Mithya - myth or ,,,,,,,,,,,something else?

August 13, 2004

Dear ALL,

Our BELOVED Ken-ji always instructed us to look up Monier-williams

when in doubt regarding Sanskrit words used in the context of

discussions in English...

here it is ..

Monier-williams

mithyA

Meaning ind. (contracted from %{mithUyA4}) invertedly , contrarily ,

incorrectly , wrongly , improperly S3Br. &c. &c. (with Caus , of %

{kR} , to pronounce a word wrongly `" once "' [P.] or `"

repeatedly "' [A1.] Pa1n2. 1-3 , 71 ; with %{pra-car} , to act

wrongly Mn. ix , 284 ; with %{pra-vRt} , to behave improperly MBh.

iii , 2414) ; falsely , deceitfully , untruly Mn. MBh. &c. (often

with %{brU} , %{vac} or %{vad} , to speak falsely , utter a lie ;

with %{kR} , to deny MBh. ; to break one's word , with %{na-kR} , to

keep it) R. ; with %{bhU} , to turn out or prove false MBh. ; not in

reality , only apparently Madhus. ; to no purpose , fruitlessly , in

vain MaitrUp. MBh. &c. (ibc. often = false , untrue , sham ; Mithya1

is personified as the wife of A-dharma KalkiP.)

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

" Mithya is a contraction of mithuya, derived from the root* mith

*which means either (1) "unite" or "couple," (2) "meet" or "engage"

(in altercation), or (3) "alternate." The word mithya comes from the

third sense, and is used adverbially (often with respect to a

person's behavior) as

meaning "inadvertedly,contrarily,improperly," or "incorrectly."

This sense is extended to a nominal form meaning "false" in the sense

of "mistaken," that is, "taken or perceived

incorrectly.incomplete."

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_denic_self.htm -

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

Shankaracharya used the word mithya. ---- but mithya has two meanings

one is - no thing - there is nothing - that is mithya (i.e. a dream

is not really in existence)- the other meaning is - that which is

removed by knowledge (i.e. like the magicians trick to one who knows

it) - is mithya.

(A man sees a piece of rope in a corner of a room in the half light

and imagines it is a snake this brings fear etc. with it.) You are

mistaking a piece of rope in the dusk (half light). You are mistaking

a piece of rope as a snake, when you come to know the true nature of

the rope, the snake disappears. Is it not? That means (when) the true

nature of the rope (appears) you (have) removed your ignorance.

That (ignorance) is what is called mithya. In the same way as long as

the jagat (the idea of the world), is real, to those people it is

real, those who have not thought of the higher thing, the reality,

for them the world is real, as long as it (the ignorance) is there,

so mithya has the latter meaning, that which is removed by knowledge.

That is mithya.

If we know the substratum of the world, (also of) our own existence

including the body, then we come to know that these (ideas of the

world) are all (mithya). The transient things are (- -) (mithya), not

the real. The substratum is real.. The snake is not (really) there.

Because of our ignorance of the true nature of rope the snake

(appears to) come . That also, see how beautiful it (the analogy) is,

that also (happens) in dusk. Not in daylight.

Complete daylight you can see the rope, and complete darkness you

wont see the rope either. (i.e the worldly person has no concept of

the illusion). So the jiva (individual self) has got a vague idea of

its true nature, in spite of himself (his ego). That is the beauty.

So learn that knowledge (the knowledge of experience), that is the

purpose of practise.

I think it (the analogy) is clear. You can think (about it) and ask

your questions afterwards. I like such (questions from) those who

have practised (the philosophy in their lives). Simply pedantic

questions and answers there is no use. It is wasting the time you

know. We must translate whatever we have read or know (heard) into (a

meaning) in our life. Otherwise it is a wild goose chase. ---

http://www.btinternet.com/~saraswati.soc/snake.html - 5k - Cached

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

Mithya": (Samskrt): a fantasy; an unreal, misleading appearance

beheld in dream or hallucination

"Mythos" (Greek): a fictional, imaginary story

"MithaJ" or "Mathal" (Arabic): a symbol, an allegorical figure or

vision

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

One Word, so many meanings and interpretations !

One Truth , many paths!!!

One Acharya! so many mini-Acharyas!!

:=) smiles!

so does Mithya mean 'unreal' , 'illusory'

or 'transient' , 'fictional' or all of these or NOTHING OR

EVERYTHING?

ARE WE ALL HALLUCINATING OR DREAMING ?

love and regards

August 14, 2004

Namaste AdiMa,

Thank you so much for giving us the many variations and flavours of

the meaning of the word 'mithya'. As I see it, these many meanings

are like the branches of a tree that has its roots buried deep in the

soil of the unreal! :-)

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

The way I look at it is like this...

The search for truth is the driving 'Is it true?' When we ask the

question, "Does the world exists?', it must elicit the answer as true

or false. There is no third category called mithya. I have never seen

Shankara use mithya as a third category, and any reference in this

regard would be useful.

The world as it is seen in samsara is mithya, false, because it is

seen as independently subsisting in itself, and that is certainly

false. Its existence is seen as jada, and hence arises the expression

of 'jagan-mithya'. But the same world, when seen that it is not

independently existing, and that it has Brahman as its Existence, is

seen to be real only.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> Dear ALL,

>

> Our BELOVED Ken-ji always instructed us to look up Monier-williams

> when in doubt regarding Sanskrit words used in the context of

> discussions in English...

>

> here it is ..

>

> Monier-williams

>

> mithyA

>

> Meaning ind. (contracted from %{mithUyA4}) invertedly ,

contrarily ,

> incorrectly , wrongly , improperly S3Br. &c. &c. (with Caus , of %

> {kR} , to pronounce a word wrongly `" once "' [P.] or `"

> repeatedly "' [A1.] Pa1n2. 1-3 , 71 ; with %{pra-car} , to act

> wrongly Mn. ix , 284 ; with %{pra-vRt} , to behave improperly MBh.

> iii , 2414) ; falsely , deceitfully , untruly Mn. MBh. &c. (often

> with %{brU} , %{vac} or %{vad} , to speak falsely , utter a lie ;

> with %{kR} , to deny MBh. ; to break one's word , with %{na-kR} ,

to

> keep it) R. ; with %{bhU} , to turn out or prove false MBh. ; not

in

> reality , only apparently Madhus. ; to no purpose , fruitlessly ,

in

> vain MaitrUp. MBh. &c. (ibc. often = false , untrue , sham ;

Mithya1

> is personified as the wife of A-dharma KalkiP.)

>

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

August 14, 2004

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

Chittaranjanji - Pranaams.

>

> Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

>

> The way I look at it is like this...

>

> The search for truth is the driving 'Is it true?' When we ask the

> question, "Does the world exists?', it must elicit the answer as true

> or false. There is no third category called mithya. I have never seen

> Shankara use mithya as a third category, and any reference in this

> regard would be useful.

This is a good question to our dear friend - Sundar H. The statement

that Brahma satyam jagan mithyaa .. I think is from 'Brahmaavali' of

Shankara. - I think mithyaa and maaya are interchangeably used while

satya for real, asatya for unreal; and mithyaa for the world – mithyaa

is defined that which experienced therefore not unreal, but that which

is transient therefore not real. As one sees, there is an order of

reality - in gold vs. the ring or bangle - one is substantive that is

unchanging and hence more real compared to that which is a

superimposition of form and hence a name for the form is transient and

changing - the naama and ruupa. Ontologically the independent, gold and

dependent ring cannot be at the same level. In the Nyaaya that you are

familiar with anvaya and vyatireka are used to distinguish the dependent

and independent entities. This also is the spirit of the discussion in

the Ch. Up. with three examples of vaachaarambhanam vikaaro

naamadheyam. ( I realize that you have your way of explaining this

mantra). Since transient does not fall under the category of unchanging

reality and nor under the category of unreal like vandhyaa putraH, a

third term is needed and unavoidable in order to separate it from nether

real or unreal.

Shankara did not have to use mithyaa for the world if it is satya.

Superimposed reality is obviously distinguished from the substantive

reality. You may use different words to separate the two.

