The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthyji.

 

Thank you, Sir, very much for the good words.

 

Let me come to the points:

 

You said:

> you have given the impression that shri

> shankara's conclusions and shri CN's conclusions are the same.

> I have doubts on that. In his last essay, shri CN said that

> the cloth is as real as the yarn. I still claim that is not

> what shri shankara said. If that argument (that cloth is as

> real as the yarn) were accepted, then the pot is as real as

> the clay. [My understanding: pot is real as clay but pot is

> not *as* real as clay). If cloth is as real as the yarn, then

> that would certainly negate Uddalaka's teaching to Svetaketu.

> I think there is a difference in what I understand as shri

> shankara is teaching and what shri CN-ji presented in the

> essays.

 

The problem, I perceive, here is *as real as*. Let me quote CN's

words:

 

"THE PROBLEM OF DIFFERENCE

 

It is said that Brahman is the material cause of the universe just as

the yarn is the materical cause of the cloth. It is said furthermore

that as yarn alone it is true, and as the cloth, being only a name

for a peculiar condition of the cause, it is false. But the mere

fact that the cloth is only a name for a peculiar condition

(vishesha) of the causal substratum (yarn) does not seem to be an

adequate reason for its falsity because if the cloth is only a name

for the vishesha of the substratum, then such is its very nature - to

be thus by name - and it does not behove us to deny a thing's own

nature. For, a thing is what it is by its own nature.

 

The cloth exists in the yarn. Then how indeed does the cloth become

false when the yarn is true, for if the yarn is true, the cloth as a

condition of the yarn cannot be untrue. I feel that this question

should not be dismissed under the mere assertion that whatever

pertains to names and forms is false because such an assertion,

merely on the strength of the assertion, would amount to a dogma.

For it would be a complete surrendering of Advaita to the void of

nihilism to say that the world is *absolutely* negatged - because

such a thesis makes the comprehending initellect converge to Brahman

as the limit of nothingness rather than expand the intellect unto its

dissolution in the expansive Heart that sees Brahman as beyond all

limits. That is the identity of the Heart (self) with Brahman."

 

Kindly note my asterisks on the word *absolutely*, which means CN

doesn't avoid negation but only refutes absolute negation demanded by

certain advaitins. Haven't we already seen such insistence on

absolute negation here on our List itself? Perhaps, CN means to

answer his detractors here very logically. But, he hasn't certainly

said *as real as*. He is very much on record as having said that it

is only the bhEda (separation) that is to be negated and not the

world as such. His cloth-yarn analogy from BS is to be understood in

this context.

 

Well, let us look at Sw. Gambhiranandaji's translation of Sankara's

patavatca (BSB II, i, 19) wherein the cloth-yarn example is dealt

with:

 

"19. And the effect is non-different from the cause on the analogy of

piece of cloth.

 

A piece of rolled up cloth is not recognized as to whether it is

cloth or something else; but when it is spread out, its real nature

becomes revealed through that spreading and it is recognized

thus: "The thing that remained rolled up is a piece of cloth to be

sure". Or even though it is cognized as cloth when remaining rolled

up, its length and breadth are not definitely known; but when it is

spread out, it is known as possessed of a definite length and

breadth. And yet it is never known to be something other than the

rolled up piece of cloth. Similarly, such products as the cloth etc.

are unmanifest so long as they remain latent in their causes, viz.

yarns etc.; but they are known distinctly when they become manifest

as a result of the activity of such causal agents as the shuttle,

loom, weaver, etc. So on the analogy of the cloth rolled up and

spread out, *the effect is non-different from the cause*. This is

the meaning."

 

Please look at the asterisks placed by me. Doesn't that statement

connote that the effect is *as real* as the cause? Perhaps, Sankara

is more vehement than our CN?!"

 

Since this is a very important topic, I am quoting full from Sw.

Krishnanandaji's commentary on BS II, i, 17 - 19 which clears even

the last traces of doubt in our minds that the effect is non-

different from the cause. I had drawn attention to this commentary

during our pUrNamadah discussion in response to certain observations

made by our Stigji:

 

QUOTE

 

Asadvyapadesanneti chet na dharmantarena

vakyaseshat II.1.17 (151)

If it be said that on account of (the effect) being described

as that which is not, (the effect does) not (exist before creation),

we reply `not so', because the term `that which is not' denotes

another characteristic or attribute (as is seen) from the latter part

of the text.

Asadvyapadesat: on account of its being described as non-

existent; Na: not; Iti chet: if it be said; Na: no; Dharmantarena: by

another attribute or characteristic; Vakyaseshat: from the latter

part of the text or passage, because of the complementary passage.

The argument that the world had no existence before creation

is refuted.

From the word `Asat', literally meaning non-existence, in the

Sruti, it may be argued that before creation the world had no

existence. But that argument cannot stand as the latter part of the

same text uses epithets other than "non-existent" to describe the

condition of the world before creation. We understand from this that

the world was existent before creation. This is established by

reasoning also because something cannot come out of nothing and also

by clear statements on other texts of Sruti. "Asad va idam agra

asit" - Asat was this verily in the beginning (Tait. Up. II-7-1).

"Asat eva agre asit" - This universe was at first but non-

existent. Asat indeed was this in the beginning. From it verily

proceeded the Sat (Chh. Up. III.19.1). The latter part of the passage

is "Tatsadasit" (That was existent). The word `non-existent' (asat)

does not certainly mean absolute non-existence, but that the universe

did not exist in a gross, differentiated state. It existed in an

extremely subtle unmanifested state. It was not differentiated. It

had not yet developed name and form. The world was projected. Then it

became gross, and developed name and form. You can get the meaning if

you go through the latter part of the passage `It became

existent.' "It grew."

It is absurd to say that non-existence (Asat) existed.

Therefore, Sat means manifest, i.e. having name and form, whereas

Asat simply means fine, subtle and unmanifested. `Asat' refers to

another attribute of the effect, namely non-manifestation. The words

Sat and Asat refer to two attributes of one and the same object,

namely to its gross or manifested condition and subtle or

unmanifested condition.

Asad va idamagra asit. Tato vai sadajayata. Tadatmanam

svayamkuruta. Tasmat tatsukritamuchyata ita. Yadvai tatsukritam. Asat

indeed was this in the beginning. From it verily proceeded the Sat.

That made itself its Self. Therefore, it is said to be self-made.

The words "Asat made itself its Self" clears up any doubt as

to the real meaning of the word "that". If the word "Asat" meant

absolute non-existence, then there will be a contradiction in terms,

because non-existence can never make itself the Self of anything. The

word "Asit" or "was" becomes absurd when applied to "Asat" because

absolute non-existence can never be said to exist and `was'

means `existed'. An absolute non-existence can have no relation with

time past or present. Further, it cannot have any agency also as we

find in the passage, "It made itself its Self." Hence the word `Asat'

should be explained as a subtle state of an object.

 

Yukteh sabdantaracca II.1.18 (152)

From reasoning and from another Sruti text (the same is clear.

This relation between cause and effect is established.)

Yukteh: from reasoning; Sabda-antarat: from another Sruti

text; Cha: and.

That the effect exists before its origination and is non-

different from the cause follows from reasoning and also from a

further scriptural passage or another text of the Vedas.

The same fact is clear from logic or reasoning also.

Otherwise, everything could have been produced from anything. If non-

being is the cause, then why should there be an inevitable sequence?

Why should curds be produced from milk and not from mud? It is

impossible even within thousands of years to bring about an effect

which is different from its cause. Particular causes produce

particular effects only. This is a power in the cause which produces

the effect. The relation of cause and effect (e.g., the relation of

mud and pot) is a relation of identity. The cause of our thinking and

saying `the pot exists' is the fact that the lump of clay assumes a

particular form of a neck, hollow belly, etc., while the material

remains as clay only. On the contrary we think and say `the jar does

not exist', when the clay pot is broken into pieces. Hence existence

and non-existence show only their different conditions. Non-existence

in this connection does not mean absolute non-existence. This is

reasoning or Yukti.

Just as an actor puts on many disguises and is yet the same

man, so also the Ultimate Cause (Brahman) appears as these diverse

objects and yet is the same.

Hence the cause exists before the effects and is non-different

from the effect.

The effect exists in the cause in an unmanifested state. It is

manifested during creation. That is all. An absolutely non-existent

thing like the horns of a hare can never come into existence. The

cause cannot produce altogether a new thing which was not existing in

it already.

Further, we find from the well-known passage of the Chhandogya

Upanishad, "In the beginning, my dear, there was only existence, one

without a second" (Chh. Up. VI-2-1), that the effect exists even

before creation and is non-different from its cause.

The author now gives some illustrations in order to confirm

the doctrine that effect is identical with the cause.

 

Patavacca II.1.19 (153)

And like a piece of cloth.

Patavat: like a piece of cloth; Cha: and.

An example in support of Sutra 17 is presented.

Just as a rolled or folded piece of cloth is subsequently

unrolled or unfolded, so also the world which rested unmanifested

before creation becomes afterwards manifested. The world is like a

folded cloth before creation. It is like a cloth that is spread out

after creation. A folded cloth is not seen as a cloth till it is

spread out. The threads are not seen as a cloth till they are woven.

Even so, the effect is in the cause and is identical with the cause.

In the folded state you cannot make out whether it is a cloth or

anything else. But when it is spread out you can clearly know that it

is a cloth. In the state of dissolution (Pralaya) the world exists in

a seed state or potential condition in Brahman.

There are no names and forms. The universe is in an

undifferentiated or unmanifested state. It takes a gross form after

creation. The names and forms are differentiated and manifested.

As a piece of cloth is not different from the threads, so the

effect (world) is not different from its cause (Brahman).

The word "Cha" (and) of the Sutra shows that other

illustrations like the seed and the tree may also be given here.

When the cloth is folded, you do not know of what definite

length and width it is. But when it is unfolded you know all these

particulars. You also know that the cloth is not different from the

folded object. The effect, the piece of cloth, is unmanifested as

long as it exists in its cause, i.e., the threads. It becomes

manifest and is clearly seen on account of the operations of shuttle,

loom, weaver, etc.

The conclusion is that the effect is not different from the

cause.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Murthyji, you have further said:

 

.........because of my inability to follow that route

> due to my limited knowledge of western philosophy, I would

> tend to stick to my attempts to understand shri shankara

> through His traditional bhAShyA-s.

 

Well, Sir, it is really an anomaly from a traditional advaitin's

point of view that CN has not resorted to the classical

classification of sat, asat and miTyA. If we overlook this aspect of

the series and the references to Western philosophers to which CN has

taken recourse due to certain compulsions (as assumed by me earlier),

the rest of his work has abundant insights for any advaitin to read

and revel over. His approach is very novel and logic perfect. We

are face to face with a profoundly thinking mind that enhances our

vision.

 

As an aside, here is a guy whom I met during my holiday in India. He

claims that he is all vibrations when he chants the panchAkshari in

front of a particular Siva idol at a particular temple in

Coimbatore. That I assume is a typical example of CN's 'co-

extension'. I wanted to tell him I feel the same way when the

neighbourhood dog fondly called Mani accompanies me during my early

morning stroll. I do also vibe and moan when certain Malayalam film

songs that extol the beauty of nature and creation are played. But,

how could I tell him that? Won't that be regarded a sacrilege and

personal insult? We can be co-extensive in all situations and

complete co-extensiveness is liberation or self-realization when we

are both the yarn and cloth.

 

Talking about dogs, here is the case of an avadhUti. You might have

heard about her. After saying hello to our Kumari and marvelling at

the glittering stud on her nose at Kanyakumari temple, I sauntered

over to a ramshackle KAli temple at almost land's end from where

Malayalam kIrtans of Chottanikkara dEvi were emanating. An old

Malayali priest worshipping a fierce idol of KAli MA greeted me.

When I rose after prostrating before the idol and took prasad, my

eyes fell on the photograph of an old woman on the wall and enquired

with the priest who it was. He said she was a still-living avadhUti,

about 235 years old, with whom he had spent about thirtyfive years.

He gave me a photograph of the lady after performing pUja, which

showed her almost naked surrounded by several dogs. I asked him

where I could meet her. He said he didn't know her present

whereabouts but I could make her out anywhere as she is always

surrounded by a herd of dogs. I now guess that could be a complete

case of CN's co-extension from which I am sadly far far away with a

single Mani!

 

Let me conclude by quoting a verse from BhadrakAli Stuti from Skanda

Purana which incidentally popped up to my particular attention last

evening after I read your mail. Perhaps the Devi is answering both

you and me as we both are Her devotees:

 

antarbahisca yA dEvI

viSESAm abhivartase

advaitam vastutatvam sA

namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namO namaha!

 

She is both the yarn and cloth, Sir. She is as *real as* both

advaitam and vastutatvam.

 

These are mentioned just to demonstrate how CN's insights were

educative to me.

 

PraNAms and my very best regards to you, Sir, and all advaitins.

 

Madathil Nair

 

P.S.: Sorry, Ramji, I hve quoted extensively. The sitution seems to

demand that. Adiji, I will reply you later. Thanks for your good

words too.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

I believe that the

matter/form dichotomy and the difficulties

that have been arising in relation to them

such as gold is the reality of rings,

bangles, chains etc and the counter claim

expressed as 'what is unreal about rings'

or the name 'ring' refers to a universal

and not the individual ring. All these

considerations can I think be resolved if

you look at the context in which material

identity comes up viz. creation and the

non-difference of cause and effect.

 

Consider the whole thing as a development

of the Analogy of Proportionality. It

works this way

Brahman:World::Clay:Pots/Gold:rings

As Brahman is the 'sat' of the world, its

truth (as in the Tripura Rahasya where it

is said that the world is unreal only when

it is taken as the basis of its own

reality)

As Brahman is non-different from the world

as expressed in B.S.B. pass.

SO Clay is the truth of pots etc, Gold is

the truth of pots etc and clay is non-

different from pots etc, gold is non-

different from rings etc.

 

This analogy gets its force from the

narrow focussed likeness which allows us

to gain an appreciation of the

supernatural using homely examples. If we

leave out the major element in the analogy

Brahman:World and attend only to Clay and

Pots we can end up with the conundrum viz.

a ring being unreal while the gold of

which it is composed is real or real and

unreal fighting for supremacy in the very

same object. In any case there is no such

thing as formless matter, any lump or bit

of anything will have a shape which may be

one off but is still a shape like the

piles of junk that pass for modern

sculpture.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> In any case there is no such

> thing as formless matter, any lump or bit

> of anything will have a shape which may be

> one off but is still a shape like the

> piles of junk that pass for modern

> sculpture.

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

Michael - with due respects – I see yours as another explanation of the

experiential world when there is no matter or jadam other than Brahman

as advaita says. That is precisely the reason why a dream analogy is

brought in to analyze the system. There is no other way to resolve the

issue. That junk that passed for modern sculpture in my dream is

nothing but my mind - that I recognize only when I am awakened to the

higher state of consciousness. But I agree with you, it was a real

sculpture as long as my dream lasted.

 

All the explanations are from some reference and all explanations fall

flat when one acknowledges that there is no jadam or inert and what is

there is only consciousness that is Brahman. Ontological analysis of

matter as real, unreal or mithya are from some reference point and we

can argue till we realize the absolute - it would not make any

difference, since all differences get resolved in the finality.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthyji.

