Author Topic: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:  (Read 22238 times)

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #210 on: December 21, 2015, 11:03:16 AM »
Then why are these three distinct terms applied to such an indivisible and unitary entity?

As Akasa is all pervading it is not subject to the limitation of space.  But (according to Indian
cosmology) Space originates and dissolves, so it is subject to time.  Hence to avoid over inclusion
(Ativyapti) in description, time is specified along with Space.  Time is not limited by Space.  Nor
is it limited by time, as an entity cannot be limited by itself.  But it is limited by matter.  A substance
present in one period of time may not be present in  another period. To avoid this over inclusion
Atman  is said to be not limited  by matter also.  Atman alone is characterized by non limitation
by Space, Time and Matter.  Hence the specification of the three characteristics.

Arunachala Siva.     

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #211 on: December 22, 2015, 09:43:04 AM »
If the Atman alone is indivisible and unitary, one must be able to see all these characteristics
together in a single apprehension.  But one does not see so.  I feel that I am standing in this
place and not in that place.  So the Atman cannot be said to have no limitation of space.  So
the Atman cannot be said to have no limitation of space.  The perception I have got that I was
born ten years ago and I shall be dying ten years after now, proves that the Atman has limitation
of time. When I have the feeling that I am a Brahmana and not a Kshatriya how can you deny
that limitation of individuality in the Atman?  Since all these differences are there how can I accept
that the Atman is without limitation?

In the 11th chapter the characteristics of Atman and non Atman have been stated as follows:

Atman is without any internal or external limitations while Anatman has got all kinds of limitations.
It was also said there whatever is seen in the Atman is not actually there but only superimposed
on it.  What is superimposed on anything has no actuality even when the superimposition is perceived
during any period during any period of time.  In spite of this knowledge, you are again asking the
characteristic of Atman to be described.  This befits only an opponent determined to defeat another
in argument by fair means or foul and not honest inquirer whose intention is to learn.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.             

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #212 on: December 22, 2015, 09:46:32 AM »
The intention of this questioner is not to win through specious arguments.  The intention is only
the clearing of a doubt.

Then understand what is said hereafter.  The three limitations of time, space and individuality
are present only in the body and not in the Atman.  The all inclusiveness and unlimitedness of
the Atman who is all pervading has none of these limitations. 

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #213 on: December 22, 2015, 09:52:59 AM »
How can we know that Brahman who is said to be identical with this Pratyagatman is without
the above mentioned limitations?

The pot is real, the cloth is real, the wall is real, the earth is real, water is real, fire is real, air
is real, sky is real.  All these varied objects which are elements and made of elements are
considered by us as real.  From this itself the reality (Sattamikatva) and all pervasiveness
(Vibhutva) of the Atman become clear. Such all pervading Atman cannot be limited by space.
For the same reason the Atman is eternal (Anadi).

What is eternal cannot have the limitations of time, of which we think in terms of past, present
and future.  It means that the Atman is beyond time. In the same way, that it is beyond Space.
This is the meaning of being Anadi.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.       

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #214 on: December 23, 2015, 11:26:17 AM »
This part of the doubt is answered. How are we to know that the Atman is without Vastu
parichcheda (limitation by identical things?

As Atman is all pervading, it cannot have limitation by identical things.  Things are differentiated
by three kinds of limitations.  - Sajatiya (limitation by things of its own nature)  Vijatiya  (limitarions
of things different from  it).  Svagata (internal differences).

The difference of one tree from another tree is Sajatiya difference.  The difference between a tree
and other substances like stone, mud, etc., are Vijayita differences or the differences between objects.
When the differences with in tree itself, i.e.between its flowers, fruits, branches, trunk etc.,
are taken into account, we are referring to Svagata bheda or internal differences. As none of these
differences are possible regarding the Atman, we have to conclude that the Atman is without any
kind of differentiation.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.   
             
