Source: evaaspervarioussystems.blogspot.

com/

Analysis of Jeevas as per Various systems (Advaita etc).. (This is mostly

Advaitic based.. So anybody interested in knowing the jeevatma concept as
per Advaita , would find this useful)

Jeeva as per Charvaakas - 1

Hari OM,

This topic is very vast but can be easily concluded with Sankara’s statement that “jeevo
brahmaiva na parah” – Jeeva is Brahman alone and not different from Brahman. But lot
of analysis goes before coming to this conclusion. There is a very progressive approach
where Jeeva is termed something as per some system & this being refuted in the next
system – thus finally leading to the ultimate reality of Brahman.

Let’s start off with the theory of Charvaakas who accept only the four bhootas (not ghostJ
but gross elements) of Earth, Water, Air and Fire. Ether or Space is not accepted because
it is not perceived (Materialists have only pratyaksha pramaana – whatever they see alone
is valid for them). For these people, the Self is the body composed of the mixture of the
four elements of Earth, Water, Air and Fire.

Thus Jeeva (or the Tvam pada in TAT TVAM ASI) is SHAREERA or body composed of
the four elements.

Now let’s try to analyze why the jeeva or “I” cannot be the body.

AHAM or “I” is what is called as jeeva or conscious being in all the systems. The
following can be said to be various reasons for jeeva not being the body.

“I” cannot be the body as body is jadam or insentient whereas I am sentient

“I” cannot be the body as body is something caused (out of annam and hence it is annam
alone)
“I” cannot be the body as the body is accidental (aagantuka) – accidental because it
seems to be temporarily present – before the body too I was present & after body
vanishes too I will be present. Else we cannot say that “I” am born – this statement is
possible only I witness by birth which is getting a new body. Thus Body is accidental or
nimittam alone whereas “I” is eternal
“I” cannot be the body as the body gets destroyed whereas “I” am beyond any
destruction.
“I” am not the body as body changes whereas I am changeless from birth till death and
even beyond that (as recollection of previous births also do happen).
“I” am not the body because of the experience of “my body” even like “my house”. Since
I am different from the house, similarly I am different from the body too.
“I” have no parts whereas body has parts – therefore I am not the body.
The gross body is not there is dream where there is only subtle body. Both these bodies
are not there in deep sleep (as it isn’t experienced due to perception etc.) but still in deep
sleep I exist as after waking up it is said “I slept well, I did not know anything”.
Therefore I am not the body which was not present in deep sleep but I was present.

The above are the various reasons (original in Sanskrit using anumaana or inference)
given by various Acharyas like Sankara, Sureshwaracharya in Tattva bodha, Naishkarmya
Siddhi etc. In Naishkarmya Siddhi, sureswaracharya gives almost 5-6 reasons saying that
“I am not the body” and that too to instigate vairagya in the seeker.

Apart from the above mentioned inferences, there is one proof as per scriptures and logic
which acharyas use to show that “I” am not the body.

Quoting from Panchadashi 3.4

Purva janmani asat etat janma sampaadayet katham

Bhaavi janmani asat karma bhunjeeta iha sanchitam

If there was no previous birth, then how can this birth be attained (as it is already
attained)?
If there is no next birth, then the fruit of all actions should be enjoyed in this birth itself.

Both the above are not possible if I am the body. If I am the body, then the body takes
birth and deaths. Scriptures tell that body is due to karmas alone and the karma that we do
now may not fructify this birth itself (this is experience of each person). Thus the body
that has been attained now has to have some cause which should be karma before the
body – since I am the body, there is nothing before birth – this means there was no karma
before birth & so how can this birth be got???????

The second thing is I do actions and some of those are fructified whereas some are not.
So those which are not fructified are completely destroyed in that case. This is illogical
and against law of karma that all actions have reactions (since there is no reaction in this
birth, next birth should be there to enjoy that reaction or fruits).

The above both prove thus that I am not the body.

The Sanskrit terminologies used for this is:

For the first point of how this body is achieved – akritha abhyaagama – what I haven’t
done or performed, I reapJ As good as telling that without sadhana, I will realized –
without working, infy will pay me money Hope the CCD are not tracking this mail (just
joking).
Thus without any action, I get fruit which is impossible and wrong.

For second point, the body vanishes without enjoying all fruits of karmas – kritha haani –
whatever has been done is destroyed without giving its efforts. As good as telling that I
will type this mail but the mail will vanish after I type I will work but infy will not pay
me this is also not possible.

(The above points are taken from Ramakrishna’s pada dipika commentary on
Vidyaranya’s Panchadashi as well as from Tattva anusandhaanam, another advaitic work)

To conclude (in anumaana form):

Dehah na atmaa bhavathi, anyathaa “kritha haanih” “akritha abhyaagama” prasangaath

The body is not the Self, as if it is the Self there are the faults of “actions not giving
fruits” and “getting fruits for those actions which are not performed”.

Dehah na atmaa, karyatvaat, ghataadi vat (this is how Ramakrishna concludes his
commentary to the above sloka of Panchadashi)
The body is not the Self as it is an effect like pot (any effect is not the Self as the Self can
never be caused or it can never become an effect).

Hope the above part clearly and convincingly proves that the body is not the Self and thus
the jeeva of charvaaka (which is the body) is wrong, against all pramaanas and thus
should be renounced (renunciation of the thought that “I am the body”).

Jeeva as per Charvaakas - 2

Hari OM

We can start analysis of the other types of charvaakas who claim that “indriyaas or sense
organs are the Self” and “pranaas are the Self” – the logic for this will be very similar to
one another (if sense organs are proved to be not-Self, then pranas also can be proved as
not-Self). As we have already discussed about body being not the Self – it is very much
easy to prove the sense organs and prana are not the Self.

Not getting into details over here as to why the Self is not the body etc. but shortly want
to mention as to why the Self is not the sense organs (either individual or their mixture).

Self is not individual sense organs because sense organs are mere instruments which are
insentient whereas self is sentient. When an object is made up of parts which are
insentient, that object is also insentient alone. Body has various parts of legs, hands etc.
which are insentient – therefore the body itself is insentient.

Since sense organs are individually insentient, therefore their mixture too has to be
insentient only. Such insentient entity cannot be the Conscious Self (it cannot be argued
that Self is not conscious but insentient because in that case we should never have the
feeling that “I-exist” which is always there).

For the above reason, the sense organs are not the Self neither are the pranas or antah
karanas the Self as all these are insentient whereas the Self or “I” is conscious as it is
experienced at all times.

A sentient entity controls an insentient entity. Therefore all insentient entities are
controlled by the sentient Self – in between an insentient entity might be controlling
another insentient entity which has been mentioned in the first sloka of drik drishya
viveka. Hence there is no fault as such in whatever Bharathi Teertha has mentioned in the
first sloka.

With this the charvaka system which include dehatma vaada, indriyaatma vaada as well
as pranaatmavaada has been refuted.

Jeeva as per other systems

Hari OM

The next system that comes into picture is the Jain system. In short, as per the jain
system, the jeeva changes or progresses in seven levels to attain moksha. The jeeva
changes as per changes in the body as the jeeva is subtle or atomic in nature and in the
body. Thereby jeeva has length and other qualities too.....

Let’s now try to analyze this jain system and as to why it is not logical and thereby
wrong.

This theory is also not correct because the Self cannot be changing and it isn’t atomic as
the jains say. Moreover the theory that Self has qualities is against scriptures – thereby
the jain theory of jeeva is completely wrong only.

We will see what other systems speak about the Self – whoever is really interested can
reply back to the forum answering out why that particular concept of jeeva is wrong.

Bauddha

Shoonyavaada – Self is void and non-existent entity

kshanika Vijnaanavaada – Self is changing Consciousness or temporary or momentary
(Kshanika) Consciousness (Vijnaana)

Nyaaya & Vaisheshika

Self is a jada vasthu which is the kartha and bhoktha --- it is limited and anu or subtle. It
has the quality of Consciousness or CHIT. Jeeva is always different from Ishwara

Sankhya & Yoga

Self is conscious, it is the Bhoktha or enjoyer but not the kartha. Self in these two
systems is multiple or many and called Purushas. Prakrithi is the Kartha whereas Purusha
is the bhoktha

Mimamsaa

Self is Conscious but it has ignorance also along with bliss (as in deep sleep state) – this
is what Prabhakara school of mimamsa say about jeeva (here the Self is kartha and
bhoktha – doer and enjoyer).

Self is Conscious and doesn’t have ignorance – it is kartha and bhoktha – say the Bhatta
school of mimamsa.

Jeeva as per Advaita Vedanta

Hari OM,

Vedanta

Dvaita – Self is Conscious but limited – it has the quality of Consciousness with it
Vishista advaita – Self has the quality of Consciousness and nature too – it is limited and
different from Ishwara

In the above two systems, Self is anu or atomic.

Advaita – we will discuss this separately as different authors explain jeeva differently.

It’s long since we continued this thread and it’s time to give the finishing touches to it. As
per Advaita, Jeeva is nothing but Brahman alone but seemingly different from it.

The authority for this statement is Chandogya Sruthi and other Mahavakyas which say
that “Tat Tvam Asi” – That Thou Art.

