Eka Jiva Vada

[bhootarajaru]

That again is anirvachaniya. Who will confirm the existence of world to a non-existent person?

What we see as existent person, is view of a living being. All witnesses are also existent in the same view. In truth there is no third party witness to any one's observation.

One's observation of an event and a third witness certifying that event are both in single awareness of oneself. There is no objective third witness that can ever be proven.

(However that single awareness is not localised individual awareness.)

Then how can one say that world comes under maya which is anirvachya??

 

[atanu]

Then how can one say that world comes under maya which is anirvachya??

Because sat can never be asat.

 

[bhootarajaru]

Because sat can never be asat.

Then you are accepting maya as sat!!!!!!which is opposed to advaita!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

At the 'paramarthika' level, no. At 'vyavaharika level, yes.

 

[bhootarajaru]

At the 'paramarthika' level, no. At 'vyavaharika level, yes.

How do you confirm this vyavaharika level???
Sat is always sat ,it cannot become asat.

Why is brahman sat in both vyavaharika and paramarthika level??

In vyavaharika level ,everything is unreal,and hence vyavaharikatva is itself not yet confirmed!!!

"I threw a rock"

Here rock is sat i am sat and the action i performed is sat.If it were asat then the action would have not resulted in any positive result.

The event cannot be termed as unreal just because it has been done....

The event was real ,and it occured.
This can't ever be changed,this is sat,and always sat,i find no reason to put these into unreal entities!!!

 

[atanu]

Then you are accepting maya as sat!!!!!!which is opposed to advaita!!

Where?

 

[Stormcry]

I wouldn't know why anyone would want bhagavān not to exist, though. How could you say no to little naṭkhaṭ Gopāl:

Yes, who thinks Krishna doesn't exist? I think, no one. Brahman holds a form through his Maya without having touched the maya. Shri krishna himself says in Gita " I appear in form through Maya " He is called lord of the maya and Brahman as he's not different from Nirguna Brahman. Upanishadas completely denies form as Brahman , saying " That which is not uttered by speech, that by which the word is expressed, know That alone to be Brahman, and not this which is being worshipped. " What here people worship is not that Brahman " The highest realisation one achieves is that he sees no difference between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. In fact where's the feeling of I'm Brahman in that Brahman? then what to talk about saguna or nirguna ? The one thing just happens without actual happening AND IT IS : "The knower of Brahman himself becomes Brahman " And if you are still thinking Atma is not Brahman, then you should read what Shri krishna teaches. We should not judge shri krishna's nature . What he teaches we should accept that


घटे भिन्ने घटाकाश आकाशः स्याद् यथा पुरा ।
एवं देहे मृते जीवो ब्रह्म सम्पद्यते पुनः ॥ Bhagavata Purana 12.5.५ ॥

: Even as the appeared different space enclosed in the pot becomes complete Akasha after breaking of that pot, in the same way, when subtle body dies, jeeva becomes Brahman again [ Here "again" implies that he was already Brahman. His jivahood was because of maya only but not in the real sense. This concept is explained by Adi shankara in his upanishada Bhashya and by shri krishna in his uddhava gita]


Krishna says : “ avam samahit……..jyotishi sanyutam “ (BP 11.14.45)

Meaning: With his intellect thus established, he sees me in himself and himself merged in me (bramhan) like an individual light in the element of fire.

 

[Stormcry]

Only Ignorants say the world has existence. Those dull witted don't know whatever there was before creation, the same thing is in the middle and in the end, just like gold appearing in the ornaments of gold. Fools see just ornaments as they're influenced by gunas and declares that this world is real while Dnyanis know the real nature of world. They know the Brahman. They see only Gold which is the real nature of that ornament. This world is just an appearance on the Brahman. Clearly speaking, This appearance too is non-existent.

Who sees world as real and in existence, actually sees footprints of birds in the sky.

 

[bhootarajaru]

Only Ignorants say the world has existence. Those dull witted don't know whatever there was before creation, the same thing is in the middle and in the end, just like gold appearing in the ornaments of gold. Fools see just ornaments as they're influenced by gunas and declares that this world is real while Dnyanis know the real nature of world. They know the Brahman. They see only Gold which is the real nature of that ornament. This world is just an appearance on the Brahman. Clearly speaking, This appearance too is non-existent.

The ornaments made of gold are gold themselves,there cannot be gold without the actual gold property possessed by the ornament.Even the ornaments are gold,and these ornaments and the attributes possessed by it are as real as the existence of gold itself.Can you please care to explain as to why gold is sat and its ornaments asat????

Unreal rain doesn't bring floods to real world.Your maya theory is just very similar,you accept that it is unreal and yet it affects the real brahman...????????

 

[Stormcry]

Even the ornaments are gold,and these ornaments and the attributes possessed by it are as real as the existence of gold itself.Can you please care to explain as to why gold is sat and its ornaments asat????

Ornament is not as real as Gold. Two realities is contractory to the essential nature of the one reality. If ornament would have been real, then Jiva would remain in bondage forever. You're actually accepting reality of Maya as you're accepting the existence of the world. So it implies that the individual existence of all jivas is reality and as logically reality is not the subject to change, Jiva would remain under the influence of Maya forever. I already said the theorem " What was before the creation, the same thing is in the middle and in the end " The hidden meaning of this theorem is thar there is no creation of the world at all. Scriptures states that whatever appears in the middle should be treated an illusion. Footprints of the bird are never in existence but they can be imagined and even they can be appeared as sat without having any change in sat(Brahman).but that doesn't mean footprints are actually sat. Brahman has Adhishthan over this world. But it's different from this world. Maya is ultimately Brahman but Brahman is not Maya. What a person(Atma) imagines other things (world) in the dream, are not actually different from his self. He himself is the Creator of the dream who's before the dream, he also becomes the dream itself and what's there after dream is that dreamer only. In the same way, This self alone is the reality at all times and no doubt know that Brahman supreme wherein there's no creation of anything.

you accept that it is unreal and yet it affects the real brahman...????????

People who say it affects Brahman are like those ignorants who impose impurity of the dust present in the sky to the pure sky.

Hail to that Brahman which is the essential nature of the world yet different from it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sat is always sat, it cannot become asat.

Yes, Sat is always Sat. That is why Krishna said that the wise people see a noble learned brahmin, a she-elephant, a cow, a dog, and a dog-eater as the same. Only the appearances change - 'Syād vāchārambhanam vikāro nāmadheyam mrittiketyeva satyam'. This is very clear in our books.

 

[Makaranda]

Ornament is not as real as Gold. Two realities is contractory to the essential nature of the one reality. If ornament would have been real, then Jiva would remain in bondage forever. You're actually accepting reality of Maya as you're accepting the existence of the world. So it implies that the individual existence of all jivas is reality and as logically reality is not the subject to change, Jiva would remain under the influence of Maya forever. I already said the theorem " What was before the creation, the same thing is in the middle and in the end " The hidden meaning of this theorem is thar there is no creation of the world at all. Scriptures states that whatever appears in the middle should be treated an illusion. Footprints of the bird are never in existence but they can be imagined and even they can be appeared as sat without having any change in sat(Brahman).but that doesn't mean footprints are actually sat. Brahman has Adhishthan over this world. But it's different from this world. Maya is ultimately Brahman but Brahman is not Maya. What a person(Atma) imagines other things (world) in the dream, are not actually different from his self. He himself is the Creator of the dream who's before the dream, he also becomes dream itself and what's there after dream is self only. This self alone is the reality at all times and no doubt know that Brahman supreme wherein there's no creation of anything.



People who say it affects Brahman are like those ignorants who impose impurity of the dust present in the sky to the pure sky.

Hail to that Brahman which is the essential nature of the world yet different from it.

Absolutely excellent post.

 

[DanielR]

back to the topic

Eka Jiva Vada = only one Jiva

I don't know I feel intrigued by this idea, there's something appealing about this, am I shizo? :lol

 

[atanu]

I do not know whether the akshara (imperishable) is also called jiva. Possibly.

'This Akshara, O Gargi, is unseen but is the seer, is unheard but is the hearer, is unthinkable but is the thinker, is unknown but is the knower. There is no seer but he, there is no hearer but he, there is no thinker but he, there is no knower but he. In Akshara, verily, O Gargi, the ether is woven, warp and woof.’

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:8:11

 

[DanielR]

I had an idea a while ago, please don't be mad if it's complete nonsense

but isn't time non existent and everything basically happens NOW, what if all lives that have ever been and ever will be happen simultaneously right NOW, I am me, I am Atanu I am my mother I am my brother I am my father, it's me but everything happens simultaneously, now when I die everybody dies, the whole dream is over, I wake up and realize (allegorically, not really) that I was everything it's a complete picture, a whole story.

Sorry for my crazy theories, I just had to put that off my chest

 

[Stormcry]

back to the topic

Eka Jiva Vada = only one Jiva

May I know what's Eka Jiva Vada? Is it a theory and what does it teach?

As per my view, the title itself contradicts with the reality. Jiva is Kshara means destructible. Even as Bubble forms from the unity of water and air, in the same way, Jiva is formed from union of Purusha and Prakriti. So as Jiva itself is unreal, why is it said "one Jiva"?

 

[Stormcry]

Absolutely excellent post.

Dhanyavad , Bandhu ! I believe, unless we don't experience by ourselves , everything is unknown no matter how much we talk about Brahman and Maya. The reality is that whatever we talk about Brahman is not that Brahman as mind can not even touch that Brahman.

Hari Krishna....

 

[DanielR]

um, I cannot believe you are not familiar with that doctrine

The solipsistic notion that there is only one individual self, and that all ‘other selves’ are created and imagined within it, has an advaitic parallel in the teaching of ‘eka jiva’, ‘one jiva’. This states that there are not many jivas, all of whom project a world and live in it; there is only one. Bhagavan laid out the premise of this position in this passage from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 534:

Bhagavan: Jiva is called so because he sees the world. A dreamer sees many jivas in a dream, but all of them are not real. The dreamer alone exists and he sees all. So it is with the individual and the world. There is the creed of only one Self, which is also called the creed of only one jiva. It says that the jiva is the only one who sees the whole world and the jivas therein.

Bhagavan: Let the heroic one who possesses a powerful intuition accept that the jiva is only one, and thus become firmly established in the Heart. In order to satisfy those persons in whom this intuition has not blossomed [jnanis appear to] agree with their view that jivas are many.

 

[Stormcry]

um, I cannot believe you are not familiar with that doctrine

There's no any problem in that theory unless Jiva is there referred as Brahma or Atma. Or is it something else or have I missed something ?

 

[DanielR]

There's no any problem in that theory unless Jiva is there referred as Brahma or Atma. Or is it something else or have I missed something ?

Oh, you really didn't know, I thought you were being sarcastic, sorry

I personally don't believe it's atma, though I know others will say otherwise (of course).

it's basically the 'Hindu' version of Solipsism!