paramatman.
I had got the idea from the dvaitic explanation of the explanation
of the famous verse:
PURNAMADAH, purnamidam, PURNAATH purnamudachyate, PURNASYA
purnamadayah PURNAMEVA Avasishyate.
meaning:
That is COMPLETE, This is complete, from the COMPLETE comes the
complete, on removing the complete from the COMPLETE, the COMPLETE
itself remains.
In the above verse and translation the uppercase PURNA & COMPLETE
refers to the Supreme personality of Godhead or Paramatman and
lowercase purna & complete refers to the individual soul or jiva.
Srila Prabhupada interprets this something like:
Any number of self-sufficient units can emanate from the supreme
personality of godhead without any change to him.
Therefore I had got the idea of Paramatman being the source of
jivatman from the "PURNAATH purnamudachyate" part which is
translated as "from the COMPLETE comes the complete".
I agree that I have stated my own understanding of 2 basic concepts
in dvaita in general and have not quoted much. Also I might have
mixed Gaudiya Vaishnava & Madhva schools.
If my understanding is so much off the mark that no sort of
clarification can be made without my studying Tattvavaada in great
detail then that is fine.
> -- V. Pai
-Suresh.
Michael Tandy
In article <53jfuu$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Bon_Gi...@EarthSpirit.org says...
>
>Pranams,
>
Same to you, Bon. :-)
/
> "It's better if you just follow Krsna's advice throughout the
> Gita about hearing submissively from His bona-fide
> representative."
>
Anyone who does so.
/
I find throughout Gita, the
> Lord rather says to follow HIM,
>
> not any middleman as Tandy advises.
Perhaps you missed 13.8, where the Lord very plainly
defines knowledge (pointing out that what is contrary
to His staements is ignorance), and explicitly mentions
"acaryopasanam," worship of the acarya. The sastric
support for this age-old principle is legion.
/
It is apparently Tandy's attitude that he and his
> sect alone hold exclusive understanding of Gita and of GOD,
Dead wrong. Join Gaudiya Matha, join the Sri sampradaya,
surrender to a Madhva svamiji, follow any authoritative
line, (I can name four right off the bat if you're interested)
and I'll be quite happy.
/
> no, thanks. Their smug narrowmindedness does not look to me
> like humble service to Him.
No, I don't suppose it would.
Hare Krsna! :-)
-m
Bon Giovanni
Since the originator of this thread restated what he wished to discuss,
I find this issue with Michael Tandy wrote is way off topic.
I continue it only as a courtesy to Tandy, lest he think I have
ignored his suggestion to read 13.8
I find throughout Gita, the Lord rather says to follow HIM,
not any middleman as Tandy advises.
> Perhaps you missed 13.8, where the Lord very plainly
> defines knowledge (pointing out that what is contrary
> to His staements is ignorance), and explicitly mentions
> "acaryopasanam," worship of the acarya. The sastric
> support for this age-old principle is legion.
Gosh I was hoping Tandy would have posted the verse, since I do not
find what he alleges. 13.8 rather reads
Aversion towards the sense-objects, without egoism,
Steady sight on the evils of birth, death, old age
disease, and pain
Maybe he refers to verse 7?
Absence of pride, freedom from hypocrisy,
non-violence, patience, rectitude,
attendance on a teacher, purity, constancy
self-restraint
Now I agree that it is holy and wise of a man to take care of a
teacher, but do you suggest that verse says to accept a middleman
INSTEAD of Krishna?
I hope not. If so, or not, please look to verse 10 for the objecgt of
one's unswerving devotion.
But then it is apparently Tandy's attitude to choose the middleman over
GOD, in that he apparently believes he and his
sect alone hold exclusive understanding of Gita and of GOD,
Oh I know I know, whenver that is pointed out ISKCONites online often
say they are not like that, since they of course include all the four
Vaishnavaic denominations as holding the four corners on GOD.