 

I don't think I have to answer your questions 1, 2 and 3. Instead, I

would devote myself to question 4 strictly sticking to the

traditional and that along with the two mantrAs at the conclusion

hereto, I am sure, will clarify my position and answer all the

preceding questions:

 

As a traditional advaitin, you have every reason to be uncomfortable

with the free use of words like real and false etc. The jagat is

neither real nor unreal if these two terms are to be understood as

sat and asat. The jagat is miTyA - for the simple reason IT IS

BECAUSE I AM and not vice versa.

 

This is the reason why I requested you before to kindly ignore CN's

nomenclature of the real and unreal, understand the jagat as

Sankara's miTyA and peruse the rest of the valuable insights his

essays have generated. As I said if I were to write on the topic, I

would have totally ignored the West (by virtue of my personal

deficiencies vis-a-vis Western philosophy) and centred the discussion

on the traditional sat, mItyA and asat classification. Like you,

Sir, I am also most comfortable that way.

 

Now to the conclusion, IF THE JAGAT IS BECAUSE I AM like the mundane

and, therefore limited examples of gold ornaments are because gold is

or different kinds of cloth are because yarn is (and not vice versa),

I pervade all objects of the jagat (the reality divide of CN)in and

out. Understanding and living this coextensiveness (again CN's

terminology) of mine through and through the jagat is self-

realization whereby my delusive bhEda with the miTyA jagat is totally

undone. I am then one with it indivisibly without a two and I don't

have to exterminate it as any attempt at extermination will amount to

a futile endeavour on my part to exterminate myself. Suicide is

uknown to the all-knowing. It belongs to the deluded jIvA. If,

therefore, an advaitin prescribes such extermination because the

jagat is mItyA, well he has then not crossed over the sea of delusion.

 

Hope this clarification satisfies you, Sir.

 

PraNAms and best regards.

 

Om jadasaktyai namaha

Om jadAtmikAyai namaha

 

Madathil Nair

_______

 

 

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> 1. The way you have stated in your post(s), I would assume

> you contend that the mind and intellect (as we refer them) are

> also real. Am I correct in that assumption?

>

> 2. In your understanding then, are mind and intellect jaDa or

> caitanya?

>

> 3. If all the names and forms are real (sat) as contended by

> you, then what is the non-duality for which we are all committed

> to?

>

> 4. I am saddened the word "unreal", "false" are rather *freely*

> used by shri CN-ji and other respondees. The point of contention

> is made to be: Is the jagat *real* or *unreal* and the word

> mithya is completely made to be absent in this discussion.

> This is fighting imaginary enemies. Shri CN-ji used the word

> "false" in discussing the cloth. No one has said the world

> is unreal or the cloth is false. If we say we are going to

> follow shri shankara's nomenclature, we should be discussing:

> is the jagat mithya or not.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramji, Dr. Yaduji, Adiji, and Benji.

 

Ramji, Dr. Yaduji, Adiji - Thanks for your efforts at looking at the

Truth from the mathematical angle.

 

We are looking at the 'ONE' that precludes and yet includes all other

numbers. That is why we say 'one without a second' and our

philosophy is called advaita. There then is no difference calling IT

infinity or zero bearing in mind that all numbers including zero and

mathematical infinity are just miTyA and ARE because that ONE IS. In

other words, the world of mathematics IS because that special ONE IS

and not vice versa.

 

Benji, I very much liked your simple yet profund passages quoted

below. Thanks. That false interpretation of reality is the error or

bhEdha which CN pointed out to be negated through advaita.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________________

 

advaitin, "Benjamin Orion" <orion777ben>

wrote:

.......

> It is THAT false interpretation of reality

> which is being denied by Advaitins and

> Idealists. When they say that the 'external'

> world is 'unreal', they mean the world

> interpreted as discrete self-sustaining

> objects other than Brahman. It is that

> false vision which is being called 'unreal'.

>

> But if all is viewed as Brahman or

> Consciousness, then there is an inherent

> unity to consciousness which precludes

> the interpretation of experience as discrete

> self-sustaining objects, since in any

> case of consciousness there is always

> the one 'seer' who cannot be distinguished

> from the 'seen', except through a

> misunderstanding. Where is the dividing

> line between seer and seen in any

> instance of consciousness? It is not there

> if you look closely and carefully.

> Hence the unity of the seer implies a

> unity to the seen that is incompatible

> with the interpretation of experience

> as discrete self-sustaining objects.

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Suicide is uknown to the all-knowing. It belongs to the deluded jIvA. If,

therefore, an advaitin prescribes such extermination because the

jagat is mItyA, well he has then not crossed over the sea of delusion.

 

praNAm MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Well, for a jnAni who has the realisation of jagat mithyatva do at the same

time realises that his upAdhiyukta jIvatva itself equally mithya

(samyagjnAna sama kAle says shankara) . Thought of suicide comes to jIva

who thinks his internal sufferings & external jagat both are real. Whereas

a jnAni's realisation would reveal the fact he was/is/will never ever be

the jIva. Hence his perception of jagat through jIvatva is never ever

there in HIM.

 

While on the subject, I'd like to draw your kind attention to the Ranjeet

prabhuji's mail dtd. 17th June'04 on pUrNamidam mantra, the subject

heading is sha~Nkara-smRRiti .. wherein Ranjeet prabhuji elaborately

discussed the topic *jagan mithyatva* in shankara siddhAnta.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namashkar Prabhu-ji!

 

Now that i know you are in Bangalore, i am definitely going to visit

you and see you in person. My next stop is Sringeri mutt where i want

to stay and observe how the Puja is performed to Sharada Mata in

strict accordance with Adi SHANKARA'S INSTRUCTIONS...i am told its is

the most 'vedic' of all pujas performed in all temples in India.

 

Prabhu-ji!

 

you have mentioned THE ENGLISH WORD Suicide ?

 

what is the equivalent of the word 'suicide' in Hindi?

 

ATMA-HATYA !!!!

 

WHAT DOES ATMA MEAN ?

 

DOES IT MEAN THE PHYSICAL BODY ?

 

or

 

does it mean the Soul?

 

does the soul ever die?

 

According to the Bhagavad gita,

 

The soul is indestructible and eternal (2.18)

 

It neither slays not can it be slain (2.19).

 

It is never born, never dies and after coming into existence never

ceases to be. It is nitya (always), sasvatah (permanent), purana

(very ancient) (2.20).

 

At the time of death the soul does not die. It just leaves the body

and then enters into a new one (2.22).

 

Weapons cannot pierce it, fire cannot burn it, water cannot moisten

it and wind cannot dry it (2.23).

 

It is unpiercible, incombustible, all pervading, stable and immobile

(2.24).

 

BHASKAR-JI WRITES...

 

(Suicide is uknown to the all-knowing. It belongs to the deluded

jIvA. If, therefore, an advaitin prescribes such extermination

because the jagat is mItyA, well he has then not crossed over the sea

of delusion.)

 

well, Prabhuji! Tellme who is deluded in the light of what i have

described as the real meaning of Suicide?

 

The self never dies. The body is not the self.

 

Sri Ramana Maharishi asks

 

"KO HAM" -WHO AM I?

 

Naham DEHAM - I am not the body

 

Soham- I am That!!!!

 

so for a jiva ( be it a self realized jnani) or a parama bhakta or a

karma-yogi, there is no Physical death !!!

 

Prabhuji , for a Karma Yogi - the suffering of his fellow men

is 'real' because to him the Jagat is real!!!

 

A KARMA YOGI DOES NOT SIT IN HIS ARM CHAIR AND PRACTICES SANKARA'S

VEDANTA.

 

He jumps into the field of real World and fights to eradicate the

sufferings of his fellow men! MAHATMA GANDHI was one such Karma Yogi!

he was a vedanti too!! so was Sri Vivekananda ! to this day, the

Ramakrishna mission assumes a leading role in doing social work in

areas in India and elsewhere affected by Floods , earthquakes,

droughts , and other natural disasters.... and man-made calamities!!