>

> The world as it is seen in samsara is mithya, false, because it is

> seen as independently subsisting in itself, and that is certainly

> false. Its existence is seen as jada, and hence arises the expression

> of 'jagan-mithya'. But the same world, when seen that it is not

> independently existing, and that it has Brahman as its Existence, is

> seen to be real only.

Yes indeed - I donot think you are saying anything different -

substantive of the world is real and that is Brahman. The so-called

false which you call 'seen as independently existing' that seen-seer

distinctions are with in the realm of mithyaa -apparently real or only

transiently real (which differs from absolutely real and unreal) - that

is the precisely the nature of mithyaa or maaya.

Personally I do not see any difference between what you are saying and

what I, Basker or Murthy gaaru saying. I see it as only semantics.

Nairji has resolved that your reality-divide (in a way you are dividing

reality which cannot be divided but apparently divided like space) (the

term may be coming from the analysis of western philosophies) is nothing

but this maaya.

I am guilty of not reading your posts past V - The concepts are buried

in exquisite language presentation, and therefore requires lot of mental

discipline for me to go through the posts - which I am lacking right

now- and postponing with any little excuse. My apologies. I will try

to study them this weekend and if I do not understand something, I will

get back with you.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

> advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

> wrote:

> > Dear ALL,

> >

> > Our BELOVED Ken-ji always instructed us to look up Monier-williams

> > when in doubt regarding Sanskrit words used in the context of

> > discussions in English...

> >

> > here it is ..

> >

> > Monier-williams

> >

> > mithyA

> >

> > Meaning ind. (contracted from %{mithUyA4}) invertedly ,

> contrarily ,

> > incorrectly , wrongly , improperly S3Br. &c. &c. (with Caus , of %

> > {kR} , to pronounce a word wrongly `" once "' [P.] or `"

> > repeatedly "' [A1.] Pa1n2. 1-3 , 71 ; with %{pra-car} , to act

> > wrongly Mn. ix , 284 ; with %{pra-vRt} , to behave improperly MBh.

> > iii , 2414) ; falsely , deceitfully , untruly Mn. MBh. &c. (often

> > with %{brU} , %{vac} or %{vad} , to speak falsely , utter a lie ;

> > with %{kR} , to deny MBh. ; to break one's word , with %{na-kR} ,

> to

> > keep it) R. ; with %{bhU} , to turn out or prove false MBh. ; not

> in

> > reality , only apparently Madhus. ; to no purpose , fruitlessly ,

> in

> > vain MaitrUp. MBh. &c. (ibc. often = false , untrue , sham ;

> Mithya1

> > is personified as the wife of A-dharma KalkiP.)

> >

> **********************************************************************

>

=====

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

August 14, 2004

Pujya Sadanandaji,

Hari Om! Pranams!

Unfortunately I do not have Mandukya Karika available at my home for

referance. But I think the Mithya word appears in Paramapujya

Acharya Gaudapada's Karika?! Please correct me if I am wrong.

The famous verse appears in Vedanta Dindima stotra.

brahma satyam jagat midhya jeevo brrahiava naaparaH

anena vedyam sat saastram iti vedanta dindimaH !!

Also there is this another verse which is equally important

"brahma satyam jagat sarvam jeevanam satya Sodhanam"

Thank you.

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda > This is a

good question to our dear friend - Sundar H. The statement

> that Brahma satyam jagan mithyaa .. I think is from 'Brahmaavali'

of

> Shankara. - I think mithyaa and maaya are interchangeably used while

> satya for real, asatya for unreal; and mithyaa for the world –

mithyaa

> is defined that which experienced therefore not unreal, but that

which

> is transient therefore not real.

August 15, 2004

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> > There is no third category called mithya. I have

> > never seen Shankara use mithya as a third category,

> > and any reference in this regard would be useful.

>

> This is a good question to our dear friend - Sundar H.

> The statement that Brahma satyam jagan mithyaa .. I

> think is from 'Brahmaavali' of Shankara.

The question I had asked was not about Shankara using the

term 'mithya' or 'jagan-mithya', but whether the term 'mithya' is

used by Shankara as a third category apart from the terms 'real'

and 'unreal'. As I see it, he doesn't.

> but that which is transient therefore not real.

But the world of objects is not transient according to Shankara; it

is the transience of objects that is a myth, and not the objects

themselves. Objects are eternal.

> As one sees, there is an order of reality

There are no degrees to reality. When we use the phrase 'order of

reality', the word 'order' qualifies the word 'reality' and hence the

word 'order' is an attribute of reality which does not affect the

substantive (reality). Order pertains to 'order-ness' and not to

reality.

> - in gold vs.

> the ring or bangle - one is substantive that is unchanging

> and hence more real compared to that which is a

> superimposition of form and hence a name for the form

> is transient and changing - the naama and ruupa.

Nama in Advaita is eternal.

> Ontologically the independent, gold and dependent ring

> cannot be at the same level.

They are not at the same level in terms of the qualification of

independence-dependence, but ontologically they are not two. When

they are not two, there cannot be levels.

> In the Nyaaya that you are familiar with anvaya and vyatireka

> are used to distinguish the dependent and independent entities.

Yes, but that is not an ontological gradation.

> Since transient does not fall under the category of

> unchanging reality and nor under the category of unreal

> like vandhyaa putraH, a third term is needed and

> unavoidable in order to separate it from nether real

> or unreal.

Transcience pertains to time, and not to objects. Objects are

eternal. If they weren't, no object could appear the second time as

the same object. The confusion between transcience (time) and objects

presents to us the seeming ephemerality of eternal objects. THIS IS

THE ONLY WAY in which Shankara can be reconciled - and the

reconciliation is natural, effortless, logical and irrefutable.

> Shankara did not have to use mithyaa for the world if it is satya.

According to Shankara, the effect is real and pre-exists in the

cause. Shankara is categorical that the effect is as real as the

cause because they are not two (Br.Up). The world is therefore

sathya. Shankara had to use the word mithya to denote the object

under the confusion of avidya in vyavahara. The object that is seen

under avidya is paradoxical because the object as coloured of avidya

can never be logically explained. That is how anirvacaniya and mithya

arise. But when the truth is seen, there is neither mithya nor

anirvacaniya. Therefore if we are to say what the world is IN TRUTH,

the the answer is that it is real only.

> Superimposed reality is obviously distinguished from the

> substantive reality.

The term 'superimposed reality' is a contradiction. Superimposition

cannot be reality. Superimposition is avidya, nescience. Shankara

states this categorically in the preamble.

> Yes indeed - I donot think you are saying anything different -

> substantive of the world is real and that is Brahman.

Yes, here we are all in agreement.

> Personally I do not see any difference between what you

> are saying and what I, Basker or Murthy gaaru saying.

As far as Brahman being the substative is concerned, there is no

difference between what we are all saying, but in so far as Brahman

is negated of all forms, I would differ and say that Brahman is

purnam, and purnam only. As I have stated earlier, there is nothing

that is negated in Brahman, nothing at all - not a blade of grass,

nor a mite in the moonbeam, nor a shade of thought, not even the dark

abyss of nothingness (for that too is reality). And all this in no

way contradicts the formless Brahman.

> I see it as only semantics.

Semantics is the world. Objects are word-meanings. There is no

difference between meanings and objects. This is the mystical truth

of Vedanta, and carries with it the solution to the mind-body problem

as well as solutions to many other conundrums of philosophy.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

August 15, 2004

Dear Sri Chittaranjan,

I have been intermitently following your posts on the 'Real and

the Unreal' starting back in the middle of January, when you first

raised the subject of distinguishing between two different views about

the nature of what is 'Unreal'. It is quite clear that you take the

possition that the world is not 'Unreal' in the sense that it is

'non-existent', but is to be considered 'Unreal'only if it is seen as

having an existence independent of the Real. Bhaskarji (and others)

havs defended the first possition and you the second.

You (and those who have been agreeing with you,i.e.: Sri Madathil

Nair et al)seem to think that maintaining the the first possition

leads to some very undesirable conclusions. To mention a few examples:

1) The Vaisnava Vedantins critique of Advaita would be correct.

2) Advaita Vedanta would become a Nihillist Siddhanta.

3) Isvara would be degraded.

4) Advaita Vedanta would really be a disquised Buddhism.

