Topic 5. The nature of jiva and isvara.

1. Both are reflections. The reflection of consciousness in maya which

is indescribable as real or unreal is Isvara. The reflection of
consciousness in the infinite number of limited parts of maya,
which have avarana and vikshepasakti and which are known as
avidya is jiva. The part of maya with both avarana and vikshepa
sakti is avidya. This is the view of Prakatarthakara.
2. Mulaprakriti is maya when it is predominantly pure sattva not
overcome by rajas and tamas and it is avidya when it is impure
sattva subordinated by rajas and tamas. The reflection in maya is
Isvara and the reflection in avidya is jiva. This is the view of Swami
Vidyaranya in Tattvaviveka, chapter 1 of Panchadasi.
3. Mulaprakriti itself with vikshepasakti being predominant is maya
and is the upadhi of Isvara. With avarana sakti being predominent,
mulaprakriti is avidya and it is the upadhi of jiva. Because of this,
jiva has the experience of being ignorant, but not Isvara. This is
the view of some.
4. Samkshepasariraka view—The reflection of consciousness in
avidya is Isvara and the reflection in the mind is jiva.
In the above views in which Isvara and jiva are reflections, the bimba
(prototype) is pure consciousness (Brahman ) which is attained by the
liberated.
5. Chitradipa view: Giving up the threefold aspect of Brahman as pure
consciousness, Isvara, and jiva, a fourfold aspect is postulated. The
reflection in ajnana tinged with the vasanas in the minds of all living
beings, which is dependent on Brahman is Isvara. The reflection in
the antahkaranam (mind) is jiva.
Translation of the relevant paragraphs in SLS—The fourfold aspect is-
-- The reflection in the mind is jiva. The unconditioned consciousness
is Brahman. The reflection in maya that is ignorance which is
dependent on Brahman and in which are the vasanas in the minds of
all living beings, is Isvara. The consciousness which is the substratum
of the subtle and gross bodies, which is limited by the two bodies and
which is unchanging like an anvil is the kutastha. Thus the difference
between jiva and Isvara is that the mind is the upadhi of the former
and ajnana tinged with the vasanas of all beings is the upadhi of the
latter.
Out of these four it is the jiva who shines as ‘aham’ who is
superimposed on kutastha whose special characteristics of non-
attachment and bliss are hidden by avidya, like silver superimposed
on nacre. Therefore, just like ‘thisness’ and silverness’, the general
characteristics of the substratum and the special characteristics of
the superimposed entity, which are ‘svayam’ (self) and ‘aham’ appear
together as in sentences such as “I myself am doing”. The ‘I-ness’ is
the special characteristic of the superimposed entity. The word ‘self’
cannot be used by one person for another. ‘Selfness’ is the general
 characteristic of the substratum, since it can be used for any one as
in “Devadatta himself is going”. (So it is like ‘this’ which can apply to
any substratum). It is only because of this mutual adhyasa that there
is lack of discrimination between kutastha and jiva by ordinary
people. They are discriminated in Br.up. 4.5.13—“Pure consciousness
alone comes out from these elements and (this separateness) is
destroyed with them”. It is with regard to the jiva that it is said that
there is destruction (of jivatva) following the destruction of upadhi.
The statement in Br.up. 4.5.14—“This Self is indeed imperishable” is
with regard to the kutastha which is declared to be imperishable.
When the jiva denoted by ‘aham’ is perishable, how can there be non-
difference from Brahman which is imperishable? This
samanadhikaranyam is not by abheda, but by badha. Just as by the
sentence ‘The post is a man’, the notion of post is removed by the
knowledge that it is a man, so also, in the sentence ‘aham Brahma
asmi’ by the knowledge of the kutastha Brahman the superimposed
‘aham’ ceases. By the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’, the entire cognition
of ‘I’ (as karta, bhokta, etc.,) is removed—Naishkarmasiddhi, 2.29.
If, as said by Vivarana this is to be taken as abhede
samanadhikaranyam, then the word ‘aham’ whose primary meaning is
the jiva should be taken as meaning kutastha by lakshana, since that
(kutastha), not being a superimposed entity, can be non-different from
Brahman.
Isvara who has been stated to be the reflection in the vasanas in the
mind is ‘the anandamaya in the deep sleep state described in Mandukya
up. 5, because he is described in the next mantra as ‘He is the Lord of
all, omniscient, the inner controller, the source of all, the origin and
place of dissolution of all beings’.

