[Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nanajiva vada.
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 20 06:04:50 CDT 2013
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, vinayaka ns <brahmavadin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually the question in the ekajIvavAda is - *In the waking state* is
> there only one jIva and are the other jIvAs are just bodies moving around?
> While dealing with this we have to look at it from the perspective waking
> state alone because from the pAramArthik standpoint we can very well say
> that all are nothing but vibrations of the mind/imagination of the mind. If
> these two perspectives gets mixed up then there will problems.
In the Vyavahara itself we have to say there is one Jeeva. There are
no others. In Svapna Avastha you are seeing dream persons and other
things. In Jagrat Avastha also you are seeing a dream. In Svapna the
persons are dream persons. In Jagrat also all persons are dream
persons. There is no difference. You have to think this. I am Alone
and I only am real. All these people are not real. They are in my
In Nana Jeeva Vada it is very complicated. What is the proof all these
people are real? Why I should think they are real like me? The Nana
Jeeva Vada cannot give answers to the questions.
In Paramartha there is only Brahma. Why we should think in Vyavahara
there are many Jeevas? It is meaningless.
> The shruti and bhyAshas do accept the multiplicity of jIvas in samsAra from
> the perspective of different upAdhis. The following quote from katha and
> muNdaka bhAshya can be quoted in this regard:
> Katha 2.2.8:
If you are familiar with Holenarsipur Swami and followers they will
give much respect to Gaudapada Karika and Brahma Sutra Bhashya only.
Other Bhashya is not important. Can you give proof for Nana Jeeva Vada
in these sources?
Gaudapada and Adi Sankara both were Pure Eka Jeeva Vadis. We have to
> Some souls enter the womb of acquiring bodies and others follow the
> motionless, in accordance with their work and in confirmity with their
> bhAshya: anyE dEhinaH, some souls, some embodied ones - some ignorant
> fools; yonim prapadyante, enter into the womb; sharIratvAya, for assuming
> bodies. anyE, others - the extremely inferior ones; after death,
> anusamyanti, follow; sthAnum, the state of motionless things like tress
> etc; yathAkarma, in accordance as each ones work is.....
> Mundaka bhAshya introduction to 1.2.1:
> tatra aparavidyAvishyaH kartrAdisAdhanakriyAphalabhEda rUpaH samsAraH,
> anAdH anantaH, dukhaswarUpatvAt hyAtavyaH **pratyekam sharIribhiH**
> sAmsthyEna nadIsrOtavadvicchEdarUpasambandaH........
> Of these, the sphere of the lower knowledge is the state of transmigration
> which involves a distinction of accessories like agent etc., and actions
> and results. This state has no beginning and no end; it has to be
> eradicated wholly and individually by ** every embodied being** because it
> consists of sorrow; and its interrelation is like the unbroken current of
> the river.....
> While commenting on this SSS says ( rough translation form his note in
> kannada page 30) :
> The vyAkhyAnakAra (Anandagiri) has written that ekajIvavAdaH is opposed to
> this bhAshya. Though this is true, during the times of bhAshyakAra there
> was no ekajIvavAda-nAnAjIvavada. If the bondage is true and if a single
> person gets liberation, then there will be no samsAra for others to cross
> over. Since samsAra is mithyA, whoever gets knowledge it will cease for
> those enlightened ones - this is the heart of the commentator. He also
> cites other bhAshyavAkyas - ekEna chAdimuktena.... BSB 3-2-21;
> pratipurusham parisamAptam shAstram and opines that these utterances should
> also bear the same meaning.
>> Given below are some references to the shAnkara bhAShyam and mANDUkya
>> kArikA-s (MK):
>> , 4.68, 69, 70 and bhashya which says:
>> //jivas such as human beings, etc. seen in the waking state, though
>> non-existent, are merely the imagination of the mind - तथा
>> अविद्यमाना एव चित्तव्कल्पनामात्रा इत्यर्थः.
> This is ok, but what is the perspective here? It is said from the
> pAramArthik standpoint, Is it not? Here Shankara is not saying that there
> is only soul in the waking state and that the other jIvas are just nIrjIva
> jivas. All that he is saying is - from the standpoint of the absolute there
> is no difference between the waking and the dream states and jIvas are
> mayic only and not real.
> When shruti pramANa and pratyaksha are tallying, why should we bring in
> some other view/interpretation?
> As far as pre-eminence of this view is concerned, I feel that some
> preceptors of advaita prefer this because it asks the aspirant to
> concentrate on the reality not bothering much about the world/jIvas etc.
> Thanks for the references; in fact I was looking for the pointers from the
> shruti & bhAshya since the issue is a complicated one.
> Interestingly/incidentally(?) most of the quotes are from the mAdUkya
> kArikas/bhAshya. If you have some more references from other bhAshyas
> please do share and I shall refer to them when time permits.
> Best Wishes,
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list