 

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #215 on: December 24, 2015, 03:01:36 PM »
How can this principle be correct with regard to the Atman? For, you have said that the same Chaitanya
exists as Brahma Chaitanya. Isvara Chaitanya, Kutastha Chaitanya and Jiva Chaitanya.  Is this not
Sajitiya bheda i.e. difference between entities of a similar nature?  Next as there are two, Brahman
on the one hand and Atman and the unconscious world outside on the other -  there is Vijatiya
difference or difference between two different kinds of entities.  Thirdly, in Brahman Itself there are
three entities called Sat, Chita and Ananda.  This is internal difference - Svagata bheda.  So how can
you say that the Atman is without three kinds of difference?


To the same sky is attributed various divisions according to the Upadhis, associated with it -
Mahakasa (Sky that is one expanse), Meghakasa (Sky seen against cloud), Ghatakasa (Sky seen
within a pot), Jala-pratibimba (Sky reflected in water).

It is however, the same sky that is seen differently according to the limitations imposed by Upadhis.
The difference is only in the adjuncts and not in the sky. In the same way, it is the same Consciousness
that is called Brahman and Isvara, when it is seen with the adjunct of Maya.  The same consciousness
is called Kutastha and Jiva, when it is seen with the adjunct and not in the Atman.  So the Atman is
without Sajatiya difference.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.                 

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #216 on: December 24, 2015, 04:15:53 PM »
How can we know that there is no Vijatiya difference?

Without  the rope, there can be no snake on it.  Without the sky, there cannot be any coloring on it.
In the same way, without the Atman, there cannot be Anatman.  Without a basis, what is superimposed
on it have any existence, even temporarily.  All such objects superimposed are Mithya - false.  Mithya
means absolutely non existent in  the past, present, or future,  like a barren woman's son -Vindhya putra,
the horns of a hare, Sasa vishana etc.,  In the same way, as the Anatman does not actually exist, it cannot
limit the Atman. So the Atman has no Vijatiya bheda.


contd.,

Arunachala Siva.         

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #217 on: December 25, 2015, 11:44:58 AM »
Next how can you prove that there is no internal difference or Svagata-bheda in Consciousness?

The Atman is the Witness, unchanging and ultimately true.  Consciousness, Brahman, Sat, Chit,
Ananda, and Nitya (eternal single), perfect  --- these are the positive descriptions of the Atman.
There are also negative descriptions like immaterial (Asthulam), endless (Ananta), non dual (Advaita),
unthinkable (Achintya),unchanging (Avikari), indestructible (Avinasi), non actor (Akarta) etc.,

All these indicate the Atman to be without any qualification and part.  None of these justify one's understanding
the Atman as endowed with different forms.  For this reason, there cannot be any internal difference in the
Atman.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.         

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #218 on: December 25, 2015, 11:52:33 AM »
Terms like Sat, Chit, and Ananda, which are applied to the Atman, have difference of meaning and
are not mere synonyms.  They are like Hasta, Kara, Pani applied to the hand.  We speak of a tree as
consisting of parts like leaves, flowers, branches, etc., all of which are parts within a tree. All these
different terms about the parts of the body and trees are examples of internal differences.  This can
be applied to the Atman also.

Lohitosna prakaaso dipah, the lamp is one with brightness, red and heating.  You cannot say that
the case of the flame of the lamp, there are internal differences in the flame.  In the same way there
are no internal differences when the Atman is described as Sat Chit Ananda Swarupa.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.         

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #219 on: December 26, 2015, 11:17:54 AM »
Will this not amount to admitting there there is no internal difference (Svagata-bheda) in the case also
of a tree which is described as having leaves, flowers and fruits?

No.  The question is out of place.  In the case of the tree, it is not said that the 'whole tree' is of
the nature of leaf or flower or branches.  What is said is that some part of it are leaves, some parts
of it  are flowers, some parts of it fruits etc.,  So there is obviously internal difference in the case of
the tree. But in regard to the Atman, when it is said is that Atman is without any distinction of parts,
Sat Chit Ananda is its entirety. This is in the case of light also when it is said that light is hot, brilliant,
red colored etc.,  This light cannot be divided into hot part, brilliant part and red part.  The description
is of the whole light. In the same way there is no internal difference for the Atman.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.         

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #220 on: December 27, 2015, 09:48:34 AM »
If it is so, why is it that the Upanishads speak repeatedly and one after the other that the Atman is
Sat, the Atman is Chit, and the Atman is Ananda?  If it is described even once, one can understand
the nature of the Atman.  Why then this repetition?

I shall give in brief why the Upanishads resort to this repetition which you think is unnecessary.
On account of ignorance are superimposed the existentiality of the Atman on the world of perception,
the conscious nature of the Atman on the world of perception, the conscious nature of the Atman on
inert things like buddhi and the blissfulness of the Atman on one's relatives like wife and children.
Contrarily the ignorant person superimposes on the Atman the falseness of the world of perception,the
inertness of buddhi and such other categories and the misery inflicting nature of relatives like wife and son.
As a consequence of this mutual superimposition ignorant persons are deluded that the world of perception
is real, the buddhi and such categories are conscious and that misery inflicting relatives like wife and sons
are bliss giving.  The result of this mutual superimposition is that the ignorant person is agitated,
thinking, " I am subject to death, I am ignorant, I am a subject to misery."  To efface once for all this
delusion causing ignorance, declares repeatedly, 'O Jivas, you are of the nature of Sat Chit Ananda.'

The Atman is by nature real (that is, not false), is subject to misery).  This is said positively and negatively
time and again only to efface once for all all the infatuation caused by ignorance. It is not meant, as you
doubt, to show that Sat, Chit and Ananda of the Atman are separate.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.                                   

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #221 on: December 27, 2015, 09:54:57 AM »
continues...

In this world there are some controversalists who argue thus:  'Existentiality is the nature of the
Atman.  But consciousness and blissfulness are attributes of the Atman. So the Atman cannot
be described as Sat Chit Ananda.'  Such a wrong implication must be overcome by describing
the Atman repeatedly and specifcally as Sat Chit Ananda.'


Arunachala Siva.

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #222 on: December 27, 2015, 09:58:56 AM »
How can one ascertain with certainty that this is the object of this repetition by the Sruti?

There are six signs (Lingas) like introduction, (Upakarma), conclusion (Upasamhara), etc.,  which
show that the object of the Sruti is to establish the inseparable non duality (Akhandartha) of Atman.

Arunachala Siva. 

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #223 on: December 28, 2015, 11:04:52 AM »
The non duality of the Atman has been established by you on the authority of Vedic passages.
Can you show that this can be established by reasoning also?

The following is the answer according to reasoning.  Is Sat self revealing? Or is it being revealed
by the light of any other thing?  If it is self revealing, Sat will itself be Chit or Consciousness.
If on other hand, it is said that Sat is revealed by the light of something else, that other shining
substance will be synonymous with Sat.  If it is said it is a 'different aspect'  of Sat, then that aspect
will be a non existent fiction like the horns of a hare. For there is no difference between Sat and
this falsely assumed 'aspect'.  Being non existent, it cannot reveal Sat.  If you say that this 'aspect'
is entirely different from Sat, you have to doubt whether this 'aspect', being different from Sat,
can reveal itself or not, or requires the help of another enlightening factor.

If you answer that it reveals itself, then that supposed 'aspect'  must be the same as Chit or Consciousness
itself and not different from it.  If the second alternative (i.e. this 'aspect' is different) is preferred,
the earlier doubt will again remain.  So by introducing a different factor from Sat to reveal Sat, numerous
logical fallacies will result.  There are Atmasraya-dosha, Anyonyasraya-dosha, Chakrapatti-dosha,
and Anavastha-dosha.  So we have to conclude that Sat is self revealing.  What is self revealing
is identical with Sat.  They are not different. So Sat is Chit and Chit is Sat.  The Vedas do not mention
any existence other than Sat.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.               

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46667
    • View Profile
Re: Laghu Vasudeva Mananam:
« Reply #224 on: December 28, 2015, 11:07:46 AM »
Accepting that Sat and Chit are identical, how can we arrive at the conclusion that the entity so indicated
is also bliss?

If Sat is accepted as non dual, its blissful nature is also included in it.  Ananda is always full.  In what is
small, there is no fullness.  Fullness is understandable only in non dual Sat.  In duality there can be
no fullness.

contd.,

Arunachala Siva.