Other than sruthi, the authority for oneness of jeeva and ishwara or Brahman is
bhagavadpaada’s words in Brahmajnaanavalee maala and other works – Brahma Satyam
Jagan Mithyaa, Jeeva Brahmaiva na parah (This jeeva is Brahman alone, not different
from it).
Sankara didn’t give much analysis into Avidya and hence different schools of Advaita
started coming in (after Sankara) which differed in the definitions of jeeva, ishwara,
maya, avidya etc. at the empirical level. So also the way or means to establish Advaita
was different in these systems. There was also resurge of the Nyaaya system which had to
be attacked by Sri Harsha and Chitsukha – even along with this, rivals started attacking
Advaita claiming that “There are differences among Advaitic acharyas itself”. These had
to be defended and thus works like Bhashya Bhaava Prakaashika of Chitsukha,
Madhusudana Saraswathi’s Siddanta Bindu, Appayya Dikshitar’s Siddhanta Lesha
Sangraha were required where the authors showed clearly that these systems differ only
in the approach or means while their goal of Advaita was still the same. As there paths to
the reality which will lead to Brahma-Atma Aikya Jnaana, therefore these acharyas took
those paths which were appealing to them for the welfare of the different seekers in the
world. In the 15th century, there was again strong attack of Advaita by the Dvaitin
Vyaasateertha which had to be refuted by Madhusudana Saraswathi and Brahmananda
Saraswathi. The kind of attack these later dvaitins showed was different from what
Sankara had in his time & what he himself had defended – hence it was essential to come
up with such a defense of Advaita. Moreover, Nyaaya took a new shape in the hands of
Gangesha Upadhyaaya in his Tattva Chintamani finally shaping up at the hands of
Raghunaatha Shiromani in his Dhidhithi commentary on Tattva Chintamani. These latter
advaita acharyas had to thus use navya-nyaaya logic rather than pracheena nyaaya which
was prevalent during Sankara’s time.

The above are mentioned to show that these various diverse views of empirical entities
was essential to counter the arguments of rival schools as well for the welfare of different
types of seekers. There are a set of acharyas who claim that “Sankara and sureshwara
alone were true to Advaita – all other later acharyas diluted Advaita and brought in their
own theory while ascribing those foreign ideas to Sankara”. This is completely wrong
and not required too – diverse opinions were required as per time and yes, these later
acharyas might be deviating from Sankara but we have to remember that Advaita is that
which encompasses all the systems under it & therefore claims of “false-hood” from an
Advaita acharya is not worthy as we have to consider these later advaita acharyas as
having explained the reality in different ways.

Anyway, we will not deal into this argument between Sachidanandendra Saraswathi of
Holenarsipur (who claims that Sankara and Sureshwara alone were true to Advaita
whereas other acharyas were not true) and other advaita saints.

Hari OM

Different sub schools of Advaita

Hari OM,

We will try to analyze the jeeva as per the different sub schools of Advaita Vedanta.
Before entering into that, let’s see in general what are the three sub schools of Advaita
Vedanta.

1) Bhaamathi Prasthaana – Bhamathi sub school bases itself on the Bhamathi sub
commentary of Vachaspathi Mishra on Sankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Scholars opine
that there was an advaitin Mandana Misra who was a contemporary of Sankara and wrote
the work Brahma Siddhi. The means propounded by this Mandana Mishra in his Brahma
Siddhi (independent work) is different from Sankara and traditional Advaita Vedanta.
Thus there are differences of opinion on this (many places Sureshwara too refutes the
views of Mandana Mishra in his Naishkarmya Siddhi) (Sankara’s and Mandana Mishra’s
means to the final goal of Advaita). Vachaspathi Mishra wrote the first complete
commentary on Sankara’s BSB titled Bhamathi (there was Panchapaadika of Padmapada
acharya but this work analyzes only the first four sutra bhashyas (but there are proofs
from Bhamathi that Padmapada had written an entire commentary on Sankara’s BSB and
Madhava vidyaranya’s Sankara dig vijaya too tells it the same way – but scholars differ
on this). Scholars thus opine that Vachaspathi tried to harmonize Sankara with Mandana
Mishra – thus in many places, he uses Brahma Siddhi means which might seem to be
against Sankara’s means. Even in some places, vachaspathi goes against Sankara’s
bhashya to interpret in a different way which is supported in Amalananda’s Kalpatharu
sub-commentary on Bhamathi (it is interesting to note that Prakataartha Vivarana of
Anubhooti svaroopacharya refutes the places where bhamathi goes against Sankara - but
the views of this acharya is refuted and bhamathi supported by Amalananda). It finally
ends up in Appayya Dikshitar’s parimala sub commentary on Kalpatharu where dikshitar
supports Sankara while refuting Bhamathi in those places. Enough of this too much
explanations ---- this sub school is based on Bhamathi mainly and Kalpatharu-Parimala
secondarily to interpret Bhamathi properly. This is the first sub-school of Advaita
Vedanta. There are less number of followers for Bhamathi school these days (most
followers are in north I believe) but still it is interesting to note that Gauda Brahmananda
Saraswathi in his Nyaaya Ratnaavalee on Siddhanta Bindu of Madhusudana Saraswathi
says that Vedanta shaastra includes the five works of Brahma Sutra, Sankara’s Brahma
Sutra Bhashya, Bhamathi, Kalpatharu and Parimala. It is generally held that there are
very few who have read all the five works and mastered them (the entire five works are
published by Nag Publishers in two volumes for 400 Rs. Chaukhambha Press too have
brought out the five works for 650 Rs.).

