SaiK wrote:Again when we talk about Oneness, there is always a merge thought - JOIN. So, the property itself becomes quantifiable in some sense that can be considered represent-able in the mango minds.
Sure, the command to "join" back to Source is a given. But, as you said, how best can this fundamental dynamic be characterized for our mango minds? Upanishads give many metaphors in different contexts. One example from Prashna Upanishad 4.7:
स यथा सोम्य वयांसि वासोवृक्षं संप्रतिष्ठन्ते एवं ह वै तत्सर्वं पर आत्मनि संप्रतिष्ठन्ते । [Prashna Up. 4.7]
"O friend, just as a bird goes into a tree to roost, so also all this rests in the Supreme Atman."
From an "external" point of view, the bird has merged and disappeared into the tree. But although it becomes part and parcel of the tree, within that system it retains its individuality.
Another example is from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.5.14:
अयमातमा सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्यात्मनः सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु यश्चायमस्मिन्नात्मनि तेजोमयो 'मृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमात्मा तेजोमयो 'मृतमयः पुरुषो 'यमेव स यो 'यमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदँ सर्वम् । [Brihadaranyaka Up. 2.5.14]
"This (cosmic) body is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this (cosmic) body. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this (cosmic) body, and the shining, immortal being who is this (individual) self. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all."
So its like honey is made from essences collected by bees from various flowers. In the actual hive, all the nectarean essences are mixed, and from an "external" point of view are indistinguishably merged. Yet, we know from an "internal" point of view that nothing is lost, all the individual essences inhere in the honey. So also, the individuality of souls is not simply "lost", though it transmutes and becomes a "non-different" part and parcel of the Supreme Soul. Moreover, each individual part has a plenary portion of the whole inherent within. The simultaneous existence of this Supreme One along with the individual many is all over all scriptures.
नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानाम्
एको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान्
तमात्मसथं ये 'नुपश्यन्ति धीरस्
तेषां शान्तिः शाश्वति नेतरेषाम् । [Katha Up. 2.2.13]
"The One Eternal among many eternals, the One Consciousness among many consciousnesses,
The One among the many who fulfills (the many's) desires,
Only the spiritually intelligent person who is able to see this One situated within the self and without,
He only can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace, not others."
SaiK wrote:In my understanding, numerical oneness at the transcendental level can be categorically represented by "infinity"[like ∞]
...
So, my mango mind, I don't see the subtle nuances defining ∞ + iX != ∞ + iY, where iX, iY are imaginary numbers.
Yes oneness can be represented by infinity. Of course, even there we can have countably infinite or uncountably infinite, bounded infinities and unbounded infinities. Discreteness and infinity can both be present - based on necessity.
The "subtle nuance" in defining that infinity and its possibilities becomes important in one's conception and therefore objective-setting, as well as one's method and orientation of sAdhana. Especially because the infinite whole is supposedly indwelling in us by a
plenary portion, according to the claim of the Upanishads. So that can cause confusion about "roles" and "relations" of the "parts". Think of a couple of metaphors:
1. First, in terms of
right conception and purpose about origins, it is important for basic attitude and knowing where one is and where one must go. So think of being a molecule inside a plant. You want to arrive at the "source/origin" of the plant. Now by most types of Buddhist/Advaitist thinking, they start with "drg-drishya viveka", etc, which are mostly based on
associative logic. By following this logic of pursuing "substratum" and
logical antecedents, they would have us renounce each functional ramification of the plant and logically arrive at the root of the plant. Then they may declare this to be the "source" of the plant, and then perhaps exit and merge with the soil around it. But by a more holistic Vaishnava thinking,
the origin of the plant is not the root, but the seed. Its not about going up "back" to the root. And where is the seed found? Not by going backwards down to the root, but by going forwards down each evolved ramification of the plant system, until one reaches its most mature fruit - which is the purpose of the plant's creation. Within that fruit is the seed, and within that seed is the information for a whole new plant.
So a holistic Vaishnava philosophy not only leads to the real origin, but determines one's whole attitude towards human life and all its cultural/civilizational ramifications. IMHO, Buddhist/Advaitist thinking has caused problematic memes of renunciation, celibacy, male/female imbalances, brahmana-kshatriya disharmony, etc to become implanted into Indic society. Even with their caveats of "vyavahArika" necessity to have different social arrangements, by psychologically divorcing it from their "paramArthika" claims, they undermine its vigour and joy. That's why I think Madhva's Vedanta is needed to regenerate Indic society in a healthy manner.
2. Secondly, think in terms of method of sAdhana and relative importances of different aspects of sAdhana. Think of a plant - it has leaves, fruits, branches, stem, and roots. What best way to care for and nourish the well-being of the entire plant so that it grows to its full maturity and we can obtain the most mature fruit of its creation? The
right method would be to simply water and nourish the root, because this would automatically be redistributed to the rest of the plant. No amount of spit and polish to the leaves or stem is comparable to watering the root. Its not just a question of "also" watering the root along with other stuff (like how Advaitists talk about "also" having some "bhakti" tamasha). The care of the root is
central to the process. Correct
organization of tattvas is the main task of philosophy, not just
discovery of tattvas.
Also see Bhagavad Gita 15:16-20 for example -
"There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every entity is called infallible. Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Lord Himself, who has entered into these worlds and is maintaining them. Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person. Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is to be understood as the knower of everything, and He therefore engages himself in full devotional service, O son of Bharata. This is the most confidential part of the Vedic scriptures, O sinless one, and it is disclosed now by Me. Whoever understands this will become wise, and his endeavors will know perfection."
ravi_g ji, thanks for the encouragement.