Viz:
> Dead wrong. Join Gaudiya Matha, join the Sri sampradaya,
> surrender to a Madhva svamiji, follow any authoritative
> line, (I can name four right off the bat if you're interested)
> and I'll be quite happy.
Pardon, but your using that as an example of how you do not act like
you have a monopoly on God is well, like a mafia button man saying to
the judge, Hey yer honour, we ain'ta gotta no monopoly, wesa gotta
FOUR!
No, thanks. Your smug narrowmindedness does not look to me like
humble service to Him.
> No, I don't suppose it would.
In that we are in full agreement, and further, I think David described
your attitude very aptly.
> Hare Krsna!
In thought, word, and deed, and freely of one's own choice, moment by
moment, amen.
*+*
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7284
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
<a href=mailto:BonGi...@delphi.com>
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
* Oh Nameless One! Oh you who are called Sai! How can we repay*
* you for what you have done for us? You brought Formless God *
* into form and gave him power! -Meher Baba *
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Michael Tandy
In article <53n93t$j...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Bon_Gi...@EarthSpirit.org says...
>
>Since the originator of this thread restated what he wished to discuss,
>I find this issue with Michael Tandy wrote is way off topic.
/
>I continue it only as a courtesy to Tandy, lest he think I have
>ignored his suggestion to read 13.8
this was what I responded to. Generally, I neither read nor
respond to posts like yours, and my only purpose in doing so
with this thread is to point out how your arguments are not
upheld by the Gita and other sastras, nor by any of the other
authorities that those sastras define.
/
>Gosh I was hoping Tandy would have posted the verse, since I do not
>find what he alleges.
as it is.
13.8 rather reads
amanitvam adambhitvam
ahimsa ksantir arjavam
acaryopasamam saucam
sthairyam atma-vinigrahah
"Humility, pridelessness, nonviolence, tolerance,
simplicity, approaching a bona-fide spiritual
master, cleanliness, steadfastness, self-control..."
/
/
>Maybe he refers to verse 7?
Nope. 13.8-12, as I said before.
/
> Now I agree that it is holy and wise of a man to take care of a
>teacher,
"Upasanam" means much more than that, as do the words in 4.34.
I think you know that, and since I don't think you're actually
asleep, I have better things to do than try to wake you up.
/
but do you suggest that verse says to accept a middleman
>INSTEAD of Krishna?
That isn't possible, and I said nothing to indicate that I did.
/
> But then it is apparently (...)
>
>
The four sampradayas do not belong to ISKCON, Bon. They belong to
Sri Krsna, just as you and I do.
Take prasadam and be happy!
-m
H. Krishna Susarla
Ken Stuart <kst...@mail.telis.org> wrote in article
<53s9na$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> > 1. Paramatman ( Supreme Personality of Godhead ) and Jivatman
> > ( The individual soul ) are eternal distinct entities.
>
> This is contradicted by Sri Krishna in BG 15.7:
>
> " The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
> fragmental parts. "
>
> In case you don't understand the point, nothing that is one's part is
> distinct from oneself.
No, I think you may have misunderstood. Prabhupada translated this as
*eternal fragmental* parts. If something is eternally fragmental, then it
is eternally distinct. Srila Prabhupada did teach, as other Vaishnava
acharyas have taught, that jivatma and paramatma are eternally distinct,
conscious living entities. On the other hand, he used the term parts
probably to underscore the relationship of the jivas being the separated
energies of the Lord.
H. Krishna Susarla
> > It's better if you just follow Krsna's advice throughout the Gita
> > about hearing submissively from His bona-fide representative.
> > in Srila Prabhupada's purports. Please read them without
> > any regard for the devious mind and infected intelligence.
> intent, then he would have written (spoken) only one chapter saying
> "Please see my bona fide representative".