2) Vivarana Prasthaana – As mentioned earlier, Padmapaada had written Panchapadika

on Sankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya which was again explained in detail by
Prakaasaatman in Panchapaadika Vivarana. There are many sub commentaries on
Vivarana of Prakaashaatman. The school which bases itself on Vivarana of
Prakaasaatman is called Vivarana school. The important sub commentaries on Vivarana
are Akhandaananda Tattva Dipana and RjuVivarana of Sarvajna Vishnu – there are as
well sub commentaries on it by Chitsukha and Nrsimha ashrama. Amalananda has also
written Panchapaadika Darpana. This school is very famous and has many acharyas
following it. Two of the three complete commentary on Sankara’s BSB (one being
bhamathi) follow Vivarana school only – these are Anandagiri’s Nyaaya Nirnaya and
Govindananda’s Bhashya Ratna Prabha. We can very clearly say that this school bases on
one of Sankara’s direct shishya or disciple (Sachidanandendra Saraswathi does show in
some work that this school differs from Sankara’s BSB but it is worthy enough to analyze
on that – might be we can take that up for Ph. D when lot of free time is there).

3) Vartika Prasthaana – Sureshwaracharya, after being guided by Sankara, wrote

vartikas on Sankara’s Taittiriya and Brihadaranyaka Bhashyas. Vartika is that
commentary in which ukta, anuktha and duruktas are mentioned – ukta is explaining in
detail whatever the original work does – anuktha is explaining that which has been left
out in the origin – duruktha is making correct whatever has been explained either
wrongly/incompletely in the original work. Sureshwaracharya thus differs in almost 4-5
places in the Brihadaranyaka Vartika from Sankara’s Brihadaranyaka Bhashya. The
Brihadaranyaka Vartika consists of as much as 12,000 slokas which has been further
commented by Anandagiri and vidyaasagara. Vidyaranya has condensed the vartika into a
work called Vartika saara. The school based on Vidyaranya’s as well as Bharathi
Teertha’s works (which themselves base on Vartika of Sureshwara) is called Vartika
school. We can thus very well clearly find differences between ishwara in vivarana and
this school. Vivarana considers ishwara as Bimba Chaitanya (that original consciousness
which is reflected and becomes jeevas) whereas vartika school considers both ishwara
and jeeva as illusory and not real at all (this is clearly found in Panchadashi many places).
But we have to remember that Vidyaranya and Bharathi Teertha have written vivarana
prameya sangraha which is summarizing Vivarana of Prakaasatman where they follow
the vivarana school very clearly. I have also found in one place in panchadashi where
vidyaranya refutes bhamathi view of jeeva.

Thus we have seen in general the three sub schools of Advaita Vedanta. We will see in the
coming days, the differences in concept of Jeeva in these three schools (as well as
Ishwara). We will be learning this as per Madhusudana Saraswathi’s Siddhanta Bindu
(along with Brahmananda’s Nyaaya ratnavali) which is a sub commentary on Sankara’s
dasa sloki and Appayya Dikshitar’s Siddhanta Lesha Sangraha (if possible, will try to
quote the original Sanskrit text in these works and explain on the same).

We will try to analyze the concepts by removing all doubts that can arise & finally will
conclude with that view of jeeva which seems right.

Hari OM

Jeeva as per the sub schools of Advaita - 1

Hari OM,

We have already seen the three different schools of Advaita Vedanta in the previous
section. Now, we will try to see the three different ways in which jeeva is considered as
per the different schools of Advaita Vedanta.

There are three different schools of Advaita which are 1. Bhamathi school which takes
resort to Bhamathi of Vachaspathi Mishra and the sub commentaries on the same, 2.
Vivarana school which bases itself on the Panchapaadika Vivarana of Prakaashaatman, 3.
Vartika school which bases itself on Sureshwaracharya’s Upanishad Vartikas and
Brihadaranyaka Vartika Saara of Vidyaranya.

These three schools have different views about jeeva and the way in which jeeva is
explained in each of these schools is termed as separate vadaas based on how the jeeva is
interpreted.

1) Avaccheda vaada – Bhamathi school accepts jeeva as a limitation of the ultimate

reality of Brahman by avidya or ignorance. This ignorance causes the duality in the
world. There are different avidyaas and therefore nana jeeva is accepted. Since jeevas are
many, the world experienced by each jeeva is also different from each other. Hence, jeeva
is the material cause of the world. Since Ishwara is the substratum of ajnaana, therefore in
ishwara also the causal state is superimposed. As per this theory, Brahman or Ishwara is
the reality which is subject of ignorance. Thus Brahman is endowed with ignorance but is
controller of ignorance. Brahman is the vishaya or subject of ignorance whereas jeeva is
the asraya of ignorance (asraya means locus or that on which dependence is there – thus
ignorance depends on the jeeva). Putting it in simple words, maha akasha is unlimited
space – this is Brahman or Ishwara. Ishwara when subject to ignorance is limited
(seemingly limited) by ignorance. This ignorance depends on the seemingly limited
Ishwara which is jeeva. Maha akaasha is ishwara, the limitation or adjunct is body, mind
etc and pot in this case. The jeeva is space limited by pot – it is never limited by pot but
only seems to be limited by pot. Once pot is removed, the limited space is known as
unlimited space. Similarly when the adjuncts of body, mind etc. are removed, then the
jeeva is realized as one with Brahman. As eternal space is subject to the adjunct of pot,
similarly Brahman or Ishwara is subject to the adjunct of avidya or ignorance. The
limited jeeva (limited by avidya) is called jeeva. Avidya is there only when jeeva is there.
Thus jeeva is the locus of avidya – avidya depends on jeeva for its existence. (there are
many more things which can be explained over here but will wait for queries/doubts on
the same and we can take it forward on the same). In this system, jeeva is many.

