jIv
Jiiva …
...d'ya know, there are some twenty-six (yes - 26) entries for jiiva in the shabdkoshaH (dictionary)? I hadn't actually counted them before, despite knowing it was one of those (many) words in the Sanskrit tongue which has multiple meanings and nuance. It is such a contextual language. For purposes here and in the English connection, they all relate to one thing.
The soul.
Specifically, the individualised soul. The essence of 'beingness' that is not measurable by any scientific instrument. It is distinguished from the Aatman, the Universal Soul, from which the jiiva is splintered. The Biblical way of putting this is that we were made in God's image. There's a slight problem with that because the tendency is to consider it refers to our physical appearance. It makes 'God' a physical being… Jiiva and Aatman are not physical - at least not grossly so. They are of the subtlest level of material it is possible to be. Think Higgs' Boson and beyond. Beyond Higgs' Boson? - but that took forever to prove it was not a fantasy!
That's the point exactly. It took great dedication, belief in the process of discovery, faith in the existence of what could not be seen. With all research of existing knowledge applied, with exposition and hypothesis based on proven formulae, the Boson could be posited as a 'likely particle.'
The great minds of misted-aeons past, those mighty Rsis of the Sanskrit tradition, applied precisely the same rigorous intellectual and logical approach to assessing the nature of the human being and what might be the purpose of a life wherein we were given the gift to think at all. Their skill and standard of meditation, of union with That from which all emerges, has rarely been replicated. Some saints and sages have come close, though. They have done so by following the guidance of those Rsis - yes, including those of Christian and other faiths.
Those who are prepared to sit in true communion with their jiiva cannot help but understand that it is a fraction of the Aatman - whether they use these names or not.
This is by no means an easy task. Most of us are far too busy engaging with the ego part of our antaH-karana**. We are 'getting on with life.' Many will say that there is no requirement for philosophy, a spiritual anchor to live life. However, it is actually necessary to have a philosophy to live life, even if that philosophy is of the Charvaka ('food, drink, women') or the Atheism ('there is nothing') category. Make no mistake, these are philosophies, for they make statements about the nature of life and how it is to be lived by those who subscribe to them.
All philosophies are valid to their adherents. However, none of them can negate the fact that the jiiva is present within us to drive us to consider the nature of existence. In the case of the Charvaka, the spirit is seen as being the same as the ego. No effort is made to enquire further, as the physical life has too much hold. The Atheist will state that 'there is no God' with the same fervour and vehemence as the fundamentalist Bible-thumper or the Qu'ran Crusader declares there is. By inference, it is considered that there is no spirit. That same Atheist will walk in nature and talk of it with awe and respect, sit with a pet and feel the bond of love, and feel compassion for their fellow human-being and not understand that this connection they are feeling is the jiiva within them. Their attachment to these things - as is the case for all of us - will come from the ego; how they view and talk about these things will come from manas; how they justify their feelings comes from buddhi; how they commit these things to long-term memory and relate to them in history comes from chitta.
Denying something does not mean it doesn't exist; it merely means that it does not exist for me at this time. This can be because we have not yet had the experience or desire for that experience. Either way, we ALL have jiiva, from the rocks through the plants and animals to us, critters at the top of the evolutionary tree. The scientist will cry, 'but there are checks and measures for everything, and all can be explained.' This is true… till the point where we cannot currently measure.
** The antaH-karana is the mental capacity, made up of four components.
Ahangkaara - the ego, individual sense of self
Manas - the mind, as in the flow of thoughts
Buddhi - the intellect, as in the assessor and adjudicator
Chitta - the container of the individual's history, for this life and other existences
I love all these new words for things. How true: "Denying something does not mean it doesn't exist; it merely means that it does not exist for me at this time." Counterpoint on this one. If we are all "pieces" of "Universal Soul" aren't we all in some derivative sense universal soul in this particular point in time? Can't individuated "self" be like a contiguous line cutting through the everything of the universal essence of everything, perceiving and distinct? That's where I am and where I stay with this. It's always where things get really interesting. Like do I want to Be Here (absolutely!) and also have access to the distant past or distant future or (whew) distantly Other in some transcendent sense that is both a vague Oneness but also tainted with hints of I'll see you up close one day, maybe, and regardless we are all one? Because that's where it is all gets very interesting for me. Thanks for yet another great share. I need to check out your other blogs. Keep meaning to. I find if I write things down it helps me to remember to do them. Have a great day, Yam! So glad I got to "meet you" through A-Z.
ReplyDeleteHari Om
DeleteAnne, that is exactly it. If you click back through to the 'chapter one' part of AVbloggy, you will see the subheading, "we are one you and I, are you curious why?"!!! Advaita absolutely advocates unity of existence. Yxx
So true. Philosophy is absolutely in all of us. I am not sure why that is difficult for some to believe!
ReplyDeleteAnother deeply interesting post.
ReplyDeleteThis was very informative for me.
ReplyDelete