I really don't see how that follows. If Krishna did not speak the whole
Bhavagad-Gita, then there would be nothing for an aspiring seeker to use to
judge the validity of the teachings of the guru. A disciple should study
the text under the direction of the guru, and the guru should be able to
resolve any doubts the disciple has regarding the text itself. Due to
association with the material energy, the meaning of Bhagavad-Gita may not
be clear to one who is used to sense gratification. Consequently, the need
for the transparent via medium of the spiritual master is indicated. This
of course assumes that the spiritual master is teaching in a mood of
service to Krishna, as opposed to putting forward his own philosophy with
the idea of achieving some other goals.
Krishna does advise, "tad viddhi pranipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa..." So
there is no doubt that He wants us to hear from His bona fide
representatives, who are tattva-darshinaha.
> By the way, "representative" occurs 30 times in Srila Prabhupada's
> purports to the BG, but zero times in the actual text of the
> Bhagavad-Gita-As-It-Is.
I'm not sure what that is supposed to imply, as Krishna's devotees who act
in the postion of spiritual preceptors are certainly His representatives by
definition.
regards,
K
Michael Tandy
In article <53s9ni$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, kst...@mail.telis.org
says...
>
>
>Respectively, I must point out that if that had been Sri Krishna's
>intent, then he would have written (spoken) only one chapter saying
>"Please see my bona fide representative".
>
by the time the conversation was very serious (4.2), that Sri Krsna
stated the fact quite simply: "evam parampara-praptam"--this
is received through parampara. He also points out that it is
especially the saintly kings who can understand this--lesser
people often cannot even accept it. Furthermore, we must
consider the nature of the conditioned soul, as the above
idea hints. They aren't very eager to accept instruction from
anyone, what to speak of another "mortal." Although what you have
indicated is essentially true, that one need only see Krsna's
devotee to learn everything, the unfortunate fact is that almost
everyone is simply too envious to do that; therefore Krsna must
speak the Bhagavad-gita Himself, so that no one can deny the
authority of what is said there. And even then, rascals still try
to. If this isn't sensible enough, then of course, the Padma Purana
reminds us: "sampradaya-vihina ye mantras te viphala mata," that is,
even if one tries to chant any mantras, when they are not received
through the parampara system, but are instead taken whimsically or
illegally, they will have either little effect, no effect, or a
contrary effect.
The principle of guru-parampara is so standard, and as I have
already mentioned, the authoritative references upholding it so
numerous, that I really don't see any need to defend it. I will
simply advise anyone to consult the numerous Vedic, corollary, and
Vaisnava sastras in this regard.
Hare Krsna,
-m
Michael Tandy
In article <53svvg$8...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu says...
>
This
>of course assumes that the spiritual master is teaching in a mood of
>service to Krishna, as opposed to putting forward his own philosophy with
>the idea of achieving some other goals.
is as much an authority as Krsna Himself, for as you've said, he is
completely transparent, with no personal agenda whatsoever. The
only difference in status is that Krsna (and the sastra) is the
Adiguru (sastra-yonitvat), the original source and basis of Vedic
wisdom, whereas the gurus and devotees repeat the same. But this is
mostly relevant to conditioned souls, who must perceive relative
considerations like "liberated" and "non-liberated." Ontologically,
Krsna and His devotees, as well as bhakti itself, are all eternally
interacting on the transcendental platform. For the perfect
devotees, the distinction between Krsna's authority and His
devotee's authority is less important than it is for us. Hence,
Vaisnavas respect the bonafide guru as much as God, though no one
claims or thinks that He is God. This principle drives faithless
and/or envious people wild.
Bon Giovanni
Michael Tandy, self-described elder of ISKCON, noted Ken's comment
in article <53s9ni$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
>Respectively, I must point out that if that had been Sri Krishna's
>intent, then he would have written (spoken) only one chapter saying
>"Please see my bona fide representative".
Tandy then observed:
"Not necessarily. Only one verse is required, and it is there,
by the time the conversation was very serious (4.2), that
Sri Krsna
stated the fact quite simply: "evam parampara-praptam"--this
is received through parampara.
Pardon, but He said it as in the past tense, pointing out that thread
of parampara had long ago decayed, vanished, ended, was over. From the
time of Gita
onward, one obtains the secret of Yoga directly from Him, and confirms
its veracity through the means elucidated in Gita:
direct experience
accompanying sthithaprajnana
spontaneous embodiment of His Will, freely chosen in every moment
Some well after the fact have however claimed to have rewoven that
broken thread of paramapara, in full, all the way back to the Sun GOD
and to Vishnu/Krishna/Narayana, but that
seems a poetic metaphor, not historically factual. Were it more,
then sages in those lines would glow with not only holy wisdom, but
with no argument.
About that Tandy and I disagree, as we do on many points: I hold the
valid guru is
that illumined sage detailed in Gita, not any sect's proclamation of
acharya or bhagavan or guru, just per Gita: illumination and
embodiment in thought word and deed. Another point we disagree on, I
say one follows the LORD directly, Tandy says
take the middleman named by his sect "respecting the same as GOD, but
not claiming or thinking He is actually GOD." We also differ on who
spoke the Gita:
>therefore Krsna must
> speak the Bhagavad-gita Himself, so that no one can deny the
> authority of what is said there.
I agree, and He does, in the heart of the ripe devotee, but in fact He
did not speak the Gita As It Is; Swamiji did, based on what Sanjaya
said He heard. That is a sign that some middleman, are
to be taken as guides, even if not as GOD- but if that guide's Gita
does not match that divine song sung in the heart by God Himself, which
will you choose?
Some choose to attend a middleman. IF the middleman is humble, all is
well. If he is illumined, all the better. But why not just pick the Lord
Himself? He dwells in every person, as conscience.
I choose guru and conscience as guide, and delight that His Voice in
my conscience not only matches the guru, but matches every scripture
in every religion, and His inner Voice elucidates it for me.
He does that for every devotee who asks Him, and I feel His is the
only "commentary" of genuine lasting worth. Those who prefer middleman
or second hand chat or debates or so on, are welcome to enjoy it and
learn from it.
> The principle of guru-parampara is so standard, and as I have
> already mentioned, the authoritative references upholding it so
> numerous, that I really don't see any need to defend it. I will
> simply advise anyone to consult the numerous Vedic, corollary, and
> Vaisnava sastras in this regard.
They are indeed valid, when they are applied correctly. Correctly
means knowing that GENUINE Masters do not arise by popular vote, nor
by attaching His Divine Grace or Acharya after one's name,
nor by being called Bhagavan by admirers. Masters arise at His Will,
and the sign of them is that utter self-illumination detailed in Gita,
the very thing that Swami Bhaktivedanta described as required of His
successor.
Jai Hare Krishna
Jai Jare Krishna
Govardhana giridhari
Radha Mohana Radha Jivana
Manjulakungavihari
-a bhajan sung in Sai centres worldwide.
*+*
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
<a href=mailto:BonGi...@delphi.com>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7284
|=========================================================|
|"It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.|
|Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories |
|instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes|
+=========================================================+
H. Krishna Susarla
Ken Stuart <kst...@mail.telis.org> wrote in article
<53u822$1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> "Fragmental part" is redundant.
>
> amsas (m. nom. sg.) - fragment, part, share.
>
> mama (gen. sg.) - of me, my.
>
> The word "fragmental" has absolutely no aspect of "distinctness",
> quite the opposite.
>
> If something is "My part", then it is *part of me*, therefore it is
> NOT distinct, in fact it is the exact opposite of distinct.
I'm afraid it's not clear to me what your objection is. Perhaps you can
start by describing very explicitly what you think Lord Krishna is trying
to say here, and what you understand "distinct" to mean. Then you can tell
us why you think that this is what Srila Prabhupada is trying to say here.