2) Prathibimba vaada – As per this theory, jeeva is the reflection of Brahman on the
intellect or antah karana. Brahman or Ishwara is the Bimba Chaitanya or original
consciousness. It is this Brahman or OC which gets reflected and becomes jeeva. As per
Siddhantha Bindu “jeeva is the reflected consciousness on ignorance which is limited or
categorized by antah karana and the samskaaraas of antah karana”. There is not much
difference between siddhanta bindu and the normal definition. Sanskhepa Shareeraka of
Sarvajnaatman accepts jeeva as reflection of Consciousness on Buddhi or intellect. This
is what vivarana school follows and this theory is called prathibimba vaada or reflection
theory. As per this theory, Ishwara is real and Brahman only. When ignorance is there and
ishwara is reflected in it, the reflection is called jeeva. As many antah karanaas, so many
jeevas are there. But unlike the limitation theory, here there is only one avidya (and not as
many avidyaas as jeevas) – and when this avidya is removed, then Brahman alone exists.
This is realization. Maybe here we can also take that many jeevas are there – therefore
liberation or realization of all jeevas happen one by one. Vivarana school accepts only
one avidya but different aspects of avidya or we can say different samskaaras and antah
karaanas of the same avidya. Thus inferring, if one avidya vanishes – others too vanish &
only Brahman remains. Whereas in bhamathi school, if one jeeva realizes – still many
more avidyas are there & hence others are not realized (this is a complex concept – we
will not analyze or argue on the same but at this place, accept whatever they say as such).

3) Aabhaasa vaada – this is what Vartika school follows. As per this theory, both ishwara
and jeeva are aabhaasaas or fallacious representations of Consciousness or Brahman.
These representations are on maya and avidya respectively (some people accept both
maya and avidya as same whereas some don’t). Fallacious representation here also means
that jeeva is reflection of Consciousness on intellect or avidya. The difference between
reflection theory and this theory is that in reflection theory, the reflection is real
empirically – but in this theory, there is no real reflection at all even at the empirical
level. The example quoted for this theory is reflection of a material kept near a crystal on
the crystal. There is no real reflection but reflection seems to be there empirically. But in
reflection, the reflection is empirically real but never exists without the original – once
the reflection medium is removed or sublated through knowledge, there is no reflection
but original alone. This theory accepts ishwara too as an illusion only unlike reflection
theory of vivarana school which accepts ishwara as Bimba or original Consciousness.
Here too there is only one avidya and thereby we can say that there is really no many
jeevas but one jeeva alone. Due to a single avidya, many jeevas are seen & thus nana
jeeva is perceived.

To sum up in short:

Limitation theory – jeeva is limitation of Consciousness on avidya

Reflection theory – jeeva is reflection of Consciousness in intellect
Aabhaasa theory – jeeva is a fallacious (unreal reflection) representation of
Consciousness in intellect or avidya.

In limitation theory alone, jeeva is considered as real and one with Brahman – in the
other two theories, there is no jeeva apart from Brahman but still jeeva is not exactly the
same as Brahman. This never contradicts Sankara’s statement of Jeevo brahmaiva na
parah because here too jeeva is not different from Brahman but Brahman alone (jeeva is
Brahman as the substratum and unreal as jeeva or the reflection – any reflection has no
existence apart from the original – thus all reflections are original. When the medium is
purified and removed, then reflection itself is seen as the original).

Hari OM
Jeeva as per the sub schools of Advaita – 2

Hari OM,

Before continuing this thread, would like to address a serious question over here: “Why
should I learn all these theories if Advaita alone is true and real?” First of all, this
question itself is proof that the questioner has not still realized his own very nature of
Consciousness or Self because for a realized person, there will be no questions or doubts
as Mundaka Upanishad says:

Bhidhyathe hridaya granthi

Chidhyanthe sarva samshayaah
Ksheeyanthe cha asya karmaani
Tasmin driste para avare

He who knows the ultimate reality of Brahman will have his knots of heart broken – all
doubts will vanish – all his actions will be nullified.

Yes, it is right that “Advaita alone is real and the reality is explained in the half sloka of
Sankara as Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah”. But if this theory
or reality has to become clearer, then intellectual conviction on the same has to be there.
Scriptural learning and learning different works on Advaita is only for getting this clear
intellectual conviction. Thus the analysis of the different ways of jeeva is helpful in
pointing out that all these theories differ empirically but they all are trying to prove the
existence of the non-dual reality alone. Whatever seems to be supporting and logical for
the seeker can be accepted at the empirical level & contemplation on the same will lead
to realization of the reality underlying the jeeva – which is adviteeya Brahman.