 

To a self-surrendered Soul, the World is 'real' ... Since, he/she is

only the 'created' and not the Creator or creatrix, he/she enjoys

all of creation and delights in the Mystique, Magic and wonders of

it all!! Maya thus is not 'ILLUSION' but the 'Magic of the Great

Magician' ( maya of Mayeshwera -lord Krishna)

 

The Lamb

William Blake

 

Little Lamb, who made thee

Does thou know who made thee

Gave thee life & bid thee feed.

By the stream & o'er the mead;

Gave thee clothing of delight,

Softest clothing woolly bright;

Gave thee such a tender voice.

Making all the vales rejoice:

Little Lamb who made thee

Does thou know who made thee

 

Little Lamb I'll tell thee,

Little Lamb I'll tell thee;

He is called by thy name,

For he calls himself a Lamb:

He is meek & he is mild,

He became a little child

I a child & thou a lamb,

We are called by His name,

Little Lamb God bless thee,

Little Lamb God bless thee.

 

The Lamb

William Blake

 

SO, Bhaskar-ji, even the Sankara mutts like Kanchi, are now engazed

in social services ... Schools for the Blind, Hospitals for the old

and the elderly, Homes for the widows and the destitutes etc...

 

Why would they do all this if the world is mithya?

 

If one is not a karma yogi, then that i would call a 'moral

suicide!!!

 

 

love and regards ...

[Guest guest]

The implication is the substantive of all is Brahman and that alone is

real - that includes whatever we perceive - the perceiver-perceived and

perceiving - the substantive of all is nothing but Brahman - that is

Advaita.

 

The duality of perceiver-perceived and perceiving - is it real or not

the question. - Yes Real from the substantive point.

 

praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes prabhuji from the substantive point ONLY substantive (adhishtAna) is

real nothing else. Everything else has temporal reality & very much

restricted to particular set of dEsha & kAla of waker & dreamer. The

absolute reality described in shrutis is that alone real which exists

unchanged and without intermission. It is evident from this definition

that things whose existence is limited by time or space are not real, this

law of reality equally applies to our pramAtrutvAdi vyavahAra. nAsato

vidyate bhAvO nabhAvo vidyatE sataH lord says in gIta, the eternal

existence of our svarUpa never belongs to the unreal, nor does non

existence belong to the real. In the same line sri gaudapAda says in kArika

whatever has no existence before & after does not exist *even now*. waker

& his world do not exist in dream, so is the case with dreamer & his world.

Both these worlds have dependent existence & cannot be treated on par with

paramArtha satya.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Murthy-ji,

 

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

> I am saddened the word "unreal", "false" are rather *freely*

> used by shri CN-ji and other respondees.

 

I find it a bit ironical that you should make this statement, Sir. If

you would have read my posts, you would have found that I was

insisting all along (against the grain of the general tendency) that

the meaning of the words 'real' and 'unreal' should be first

uncovered before we use them in the Advaitic context. I have begun my

essays saying that the meanings of the terms 'real' and 'unreal' are

themselves clouded by the sleep of avidya, and that their meanings

shine in the removal of avidya itself. And all my posts, with

whatever limitations they may have, are still an endeavour in that

direction only. I am therefore suprised when you say that I use these

words rather freely.

 

> The point of contention

> is made to be: Is the jagat *real* or *unreal* and the word

> mithya is completely made to be absent in this discussion.

> This is fighting imaginary enemies. Shri CN-ji used the word

> "false" in discussing the cloth. No one has said the world

> is unreal or the cloth is false. If we say we are going to

> follow shri shankara's nomenclature, we should be discussing:

> is the jagat mithya or not.

 

Can mithya be truth? Is there a third category called 'fiction' which

is different than the real and unreal? The meaning of the

word 'mithya' is rooted in the unreality of the content referred to

when we use the word.

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

> Both these worlds have dependent existence & cannot be treated on par

> with

> paramArtha satya.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

 

Bhaskar - I have no disagreement with your statements.

 

When we are attributing the reality to the transient - we mean only from

the point of their substantive. The changing names and forms are

transient reality. Form should enclose matter is experiential and

experience is not knowledge but need to be analyzed using a pramaaNa.

Pratyaksha may endorse the reality to the forms but that pramaaNa has to

be reinterpreted with shaastra pramaaNa that says ‘everything this’ is

Brahman. On the Shruti basis only, we arrive at the knowledge of the

experiential world that the substantive of the world is the changeless

reality that is Brahman and Brahman is beyond the grasp of any sense or

even mind, as I have been pointing it out. (Again Veda-s only

constitute shruti and Brahmasuutra-s of Badaraayana are not shruti-s).

The rest is only descriptive language with descriptors as understood by

the describer -recognizing of course that the above description too

falls within the scope of my understanding as describer.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nair-ji,

 

First of all, let me tell you that I missed you greatly during the

discussions on the real and unreal. Let me also congratulate you for

articulating the position of purnamidam much more effectively in your

two posts (after your return) than what I could do in nine long

essays. :-)

 

> To say the least, his effort is a beautiful garland

> placed on the one and only advaitic truth of pUrNamidam

> that is pUrNamadah too. I am, therefore, particularly

> happy that it follows and runs as a natural corollary

> to our earlier attempts at expounding the pUrNamadah prayer.

 

Thank you for your kind words Nairji, and also for the spirited

defense of the position of purnamidam. You are right, my entire

series of essays is written with this one truth in mind – the truth

of purnamidam. I fully agree with you that the expression of 'jagan-

mithya' arises only in the context of the unreal separation of the

world from Brahman. That is the only unreality. Advaita is the

negation of separation, and not the negation of the world which is

pre-existent eternally in Brahman, which subsists in Brahman, has

Brahman for its Self, and is in the final analysis nothing but

Brahman.

 

> I also wish if we advaitins kept our eyes open and saw

> themselves everywhere in everything instead of slumbering

> deep into themselves imagining that the Truth lies

> somewhere down there in an abysmal nothingness.

 

I couldn't agree with you more Nairji. She is everything. She who

opens our eyes is none other than Brahman.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Thank you Nairji,

 

I tend to be a pessimistic person who sees

the glass as half-empty, and I assumed that

nobody here was reading anything I wrote.

I'm glad you liked this, not because I wrote

it, but because it's comforting to know that

we are converging on the truth.

 

I am sorry I got lost during Chittaranjanji's

discussion, because he is clearly so eloquent

and erudite. I did save much of it to a file

and will peruse it at my leisure. It is

manifestly of the highest quality.

 

In general, though, I must say that with

all my other activities, including the

reading of BOOKS (does anyone remember

those in this computer age?), I find that

I only have time for fairly brief messages

on these web lists, which now include Greg's.

 

In other words, I am hinting that long

discussions, however eloquent and profound,

may not be practical on a regular basis.

Just a suggestion...

 

Note: I am a bachelor! How much less time

does a family man have! :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair>

wrote:

> Namaste Ramji, Dr. Yaduji, Adiji, and Benji.

>

> Ramji, Dr. Yaduji, Adiji - Thanks for your efforts at looking at the

> Truth from the mathematical angle.

>

> We are looking at the 'ONE' that precludes and yet includes all other

> numbers. That is why we say 'one without a second' and our

> philosophy is called advaita. There then is no difference calling IT

> infinity or zero bearing in mind that all numbers including zero and

> mathematical infinity are just miTyA and ARE because that ONE IS. In

> other words, the world of mathematics IS because that special ONE IS

> and not vice versa.

>

> Benji, I very much liked your simple yet profund passages quoted

> below. Thanks. That false interpretation of reality is the error or

> bhEdha which CN pointed out to be negated through advaita.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ____________________________

>

> advaitin, "Benjamin Orion" <orion777ben>

> wrote:

> ......

> > It is THAT false interpretation of reality

> > which is being denied by Advaitins and

> > Idealists. When they say that the 'external'

> > world is 'unreal', they mean the world

> > interpreted as discrete self-sustaining

> > objects other than Brahman. It is that

> > false vision which is being called 'unreal'.

> >

> > But if all is viewed as Brahman or

> > Consciousness, then there is an inherent

> > unity to consciousness which precludes

> > the interpretation of experience as discrete

> > self-sustaining objects, since in any

> > case of consciousness there is always

> > the one 'seer' who cannot be distinguished

> > from the 'seen', except through a

> > misunderstanding. Where is the dividing

> > line between seer and seen in any

> > instance of consciousness? It is not there

> > if you look closely and carefully.

> > Hence the unity of the seer implies a

> > unity to the seen that is incompatible

> > with the interpretation of experience

> > as discrete self-sustaining objects.

> > Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Adiji, I must say, you really are quite an amateur scholar!

You look up the quotes, cite chapter and verse,

and range over the spiritual literature of the entire

world in an admirable display of classical Hindu

tolerance and open-mindedness.

 

Benjamin

 

 

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> Namashkar Prabhu-ji!

>

> Now that i know you are in Bangalore, i am definitely going to visit

> you and see you in person. My next stop is Sringeri mutt where i want

> to stay and observe how the Puja is performed to Sharada Mata in

> strict accordance with Adi SHANKARA'S INSTRUCTIONS...i am told its is

> the most 'vedic' of all pujas performed in all temples in India.

>

> Prabhu-ji!

>

> you have mentioned THE ENGLISH WORD Suicide ?

>

> what is the equivalent of the word 'suicide' in Hindi?

>

> ATMA-HATYA !!!!

>

> WHAT DOES ATMA MEAN ?

>

> DOES IT MEAN THE PHYSICAL BODY ?

>

> or

>

> does it mean the Soul?

>

> does the soul ever die?

>

> According to the Bhagavad gita,

>

> The soul is indestructible and eternal (2.18)

>

> It neither slays not can it be slain (2.19).

>

> It is never born, never dies and after coming into existence never

> ceases to be. It is nitya (always), sasvatah (permanent), purana

> (very ancient) (2.20).

>

> At the time of death the soul does not die. It just leaves the body

> and then enters into a new one (2.22).

>

> Weapons cannot pierce it, fire cannot burn it, water cannot moisten

> it and wind cannot dry it (2.23).

>

> It is unpiercible, incombustible, all pervading, stable and immobile

> (2.24).

>

> BHASKAR-JI WRITES...

>

> (Suicide is uknown to the all-knowing. It belongs to the deluded

> jIvA. If, therefore, an advaitin prescribes such extermination

> because the jagat is mItyA, well he has then not crossed over the sea

> of delusion.)

>

> well, Prabhuji! Tellme who is deluded in the light of what i have

> described as the real meaning of Suicide?

>

> The self never dies. The body is not the self.

>

> Sri Ramana Maharishi asks

>

> "KO HAM" -WHO AM I?

>

> Naham DEHAM - I am not the body

>

> Soham- I am That!!!!

>

> so for a jiva ( be it a self realized jnani) or a parama bhakta or a

> karma-yogi, there is no Physical death !!!

>

> Prabhuji , for a Karma Yogi - the suffering of his fellow men

> is 'real' because to him the Jagat is real!!!

>

> A KARMA YOGI DOES NOT SIT IN HIS ARM CHAIR AND PRACTICES SANKARA'S

> VEDANTA.

>

> He jumps into the field of real World and fights to eradicate the

> sufferings of his fellow men! MAHATMA GANDHI was one such Karma Yogi!

> he was a vedanti too!! so was Sri Vivekananda ! to this day, the

> Ramakrishna mission assumes a leading role in doing social work in

> areas in India and elsewhere affected by Floods , earthquakes,

> droughts , and other natural disasters.... and man-made calamities!!

>

> To a self-surrendered Soul, the World is 'real' ... Since, he/she is

> only the 'created' and not the Creator or creatrix, he/she enjoys

> all of creation and delights in the Mystique, Magic and wonders of

> it all!! Maya thus is not 'ILLUSION' but the 'Magic of the Great

> Magician' ( maya of Mayeshwera -lord Krishna)

>

> The Lamb

> William Blake

>

> Little Lamb, who made thee

> Does thou know who made thee

> Gave thee life & bid thee feed.

> By the stream & o'er the mead;

> Gave thee clothing of delight,

> Softest clothing woolly bright;

> Gave thee such a tender voice.

> Making all the vales rejoice:

> Little Lamb who made thee

> Does thou know who made thee

>

> Little Lamb I'll tell thee,

> Little Lamb I'll tell thee;

> He is called by thy name,

> For he calls himself a Lamb:

> He is meek & he is mild,

> He became a little child

> I a child & thou a lamb,

> We are called by His name,

> Little Lamb God bless thee,

> Little Lamb God bless thee.

>

> The Lamb

> William Blake

>

> SO, Bhaskar-ji, even the Sankara mutts like Kanchi, are now engazed

> in social services ... Schools for the Blind, Hospitals for the old

> and the elderly, Homes for the widows and the destitutes etc...

>

> Why would they do all this if the world is mithya?

>

> If one is not a karma yogi, then that i would call a 'moral

> suicide!!!

>

>

> love and regards ...

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Murthy-ji,

>

> advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> > I am saddened the word "unreal", "false" are rather *freely*

> > used by shri CN-ji and other respondees.

>

> I find it a bit ironical that you should make this statement, Sir. If

> you would have read my posts, you would have found that I was

> insisting all along (against the grain of the general tendency) that

> the meaning of the words 'real' and 'unreal' should be first

> uncovered before we use them in the Advaitic context. I have begun my

> essays saying that the meanings of the terms 'real' and 'unreal' are

> themselves clouded by the sleep of avidya, and that their meanings

> shine in the removal of avidya itself. And all my posts, with

> whatever limitations they may have, are still an endeavour in that

> direction only. I am therefore suprised when you say that I use these

> words rather freely.

>

>

> > The point of contention

> > is made to be: Is the jagat *real* or *unreal* and the word

> > mithya is completely made to be absent in this discussion.

> > This is fighting imaginary enemies. Shri CN-ji used the word

> > "false" in discussing the cloth. No one has said the world

> > is unreal or the cloth is false. If we say we are going to

> > follow shri shankara's nomenclature, we should be discussing:

> > is the jagat mithya or not.

>

> Can mithya be truth? Is there a third category called 'fiction' which

> is different than the real and unreal? The meaning of the

> word 'mithya' is rooted in the unreality of the content referred to

> when we use the word.

>

>

> With regards,

> Chittaranjan

 

 

namaste shri CN-ji,

 

While I plod on with the posts and of the contents of

the references therein, please allow me to clear up a

misunderstanding that seemed to have crept in.

 

I did not accuse you or anyone using the terms real and

unreal rather loosely. I said they were being used freely

while the meaning of these words is very clear-cut. I am

sure you are consistent with the usage of these words

as you understand them.

 

As I mentioned earlier also, you seem to have accepted a

two-fold classification either real or unreal, with the unreal

populated by vandhyaputra and such other non-existentials,

while all else (known, knowable, inferred, experienced) is

termed as real. Mithyatvam (shri madathil-ji says that is

the reality-divide in your nomenclature) should be the word

occupying the spectrum which you have allotted to what you

call real.

 

I also gather from your above post that you attach negativity

and unreality to the word mithya. It is indeed not so.

Mithya is the joyous life we live. It is vyavahArika satya.

It is transient as shri Atmananda-ji's writing of yesterday

(posted by shri Ram Chandran) shows. It cannot be equated to

paramArthika satya, but there is nothing fictional about

mithya.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji:

 

In your essays, you did indeed recognize the complexity of the

word, "real" (also "unreal") and consequently, you shoudn't be

surprised that by reading alone, the reader can't comprehend the

words used. As we all know, the problem lies in expressing the

meaning of "what is real" using words (irrespective of what language

that we chose to express).