To call something a part of something else implies distinction. A piece of
the whole is not quantitatively the whole, although there may be some
similarity qualitatively.
Furthermore, Prabhupada's translation reads as "eternal fragmental parts."
If you want to claim he means something other than what he says, you are
free do so. But to call something eternally fragmental implies distinction.
Distinction here means that the living entity is a distinct, conscious
living entity. I hope you are not trying to tell me that Prabhupada
actually meant that there is no difference between jiiva and paramaatmaa.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but the jiiva is none of
these. Thus, there is distinction. There is oneness only in the sense that
both are spirit. This is bedha-abedha philosophy.
Like I said, if you disagree with the above, then please describe in clear
terms what you think the relationship between jiiva and paramaatmaa is.
Also realize that whatever your opinions are, you won't convince anyone
that Prabhupada agrees with you by taking an isolated statement out of
context. Every school has some concept of difference and nondifference, and
one could probably take statements of Shankaraachaarya out of context to
support the doctrine of Madhvaachaarya, although this would hardly be very
correct or honest. Please describe *explicitly* what your understanding of
distinction and eternal is in this case. Then we will talk about whether
or not Srila Prabhupada agrees.
regards,
-- K
Michael Tandy
In article <53uhh1$7...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Bon_Gi...@EarthSpirit.org says...
/
>Sri Krsna
> stated the fact quite simply: "evam parampara-praptam"--this
> is received through parampara.
>
> Pardon, but He said it as in the past tense, pointing out that thread
> of parampara had long ago decayed, vanished, ended, was over.
purvataram krtam." Exactly as was done by those who were serious
about liberation in antiquity, YOU too should do your duty as well.
(Gita, 4.15) Thus spake Sri Krsna. And to remove any questions about
how this should be done, He described very clearly the process of
niskama-karma, and the symptoms of a transcendent worker, Then He
gave a few examples of such transcendentalists, and advised Arjuna
to find a bonafide guru to help understand this process and added
that one who has done so woill be unaffected by his or her
circumstances, regardless of what they appear to be.
/
> About that Tandy and I disagree, as we do on many points: I hold the
>valid guru is
> that illumined sage detailed in Gita, not any sect's proclamation of
> acharya or bhagavan or guru, just per Gita: illumination and
>embodiment in thought word and deed.
/
Another point we disagree on, I
>say one follows the LORD directly, Tandy says
We've already discussed this, and if you insist on repeated
the same empty objections by refusing to deal directly with
what Krsna says, then don't be surprised I lose interest in
replying to you.
/
> I agree, and He does, in the heart of the ripe devotee, but in fact He
>did not speak the Gita As It Is; Swamiji did, based on what Sanjaya
>said He heard. That is a sign that some middleman, are
> to be taken as guides, even if not as GOD- but if that guide's Gita
>does not match that divine song sung in the heart by God Himself, which
>will you choose?
>
and face the sastrik evidence which is against you.
/
>Some choose to attend a middleman. IF the middleman is humble, all is
>well. If he is illumined, all the better. But why not just pick the Lord
>Himself? He dwells in every person, as conscience.
>
>
>> The principle of guru-parampara is so standard, and as I have
>> already mentioned, the authoritative references upholding it so
>> numerous, that I really don't see any need to defend it. I will
>> simply advise anyone to consult the numerous Vedic, corollary,
and
>> Vaisnava sastras in this regard.
>
> They are indeed valid, when they are applied correctly. Correctly
>means knowing that GENUINE Masters do not arise by popular vote, nor
>by attaching His Divine Grace or Acharya after one's name,
> nor by being called Bhagavan by admirers.
"correctly" means according sastra and sadhus, i.e., on Krsna's
terms.
/
Masters arise at His Will,
ends and SURRENDER. So we can say that it depends upon your will and
mine. The mercy of Bhagavan which we are utterly dependent upon is
already there. Take it and be relieved.