Keeping in mind that all these analysis are for seekers at different level and different
ways of explaining the reality at the empirical level & the main intention behind this
being contemplation/realization of the ultimate reality of Brahman, we will continue with
the three systems and as to which system is appropriate as per the limited intellect titled
Hariram.

It is but appropriate that the Ishwara who is sarvajna and sarva vyaapi is as illusory as the
world because the qualities of sarvajna and sarva vyaapi are valid only at the empirical
level where there is “other or sarva” to know and to pervade. Thus Ishwara has to be
considered as illusory as jeeva. Jeeva is that which is affected by the activities of the
mind – this has to be accepted because there should be some entity which is the linking
between sentient Consciousness or Self and insentient entities starting from intellect,
mind etc. Thus Jeeva or RC is the link between OC and insentient objects. Thus Jeeva is
the reflection of Consciousness in the intellect. The theory of limitation doesn’t really
have any link between sentient Self and insentient entities – but here the same jeeva
seems to be affected but is never affected. This means limitation theory cannot really be
accepted as exactly correct. Thus reflection theory is the exact explanation of Jeeva as per
Advaita. This is substantiated by the two disciples of Padmapaada and Sureshwara
agreeing on it – as well as Hastamalaka in hastamalakeeya.

Thus the reflection of Consciousness in intellect is jeeva. Thus jeeva is affected by

activities whereas OC is not at all affected. That OC which is in the illusion as the
witness and substratum of the illusion is called Kutastha. This Kutastha is Brahman as if
limited by the adjuncts of body, mind etc. Ishwara is the Consciousness when endowed
with the power of Maya. It is Brahman which is unlimited Consciousness which is not at
all affected by the activities in the illusory world. This Kutastha is avachheda of Brahman
--- seemingly limited by body, mind --- whereas Jeeva is reflection of Kutastha of OC in
the intellect. Brahman is never really involved in these activities but as “seemingly
limited Kutastha”, Brahman is involved as the witness/substratum of the illusions.

This is almost very same as abhaasa vaada or vartika prasthaana theory – but maybe little
bit different.

So, when the seeker realizes that he is not the jeeva but the kutastha through purifying the
intellect – when intellect is purified, the intellect itself vanishes as there is no intellect
without thoughts. When intellect vanishes, there is no medium and hence jeeva becomes
one with Kutastha or Brahman in this case as Kutastha and Brahman are same when there
is no intellect to seemingly limit Brahman (making it Kutastha). So when seeker realizes
himself as Kutastha, he realizes the ultimate reality of Brahman. After that, even though
the world or intellect might still exist – he is not at all affected by the activities of the
world even as a dreamer is not affected by the dream activities. This is what is normally
called as jeevan mukthi or liberated while living.

Literally here ends the analysis of Jeeva as per various systems.

Hari OM

Summary

Hari OM

Just to recap
Jeeva is Reflected Consciousness
Kutastha is OC which is Brahman seemingly limited by adjuncts of body, mind etc.
Ishwara is Brahman with power of Maya
Brahman – ever unaffected and nirvishesha as it seems to be the kutastha or witness but
never is witness also.

There is still one more concept which can be discussed over here which is Eka Jeeva
Vaada and Nanaa Jeeva Vaada. Many acharyas seem to support Eka Jeeva vaada which
this limited intellect also supports. With another mail where we will discuss eka jeeva
vaada in detail, we will close this thread.
Now we will try to see the two distinct types of analysis of jeevas and concentrate on Eka
jeeva vaada in particular.

There are a set of acharyas like Swami Sachidanandendra Saraswathi and others who
claim that at the empirical level, Sankara accepts aneka kartha bhoktha (which is jeeva)
and hence analysis into whether jeeva is one or many is futile.

Yes, the swami is right in that – but we have to remember that most of discussions do
happen at the empirical level only. There is no explanation or even commentary at the
paaramarthika level or the ultimate level where there is only one non-dual entity of
Brahman or Consciousness. Thus it is only at the empirical level that all analysis
happens. There is no fault in analyzing whether jeeva is one or many because this theory
makes Advaita more clear & if this is done remembering the ultimate reality of non-dual
Brahman & remembering that all these theories have been formulated by acharyas who
wanted to prove Advaita at the empirical level through these theories, then there is no
fault at all. But it is my personal opinion that if we analysis eka jeeva vaada in detail,
Advaita concept will become more clear & thus we will be able to contemplate on the
reality for realization of the reality as our own very nature. It is only when doubts are
eradicated that a person contemplates on the entity without any gap or voidness. Thus
doubts have to removed which will then make the advaitic Brahman clear and then alone
can the seeker contemplate on the reality at all times.

Thus in Vedanta, there are three types of faults or jnaanas (knowledge-s – yes, these are
not real knowledge but contrary knowledge or that knowledge obstacles to real
knowledge of the Self) which are removed through the three processes of Sravana or
listening to the scriptures about the reality, manana or reflecting on what has been
previously heard through logic and nidhidhyaasana or contemplating on the reality.

