> --- "I.V.K. CHARY" <ivkchary@xxxx> wrote: > > > >Dear Sri Sudharsan, > > >This discussion is interesting indeed. I am just wanting to look > > at it in > >another way, albeit, unsure how far this can stand a > scrutiny from> Sastraic > >view.> >What or who is Achetanam? Is it > not again a body which is> suscptible to > >changes like > human/animal/plant bodies? Is it mandatory that all> Jeevas > >have > got to enter only a Chethana body? If so, how come Ahalya, as> a > > >Jeeva, entered the body of a rock to be retrieved by Lord Rama?> > What about > >various narrations in Puranas where > Deva/Manushya/Rakshasaas> getting into > > >bodies not of their own as a result of a curse? When once the > > curse is > >revoked, the jeeva in it getting back to its earlier > form and the> cursed > >body facing dilution or destruction? Please > throw some light> >Regards, > > >Dasan > > > Dear SrimAN Chari & Smt.Kalaivani, > > After reading through both your interesting viewpoints, I can only > say you have got me thinking very hard but not convinced. Perhaps, > adiyane lacks the mental or spiritual capacity to grasp the > 'sUkshmam' of the 'cetana-acetanam' dichotomy. > > My knowledge is very small in these matters and is restricted to > the > following: > > (1) The "tattva-traya" is a fundamental cornerstone of Vedanta > philosophy. > > (2) "cit', "acit" and "Isvara" are 3 realities of existence. > > (3) 'cit' is what is alive, intelligent, conscious and > regenerative. > 'jIvAtmA' is 'cit'. > > (4) "acit" is also real but is un-intelligent, lacking in > consciousness and is degenerative. Matter is 'acit'. > > (5) "Iswara" is absolute intelligence, absolute consciousness and > it > is eternal. It never undergoes degeneration because it is > indestructible. It never undergoes regeneration because it needs no > regeneration. > > From my limited understanding of the 'tattva-traya', I conclude > that Matter and Spirit, "acit" and "cit" are both real. They are > also > definitely both related to Isvara. But that does not mean they are > related to Isvara in exactly similar ways. > > If the 'cit' and the 'acit' are conceived to be both related to > Isvara in exactly the same way (as in the way they attain 'mOksha', > for example), then what is the need for the concept of > "tattva-traya"? What is the need for distinguishing at all between > 'sarira' and 'atma' or Matter and Spirit? If Matter possesses a > spirit too within itself, then what is the need to distinguish > between 'cit' and 'acit'? Why would Madhura-kavi ask Maran the > question "cettatin vayitril siriyadu pirandhAl, ettai tinggu engay > kidakkum?", if both "cettadhu" and "siriyadhu" possessed 'atmA'? > Everything that exists becomes 'cit', in that case. Why bother to > posit something called "acit" at all? > > I am therefore unable to find credible answers for the above > questions from both your arguments. Please remember that the > 'tattva-traya' is the very bedrock of Vedantic philosophy. If one > posits arguments which tend to confuse this foundation, then the > whole edifice of Vedantic philsophic will come tumbling down. > > ******** ******** ******* > > With regard to the story of Ahalya that Sri.Chari alludes to, I > humbly submit that once again we are confusing theological doctrine > with philosopical axiom. > > The story of Ahalya appears in the 'Ramayana' which is considered > to > be an encyclopaedia of "saranagati-sAstra". The main purpose of the > story is only to ilustrate that the path of self-surrender, > 'saranagati', that 'upAYa' is available for even the most lowly > of > beings. Anyone can resort to 'saranagati' if the mind is made up, > one has abiding faith in it and waits patiently (like an inert > 'stone'!) to ultimately reap its benefit viz. salvation or > 'mOksha'. > Even if a being were to be accursed (as Ahalya was), even if a > being > were full of evil or demonaic nature (rakshasa) or even if a being > were as severely limited in intelligence as a dumb animal -- the > story of Ahalya reveals to us that the being still need not worry. > There is still spiritual hope for such a being because redemption > is > available through 'saranagati'. > > 'saranagati' is profound theological doctrine. "tattva-traya" is > profound philosophical principle. The story of Ahalya, in adiyane's > humble opinion, illustrates the theological doctrine of > 'sarangagati'; not the philosophical principle of "tattva-traya". > Since we have confused one with the other, it is only natural that > we > have ended up with the confusion we presently have on our hands (or > should I say minds!). > > ******* ********** ******** > > Some persons in the other cyber-lists have buttressed their views > in > this debate by conveniently stating that their position is advanced > by Srimadh Azhagiyasingar himself, and hence their view is true and > authoritative. > > Well, adiyane can only respond saying that I am also an ardent > follower of the present Azhgiyasingar and would gladly accept his > word to be truth. But in this matter I am not sure if those who > claim > they are quoting the Azhgiyasingar are quoting him correctly or > faithfully. Who can say for sure in what exact context the AchArya > really said what is being reported as being his words/views? > > Until adiyane has had an opportunity to get this doubt clarified > personally with a qualified person (or perhaps with Srimadh > Azhagiyasingar himself on my next trip to the Mutt), and have the > matter explained to me more clearly and authoritatively, I choose > to > reserve judgment on the matter. > > Thanks and regards, > dAsan, > > Sudarshan __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |