नैवाऽऽत्मनः सदा जीवो विकारावयवौ तथा ॥ ७ ॥
nā''kāśasya ghaṭākāśo vikārāvayavau yathā |
naivā''tmanaḥ sadā jīvo vikārāvayavau tathā || 7 ||
Here he is talking about the relationship between jivatma and paramatma. It is like between ghatakasa and akasa. Seeing the example - what is that relationship.
First, he says what cannot be. There is no cause-effect relationship between the pot space and total space. Because we know for that relationship to be there some modification must take place. Here no such modification for the production of pot space. The nature of space is the same in both.
The second is a part-whole relationship. Pot space is part of the total space. Avayava avayavi sambandha. TN and India or finger and hand or hand and me. It appears logical also. Pot space has a volume of like five liters and so on. Space is limitless. Smaller space must be part of bigger space. Ghatakasa cannot be said to be an avayava or part also. Because a part-whole relationship is possible only where divisions are possible. A hand is my part because it can be removed and replaced. It should be addable or removable etc. Partable. Part with. Akasa is an indivisible whole. How do you account for the limitation of space. Our approach here is confusing.
We say space inside is limited and outside is limitless. That very statement is wrong. There is no question of within and outside. Water can be talked of like that. Water within and outside. You can take away water from the whole i.e., the ocean. There is only one space. In and out are with reference to pot. With reference to space no in and out. The pot is in space. Three is only one space in which all pots are there big and small. Therefore pot space is not vikara or avayava.
So too jivas are neither vikara nor part. Neither a product nor a part of Paramatma. Generally, we think Paramatma is a big consciousness and we are sparks of him. Yatha sudiptat + Jivas come out of lord like sparks from a conflagration. There it is only meant to show karya karana abheda. This spark is also fire and that original conflagration is also fire. We cannot extend it beyond that.
In the case of fire, sparks are possible and the gap between sparks is possible because fire is limited and it is divisible. Spark-fire relationship is possible. Sparks of caitanyam cannot come as caitanyam is all-pervading. Secondly, caitanyam cannot be divided as it is indivisible and has no parts. The feeling that it is divided is due to upadhi called body. Where the body is caitanyam is manifest there only. In between, there is no manifest caitanyam. So it is only seeming division. So jivatma is sada, at any time, parmatma only.
During Srishti Paramatma somehow become jivatma-like rivers come out of the ocean due to evaporation in summer. We were original with paramatma and due to some reason came down as jivatmas later srishti kale. Moksha kale we join back parmatma. To refute this misconception Acharya says sada. At no time jivatma is a product.
If so neither a product nor part, then what is the relationship between them? Acharya says the very question is wrong. When you ask for a relationship you have taken for granted that they are two separate entities. Relationship is possible only between two separate things. We have concluded that I am jivatma and there is Paramatma and with this false conclusion I ask for relationship between me and lord. The question is wrong as both are not two different things but two names for one and the same reality.
If they are one and the same reality why two names. One is the name attributed by ignorant people and the other by wise people. It is due to differences in understanding. Exactly like rope and snake. Substance is only one. Why give two names like rope and snake. One is adhishtanam and the other is adhyasa. You think there is snake and so call it snake. Another person sees only rope. No relationship between jivatma and paramatma. Jivatma is paramatma. Aham Brahma asmi.
That is why when a person talks about snake I have to talk about rope as different from snake and I have to talk about a relative reality. Once I dismiss snake, rope will not be called adhishthanam etc. Because of ‘pot space’ word, ‘total space’ word is used. Otherwise only one akasa. Limited ghata is there but not ghata akasa. Paramatma word is used to differentiate from jivatma. Afterwards only atma. Paramtma is a temporary name.
Jivatma being paramatma is called aikyam. Acharya negates here visishtadvaita view that it is part-whole. Dvaitins says both are totally different. That is also negated here.
No comments:
Post a Comment