 

Just like Brahman is present everywhere, all time and in everything,

it is also true that 'mithya' is also present! Only the Brahman

knows the Brahman without the presence of Mithya!! It is impossible

for any of us to describe "What is real" even if attempt using all

the words of all languages and taking all available time by filling

up all the space available in the Internet! Please recognize the

fact that there is nothing ironical about why someone disagree with

what you say. The disagreement does not mean that you are 'wrong'

but it only confirms the presence of 'mithya.'

 

There is certainly more than one map to uncover 'What is Unreal?'

These maps though similar are not identical. They invariably follow

different definitions, notations, instructions and layouts. The

existence of so many maps indicates that everyone is not comfortable

in using only one map. Any new map with new notations and directions

will not be readily acceptable and few travellers may not like to

switch from the map that they use. This also part of the 'mthya.'

 

In this list, we have all agreed to read and follow Sankara's map

and we all want to make sure that any new map proposed or presented

is consistent to Sankara's map. We the members of this list has

undertaken this group journey and our fellow passengers have doubts

on the destination. By clearing the doubts of our fellow passengers,

we do clear our own doubts and gain confidence that the map that we

use will take us to the destination.

 

In conclusion, I find that Sri Gummuluru's question is quite

reasonable and at the same time Sri CN's explanation of 'What is

real and unreal" is also conceivable. The disagreement between the

two is also due to the presence of 'Mithya!'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Instead of addressing the question, "What is real and unreal?'

I would rather prefer the expression, "What is permanant and

transient?"

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> I find it a bit ironical that you should make this statement,

> Sir. If you would have read my posts, you would have found that

> I was insisting all along (against the grain of the general

> tendency) that the meaning of the words 'real' and 'unreal' should

> be first uncovered before we use them in the Advaitic context.

[Guest guest]

Namaste CN-ji,

>I have begun my essays saying that the meanings of the terms 'real'

and 'unreal' are

>themselves clouded by the sleep of avidya, and that their meanings

shine in the removal of avidya >itself.

 

Good point. While pondering about this, got a question in similar

lines and your answer is greatly appreciated. How our worldly

notions 'real' and 'unreal' themselves under sleep of avidya,

similarly, why shouldn't our very notion of 'avidya', which is yet

another worldly notion, itself be under yet to know real avidya ?

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namashkar Prabhu-ji!

 

Humble praNAms Adi mAtAji

Hare Krishna

 

mAtAji:

 

Now that i know you are in Bangalore, i am definitely going to visit

you and see you in person. My next stop is Sringeri mutt where i want

to stay and observe how the Puja is performed to Sharada Mata in

strict accordance with Adi SHANKARA'S INSTRUCTIONS...i am told its is

the most 'vedic' of all pujas performed in all temples in India.

 

bhaskar :

 

you are welcome mAtAji & if possible make yourself available to visit

Holenarsipur also. Its my swamiji's place.

 

mAtAji:

 

Prabhu-ji!

 

you have mentioned THE ENGLISH WORD Suicide ? what is the equivalent of

the word 'suicide' in Hindi?

 

BHASKAR-JI WRITES...

 

(Suicide is uknown to the all-knowing. It belongs to the deluded

jIvA. If, therefore, an advaitin prescribes such extermination

because the jagat is mItyA, well he has then not crossed over the sea

of delusion.)

 

bhaskar :

 

mAtAji, the above is not my words, those have been written by our Sri

mAdathil Nair prabhuji :-))

 

mAtAji :

 

SO, Bhaskar-ji, even the Sankara mutts like Kanchi, are now engazed

in social services ... Schools for the Blind, Hospitals for the old

and the elderly, Homes for the widows and the destitutes etc...

 

bhaskar :

 

mAtAji, I am not against the karmAcharaNa as prescribed in dharma shAstra &

smruthi grantha-s. Shankara himself endorsed this dharmAcharaNa for chitta

shuddhi.

 

mAtAji :

 

Why would they do all this if the world is mithya?

 

bhaskar :

 

Again, I am not denying vyavahArika satyatva of jagat :-))

 

mAtAji :

 

If one is not a karma yogi, then that i would call a 'moral

suicide!!!

 

bhaskar :

 

yes I agree mAtAji, lord says in gIta alpamAtrasya dharmasya trAtate mahato

bhayAn.

 

 

love and regards ...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Murthy-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

> I also gather from your above post that you attach negativity

> and unreality to the word mithya. It is indeed not so.

> Mithya is the joyous life we live. It is vyavahArika satya.

> It is transient as shri Atmananda-ji's writing of yesterday

> (posted by shri Ram Chandran) shows. It cannot be equated to

> paramArthika satya, but there is nothing fictional about

> mithya.

 

It could be as you say, for I am not conversant with Sanskrit. I

would be grateful if anyone here can throw light on the root of the

word 'mithya' - to me it has the connotation of 'myth' and 'fiction'.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> Namashkar Prabhu-ji!

>

> Humble praNAms Adi mAtAji

> Hare Krishna

>

> mAtAji:

>

> Now that i know you are in Bangalore, i am definitely going to visit

> you and see you in person. My next stop is Sringeri mutt where i want

> to stay and observe how the Puja is performed to Sharada Mata in

> strict accordance with Adi SHANKARA'S INSTRUCTIONS...i am told its is

> the most 'vedic' of all pujas performed in all temples in India.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> you are welcome mAtAji & if possible make yourself available to visit

> Holenarsipur also. Its my swamiji's place.

>

> mAtAji:

>

> Prabhu-ji!

>

> you have mentioned THE ENGLISH WORD Suicide ? what is the equivalent of

> the word 'suicide' in Hindi?

>

> BHASKAR-JI WRITES...

>

> (Suicide is uknown to the all-knowing. It belongs to the deluded

> jIvA. If, therefore, an advaitin prescribes such extermination

> because the jagat is mItyA, well he has then not crossed over the sea

> of delusion.)

>

> bhaskar :

>

Namaste Bhaskarji and Adi Ma Ji

 

Living in the embodied and deluded state itself seems to be suicide-

in a way- Bhagwan Ramana Maharshi's words below :

 

"The eternal, blissful and natural state has been smothered by this

life of ignorance. In this way the present life is due to the killing

of the eternal, pristine Being. Is it not a case of suicide?"

Excerpted from http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument10.html

Many thousand namaskarams to all

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> It could be as you say, for I am not conversant with Sanskrit. I

> would be grateful if anyone here can throw light on the root of the

> word 'mithya' - to me it has the connotation of 'myth' and 'fiction'.

>

> With regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

 

Chittaranjanji - pranaams

 

Aditi amma has provided a dictionary meaning for the word mitya but the

contextual meanings could be different. It is almost difficult to

extract the meaning of the words from roots either -for example- the

word - haara - for garland but with prefixes with different letters

completely different words are generated - vihaara, aahaara, samhaara,

phalahaara, prahaara etc. The meaning of these words have nothing to do

with the root word. In addition, the words used in a technical sense

can be defined completely different from common usage of the term – idam

and adam in the ‘puurnamadaH and puurnamidam is case in point.

 

mitya - is used in that sense that it neither satya nor asatya. Neither

real or satya (where again satya or real is defined as trikaala

abaadhitam -non-negetable in three period of times that excludes

transient entities but not their substantives) and unreal or asatya -

no locus of existence any time. Brahma satyam jagat mitya, jiivo

brahmaiva naaparaH - is the advaitic declaration. By using the word

mithya separate from satya, a deliberate differentiation is done for the

world from satya. In the mitya part there is a satya part and there is

transient part, which keeps changing - the names and forms. Just as in

the statement - this is a snake - there is a satya part – ‘this is’ and

there is mitya part that changes - from snake to rope when the knowledge

dawns.

