--- dileepan <dileepan@xxxx> wrote: Once the jIvatma leaves > the > body, the body cannot do any of those things. Thus, when we say a > human being is living, we do not mean the human body is living, but> > only the soul that is present in the body. The soul is the one > that > is "cetanam" not the body.> Similarly, a pot is another body. The pot is not a living> (cetanam) > entity just as a human body is not a living entity. Only the soul > present in the body is cetanam, whether in the body of a pot or a > body of a human being. *********************** Granting everything explained above, it still largely leaves unanswered the original questions posed by Sri.Narayanan at the beginning of this very interesting thread of discussion triggered by DadhipAndan's 'pot' viz. -- Is the body (the shell of 'acetanam'), insentient Matter, too capable of aspiring to 'mOksham' no less than the jIva (the indwelling spirit of 'cetanam')? >From the detailed explanations given, the 'jIva' exists independently of the 'sarIra'. It survives the latter's extinction. But the reverse is not true. The 'sarira' does not survive after the 'jIvA' exits from it... until and unless another 'jIva' happens to come by and uses it to clothe itself. The 'sarira' really serves no purpose other than as a "shell", as explained. ("AdAram/AdEyam" principle). Hence, while 'cetanam' exists to seek its ultimate purpose in 'mOksha', 'acetanam' exists merely to subserve the interest of the 'cetanam'. Unlike the 'cetanam', the 'acetanam' is incapable of independently aspiring to the state of 'mOksha'. This is because while 'jIva' is IN the 'sarira', it is not OF the 'sarira'. And 'sarira', on the other hand, is neither "in" nor "of" the 'jIva'. The "jiva" is "jiva"; the 'jada' is 'jada' and the never the twain shall meet. In which case, the question of 'mOkshA' for the 'sarira' a.k.a the 'acetanam' or 'jada' does not arise at all? (This point is well illustrated in the famous answer NammAzhwAr gave Madhura-kavi who asked "settatin vayittril siriyadu pirandAl, ettai tinggu engay kidakkUm?"; pat came the answer, "atthai tinggu aangay kidakkum!"). -- The interesting 'purAnic' story of DadhipAnda on the other hand seems to suggest to us, in a vague sort of way, that both 'cetanam' (DadhipAnda himself) and 'acetanam' (his famous pot) can both equally aspire to (and they indeed did) attain 'mOkshA'? So how are we to reconcile the strictly philosophical position with that of the 'purAnic' incident and narrative? It was that question which I think was originally posed and remains, to my mind at least, still unaddressed. ******************* The problem seems to be we are mixing up a question of pure philosophy with one of theological belief. To my mind, DadhipAndan's story was never meant to illustrate the metaphysical categories of 'cit', 'acit' and 'isvara'. The story is really intended to illustrate (through platonic exaggeration) God's 'nirhetuka-krupa' -- that He is ever willing to shower his Grace freely (to the point of saying 'indiscriminately' even) on those who are his true devotees --- them, their families and indeed everything associated with them. PeriAzhwAr expressed this very beautifully : "yennaiyUm, yen udaimaiyai-yUm wUn sakkaraporiyOtrikondu ninnarulE purinthirundhane..." (senniyOngu) We should carefully note the word "yennaiyUm, yen udaimaiyai-yUm ..". Not only I, but everyone/everything associated with me, O Lord, are in receipt of your unbounded Grace, exults the AzhwAr. In Dadhipandan, the potter's case, he probably had none except his famous 'pot' to call as family --- the 'ghattam' perhaps was the only "yen udaimaiyai-yUm ..". Regards, dAsan, Sudarshan __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |