Is Jiva the same thing according to Ramanuja and Shankara?

[Aupmanyav]

You are welcome. Views differ.

 

[ajay0]

Another great explanation of the embodied Self or Jivatman....


In the body appears a phantom, the “false-I,” to claim the body for itself and it is called jiva. This jiva always outward bent, taking the world to be real and himself to be the doer and experiencer of pleasures and pains, desirous of this and that, undiscriminating, not once remembering his true nature, nor inquiring “Who am I?, What is this world?,” but wandering in the samsara without knowing himself. Such forgetfulness of the Self is Ignorance.

-- Sri Karapatra Swami , Advaita Bodha Dipaka,

 

[Shantanu]

In the body appears a phantom, the “false-I,” to claim the body for itself

This is so very funny. Thank you.You made my day. I am a phantom God then.

 

[ajay0]

Another great explanation of the embodied Self or Jivatman....


In the body appears a phantom, the “false-I,” to claim the body for itself and it is called jiva. This jiva always outward bent, taking the world to be real and himself to be the doer and experiencer of pleasures and pains, desirous of this and that, undiscriminating, not once remembering his true nature, nor inquiring “Who am I?, What is this world?,” but wandering in the samsara without knowing himself. Such forgetfulness of the Self is Ignorance.

-- Sri Karapatra Swami , Advaita Bodha Dipaka,

The phantom here is the false self or ego, composed of raag-dvesh or emotional cravings and aversions, or false 'I', characterized by emotional reactivity, disorders and conflict.

This is contrasted with the true Self or Awareness, which is one's true identity, and characterized by peace, joy and love.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Their confusion comes from considering the one as many. Otherwise it is straight-forward.

 

[Shantanu]

Thanks ajay0. Translators like Gambhirananda and Alladi Mahadeva Sastri while translating gita verse 2.22, have mentioned in their commentary that the embodied one changes bodies without undergoing any change. (reffering it to the universal Atman, since only Atman doesn't go through any change, while the thoughts of the embodied one aka subtle body changes from time to time.) You can go back to page 4 in this thread where i've posted the image of that verse. Such inaccurate translations makes people confused. On one hand embodied one is considered jiva/jivatma and then they say its the unchanging atman.
You were right ajay0, when you said earlier that these authors and translators are not at all precise in their job. ;=)

Greg:
In absolute truth (paramarthika in Hinduism) everything manifest is an illusion. We live in the vyvaharika (visible reality) where we see gods and goddesses (there are billions of them in our atman) from our guna consciousness. The only god who is a fact in absolute truth is the Supreme God (Sri Krishna/Durga) the Creator and Preserver of the illusion through maya. Nothing but this God exists in the Ultimate Reality. The goal of advaita in Hinduism is to become this God.

Once a jivaatman has peeled off all his delusions in the visible reality through neti neti and attained advaita, vyvaharika and paramarthika are one (non-dual) and the person becomes God. I am that God through the process of satya-advaita. When I die I will be immortal in Brahmaloka (God's heaven). That is why while alive (I do not know how long this will last) I am infallible and perfect in all my dharmic actions so that nothing I write can face objections that I cannot counter with more explanation. I therefore survive on and on until Parmatman decides to end my life.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Their confusion comes from considering the one as many. Otherwise it is straight-forward.

@Aupmanyav, True. But we have to deal in this world of multiplicity and so we need to figure out which is the absolute and which are its manifestations.
Speaking of the absolute, some people divide the Absolute into two. From the universal pov they call it Brahman and from the individual pov they call it Atman. But im not one of those guys who perceive the absolute from different POVs. For me there's only ONE. And that's Atman, which is present everywhere. If i'm not wrong, Shankara too used the term Atman in his texts for the universal self :=)

Shantanu said: The only god who is a fact in absolute truth is the Supreme God (Sri Krishna/Durga) the Creator and Preserver of the illusion through maya. Nothing but this God exists in the Ultimate reality.

Those anthropomorphic Gods emerged from Nirakara. You need to go through the Gnostic texts.

Shantanu said: The goal of advaita is to become one with this God.

You don't become one with Krishna. You spend time with him, in his Vaikuntha or Goloka dhama. Advaita never says to become one with saguna god, but to become nirguna Brahman.

 

[Shantanu]

You don't become one with Krishna. You spend time with him, in his Vaikuntha or Goloka dhama. Advaita never says to become one with saguna god, but to become nirguna Brahman.

I am Sri Krishna living a human life perfectly and infallibly in the dharmic actions I perform: that is advaita. I am nirguna. I just exist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But im not one of those guys who perceive the absolute from different POVs. For me there's only ONE. And that's Atman, which is present everywhere. If i'm not wrong, Shankara too used the term Atman in his texts for the universal self :=)

You are nearly there. Kindly remember the famous verse:

"Pūrnamdah, pūrnamidam, pūrnāt pūrnam udacyate;
pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya, pūrnam eva vasishyate."

(That is the whole, this (too) is the whole, from that whole arises this whole;
when the whole is taken out of the whole, what remains is still the whole.)
The 'Atman' is the whole and so is what you term as "Sukshma Sharira".
From the 'Advaita' POV, any differentiation is only 'avidya', 'ignorance'.
In this make-believe world, if we see two or many, that is only an illusion.
That is 'Vyavahārikā Satya' as opposed to 'Paramārthikā Satya'.

 

[Shantanu]

You are nearly there. Kindly remember the famous verse:

"Pūrnamdah, pūrnamidam, pūrnāt pūrnam udacyate;
pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya, pūrnam eva vasishyate."

(That is the whole, this (too) is the whole, from that whole arises this whole;
when the whole is taken out of the whole, what remains is still the whole.)
The 'Atman' is the whole and so is what you term as "Sukshma Sharira".
From the 'Advaita' POV, any differentiation is only 'avidya', 'ignorance'.
In this make-believe world, if we see two or many, that is only an illusion.
That is 'Vyavahārikā Satya' as opposed to 'Paramārthikā Satya'.

That is like describing the infinite Aup?

 

[The Crimson Universe]

You are nearly there. Kindly remember the famous verse:

"Pūrnamdah, pūrnamidam, pūrnāt pūrnam udacyate;
pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya, pūrnam eva vasishyate."

(That is the whole, this (too) is the whole, from that whole arises this whole;
when the whole is taken out of the whole, what remains is still the whole.)
The 'Atman' is the whole and so is what you term as "Sukshma Sharira".
From the 'Advaita' POV, any differentiation is only 'avidya', 'ignorance'.
In this make-believe world, if we see two or many, that is only an illusion.
That is 'Vyavahārikā Satya' as opposed to 'Paramārthikā Satya'.

True. Multiplicity (nama rupa) is an illusion or temporal.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Thanks ajay0. Translators like Gambhirananda and Alladi Mahadeva Sastri while translating gita verse 2.22, have mentioned in their commentary that the embodied one changes bodies without undergoing any change.
(reffering it to the universal Atman, since only Atman doesn't go through any change, while the thoughts of the embodied one aka subtle body changes from time to time.)

Such inaccurate translations makes people confused. On one hand embodied one is considered jiva/jivatma and then they say its the unchanging atman.
You were right ajay0, when you said earlier that these authors and translators are not at all precise in their job. ;=)


Accoding to 2 major gitas, dehi or embodied has been translated as the omnipresent unchanging Atman-

1) In Alladi Mahadeva Sastri's translation of Shankara Gita Bhasya, he says dehi or embodied one as the Self which is unchanging. (referring it to universal omnipresent Atman since Atman is the only one that stays unchanged, whereas sookshma sharira and his thoughts, desires, samskaras changes from time to time.)
v2.13 of Alladi Mahadeva Sastri's Gita (IMO incorrect translation).