 

Mitya is not necessarily fiction although fiction can be mitya if one

experiences and feels it is real just as one sees a snake and feels it

is real where there is a rope. By this I mean the praatibhaasika can be

a fiction. The world is not pratibhaasika but vyaavahaarika satyam - or

transactional reality. In that sense it differs from dream world but

for a dreamer the so-called pratibhaasika can be vyaavahaarika as long

as he is dreaming.

 

Murthy gaaru's questioning therefore is not inappropriate.

 

Just clarification from my understanding.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

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

Note from the List Moderators:

Welcome Sri Govind and glad to see you break your silence. We look forward to

your active parcipation and hopefully someone will answer your questions. By the

way, when you send a reply to a post, please do not include the entire long

tails from the previous message. We appreciate your cooperation in your future

posting. Many old members also seem to have forgotten this 'courtesy' and still

send their replies by including the entire messages of previous posters. May we

requet all of us to take appropriate steps. Thanks in advance.

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

 

Hello All,

 

I am Silent reader of this mailing list. I have enjoyed every mail of this list

thank you all great people who are involved in this discussions. I do not reply

to all the mails as I do not know If I am wrong or right or will I be

diverting the topic of discussion.

 

I have a small calrification.

 

Though Iam not good in Sanskrit can you please tell me the meaning of the

following words

 

1) abaadhitam

2) ahaara

3) samharaa

 

My 2nd Question

 

1) What is the diference between Shakthi , Paraa Shakthi and Adi ParaaShakthi. ?

 

thank you.

Om Sri Sai Ram Guru deva Datta

Govind

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

--- Chittaranjan Naik wrote:

>

> It could be as you say, for I am not conversant with Sanskrit. I

> would be grateful if anyone here can throw light on the root of the

> word 'mithya' - to me it has the connotation of 'myth' and 'fiction'.

>

> With regards,

> Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

> In the mitya part there is a satya part and there is

> transient part, which keeps changing - the names and

> forms.

 

Such an interpretation ignores one of the central tenets of Advaita.

In Advaita, words are eternal. Therefore, it is not names that are

changing, neither is it the forms denoted by names that are changing,

but it is the magical nature of Time that brings forth eternal

unchanging things to the (un)seeing eye that is shrouded by avidya.

To quote Shankara (Br.Up.I,2):

 

" Every effect such as a jar has two kinds of obstruction. When it

has become manifest from its component clay, darkness and the wall

etc. are the obstructions; while before its manifestation from the

clay the obstruction consists in particles of clay remaining as some

other effect such as a lump. Therefore, the effect, the jar, although

existent, is not perceived before its manifestation, as it is hidden.

The terms and concepts 'destroyed', 'produced', 'existence' and 'non-

existence' depend on this two-fold character of manifestation and

disappearance."

 

The pot is not what is unreal; it is only said to be unreal when seen

in separation from the clay. The pot is real in its own nature as the

inseparable peculiarity of the clay itself. That reality showing

itself as the unreal due to our ignorance about its inseparability

from the cause is mithya, but in reality it is what it is, which is

sathya only.

 

> Neither real or satya (where again satya or real is defined

> as trikaala abaadhitam -non-negetable in three period of

> times that excludes transient entities but not their

> substantives) and unreal or asatya - no locus of existence

> any time.

 

No object is negatable in the three periods of time. An object is

eternal. It appears to be negatable only in the context of samsara

when the term 'existence' is predicated of a thing based on its

manifestation or non-manifestation, as clearly shown by Shankara in

the passage cited above.

 

> Brahma satyam jagat mitya, jiivo brahmaiva naaparaH - is the

> advaitic declaration. By using the word mithya separate from

> satya, a deliberate differentiation is done for the world

> from satya.

 

The deliberate differentiation from asatya is done to show that in

paramarthika it is satya only.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjanji:

 

First, let me congratulate you for willingnes to listen to other

possibilities. As Sadaji rightly pointed out a dictionary meaning

can't throw complete insights on the concept of 'mithya' (maayaa).

 

Let us start this discussion with an explanation on the two powers of

maayaa - aavarana sakti and vikshepa sakti. When we mistake a rope

for

a snake, our inability to recognize the rope is because of aavarana

sakti (concealing power) of maayaa. The appearance of snake instead of

rope is due to the vikshepa sakti (projecting power) of maayaa. It is

this dual cosmic power of maayaa that brings about the presentation of

the physical universe concealing the totality (Brahman). Maayaa is

one

of the most misunderstood terms of Advaita. Maayaa means that which

is

not absolutely real but which has the power to appear as real. The

root

word for Maayaa is maya (with both vowels short), which has very much

to do with magic. Sankara explains Maayaa as yaa maa saa Maayaa,

meaning, `that which is not is Maayaa.' According to Sankara, the

world

is a myth, infact a total dream. To whom is a dream a dream? A dream

is

a dream only to a person who has awakened from the dream. So the world

is not a dream to me or you who are still dreaming! Sankara's

conception

of maayaa is from the absolute point of view.

 

Let me provide a story that is often quoted to explain the concept of

maayaa.

Once Lord Krishna and his consort Rukhmani were talking in Mathura on

the banks of River Yamuna. Suddenly Lord Krishna informed Rukhmani

that Sage Durvasa was waiting in the other shore and is writhing with

Hunger. He requested her to go to the other shore with food and serve

it to Sage Durvasa. Rukmani agreed but wanted to know how she will

cross the River Yamuna.

Krishna told her , tell the river that the Nithya Brahmachari

(perennial bachelor) has ordered the river to give way. Rukhmani

agreed and indeed the river gave way. She served food to the sage who

partook a hearty meal and thanked her. Rukhmani told the sage that

she has to cross the river again. The sage told her to tell the river

that the Nithya Upavasi(a man who never

took food in life) asked her to give way. Rukhmani followed the

directions and reached back to her palace. When she met Lord

Krishna, she asked him" How are you who has more than one hundred

thousand wife , a Nithya Brahmachari and how is Sage Durvasa who took

a hearty meal just then a Nithya Upavasi." Lord Krishna told her, "

I am the Atman who is same as Brahman and I dont marry, and Sage

Durvasa is again Atman who never eats. All these functions are done

by the body. All of you who are decieved by the net of Maayaa think

that I am my body and Sage Durvasa is his body.

 

I have also provided an explanation to the concept of maayaa by His

Holiness Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Mahaswamiji at the end of

this discussion. He applies mathematics (algebra of division and

multiplication) to illustrate maayaa.

 

Now coming back to the discussion, let us see how we designate the

world within Shankara's advaita philosophical framework. These are

the possibilities:

 

(1) World is `Real' (Based on Sri CN's Series with appropriate

caveats)

(2) World is `maayaa' (Sankara's Advaita as stated in Texts)

(3) World is Transient (Practical Vedanta inferred from Bhagavad

Gita)

 

It should be pointed out that either the statement, "World is maayaa"

or "World is transient" does not imply that the world is `unreal."

The World is Real for jnanis (Paramarthika Satyam) where as for all

others, the World is either `maayaa' or just `transient.' Another

way of saying is that Brahman is REAL and also permanent where as

World is REAL but it is only TRANSIENT. I do believe that it is very

important for advaitins to distinguish between Brahaman and the

World.

 

I also believe that the practical vedanta as spelled out in GITA

provides ample of evidence in support of the statement that the world

is transient. The manual of describes what is transient and what is

permanent in clearer terms through the verses in various chapters.

Lord Krishna emphatically asks all of us to seek the permanent peace

and happiness. In practical Vedantic terminology, the world

is 'transient' and is subject to change as we proceed. As we proceed

through the transient part of our life, our efforts should be toward

spiritual growth. As we spiritually grow, we learn the art of

detaching our interest from temporary pleasures to more permanent

happiness. If we rewind the video of our own childhood, we could

recognize that we have no problem in getting rid of the possessions

of racecars, dolls, etc. that we used to seek for our pleasures! Some

spiritual growth occurs as we grow older but those who put more

efforts have grown faster and better than others.