5) If the world is in truth 'non-existent', then 'instead of

seeng Reality everywhere and in everything, we will sink into an

abysmal nothingness'.

6) The valitity of the Vedantic teaching itself would be false.

7) Shankaras commentary would be seen as contradictory (Brahman

is the cause, Ignorance is the cause).

8) Ignorance, if it means only 'not knowing', could never

create the world.

9) If you take the possition that Nama is merely imagined by

Ignorance and nothing more, it "contadicts the Advaita teaching that

Nama is eternal"

Although Bhaskarji has done a masterfull job of showing the

shortcomings of your possition and conclusions,nevertheless,I feel

that because of the eloquence,erudition and conviction with which you

have defended your views,some unwary enquirers may be swayed in the

wrong direction. Therefore,I would like to add to Bhaskarji's critique

by way of both summerizing and simplifying his approach, and thus in a

concise manner attempt to demonstrate that your possition, in my

opinion, is both wrong and diametrically opposed to the teachings of

the Srutis, Shankaras Bhasyas, Yukti(reason), and anubava (experience).

1) Srutis: "All this is Brahman Alone""Clay alone is realHere is

the teaching concerning the Self: NOT THIS, NOT THISNow,therefore

the teaching concerning Atman is begun. Atman ALONE is below,Atman

above, Atman behind, Atman in front, Atman on the right, Atman on the

left. All this is Atman ALONE.The One Deva is hidden in all beings,

All pervading, the inermost Self of all creatures,presiding over all,

the Wittnessing Consciousness residing in all,ONE, WITHOUT A SECOND,

AND HAVING NO QUALITIES."

(The key words here are 'Alone', 'Not this, Not this' and 'No

Qualities'. Of course you can understand these Srutis as being in

conformity with your possition, just as Bhartraprapanca, Ramanuja,

Madhva, Vallhaba, and the other Vaishnava Acharys did. But then you

will have abandond the pure Advaita in which there is no 'Sajati

bheda, Vijati Bheda or Svagati bheda in the Parmartha Tatva).

2)Shankara Bhashya: Question:- "Are there two Brahmans then,the

higher and the lower?" Answer-"Yes, there are two. This is bourn out

by the Sruti: O Satykama, verily this Omkara is both the higher and

the lower Brahman." Question:-"Which is the higher then and which is

the lower?" Answer:- "We reply: Where Brahman is taught by means of

words like Astulam (not gross), negating specific features such as

Name and Form CREATED BY IGNORANCE, that is the higher Brahman, Where,

on the other hand, that same Brahman is taught a qualified by some

specific features for the purpose of meditation, as for instance by

means of such words as "made up of mind", "Having Prana for its body",

"Of the nature of light",etc. that is the Lower Brahman." Objection:-

The Sruti teaching Non Duality would then be violated!" Reply:- No,

for this has been obviated by stating that the form with attributes is

due to the conditiona adjunct of Name and Form BROUGHT ABOUT BY

IGNORANCE." (SBh.4-3-14)

(Here the following three points should particularly be taken

note of: 1)Iswara, as the creator, is not the Highest Reality,

(Although He is as real as the world, which for most of us is real

enouph). 2) In the Higher Brahman there is the negation of all

dualistic phenomena. 3)Nama is not 'an eternal reality' on par with

the Higher Brahman, for the simple reason that 'Nama'(Unlike the

Higher Brahman) is a creation of Ignorance.

3) Yukti(Reason); Simply put, Reality cannot be both Non-dual

and Dual. This violates the law of contradicted middle.The so-called

"Co-existence of the 'Unmanifest World' and 'Brahman'" is not Non-

Duality, Advaita, it is Qualified-(Bheda-Abheda Vada)Non-dualism,

which is realy a dualistic view of Reality, in that distinctions do

exit in the Absolute.

Anubhava (Experience): An examination of the Three States (An

experience that is common to all people regardless of there

philosophical possitions)reveals that the only unchanging Reality is

the wittnessing Consciousness. That which is never sublatable, that

which is not dependent on anything else for its existence, for its

manifestation or for its knowledge, that ALONE is worthy to be

considered as "Real", that ALONE is the Atman. The worlds of Nama and

Rupa (which only appear and dissapear in Waking or Dream) cannot and

does not have these qulifications, as is testified to by universal

experience.

As to the question: Does Shakara use the term 'Mithya' as a third

catagory? The answer is both yes and no. To explain; Take the

illustration of the apparent snake. Is it the rope? No. Is it some

second entity other than the rope? No. Then what is it? Its

Mithya!-Merely apparant. What does that mean? Although it appears to

be 'real', in truth it is 'unreal',Alothou it appearsto exist, in

truth it is non-existent. It is not a third catagory of existence like

some post Shankara Vedantins have wronly held. Shankara's discripition

of 'Mithya' literally is as follows "It is indescribalble as either

the Truth or as something other than the Truth, "Tatva anyatvabhyam

anirvacinyam" That which is mitya never existed in the past or present

nor will it ever exist in the the future. That also is the true nature

of the World according to Guadapada, Shankara and Suresvaracharya.

Like an Illusory Snake,like a Dream,like a city in the sky.

Om Tat Sat

Atmachaitanya

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

>

> advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> > > There is no third category called mithya. I have

> > > never seen Shankara use mithya as a third category,

> > > and any reference in this regard would be useful.

> >

> > This is a good question to our dear friend - Sundar H.

> > The statement that Brahma satyam jagan mithyaa .. I

> > think is from 'Brahmaavali' of Shankara.

>

> The question I had asked was not about Shankara using the

> term 'mithya' or 'jagan-mithya', but whether the term 'mithya' is

> used by Shankara as a third category apart from the terms 'real'

> and 'unreal'. As I see it, he doesn't.

>

> > but that which is transient therefore not real.

>

> But the world of objects is not transient according to Shankara; it

> is the transience of objects that is a myth, and not the objects

> themselves. Objects are eternal.

>

> > As one sees, there is an order of reality

>

> There are no degrees to reality. When we use the phrase 'order of

> reality', the word 'order' qualifies the word 'reality' and hence the

> word 'order' is an attribute of reality which does not affect the

> substantive (reality). Order pertains to 'order-ness' and not to

> reality.

>

> > - in gold vs.

> > the ring or bangle - one is substantive that is unchanging

> > and hence more real compared to that which is a

> > superimposition of form and hence a name for the form

> > is transient and changing - the naama and ruupa.

>

> Nama in Advaita is eternal.

>

> > Ontologically the independent, gold and dependent ring

> > cannot be at the same level.

>

> They are not at the same level in terms of the qualification of

> independence-dependence, but ontologically they are not two. When

> they are not two, there cannot be levels.

>

> > In the Nyaaya that you are familiar with anvaya and vyatireka

> > are used to distinguish the dependent and independent entities.

>

> Yes, but that is not an ontological gradation.

>

> > Since transient does not fall under the category of

> > unchanging reality and nor under the category of unreal

> > like vandhyaa putraH, a third term is needed and

> > unavoidable in order to separate it from nether real

> > or unreal.

>

> Transcience pertains to time, and not to objects. Objects are

> eternal. If they weren't, no object could appear the second time as

> the same object. The confusion between transcience (time) and objects

> presents to us the seeming ephemerality of eternal objects. THIS IS

> THE ONLY WAY in which Shankara can be reconciled - and the

> reconciliation is natural, effortless, logical and irrefutable.

>

> > Shankara did not have to use mithyaa for the world if it is satya.

>

> According to Shankara, the effect is real and pre-exists in the

> cause. Shankara is categorical that the effect is as real as the

> cause because they are not two (Br.Up). The world is therefore

> sathya. Shankara had to use the word mithya to denote the object

> under the confusion of avidya in vyavahara. The object that is seen

> under avidya is paradoxical because the object as coloured of avidya

> can never be logically explained. That is how anirvacaniya and mithya

> arise. But when the truth is seen, there is neither mithya nor

> anirvacaniya. Therefore if we are to say what the world is IN TRUTH,

> the the answer is that it is real only.

>

> > Superimposed reality is obviously distinguished from the

> > substantive reality.

>

> The term 'superimposed reality' is a contradiction. Superimposition

> cannot be reality. Superimposition is avidya, nescience. Shankara

> states this categorically in the preamble.

>

> > Yes indeed - I donot think you are saying anything different -

> > substantive of the world is real and that is Brahman.

>

> Yes, here we are all in agreement.

>

> > Personally I do not see any difference between what you

> > are saying and what I, Basker or Murthy gaaru saying.

>

> As far as Brahman being the substative is concerned, there is no

> difference between what we are all saying, but in so far as Brahman

> is negated of all forms, I would differ and say that Brahman is

> purnam, and purnam only. As I have stated earlier, there is nothing

> that is negated in Brahman, nothing at all - not a blade of grass,

> nor a mite in the moonbeam, nor a shade of thought, not even the dark

> abyss of nothingness (for that too is reality). And all this in no

> way contradicts the formless Brahman.

>

> > I see it as only semantics.

>

> Semantics is the world. Objects are word-meanings. There is no

> difference between meanings and objects. This is the mystical truth

> of Vedanta, and carries with it the solution to the mind-body problem

> as well as solutions to many other conundrums of philosophy.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

August 15, 2004

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> > > There is no third category called mithya. I have

> > > never seen Shankara use mithya as a third category,

> > > and any reference in this regard would be useful.

>

> The question I had asked was not about Shankara using the

> term 'mithya' or 'jagan-mithya', but whether the term 'mithya' is

> used by Shankara as a third category apart from the terms 'real'

> and 'unreal'. As I see it, he doesn't.

Namaste,

In the adhyAsa-bhAShya, introduction to the Brahmasutras,

Shankara defines mthya as:

"..tathA.api anayonyasminnanyonya AtmakatAmanyonya dharmAshchaadhyAsa

itaretara avivekenaatyanta viviktayoH dharmadharmiNoH

mithyAj~nAnanimittaH satyAnR^ite mithunIkR^itya ahamidaM mAmedam iti

naisargiko.ayam lokavyavahAraH || "

....."Nevertheless, owing to an absence of discrimination between these

attributes, as also between substances, which are absolutely

disparate, there continues a natural human behavior based on

self-identification in the form of "I am this" or "This is mine".

This behavior has for its material cause an unreal nescience and man

resorts to it by mixing up reality with unreality as a result of

superimposing the things themselves or their attributes on each other."

[sw. Gambhirananda transl.]

Whether this would constitute a third 'category'(Real and Unreal

being the other two) or not is the question raised.

I shall try to find the reference after I understand the

definition of "category" in this context! (and in what form it would

be expressed, even hypothetically).

Regards,

Sunder

August 15, 2004

Namaste Atmachaitanya-ji,

Are you the same 'Atmachaitanya' who led the 'whence_adhyAsa' discussion in

this list some time back?

Just curious..

Hari Om

-

"atmachaitanya" <atmachaitanya

> Dear Sri Chittaranjan,

>

> I have been intermitently following your posts on the 'Real and

> the Unreal' starting back in the middle of January, when you first

> raised the subject of distinguishing between two different views about

> the nature of what is 'Unreal'. It is quite clear that you take the

> possition that the world is not 'Unreal' in the sense that it is

> 'non-existent', but is to be considered 'Unreal'only if it is seen as

> having an existence independent of the Real. Bhaskarji (and others)

> havs defended the first possition and you the second.

August 16, 2004

Namaste Atmachaitanyaji.

Although your post is not addressed to me, I believe I have reason to

interpose due to the mention of my name therein. I know from past

experience that you are not in the habit of answering all mail.

Yet, I thought not clarifying my position would result in the wrong

impression that what you have laboured to conclude in your post has

been accepted without qualms. Hence, my remarks herebelow in

brackets .

________________________

>

> 1) Srutis: "All this is Brahman Alone""Clay alone is realHere

is

> the teaching concerning the Self: NOT THIS, NOT THISNow,therefore

> the teaching concerning Atman is begun. Atman ALONE is below,Atman

> above, Atman behind, Atman in front, Atman on the right, Atman on

the

> left. All this is Atman ALONE.The One Deva is hidden in all

beings,

> All pervading, the inermost Self of all creatures,presiding over

all,

> the Wittnessing Consciousness residing in all,ONE, WITHOUT A SECOND,

> AND HAVING NO QUALITIES."

> (The key words here are 'Alone', 'Not this, Not this' and 'No

> Qualities'. Of course you can understand these Srutis as being in

> conformity with your possition, just as Bhartraprapanca, Ramanuja,

> Madhva, Vallhaba, and the other Vaishnava Acharys did. But then you

> will have abandond the pure Advaita in which there is no 'Sajati

> bheda, Vijati Bheda or Svagati bheda in the Parmartha Tatva).

______________

[There is no sajAti bhEda, vijAti bheda or svagati bhEda in the

ParamArta Tatva. In fact, there is no bhEda at all. Who said there

is? The argument is that the apparent bhEda in the vyAvahArika (not

paramArta) is an error and, therefore, should be totally removed.]

> 2)Shankara Bhashya: Question:- "Are there two Brahmans then,the

> higher and the lower?" Answer-"Yes, there are two. This is bourn out

> by the Sruti: O Satykama, verily this Omkara is both the higher and

> the lower Brahman." Question:-"Which is the higher then and which is

> the lower?" Answer:- "We reply: Where Brahman is taught by means of

> words like Astulam (not gross), negating specific features such as

> Name and Form CREATED BY IGNORANCE, that is the higher Brahman,

Where,

> on the other hand, that same Brahman is taught a qualified by some

> specific features for the purpose of meditation, as for instance by

> means of such words as "made up of mind", "Having Prana for its

body",

> "Of the nature of light",etc. that is the Lower Brahman."

Objection:-

> The Sruti teaching Non Duality would then be violated!" Reply:- No,

> for this has been obviated by stating that the form with attributes

is

> due to the conditiona adjunct of Name and Form BROUGHT ABOUT BY

> IGNORANCE." (SBh.4-3-14)

[Name and form brought about by ignorance are the result of the

error. When the error is undone through right knowledge, bhEdA in

duality disappears to resolve it to and as the one and only non-

dual. A vyAvahArin has to necessarily wade through duality to

understand and accept the non-dual conclusion. Even Sankara had to

do that. There is therefore no contradiction of advaita in trying to

understand duality. The only requirement is that that understanding

should be advaitic.]

> 3) Yukti(Reason); Simply put, Reality cannot be both Non-dual

> and Dual. This violates the law of contradicted middle.The so-called

> "Co-existence of the 'Unmanifest World' and 'Brahman'" is not Non-

> Duality, Advaita, it is Qualified-(Bheda-Abheda Vada)Non-dualism,

> which is realy a dualistic view of Reality, in that distinctions do

> exit in the Absolute.

[if bhEda is due to error (ignorance) and that error is undone, then

where do distinctions exist, Sir? Doesn't the word bhEda connote

distinctions? In my appreciation of what CN wrote, I have not granted

reality to bhEda that causes non-daulity. The endeavour is to point

out that it is the apparent dual whole that resolves into non-dual

whole when separation is removed. To illustrate it rather crudely

repeat crudely, let us remove space and time from the universe as

they are the building blocks of bhEda or separation. Will the

universe then remain separate from me, the seer, as a group of

different entities? No. It will resolve into non-duality and the

resultant would be me in my fullness. Where are distinctions in that

fullness? Where is qualified non-dualism in this thinking? Where is

co-existence of the world and brahman. There is only sameness as in

the BS aphorism 'patavatca' or the scriptural exclamation 'SOyam

Devatta.]

>

> Anubhava (Experience): An examination of the Three States (An

> experience that is common to all people regardless of there

> philosophical possitions)reveals that the only unchanging Reality is

> the wittnessing Consciousness. That which is never sublatable, that

> which is not dependent on anything else for its existence, for its

> manifestation or for its knowledge, that ALONE is worthy to be

> considered as "Real", that ALONE is the Atman. The worlds of Nama

and

> Rupa (which only appear and dissapear in Waking or Dream) cannot and

> does not have these qulifications, as is testified to by universal

> experience.

[Yes. I repeat avastAtraya are to TurIya what gold ornaments are to

gold. The important point is that gold ornaments are gold in essence

(the paramArta tatva of the analogy) but for their differences as

nAma-rUpAs (bhEda). Hence, the avastAtraya are turIya in essence

but for our ignornance which projects them as separate, transient

states which constitute the sum total of miTyA. This means I am

turIya even as I am typing this out to you in an apparent dual world

of my body, mind, intellect, PC, work desk, PC monitor, keyboard etc.

which are all miTyA. If the duality of this scenario of divisions is

undone through advaita, i.e. when the 'apparence' due to bhEda is

removed, the duality collapses irreversibly and only turIya which is

the Real Me, their essence, remains and shines forth. It always

shines forth. The pity is that I don't 'notice, acknowledge and

live' It due to my ignorance - the error. In other words, through

advaita, the avastAtrayA are seen to coalesce into my real nature,

which, as you call IT, is the Witnessing Consciousness or the

Unchanging Reality. Going by the analogy of gold and gold ornaments,

they are very much turIya in essence even as they apparently exist as

states just as ornaments *essentially* exist as gold. That I

understand is the real significance of the word 'ALONE' you very much

laid stress on in your passage quoted above. Change is

an 'apparence' due to error here. The Unchanging Reality ALONE as

gold ALONE is the Truth. Does that contradict advaita?]

[About 'Not This, 'Not This' in Englih for 'NEti, NEti' ('Na iti, Na

iti') - you will have to answer me if your translation and the

meaning thereby conveyed is right. Why didn't the scripture use the

term Na idam ('nEdam, nEdam')(Sunderji - kindly check my grammar in

this construction please!)if it were really 'Not this'. 'NEti' if

understood as 'not thus' - and that I believe is the right

translation - is a conditional negation, i.e. not a negation in

totality but only a negation of bhEda ('apparence' - the way things

appear as dual)which gives rise to apparent 'dualness' in an

actual 'non-dualness'. 'NEdam' will be what you badly need if the

negation is total and that unfortunately is not the case. I say this

fully knowing that many masters since the days our scriptures began

percolating into English language have invariably translated the term

as 'Not This'. Of course, there have been rather rare exceptions

too.]

[i hope CN will answer you on miTyA. I have no misunderstanding

about that term and accept your position fully. My point was that

CN's essays are really thought-provoking and insightful if his

reality-divide is understood as miTyA. By saying this, I am not

holding a brief for him but only endeavouring to encourage

constructive discussion on his thoughts.]

[in conclusion, therefore, I still maintain my opinion that if we

adamantly resist to see non-dual brahman in the apparent duality that

we experience around us with our eyes open, we as advaitins will be

slumbering to an absymal nothingness imagining that the Truth lies

somewhere there irrespective of whether our attempts on elucidating

Sankara and other Masters are masterful or otherwise. The tragedy

with that scenario is that even that abysmal nothingness is miTyA.]

[if you can agree to what I clarified above, then I should consider

that the apparent difference in views is just a matter of semantics.]

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

August 16, 2004

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Just I wanted to know, if there is any difference between the words

mithyA & mAya (not dictionary meaning please...I am particular about it in

shankara bhAshya) ?? As far as my knowledge goes both are synonyms

(samAnArtaka) & interchangeable like avidyA & adhyAsa.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

August 16, 2004

Of Course Ranjeethji, it is our own Atmachaitanyaji, who has, for the sake of we

advaitins, of his own will, reincarnated himself from his own self-imposed

oblivion. The clarity of thought and the convicition and forcefulness of its

presentation are quite unmistakable. Also like in the past, he attaches the

whole mail he is replying to.

There is only one small change - in his earlier appearance on this list he used

to sign off his mails with a 'Hari OM'; but now it seems he prefers 'Om Tat

Sat'.

Atmachaitanyaji, welcome back. And sir, please continue to be with us.

pranams,

Venkat - M

Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote:

Namaste Atmachaitanya-ji,

Are you the same 'Atmachaitanya' who led the 'whence_adhyAsa' discussion in

this list some time back?

Just curious..

ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

August 16, 2004

praNAm Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji

Hare Krishna

It gives me immense pleasure to see you on the list after a considerable

gap of time. And prabhuji, thanks a lot for your timely intervention. As

you can see, the most neglected part in our discussion is sArvatrika

anubhava (universal experience) based on avasthA traya which shankara says

should go hand-in-hand (anubhavAsAnatvAt) with shruti purports. But

despite the fact shruti & shankara comprehensively dealt with avasthA

traya from sAkshi view point, unfortunately, ONLY waker's view point holds

sway over our other two equally *real* states!!

bhAva rUpa avidyA or mulAvidya is another topic in concern here...I humbly

request for your more active participation in dealing with these major

topics. I still remember your elucidation on jnAni & jnAnanishTha.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

August 16, 2004

As far as Brahman being the substative is concerned, there is no

difference between what we are all saying, but in so far as Brahman

is negated of all forms, I would differ and say that Brahman is

purnam, and purnam only. As I have stated earlier, there is nothing

that is negated in Brahman, nothing at all - not a blade of grass,

nor a mite in the moonbeam, nor a shade of thought, not even the dark

abyss of nothingness (for that too is reality). And all this in no

way contradicts the formless Brahman.

praNAm CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

If you ask me ( I know you dont :-)), this would definitely contradict the

ultimate reality of parabrahman which is nirguNa, nirvishEsha, nirAmaya.

I'm surprised to see your assertion that *nAma is eternal* in brahman, I

dont know why you've eliminated the word *rUpa* in eternality when you are

telling * brahman is guNa pUrNa* & *objects are eternal*. The negation of

all forms in brahman has been mentioned by shrutis as ultimate reality.

(achintyam, agrAhyam, astUlam, anaNu are some of the words which denote

parabrahman in shruti).

Again, your observation that nAma is eternal in brahman could be applied

only to upAdhikruta, saguNa brahman who is meant for upAsana. In sUtra

bhAshya shankara says, nAmAdishu pratEkOpAsanEshu pUrvasyAt pUrvasyAt

phalavishEshamukthaM asmin upAsane darshayati.* The shruti-s/advaita's

ultimate pronouncement is nirguNa, nirAkAra brahman. Whereas the ultimate

pronouncement of dualists is brahman is *sakala kalyAna guNa pUrNa mangala

rUpa*.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

August 16, 2004

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> If you ask me ( I know you dont :-)), this would definitely contradict

> the

> ultimate reality of parabrahman which is nirguNa, nirvishEsha,

> nirAmaya.

> I'm surprised to see your assertion that *nAma is eternal* in brahman,

> I

> dont know why you've eliminated the word *rUpa* in eternality when you

> are

> telling * brahman is guNa pUrNa* & *objects are eternal*. The

> negation of

> all forms in brahman has been mentioned by shrutis as ultimate

> reality.

> (achintyam, agrAhyam, astUlam, anaNu are some of the words which

> denote

> parabrahman in shruti).

As I understand:

Bhaskar - you are right - there cannot be a naama, name, without a

ruupa, or form. Vikaara (modification) is only for saakaara (that has

form) which is ruupa - vaak arrambbhanam (word or thought) is the naming

and is associated with ruupa or saakaara only. Vaachaarambhanam vikaaro

naamadheyam is the shruti for the creation of manifest from unmanifest.

Mayaatatam idam sarvam jagad ayakta muurthinaa

mastaani sarva bhuutaani na chaaham teshu avastthitaH|

I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, All beings are

in me but I am not involved in their states.

The unmanifested reality is nature of that reality and that is how

shruti describes that cannot be described since any description (naming)

is only for ruupa.

At the same time when the shruti says 'everything 'this' is Brahman -

This is to substantiate that the unmanifested reality - which is as you

pointed out achintyam, that which cannot be thought of, is substantive

of the world too.

You are right - mithyaa and maayaa are identical - translation that into

illusion or fiction is not right.

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

August 16, 2004

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> The question I had asked was not about Shankara using the

> term 'mithya' or 'jagan-mithya', but whether the term 'mithya' is

> used by Shankara as a third category apart from the terms 'real'

> and 'unreal'. As I see it, he doesn't.

Chittaranjanji -Pranaams. You may be right but what I have pointed out

is that he had to coin the world mithya to separate it from satyaa and

asatya. If Shankara's description of the world is in the sense of your

understanding that the objects and the world are real, the use of

separate word 'mithyaa' by Shankara is uncalled for. We have made our

points and let us leave it with that. I must say you have opened a

different perspective of looking at the world and I am indebted to you

for that perspective. You have provided me lot of food for thought,

aahaara, and I need to digest it before Yaduji reminds me about ahaara.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

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

August 16, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> [About 'Not This, 'Not This' in Englih for 'NEti, NEti' ('Na iti,

Na

> iti') - you will have to answer me if your translation and the

> meaning thereby conveyed is right. Why didn't the scripture use

the

> term Na idam ('nEdam, nEdam')(Sunderji - kindly check my grammar

in

> this construction please!)if it were really 'Not this'. 'NEti' if

Pranams!

Just a pointer. Sruti also employed the word "nEdam". "nEdaM

yadidamupaasatE" - eeSavaasyopanishad.

-Madhava

August 16, 2004

Sorry! Here is the right referance:

yan manasaa na manute yenaahur manomatam|

tadeva brhma twam viddi nedam yadidamupaasate|| - 5 - Kenopanishad

That which mind cannot think but because of which the mind has the

capacity

to think, know that to be the Brahman not that this that you worship

here.

advaitin, "Madhava Turumella" <madhava@m...>

wrote:

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair> wrote:

> >

> > [About 'Not This, 'Not This' in Englih for 'NEti, NEti' ('Na

iti,

> Na

> > iti') - you will have to answer me if your translation and the

> > meaning thereby conveyed is right. Why didn't the scripture use

> the

> > term Na idam ('nEdam, nEdam')(Sunderji - kindly check my grammar

> in

> > this construction please!)if it were really 'Not this'. 'NEti'

if

>

> Pranams!

>

> Just a pointer. Sruti also employed the word "nEdam". "nEdaM

> yadidamupaasatE" - eeSavaasyopanishad.

>

> -Madhava

August 16, 2004

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

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

CN:

> As far as Brahman being the substative is concerned, there is no

> difference between what we are all saying, but in so far as Brahman

> is negated of all forms, I would differ and say that Brahman is

> purnam, and purnam only. As I have stated earlier, there is nothing

> that is negated in Brahman, nothing at all - not a blade of grass,

> nor a mite in the moonbeam, nor a shade of thought, not even the

> dark abyss of nothingness (for that too is reality). And all

> this in no way contradicts the formless Brahman.

Bhaskarji:

> If you ask me ( I know you dont :-)), this would definitely

> contradict the ultimate reality of parabrahman which is

> nirguNa, nirvishEsha, nirAmaya.

CN:

Forms are in the formless omniscience of Brahman. There is no

contradiction here. Logically, it is shown by the relationship

between words and objects, and samanya and vishesha. But what to do,

this Advaitic topic has been made foreign to Advaita.

________________

Bhaskarji:

> I'm surprised to see your assertion that *nAma is eternal*

> in brahman, I dont know why you've eliminated the word

> *rUpa* in eternality when you are telling * brahman is

> guNa pUrNa* & *objects are eternal*.

CN:

You wouldn't have been surprised if you had read my posts carefully.

I am saying that words are eternal, and that words are eternally

connected to objects (forms), and that forms are eternal, and that

words and objects are same, and that para Vak is one with Brahman.

Here is a quote from Shankara (Ma.Up.Bh) stating that words and the

objects signified by words are the same:

"Though the word and the thing signified are the same, still the

presentation in the text, 'This letter that is OM is all this' was

made by giving greater prominence to the word. The very same thing

that was presented through an emphasis on the word is being indicated

over again with a stress on the thing signified, so that the unity of

the name and the nameable may be comprehended."

______________

Bhaskarji:

> Again, your observation that nAma is eternal in brahman

> could be applied only to upAdhikruta, saguNa brahman

> who is meant for upAsana. In sUtra bhAshya shankara says,

> nAmAdishu pratEkOpAsanEshu pUrvasyAt pUrvasyAt

> phalavishEshamukthaM asmin upAsane darshayati.*

CN:

Yes, that is in the context of superimposition (and the world as

upadhi) under the condition when Brahman is concealed by avidya. :-)

_______________

Bhaskarji:

> The shruti-s/advaita's ultimate pronouncement is nirguNa,

> nirAkAra brahman. Whereas the ultimate pronouncement of

> dualists is brahman is *sakala kalyAna guNa pUrNa mangala

> rUpa*.

CN:

What are we afraid of here? That we may be giving in to the dualists

by saying that Brahman is gunapurna? No Sir, not at all. Brahman is

nirguna only, and that is gunapurna because all is constituted in the

omniscience of Brahman that is nirguna. When I know something, that

something stands in my knowing without knoweldge itself becoming a

form. What to do if I see Shankara bhashya as saying that the Truth

is like this only? :-)

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

August 16, 2004

Dear Shri Atmachaitanya-ji,

advaitin, "atmachaitanya" <atmachaitanya>

wrote:

> Although Bhaskarji has done a masterfull job of showing the

> shortcomings of your possition and conclusions, nevertheless,

> I feel that because of the eloquence, erudition and conviction

> with which you have defended your views, some unwary enquirers

> may be swayed in the wrong direction.

That, Sir, is a terribly loaded statement.

I agree that Bhaskarji has done a masterful job of quoting many

passages from Shankara bhashya, but I am afraid that his position is

a hopeless set of contradictions. Secondly, I am not here to display

my erudition or eloquence. I have presented, to the best of my

understanding and conviction, the central tenets of Advaita by laying

out each topic alongwith its theme, and provided the logical

arguments for the same. All these arguments revolve around

Advaitavada and is taken from the key tenets of Advaita. This forms

the central part of my essays (from Part VI to Part VIII), but I am

afraid there has been no discussion at all on these important topics

of Advaita; instead there have been summary judgments hinting that

the entire position is heretical. I am sorry Sir, but I do not accept

your summary judgment of my understanding of Advaita. It may very

well be wrong, but then it must be shown by vada why it is wrong.

> You (and those who have been agreeing with you,i.e.: Sri Madathil

> Nair et al)seem to think that maintaining the the first possition

> leads to some very undesirable conclusions.

I am not here to defend Shankara Advaita. Shankara Advaita can take

care of itself. I am a student trying to understand Advaita Vedanta.

It is our understanding that is in question here.

> Therefore,I would like to add to Bhaskarji's critique

> by way of both summerizing and simplifying his approach,

> and thus in a concise manner attempt to demonstrate that

> your possition, in my opinion, is both wrong and

> diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Srutis,

> Shankaras Bhasyas, Yukti(reason), and anubava (experience).

You are welcome. :-)

> 1) Srutis: "All this is Brahman AloneClay alone is real"

Brahman alone is real. This creates no difficulty for those who hold

that Brahman is purnam, but it creates difficulty for those who have

conceptualised a kind of sunya-Brahman.

> "Here is the teaching concerning the Self: NOT THIS, NOT

> THIS"

Please tell me how one can lead to the substantive without negating

the attributes as being the substative? I will give one more problem

to solve here. An apple is red as well as round. But an apple is not

identical to red, neither is the apple identical to round. We already

have 'neti, neti' here - the apple is not the 'red'; the apple is not

the 'round'. Now, how is it that the apple is still all of it - the

redness, the roundness, etc. We will proceed further on this point

after I have your answer.

> "Now,therefore the teaching concerning Atman is begun.

> Atman ALONE is below, Atman above, Atman behind, Atman

> in front, Atman on the right, Atman on the left. All

> this is Atman ALONE."

Exactly, all this is Atman alone.

> "The One Deva is hidden in all beings, All pervading,

> the inermost Self of all creatures,presiding over all,

> the Wittnessing Consciousness residing in all,ONE,

> WITHOUT A SECOND, AND HAVING NO QUALITIES."

Yes, Brahman has no qualifications, It is pure Knowledge, and that

knowledge contains everything. That is Its omniscience. Pure

Knowledge has no qualifications, but all qualifications are in

knowledge.

> (The key words here are 'Alone', 'Not this, Not this' and 'No

> Qualities'. Of course you can understand these Srutis as being in

> conformity with your possition, just as Bhartraprapanca, Ramanuja,

> Madhva, Vallhaba, and the other Vaishnava Acharys did. But then you

> will have abandond the pure Advaita in which there is no 'Sajati

> bheda, Vijati Bheda or Svagati bheda in the Parmartha Tatva).

No Sir, I have not abandoned pure Advaita, but I cannot accept

an 'Advaita' that negates something because that would make it a

dualistic philosophy. Did we not speak about yukti?

> 2)Shankara Bhashya: Question:- "Are there two Brahmans then,

> the higher and the lower?" Answer-"Yes, there are two. This

> is bourn out by the Sruti: O Satykama, verily this Omkara is

> both the higher and the lower Brahman." Question:-"Which is

> the higher then and which is the lower?" Answer:- "We reply:

> Where Brahman is taught by means of words like Astulam

> (not gross), negating specific features such as Name and

> Form CREATED BY IGNORANCE, that is the higher Brahman,

> Where, on the other hand, that same Brahman is taught a

> qualified by some specific features for the purpose of

> meditation, as for instance by means of such words as

> "made up of mind", "Having Prana for its body", "Of the

> nature of light",etc. that is the Lower Brahman." Objection:-

> The Sruti teaching Non Duality would then be violated!"

> Reply:- No, for this has been obviated by stating that

> the form with attributes is due to the conditiona adjunct

> of Name and Form BROUGHT ABOUT BY IGNORANCE." (SBh.4-3-14)

Sir, is that our understanding of Advaita? Are there really two

Brahmans in Advaita? :-) What is the context in which the great Sri

Shankara Bhagavadpada, the greatest exponent of Advaita, could

actually speak of two Brahmans? Shouldn't we pause and give the

matter deeper thought?

First, let us ask ourselves how it is that the world can be an

adjunct. The meaning of the word 'adjunct' is 'something that is

attached to another'. There cannot be one and another unless the

context is duality. Duality cannot arise when Brahman is seen. No

error can arise when the object is seen. It is only when a thing is

concealed that an error can arise. The error of duality therefore can

arise only when non-duality is concealed. It is in this context that

the world is called an 'adjunct' and this applies even to Ishvara.

This is the context in which Saguna Brahman is spoken of as a

meditational aid. But it does not mean that adjuncts remain forever

even when the truth is found. Nor does it mean that what was seen as

the adjunct in the context of duality is vapourised into nothingness;

rather it ceases to be an adjunct and is constituted in Brahman that

is All.

One more point, NAME and FORM is not created by ignorance, but

CREATION by name and form is false and if we understand that that

creation by name is real, then it is ignorance. One needs to read

Shankara carefully and in totality to see this truth (just as in the

case of Maya and illusion). :-)

> (Here the following three points should particularly be taken

> note of:

Let us then begin.

> 1)Iswara, as the creator, is not the Highest Reality,

> (Although He is as real as the world, which for most of

> us is real enouph).

There is no second entity called Ishvara; Ishvara is Brahman Himself.

> 2) In the Higher Brahman there is the negation of all

> dualistic phenomena.

Do we understand that there is another Brahman in which there is

duality? There is no higher and lower Brahman except under the

illusion of duality, and what is seen under illusion is not the

truth, and hence there are no two Brahmans. The context of two

Brahmans is duality -- when the world has the illusion of being

an 'adjunct'.

3) Nama is not 'an eternal reality' on par with the Higher

> Brahman, for the simple reason that 'Nama'(Unlike the

> Higher Brahman) is a creation of Ignorance.

Nama is not a creation of ignorance. Ignorance cannot create. Nama

resides eternally in identity with Brahman. May I suggest that we

check up on the great debates between Nyaya and Vedanta.

> 3) Yukti(Reason); Simply put, Reality cannot be both Non-dual

> and Dual. This violates the law of contradicted middle.

Wonderful! Therefore what is negated cannot be in truth other than

Brahman! Yes, Sir, yukti! The negation in Advaita is not negation of

something, but is only a negation of the limitedness of seeing. There

is no denoted thing negated in avacchedavada.

> The so-called "Co-existence of the 'Unmanifest World'

> and 'Brahman'" is not Non-Duality, Advaita, it is

> Qualified-(Bheda-Abheda Vada) Non-dualism, which is

> realy a dualistic view of Reality, in that distinctions

> do exit in the Absolute.

Sir, have you read the arguments I've presented against 'difference'

and the examination of `samanya and vishesha' in Part VIII? Please

present your objections after reading it.

> Anubhava (Experience): An examination of the Three States (An

> experience that is common to all people regardless of there

> philosophical possitions)reveals that the only unchanging Reality is

> the wittnessing Consciousness. That which is never sublatable, that

> which is not dependent on anything else for its existence, for its

> manifestation or for its knowledge, that ALONE is worthy to be

> considered as "Real", that ALONE is the Atman.

Perfect.

> The worlds of Nama and Rupa (which only appear and dissapear

> in Waking or Dream) cannot and does not have these qulifications,

> as is testified to by universal experience.

Yes, but that universal experience which testifies that nama and rupa

appear and disappear is itself avidya. Who is saying this? Please

read part VII where I have presented Shankara at length on this topic.

> As to the question: Does Shakara use the term 'Mithya' as a third

> catagory? The answer is both yes and no. To explain; Take the

> illustration of the apparent snake. Is it the rope? No. Is it some

> second entity other than the rope? No.

You are conflating things here. If the apparent snake is NOT the

rope, then it is a second entity other than the rope in so far as you

call it 'apparent snake'. The second entity is not the snake,

but 'apparent snake' - that illusory form of snake. So it is wrong to

say that the second entity is not other than the rope even when you

are calling that second entity by the name 'apparent snake'. Simple

yukti.

> Then what is it?

It is an apparent snake.

> Its Mithya!-Merely apparant.

When you say 'merely apparent', it means NOT what is truly there. Are

you saying that you are not connoting falsity here? Where goes the

yukti now?

> What does that mean? Although it appears to be 'real',

> in truth it is 'unreal',

But you just said that it is not unreal, but a third category

called 'mithya'.

> Alothou it appearsto exist, in truth it is non-existent.

So it is simply unreal. Shankara has defined the unreal as one thing

appearing as another (see Preamble). We need not bend over backwards

and bend yukti too. Unreality is nothing but reality showing itself

forth as the unreal. Likewise, non-existence is a mode of Existence.

Shankara says so.

> It is not a third catagory of existence like some post

> Shankara Vedantins have wronly held. Shankara's discripition

> of 'Mithya' literally is as follows "It is indescribalble

> as either the Truth or as something other than the Truth

What Shankara said is very clear. When the truth is seen through

avidya, then that which is seen can never be explained because

something with falsity superimposed on it can never be explained

(because explaining implies explaining the truth). The truth of

falsity is a contradiction in terms, and can never be explained. That

is anirvacaniya - it pertains to an epistemological perplexity, not

to an ontological category.

> That which is mitya never existed in the past or present

> nor will it ever exist in the the future.

What you are describing is not mithya, but the son of a barren woman.

> That also is the true nature of the World according to

> Guadapada, Shankara and Suresvaracharya.

What a contradiction to use the term `true nature' to describe that

which you are saying is not true! Let us not attribute it to Adi

Shankara.

Also, can I please ask you to provide your explanation of Shankara's

bhashya on that part of the Brhdaranyaka Upanishad which I have

included in Part VII.

With regards,

Chittaranjan

August 16, 2004

Dear Sunderji,

As one of the sanskrit authorities on this site, I respectfully

would like to point out that one must be carefull about taking any

english translations as accurately conveying Shankara's doctrins.

When Swami Gambirananda tanslates 'Mithyaajnana nimittaha" as "its

material cause an unreal ignorance",he has not merely made a bad

translation, but he has actually twisted the meaning to fit his own

misconceptons about Shankara's Vedanta. By the word 'Nimittaha"

Shankara only means cause in the sense of 'due to', there is

absolutely no reason to add the word 'material' in this context. And

more importantly, to translate 'Mithyaa jnana' as 'false ignorance' is

to coin a phrase that in fact is both tautological, oxmoronic and has

absolutely no meaning at all, except for the fact that it follows

blindly in the tradition of Padmapada's Panchapadica sub-commentary.