Hare Krsna,
-m
H. Krishna Susarla
Ken Stuart <kst...@mail.telis.org> wrote in article
<53vcj3$k...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
Hello,
This thread is not about whether Srila Prabhupada agrees with my
understanding or not.
That is not what the original poster asked about. (In fact, he didn't
explicitly ask for Srila Prabhupada's opinion on the subject at all,
although that could be a perfectly reasonable topic for a different
thread.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I know this is digressing, but what I was responding to was your reading =
of
Srila Prabhupada's translation. It sounded to me like you were saying tha=
t
he meant something other than what he actually taught.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now back to the thread:
First, DISTINCT:
Synonyms: distinct, discrete, separate, several. The central meaning
shared by these adjectives is "distinguished from others in nature or
qualities": six distinct colors; a government with three discrete
divisions; a problem consisting of two separate issues; performed the
several steps of the process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, according to this definition, the jiiva and Vishnu are distinc=
t,
because the nature of the jiiva is that he is subject to illusion whereas
Lord Vishnu is not. =20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, PART:
part (p=E4rt) noun
Abbr. p., pt.
1. A portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole.
Thus, something that is a "part of" something else cannot be
"separate" from it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, there are two problems with the above:
1) I'm not sure what you mean by "separate" in this case...
2) the logic that "something that is a 'part of' something else cannot be
'separate' from it" is based on the false premise that Lord Krishna said
the word "part." He did not. He said the word "amsha" which is roughly
translated as "part" or "portion." However, I'm sure you realize that
Sanskrit words do not have *exact* English equivalents; there are often
subtle differences between a word and its translation, so it behooves you
not to rely too heavily on the literal meaning of one word of a
translation.
The word "amsha" is also translated in the Bhaagavatam to refer to
expansions of Krishna. Thus, it carries the meaning of persons who are
Krishna Himself or expansions of His energy who may simultaneously have
individual existence. In other words, to call something a part of Krishna
in this case does not mean that he has no separate existence. An amsha of
Krishna coexists with Krishna, but does not ever merge into Krishna. The
two are distinct in terms of their consciousness. Otherwise, how is it th=
at
brahma bhuta prasanaatma... mad bhaktim labhate paraam? Krishna clearly
states that devotion is what is achieved after attaining Brahman, so that
indicates that the jiiva retains individuality.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
-----------
So, in BG 15.7:
" The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
fragmental parts. "
and therefore, all living entities are forever part of Krishna, since
that is what he says word for word.
Thus, since they are forever part of Krishna, they cannot ever be
separate from him, ie distinct.
Yes, there is a quantitative difference. The most simple math says
that a part is not the same as the whole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
-------------
So in other words, this is just a semantic issue right? If you admit that
they are different, then it makes no difference to me how you use the wor=
ds
distinct and separate. As long as you understand that the jiiva is
eternally an individual, never merging into the Supersoul or otherwise
losing his individuality. The Bhagavad-Gita does not say that the two eve=
r
become one, or that the jiiva and God are alike in all respects. Nor does
it support the "puzzle-piece" theory, in which God is simply considered t=
o
be the sum of all parts. Thus, any claim made to their similarity must be
qualified by statements describing their differences in order to prevent
confusion.
regards,
-- K
Gary Stevason
Very quickly: I would never suggest that the atma and Paramatma are the
same entity. I would see this as blasphemy. Please excuse me, if in my
ignorance I am stepping on toes .... but this I feel very strongly about.
Paramatmaji is my guru - how can I be He? No, I would be puffed-up to
think that He was my self. He that sees Him is the self. He is
Ksirodakashayi Vishnu, my salvation and eternal friend and companion.
No, the atma and Paramatma are indeed two. Always.
I'm sure I could quote text - but there is no need. There is no doubt in
my being. And I trust this direct understanding far more than my feeble
ability to translate the wisdom of the Vedas. But why should you trust
me? Better you should trust Paramatmaji ..... He knows the truth. Want
Krsna more than anything in this world and you will find yourself in His
presence.