Let’s say a person has heard about the ultimate reality that there is only one Brahman
here – nothing else, all other things being mere illusions in the reality of Brahman. He has
only heard it and not intuitively experienced it (merely hearing or learning from guru is
called Paroksha Jnaana and intuitively experiencing it is called Aparoksha Jnaana in
Vedanta). Thus he gets the following faults:

1) Samshaya Jnaana – he gets doubt as to whether adviteeya Brahman alone is the

import of scriptures as scriptures do mention different-different things. These doubts are
removed through sravana or listening of the scriptures using the imports – thus finding
out that the import of the scriptures is adviteeya Brahman alone.

2) Asambhaavana (impossibility) – after listening too, he gets the feeling that scriptures
say that Brahman is real and the world is unreal – but I don’t feel the world as unreal.
Thus it is impossible that such Brahman is the import of the scriptures. This is removed
by manana or logically figuring out that Brahman alone is real whereas the world is only
an illusion which is unreal from ultimate viewpoint. There are more than enough logics to
prove it (maybe somebody else can take this as a discussion subject --- Brahma Satyatva
and Jagan mithyaatva).

3) Viparyaya Jnaana (contrary knowledge) – even after logic proves, still the seeker is
not able to realize such a Brahman (due to lack of real practice of remembering the reality
or lack somewhere in the previous two processes of sravana and manana). Thus he
concludes that there is no such Brahman at all. This is removed through nidhidhyaasana
which is contemplation on the reality. When a person contemplates on the reality, he
verily becomes the reality and realizes the ultimate reality of non-dual Brahman. Then it
dawns unto him that the world he perceived was only an illusion like the dreamer
realizing the dream world to be an illusion once he wakes up.

Yes, it is correct that if a person contemplates on the reality with faith – that itself is
enough. But Swami Sachidanandendra Saraswathi does agree upon the sravana, manana,
nidhidhyaasana process as well as adhyaaroopa-apavaaada process too – thus since the
swami accepts empirical practice, there is no wrong in trying to understand another
theory useful for the seeker to realize the reality.

As Prof. Balakrishnan Nair says – “do whatever you want, what u do doesn’t matter, but
remember the reality (Add the reality also to the action) and then do the action; such an
action becomes a brahma yajna & leads to realization”. This is what scriptures and Gita
explains in many places.

The jeeva determination that we learned in the previous mail all point out to aneka jeeva
or many jeevas (in all three types of vaadas, the jeevas are many depending on the many
antah karanaas or inner equipments). But there are a set of acharyas who believed in eka
jeeva only. The main acharya to propagate this theory was Vimuktatman whose ishta
siddhi is a beauty to learn and understand. Appayya Dikshitar while explaining eka jeeva
vaada quotes from SAnkara’s brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya where sankara says that
“the same Brahman while in avidya is in the samsaara and same Brahman when having
Vidya is liberated”.

As per Eka jeeva vaada, there is only one jeeva who is Brahman and nothing else. This
Brahman or jeeva seems to be limited or in the samsaara due to ignorance (this ignorance
is its own ignorance). The same Brahman when realizes that he has no ignorance is
liberated instantly.

Thus says Vimuktatman in Istasiddhi

Brahmaiva avidyayaa ekam ched bhahdyathe muchyathe dhiyaa

Eka muktau jagan muktheh na mukta anya vyavasthitihi

Brahman alone gets entangled in one avidya and is liberated through knowledge – when a
single person gets liberated, the world itself is liberated & there is no other explanation of
mukthi and bandha.

This theory might seem little bit tough to apprehend as many questions creep in for the
seeker. We will see the various questions and the answers to the same too.

Hari OM

Some questions and Conclusion

Hari OM

1) If I am Brahman, am I the creator of the world? How can this be when I am

unable to control the world?
Answer is simple: IT is very well known that yogis are able to control the world similar
as avatars. Thus if the seeker is able to control his mind and go beyond the mind, he can
control the world because world is what he perceives and “his perception” is important
and not that the “world already exists & I perceive it”. The world is perceived and created
by me as in dream because if I put little effort, I can control the world.

2) What about the concept of God which is explained in scriptures too?

Answer is also simple: The God who creates the world is “I” alone as Brahman. There is
no God apart from me because God also gets existence from Consciousness. As in deep
sleep, there is no God but I am still there. Thus I am permanent whereas the subjective
God is not permanent but dependent on me. This means that God becomes temporary
unless the God is “I” alone. Thus scriptures are not wrong at all but only thing is the God
mentioned by them is “I” or Self or Consciousness or “JEEVA” alone.

3) If there is only one jeeva, then what about other “conscious” beings? Other
conscious beings can be explained only through reflected consciousness as jeeva
which would lead to aneka jeeva vaada?
Answer is again simple: Other conscious beings themselves (like God) are dependent on
“I” or Jeeva for their existence. IF I deny, they will never exist. Thus this multiplicity of
jeeva itself is an illusion of ignorance affecting the eka jeeva or Brahman with ignorance.
What about liberated beings, jeevan muktaas and avatars seen in the world? If eka jeeva
vaada is accepted, they also will be illusions. This is against scriptures proclaiming Shuka
Deva (son of Vyaasa) as ever-liberated.
Answer is simple: A person dreams and sees liberated beings in dream. But reality is that
those liberated beings he saw in dream are not real. Similarly the liberated beings seen in
waking state too are not real but only illusions caused by the ignorance which binds the
jeeva.