 

One of the best practical way of understanding detachment is 'bird

watching.! It seems they have been liberated before all of us, they

can fly wherever they want to go without looking for bargain air

tickets, they can stop whenever they like, they can eat and drink

whatever is available, and they don't look for a five star hotel to

stay! Interestingly they build the nests once a year just for

providing shelter and food to young chicks. After completing their

duties of raising the chicks, they once again continue their journey!

If we can learn the art of 'unselfish' living we can understand that

the world is transient and take the clues from the birds. The bird

watching also provides the subtle message that we should learn

to 'watch' our own life just like watching the birds. The sages of

the Upanishads and Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita tell us that if we

learn to witness the world then the transient world transforms into

the Brahman simultaneously superimposing the `witness' with

the `witnessing.'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

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

Concept of Maya by His Holiness Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi

Mahaswamiji.

 

A selected article from "Acharya's Call" a book published in two

volumes, which contains English translations of some invaluable

speeches given by His Holiness, Paramacharya Chandrasekharendra

Saraswathi Mahaswamiji.

 

In the Mangala Sloka(invocation) to this Beeja Ganita(algebra),

Bhaskaracharya says that supreme which is Infinite, does not suffer

diminution when creating the world out of Himself, or gain addition

when the created word attains Laya(merger) in Him. For, if the

addition of even a fraction can make a difference to the infinite,

then it could not have been infinite before such addition. Similarly

infinite cannot become less than the infinite when any thing is taken

away from it. The Infinite is poorna, full and limitless Supreme.

The

Prapancha (Universe) which is infinitely varied, is also limitless

Supreme, the limitless Supreme will remain intact. Therefore, if this

Poornam ( the infinitely varied form of the objective Prapancha) is

taken away from that Poornam (the subject which is Infinite), that

Poornam, the subject Infinite, alone will remain.

 

This may be illustrated mathematically as follows : if 2 is divided

by 2, the quotient is 1. With 2 as the dividend, if the divisor is

progressively reduced as 1, 1/2, or 1/4 etc., the quotient will

respectively be 2, or 4, or 8,etc., Thus the divisor becomes less

and

less, the quotient will become more and more. When the divisor is the

least, that is infinitesimal, approximating to Zero, the quotient

will be infinity. This is known as the Khaharam - Kha standing for

Aakas, signifying poojyam (zero), haaram, meaning taking away or

dividing.

 

How do we verify the correctness of an arithmetical question in

division? We multiply the quotient with the divisor and check

whether

the resulting is equivalent to the dividend given in the question. In

this Khaharam, or division. In this Khaharam, or division of any

number by zero, the number that is divided stands for the Prapancha

9the pluralistic universe of infinite variety), the divisor, zero or

Poojyam, which in mathematical language is an indefinable factor,

approximating to nothingness, stands for Maya, and the quotient is

the

Infinite, that is Brahman. For the purpose of creating the

Prapancha,

which is dividend, Brahman , which is the quotient , multiplies

itself

by Maya, which is divisor. Even as I divided by Zero, or 2 divided

by

Zero, or 3 divided by Zero, will give the same quotient, when the

Infinite is multiplied by Zer, it is undeterminate, and therefore,

it

can take the values 1,2,3 etc., which are Bheda sankhyas, or numbers

connoting differences, standing for the plurality of the world. The

Upanishad says that the One Absolute determined to become many, and

for that purpose. It associated itself with Maya, and become Many.

When this Absolute Infinite multiplied Itself in association with

Maya, which is tantamount to zero, it appears as 1,2,3,4 etc., the

several objects of this Prapancha. But when any number is multiplied

by Maya. The dividend, which is the plurality of the prapancha is

the

Infinite variety. The quotient, which is Brahman, is Real Akhanda and

Ananta. In the Saanti Mantra, Poornam adah is the quotient ,

Absolute

Infinity, and Poornam idam is the dividend, pluralistic Infinity.

Advaita anantam multiplied by Poojyam is Dvaita anantam. if the

latter is divested of is Maya -- by a process of Khaharam-dividing

by

Poojyam which is Maya -- we get the Advaita anantam. Maya multiplies

the formless Infinite which is One only without a second , into an

infinity of finite forms. Th One alone , that is real, has value; the

Many, which are products of Maya, are like Maya, without ultimate

value. So Brahman is not affected either by diminution from It

(creation or Srsti) or by the addition to It(merger or Laya) of

Prapancha, which has no ultimate value.

 

The Divine Mother is the Creative Principle of the universe, the

Maya

Sakti aspect of Brahman, which makes the Infinite One appear as the

Infinite Many. She presents the formless Supreme in finite forms. It

is only by her grace that one can transcend the Maya and obtain the

advaitic realisation of the One without a second.

 

Source: http://kamakoti.org/acall/ac-concept.html

 

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

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> It could be as you say, for I am not conversant with Sanskrit. I

> would be grateful if anyone here can throw light on the root of the

> word 'mithya' - to me it has the connotation of 'myth'

and 'fiction'.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ram Chandranji,

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

> Just like Brahman is present everywhere, all time and in

> everything, it is also true that 'mithya' is also present!

 

If we go by the ontology of presence, that would make mithya real. :-)

 

> Only the Brahman knows the Brahman without the presence

> of Mithya!!

 

But if mithya is present, it would mean that Brahman doesn't know

what is present, which would make Brahman not be omniscient!

 

> It is impossible for any of us to describe "What is real"

> even if attempt using all the words of all languages and

> taking all available time by filling up all the space

> available in the Internet!

 

We can't describe the Substantive because It is the source out of

which describing arises. But in one sense, we are, all of us, always,

describing the Real only.

 

> Please recognize the fact that there is nothing ironical

> about why someone disagree with what you say. The disagreement

> does not mean that you are 'wrong' but it only confirms the

> presence of 'mithya.'

 

Disagreement is okay. So is irony. :-)

 

> There is certainly more than one map to uncover 'What is

> Unreal?' These maps though similar are not identical.

> They invariably follow different definitions, notations,

> instructions and layouts. The existence of so many maps

> indicates that everyone is not comfortable in using only

> one map. Any new map with new notations and directions

> will not be readily acceptable and few travellers may

> not like to switch from the map that they use.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

> Note: Instead of addressing the question, "What is real

> and unreal?' I would rather prefer the expression,

> "What is permanant and transient?"

 

Haven't I have addressed this topic in great detail in Part VII while

examining the question of change and vivartavada?

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Srinivas-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p>

wrote:

> > I have begun my essays saying that the meanings of the

> > terms 'real' and 'unreal' are themselves clouded by the

> > sleep of avidya, and that their meanings shine in the

> > removal of avidya >itself.

>

> Good point. While pondering about this, got a question in similar

> lines and your answer is greatly appreciated. How our worldly

> notions 'real' and 'unreal' themselves under sleep of avidya,

> similarly, why shouldn't our very notion of 'avidya', which is yet

> another worldly notion, itself be under yet to know real avidya ?

 

 

You raise an important question in the context of Advaita. While many

in this forum may not agree with me, I would atleast like to provide

my understanding of the Advaitic answer to the question you ask.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that I am not using the

word 'avidya' as meaning the world itself, but as the falsity that

clouds our understanding of the truth of things. Therefore, when I

say that something is clouded by 'avidya', I do not mean that what is

seen is false, but that what is seen is coloured by one's own notions

which may not be in accordance with the innate nature of what is

seen. Thus, the truth is not completely hidden, but is not completely

revealed either. What is yet to be known is already known through a

veil, as it were, but is to be still revealed in its purity. The

meaning of the terms 'real' and 'unreal' are to be uncovered thusly.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan