Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
thanks maya, yes I think you're right, 'eka-jiva-vada' ist strongly connected to Drishti-Srishti-Vada.
Damn, I can't find a wikipedia link on that matter, or else I would have posted it :lol:
Actually, it means "that you are" (tvaṃ means you).If I understand it right, it is similar to Tat tvam Asi, I Am That?
Hello all,
what do you (as an Advaitin or other school as well) think of the Eka Jiva Vada (only one Jiva) doctrine?
Is it true that Ramana Maharshi propounded this?
regards,
I'm not an advaitin (so I don't know if I should respond to this post, as my view of "one" jīva/soul theory likely differs from the Advaitic view), but I can still give you the view of the matter in regards to my sampradāya. In the Vedāntapārijātasaurabham and Vedāntakaustubham (specifically, in their commentary on Brahmasūtra 3.2.37) Nimbārka and Śrīnivāsa take the view that we cannot exist with our antaryāmī, but that our antaryāmī most certainly exists independently of us; our śarīra may be illusionary, but our "separation" cannot be viewed as an illusion (unless one takes the view that the jīva-s that were always in saṃsāra were manifested forth by manifested forth by māyā-prakṛti, which would make one a śūnyatāvādī. We can become similar to bhagavān, but we cannot attain mokṣa independent of his mercy for he is the cause of all causes, as is stated in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad (sa kāraṇaṁ karaṇādhipādhipō); furthermore, like prāṇa, the existence of brahman from our perception is subtle, hence why the Muṇḍakopaniṣad states: "nityaṃ vibhuṃ sarvagataṃ susūkṣmaṃ tadavyayaṃ yadbhūtayoniṃ paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ." Without him, we are eternally bound in saṃsāra, just as the the air becomes the sky, mist, cloud rain, etc. (ākāśam ākāśādvāyum vāyurbhūtvā dhūmo bhavanti dhūmo bhūtvābhraṃ bhavanti abhraṃ bhūtvā megho bhavanti megho bhūtvā pravarṣanti). One can reach the world of the moon through one's nitya karmāṇi/fruitive activities (sa hovāca ye vai ke cāsmāllokātprayanti candramasameva te sarve gacchanti), but only through kṛpā can mokṣa be achieved; merely "realizing" non-difference with brahman does not liberate an individual, just like how one's perception does not influence whether bhagavān's existence.
I wouldn't know why anyone would want bhagavān not to exist, though. How could you say no to little naṭkhaṭ Gopāl:
ya eṣa supteṣu jāgarti kāmaṃ kāmaṃ puruṣo nirmimāṇas|
tadeva śukraṃ tadbrahma tadevāmṛtamucyate|
tasmiṃllokāḥ śritāḥ sarve|
tadu nātyeti kaścana|
etad vai tat||2.2.8||
Actually, it means "that you are" (tvaṃ means you).
Even if one denies Gods/Goddesses, denying Natakhat Gopal or Rama who walks with bells on his ankles (ठुमक चलत रामचन्द्र, is very difficult. They are beautiful evocative stories/songs of our culture.How could you say no to little naṭkhaṭ Gopāl ..
Even if one denies Gods/Goddesses, denying Natakhat Gopal or Rama who walks with bells on his ankles (ठुमक चलत रामचन्द्र, is very difficult. They are beautiful evocative stories/songs of our culture.
"But the world is felt and seen not only by me, but by so many others. We cannot call such a world non-existent.' Literally, drishti-srishti means that the world only exists when it is perceived.
The 'I' that Ramana spoke of is not your normal 'I'. Remove mind, ego, body, thoughts, and any other shells you can think of, and then there is 'essence'. That is the 'I' Ramana is referring to, and that 'I' is not different to that 'I' in all the rest of us. But this is extremely esoteric and inner.
The quote in your post was from Ramana Maharshi. My post was my view about it under comments.When one dies his perception of the world dies with him to.Does this mean the non-existence of the world.
Or is the non-existence of the world applicable to the dead person only.
Either of the options doesn't give the correct answer. I can't see north pole from here - this statement (doesn't prove the non-existence of north pole,it just points out your or my inability to not see the north pole)doesn't mean that north poles doesn't exist at all!
When one dies his perception of the world dies with him to.Does this mean the non-existence of the world.
Or is the non-existence of the world applicable to the dead person only.
Either of the options doesn't give the correct answer. I can't see north pole from here this statement (doesn't prove the non-existence of north pole,it just points out your or my inability to not see the north pole)doesn't mean that north poles doesn't exist at all!!!!!!!!
But that does not stop people from writing volumes about death and rebirth, heaven and hell, reward and punishment.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.
But that does not stop people from writing volumes about death and rebirth, heaven and hell, reward and punishment.