It is our knowledge that is false, and it is 'due to this false

knowledge' that we "mutally superimpose,and mix up the REAL Self and

the UNREAL non-Self".(This is the literal and accurate translation of

the Adhyasa Bhashya).

Mithya here only means false. There is no question of any reference

to a third catagory of existence.(Of couse if we accepted the notion

of a 'False Ignorance', that is a 'Material Cause', then we might want

to speculate wheather this constitutes a 'third type of existence'.

Hari Om

Atmachaitnya

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote:

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> >

> > advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> > <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> >

> > > > There is no third category called mithya. I have

> > > > never seen Shankara use mithya as a third category,

> > > > and any reference in this regard would be useful.

> >

> > The question I had asked was not about Shankara using the

> > term 'mithya' or 'jagan-mithya', but whether the term 'mithya' is

> > used by Shankara as a third category apart from the terms 'real'

> > and 'unreal'. As I see it, he doesn't.

>

> Namaste,

>

> In the adhyAsa-bhAShya, introduction to the Brahmasutras,

> Shankara defines mthya as:

>

> "..tathA.api anayonyasminnanyonya AtmakatAmanyonya dharmAshchaadhyAsa

> itaretara avivekenaatyanta viviktayoH dharmadharmiNoH

> mithyAj~nAnanimittaH satyAnR^ite mithunIkR^itya ahamidaM mAmedam iti

> naisargiko.ayam lokavyavahAraH || "

>

> ...."Nevertheless, owing to an absence of discrimination between these

> attributes, as also between substances, which are absolutely

> disparate, there continues a natural human behavior based on

> self-identification in the form of "I am this" or "This is mine".

> This behavior has for its material cause an unreal nescience and man

> resorts to it by mixing up reality with unreality as a result of

> superimposing the things themselves or their attributes on each other."

> [sw. Gambhirananda transl.]

>

> Whether this would constitute a third 'category'(Real and Unreal

> being the other two) or not is the question raised.

>

> I shall try to find the reference after I understand the

> definition of "category" in this context! (and in what form it would

> be expressed, even hypothetically).

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

August 16, 2004

Dear Sunderji,

Please change the phrase 'False Ignorance' in my last post to

'Unreal Ignorance'. This will be more accurate and will make the point

I was trying to make even clearer.

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

- In advaitin, "atmachaitanya" <atmachaitanya> wrote:

> Dear Sunderji,

>

> As one of the sanskrit authorities on this site, I respectfully

> would like to point out that one must be carefull about taking any

> english translations as accurately conveying Shankara's doctrins.

> When Swami Gambirananda tanslates 'Mithyaajnana nimittaha" as "its

> material cause an unreal ignorance",he has not merely made a bad

> translation, but he has actually twisted the meaning to fit his own

> misconceptons about Shankara's Vedanta. By the word 'Nimittaha"

> Shankara only means cause in the sense of 'due to', there is

> absolutely no reason to add the word 'material' in this context. And

> more importantly, to translate 'Mithyaa jnana' as 'false ignorance' is

> to coin a phrase that in fact is both tautological, oxmoronic and has

> absolutely no meaning at all, except for the fact that it follows

> blindly in the tradition of Padmapada's Panchapadica sub-commentary.

>

> It is our knowledge that is false, and it is 'due to this false

> knowledge' that we "mutally superimpose,and mix up the REAL Self and

> the UNREAL non-Self".(This is the literal and accurate translation of

> the Adhyasa Bhashya).

> Mithya here only means false. There is no question of any reference

> to a third catagory of existence.(Of couse if we accepted the notion

> of a 'False Ignorance', that is a 'Material Cause', then we might want

> to speculate wheather this constitutes a 'third type of existence'.

>

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitnya

>

> advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> > advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> > <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> > >

> > > advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> > > <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> > >

> > > > > There is no third category called mithya. I have

> > > > > never seen Shankara use mithya as a third category,

> > > > > and any reference in this regard would be useful.

> > >

> > > The question I had asked was not about Shankara using the

> > > term 'mithya' or 'jagan-mithya', but whether the term 'mithya' is

> > > used by Shankara as a third category apart from the terms 'real'

> > > and 'unreal'. As I see it, he doesn't.

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > In the adhyAsa-bhAShya, introduction to the Brahmasutras,

> > Shankara defines mthya as:

> >

> > "..tathA.api anayonyasminnanyonya AtmakatAmanyonya dharmAshchaadhyAsa

> > itaretara avivekenaatyanta viviktayoH dharmadharmiNoH

> > mithyAj~nAnanimittaH satyAnR^ite mithunIkR^itya ahamidaM mAmedam iti

> > naisargiko.ayam lokavyavahAraH || "

> >

> > ...."Nevertheless, owing to an absence of discrimination between these

> > attributes, as also between substances, which are absolutely

> > disparate, there continues a natural human behavior based on

> > self-identification in the form of "I am this" or "This is mine".

> > This behavior has for its material cause an unreal nescience and man

> > resorts to it by mixing up reality with unreality as a result of

> > superimposing the things themselves or their attributes on each

other."

> > [sw. Gambhirananda transl.]

> >

> > Whether this would constitute a third 'category'(Real and Unreal

> > being the other two) or not is the question raised.

> >

> > I shall try to find the reference after I understand the

> > definition of "category" in this context! (and in what form it would

> > be expressed, even hypothetically).

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Sunder

August 16, 2004

Namaste Atmachaitanyaji.

You have a point there - false ignorance is a real oxymoron.

However, something else more serious in your arguments puzzles me.

Please refer to this quote from:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/adhyasa_bhashyam.htm

QUOTE

Shankara's reply runs as follows:

TathA'pi anyonyasmin,…naisargiko'yam loka vyavahAraha

It is, however, a matter of common experience (loka vyavahAraha),

that, through lack of discrimination (avivekena), we superimpose

concepts on each other (anyonyasmin, anyonyAtmakatAm) and their

attributes (anyonyadharmAn cha adhyasa), even though they and their

attributes are utterly distinct in nature (atyanta viviktayoh dharma-

dharmiNoh), impelled by false knowledge (mithyAjnAna-nimittaha), it

is an innate human error (naisargikah) to confuse the real and the

non, real or the "I" and "mine" (satyAnrte mithunIkrtya, aham idam

mamedam iti).

In other words, shankara tells us " but common experience shows us

that we do it all the time! *We see duality where in reality there is

none,* we mistake one thing for another every day". That we do this

is not through any mystery but is innate. The mixing up is adhyAsa.

Shankara will later go on to say that this adhyAsa has always been

there, and is therefore beginingless. It is important to make an

important clarification here. Shankara proceeds on the same basis as

the Sruti, which takes it as axiomatic that brahman is the ultimate

reality. *We find very few instances where discussions occur

to "prove" that the correct view of the world is that there is an

Ultimate Reality called brahman.* For shankara and the Sruti this was

self evident that Atman is self -established (swayam prasiddhatwaat).

Viewed from this transcendental viewpoint of reality it is clear why

shankara views this mixing of the real and the non real as an error.

This is fundamental to understanding shankara's tradition of advaita.

All that is required for knowledge is to remove this error to reveal

brahman, *and the universe will naturally be seen in its true light*.

UNQUOTE

That is a link by Shri Saxena, if I remember his name right, which

you and Stigji very strongly recommended (and which I have perused

with utomost satisfaction umpteeen number of times) to all of us here

a couple of years ago and am sure, in your correct translation of

Sankara's statement in question, you have derived inspiration from

it. I do agree with that translation, which avoids the ambiguities

of Sw. GambhIrAnandaji.

However, I, and all of us here for that matter, would like to know

how you would relate your advocation and strong defence of Shri

Bhaskarji et al yesterday on this List of a total negation of the

universe to the portions asterisked by me in the above quote. You

definitely are not holding a diffrent view from that expressed in the

essay you yourself so very strongly recommended to us?

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

______________________

advaitin, "atmachaitanya" <atmachaitanya>

wrote:

> Dear Sunderji,

>

> As one of the sanskrit authorities on this site, I

respectfully