Now perhaps we are splitting the hairs of the esoteric understanding that
indeed, deep down inside, Krsna knows that Radha is really part of Himself
--- BUT He is so enamored with Her beauty, qualities and pastimes that He
cannot take time to even consider that fact. And therein lies our unique
and distinct identity. But even in that scenario, I would not exist at
all; certainly I would not become Paramatma .... 'I' would be meaningless.
All glories to Srimati Radharani and Her wonderful enchantment of Sri Krsna!
Ghari
Ken Stuart (kst...@mail.telis.org) wrote: : Hello,
: In an eloquent manner, M Suresh <msu...@india.ti.com> elucidated:
: >I have attached a more detailed query with some corrections to my
: >earlier one:
: >
: >----- Modified Version of my Query -----
: >
: >Subject: Dependency of Jivatman on Paramatman.
: >
: >I have a basic doubt regarding dvaita (Tattvavaada) Philosophy.
: >
: >Two basic principles of Dvaita philosophy are:
: >
: > 1. Paramatman ( Supreme Personality of Godhead ) and Jivatman
: > ( The individual soul ) are eternal distinct entities.
: This is contradicted by Sri Krishna in BG 15.7:
: " The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
: fragmental parts. "
: In case you don't understand the point, nothing that is one's part is
: distinct from oneself.
: > 2. The Paramatman is the source of the Jivatman and the Jivatman
: > is eternally dependent on Paramatman.
: This also cannot be due to the same quote. One's part is not
: dependant on one and neither is one the source of one's part.
: Thus I think that your statements 1 & 2 cannot be valid statements
: about Dvaita.
: Namaskar,
: Ken
: kst...@mail.telis.org
--
THE RADMAN . . . . Gary Stevason ..... http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
Bon Giovanni
Doctor to be, Hari Krishna Susarla, aka Joe vs the Volcano, plus one
or two other online aliases wrote:
> As long as you understand that the jiiva is
> eternally an individual, never merging into the Supersoul or otherwise
> losing his individuality.
Well said,
as long as one understands that the spermatazoa is
eternally but sperm, never becoming a human being, or in any way
losing its individuality
*until* it merges into an ovum, and so CEASES being a sperm in order
to become zygote.
So too jivatman is eternally distinct from paramatman, never loses
its individuality, never becomes GOD,
until one awakens. Still, sperm is eternally sperm. Jivatman is
eternally jivatman. Ovum is eternally ovum. Paramtman is eternally
paramatman
until mergence-- in both cases then, and only then, unique being
arises.
>The Bhagavad-Gita does not say that the two ever
> become one,
Of course not, because the two never become `one'! Sperm and ovum do
not become "sperm AND ovum", but ZYGOTE! When each meets its destiny
there are no longer two appearances, but the one eternal entity: being,
in this phase known as zygote. So too jivatman and paramtman when each
meets its destiny are no longer two, but is one entity: Being, in this
phase known as Sat Chit Ananda.
And yet it is clear as being itself that sperm is eternal,
as is maya eternal, as is man eternal, as is He eternal.
Now, ain't being here now, just wonderful? then why all the bickering?
Better to chant and be happy!
Govinda Narayana Gopala Naryayana
Govinda Govinda Naryayana
Gopala Gopala Naryayana
Hari Ananda Govinda Narayana!
-from a bhajan sung in
Sai centers worldwide
*+*
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7284
http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/index.htm
<a href=mailto:BonGi...@delphi.com>
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
For him who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I
am not lost, and he is not lost to Me. - Bhagavad Gita 6.30
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Michael Tandy
In article <540hfc$8...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, mpt...@jove.acs.unt.edu
says...
The mercy of Bhagavan which we are utterly dependent upon is
> already there. Take it and be relieved.
>
Hare Krsna!
-m