2) And lastly even in Gambhirananda's Gita translation he translated the word embodied as the Self which is surely unchanging (referring it to the Atman).
(another Incorrect translation in my opinion).
v2.22 of Gambhirananda Gita + v2.13 of Gambhirananda Gita

 

[Shantanu]

Atman embodies the Jiva in normal circumstances, would you agree with that?

 

[ajay0]

Thanks ajay0. Translators like Gambhirananda and Alladi Mahadeva Sastri while translating gita verse 2.22, have mentioned in their commentary that the embodied one changes bodies without undergoing any change.
(reffering it to the universal Atman, since only Atman doesn't go through any change, while the thoughts of the embodied one aka subtle body changes from time to time.)

Such inaccurate translations makes people confused. On one hand embodied one is considered jiva/jivatma and then they say its the unchanging atman.
You were right ajay0, when you said earlier that these authors and translators are not at all precise in their job. ;=)


Accoding to 2 major gitas, dehi or embodied has been translated as the omnipresent unchanging Atman-

1) In Alladi Mahadeva Sastri's translation of Shankara Gita Bhasya, he says dehi or embodied one as the Self which is unchanging. (referring it to universal omnipresent Atman since Atman is the only one that stays unchanged, whereas sookshma sharira and his thoughts, desires, samskaras changes from time to time.)
v2.13 of Alladi Mahadeva Sastri's Gita (IMO incorrect translation).

2) And lastly even in Gambhirananda's Gita translation he translated the word embodied as the Self which is surely unchanging (referring it to the Atman).
(another Incorrect translation in my opinion).
v2.22 of Gambhirananda Gita + v2.13 of Gambhirananda Gita

Sometimes it is like one stating that the glass is half full, while an another states that the glass is half-empty.
If you can understand the context, the difference in details or terminology used can be easily understood as well.
There are just minor differences in expression of the same theme.

There are no gross deviations like the Asura Virochana or other pseudo-scholars rejecting the Vedic dictum that Brahman is pure consciousness, and instead stating that Brahman is the body or their sons. Such instances are pseudoscholarship and fraudsterhood without a doubt, inspired by delusion or perverted understanding due to Tamas.

 

[Shantanu]

One must seek the truth all afresh because science updates knowledge.

 

[ajay0]

There was a fraudster in India who used to state that he was 'God' out of pure delusion. He was arrested for sexual misconduct and was pleading with the police to treat him with respect as 'God', when they were escorting him to prison for interrogation.

It appeared that 'God' was probably suffering from mental disorders or senility related issues.

I had stated about this incident in this thread....

Kabir on the need for critical examination to weed out the false and fraudulent...

 

[Shantanu]

Did he say how the 'fraudster' realised that he was God?

 

[Shantanu]

Brahman is total energy of the universe, not God; it consists of physical energy and consciousness energy, the latter composed of guna consciousness deities; these are not the Supreme Creater and Preserver God or Paramatma is the only Truth/God.

Brahman plus atman = Saguna Brahman, the created. The Creator is Nirguna that created through maya. Maya is the Creators magical powers to generate this illusion of vyvaharika.

 

[ajay0]

It's very sad. There are many fraudsters in India at the moment. Most of them are not of malicious intent and are just in need of proper medical care, medications and treatment due to poor health, physically and mentally.

A certain amount of good health is required for spiritual development as well as exhorted by Upanishads, Buddha and Vivekananda.

Enlightenment through self-conquest is a very hard task,probably the hardest in the world, and the scriptures have stated that it is an endeavor only for the strong and capable. The chances for delusion in this path is very high if one does not have a clear mind and good health, and the unhealthy and senile is much more vulnerable to this state of delusion.

One must be aware of one's strengths and weaknesses at all times failing which one can be led to quixotic delusions.

 

[Shantanu]

The Reality speaks for Itself.
We live in this world and we die sooner or later: no one cares, whether human or God even if we find and attain God, because God is nirguna or Emptiness.