Abheda samanadhikaranyam is also known as aikye

samanadhikaranyam and mukhya samanadhikaranyam. The
difference between the two kinds of samanadhikaranyam is brought
out in the following note:
With regard to the two kinds of samanadhikaranyam, Dr. R.
Balasubramanian says in his book on Naishkarmyasiddhi:
In a sentence words which, having the same case-endings, denote one
and the same thing are said to be in samanadhikaranyam and the
relation that obtains between (or among ) the words is called
samanadhikaranya-sambandha. This relation is of two kinds--- mukhya-
samanadhikaranyam and badhayam samanadhikaranyam. In the
former, the objects denoted by the words of the sentence will have equal
ontological status (samana-satta), will be identical in nature (samana-
svarupa), and will not be really different from each other. For example,
when we say, “The pot-ether is the great ether”, the words pot-ether and
great ether are in mukhya samanadhikaranyam. The pot-enclosed ether
and the ether outside it have the same ontological status, i.e., both are
empirically real. Also, both of them have the same nature. Though they
appear to be different, they are not really so. The pot which is the upadhi
(adjunct) separates the ether in the pot from the ether outside it, and so
the difference between the two is only aupadhika. When the upadhi is
removed, they become one which they really are all the time.
But if the words of a sentence, which have the same case-endings
denote objects which have different ontological status and if they purport
to convey only one idea, then they are in badhayam
samanadhikaranyam. For example, when we say, “This post is a man”,
the objects denoted by the words ‘post’ and ‘man’ have different
ontological status. Since what exists really is a man and not a post, ‘man’
is empirically real (vyavaharika) whereas ‘post’ is apparently real
(pratibhasika).
6. In Brahmananda, however, it is said that the anandamaya in deep
sleep is the jiva. In the commentary the Agama prakarana of
Mandukya karika is explained in detail.
7. In Drigdrisyaviveka Swami Vidyaranya describes jiva as threefold,
as paramarthika, vyavaharika and pratibhasika. The immutable
kutastha chaitanya which is associated with (avacchinna) the two
bodies is the paramarthika jiva. Though the associated factors are
only kalpita (not real), since what is associated is not kalpita, it is
non-different from Brahman.
The word avacchinna stands for all the following three---upahita,
upalakshita, and visishta—limited by, indicated by, and qualified by.
The reflection of consciousness in the mind which considers itself as
‘I’ because of identification with the mind is the vyavaharika jiva.
Though it is due to maya, it continues as long as there is vyavahara.
In the dream state the person who considers himself as ‘I’ is the
pratibhasika jiva. Sleep is a mode of maya by which the vyavaharika
jiva of the waking state is concealed. The jiva who sees the dream
ceases along with the dream world on waking up.
The above are the different views of those who hold that Isvara is a
reflection.
8. Isvara is not a reflection, nor is unconditioned Brahman the
prototype (bimba). But the jiva is the reflection in avidya. Isvara is the
bimba. Pure consciousness permeates both these. This is the view of
the followers of Vivarana.
9. Pure consciousness delimited by the inner organ is the jiva. Isvara
is not limited by the inner organ, but conditioned by avidya. This is
the view of the followers of Vachaspati Misra. It is pointed out that
whatever objections are raised against the theory of limitation are
equally applicable to the theory of reflection. Finally it is said that the
sruti “ When a pot is moved from one place to another the space
inside the pot is not moved; so also the jiva which is similar to the
space” (Amritabindu upanishad,13) supports only the theory of
limitation. Brahmasutra 2.3.43 which describes the jivas as parts of
God also supports it.
10. The jiva is neither a reflection nor a limitation, but it is pure
Brahman who is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, who attains the state
of jiva because of his own avidya, just as Karna became the son of a
charioteer. This is based on the example narrated in the
Brihadaranyaka upanishad Bhashya of a prince who grew up in the
family of a hunter. He considered himself to be a hunter until he was
reminded by a knowledgeable person that he was a prince. Similarly,
the ignorant jiva realizes that he is Brahman on hearing the
mahavakya ‘tat tvam asi’. Isvara is also imagined by the jiva to exist
with such qualities as omniscience, etc., on the analogy of the
perception of a deity in dream. This is the view of the followers of
Vartikakara.

*******************