4) How can it be that liberated beings are seen by ignorance as liberation means
“removal of ignorance”?
Answer: Liberation and bondage both are concepts of the mind alone. As per the reality,
there is no liberation or bondage for the Self or Brahman which is nitya mukta. Thus
when “liberated” is mentioned, that is empirical level. This means this “liberated” as
illusory as “bonded” in the world (like dream world). Similarly when “beings” (plural or
duality) comes into picture, that itself is an illusion and hence they can be valid only
when ignorance is there. Thus ignorance causes liberation and bondage – similarly causes
multiplicity. But by “liberation” or removal of ignorance that sruthi mentions is that state
where there is no duality at all which is beyond both liberation and bondage. Thus there is
no fault at what has been explained.

5) Doesn’t the eka jeeva vaada theory go against Gaudapada’s statement in

Mandukya Karika that “there is no jeeva born at all – this is not at all possible; the
reality is that there is nothing born at all”?
Answer: No, this isn’t against the gaudapada statement because gaudapada says that “no
jeeva is born” and says that “there is nothing born” (agreeing that “that which exists only
exists”). This means the jeeva which exists always exists as the non-dual reality of
Brahman and that jeeva concept which says it is born is not at all present. Thus
gaudapada statement is valid enough for eka jeeva vaada also as the jeeva is unborn
Brahman only. Gaudapada statement is also valid for other jeeva theories because in
those cases, jeeva is only an illusion which means that it is never created or has any
existence but only Brahman as its substratum exists.

These in general are the doubts that might arise in the mind of the seeker as well
intellectual scholars regarding eka jeeva vaada. Even though Sankara accepts aneka
kartha bhoktha or many jeevas but that is only from empirical viewpoint & this can be
very well accepted by eka jeeva vaada by adding the clause that “aneka jeevas are the
cause of the ignorance of one jeeva alone”. Since Svapna or dream is considered one of
the best examples to point to the ultimate reality of adviteeya Brahman as per Gaudapada
and Sankara too.

Thus Gaudapada says in Mandukya Karika

Svapna maaye yathaa dristam gandharva nagaram yathaa
Tathaa vishwam idam dristam vedantheshu vichakshanaihi

As a dream world is seen, as the world seen amongst clouds – similarly the waking world
is perceived and explained by knowers of Vedanta (experiencers of Brahman).

Sankara says in Dakshinamurthy astakam

Vishwam darpana drishyamaana nagaree thulyam, nija anthar gathan
Pashyan atmani mayayaa bahir iva udbhootaam yathaa nidrayaa

The world is like a reflected world seen in a mirror – which is perceived inner or really
present inner in the Self & seen as if present outside like SVAPNA LOKA or dream
world.

These are but very few examples of how Advaita accepts Svapna as one of the best ways
to analyze the waking state & point to the ultimate reality of Brahman. It is also
interesting to note that Yoga Vasistha too considers svapna as an important analogy and
explains about the same in many places as well as uses similar stories which are like
dream-stories to put forth the ultimate reality of Brahman.
Since Svapna is clearly accepted by Advaita and svapna clearly points out to Eka jeeva
vaada, it is but correct that this theory is the best theory of explanation of the jeeva
concept or the illusory world concept. Yes, this theory is very tough indeed to apprehend
but when analyzed with respect to dream – it is very easy to understand. This eka jeeva
vaada is very closely related to drishti sristhi vaada (the theory that world is created when
it is perceived by the perceiver or drik) rather than sristi dristhi vaada (the theory that
God created the world & this already created world is perceived by the perceiver or
seeker). Madhusudana Saraswathi seems to support Eka jeeva vaada. All the important
later acharyas do support eka jeeva vaada so does the great Chitsukhacharya in his
chitsukhi where he supports the views of vimuktatman. Madhusudana Saraswathi
mentions about eka jeeva vaada in his sidhantha bindu (which is a commentary on
Sankara’s dasha sloki) as well as Advaita Siddhi. Appayya Dikshitar explains this view in
his Sastra siddhanta lesha sangraha (which is an encyclopedia of different views of
Advaita as per different acharyas – this has a detailed commentary called
Krishnaalankaara of Achyuta krishnaananda Teertha). Nrsimhaasrama deals with eka
jeeva vaada proving it through sruthi, yukthi (different anumaaanas are given to prove
this vaada) in his Vedanta Tattva Viveka.
We have to still remember that from ultimate viewpoint, there is no vaada or theory at all
to speak about but still eka jeeva vaada is very near to ajaathi vaada or the ultimate theory
that there is no world created, no jeeva creation but only non-dual reality of Brahman
exists.

Eka jeeva vaada is final strengthened by Sankaracharya’s motto of Brahma Satyam

Jagan Mithya Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah (Brahman is the reality, world is only an
illusion, jeeva is Brahman only not different from Brahman).

Hari OM