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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

The question is very simple.

 

Do you accept the statement "The world, as it really is, is Brahman

alone"?

 

Your posts in the past have given the impression that you are

unwilling to accept this Truth. Your current post has confirmed it.

 

You are right you have never rejected the world from vyAvahArika

drishti. You can't afford to do that because you are very much in the

vyAvahArika playing roles. I am no exception.

 

The question that now remains to be answered is if you do accept that

the world, as it really is, is Brahman alone - a statement supported

by shAstrA?

 

If you do not, then your clarifications can continue.

 

Kindly note that the word world or universe encompasses all the seen -

all objectified phenomena - including dreams, thoughts, concepts,

ideas etc. So, it is the sum of all externalizations and

internalizations through waking, dream states etc. Also, please

don't call miTyA unreal.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

 

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

> Humble praNAms Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji & Sri Madathil Nair

prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> > The world as it really is, is Brahman alone. It always was

> that,

> > it is that, and it will always be just that. (The 'mistaken snake'

> as

> > it really is, is the rope alone. It always was that , it is

that ,

> > and it will alawys be just that.)

> ____________________________

>

> [May I repeat your statement: "The world, as it really is, is

> Brahman alone.". I don't think Bhaskarji has accepted that Truth.

> He wants to assign the world to the dustbin and has an antipathy for

> that word. That was the main reason for all these unnecessary

> arguments beginning from the day I posted my "purNamadah" piece,

> which have continued in disguise through CN's recent expedition. If

> he can accept it now, I am prepared to close shop on this issue and

> depart peacefully leaving everyone here in one piece.]

>

> bhaskar :

>

>......... Please note I've never ever denied the

> existence of world/s from vyAvahArika drushti. I've been

incessantly

> trying to convey the socalled world what we are perceiving here now

has the

> temporal reality ( I think this is what sAvithri mAtAji also told

in one of

> her mails) & very much restricted to waker. So is the case with

dreamer

> with his world. waker's world & its time & space cannot get entry

into the

> dream................

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Atmachaitanya-ji,

 

Please let me disclaim any such attribute you have so

generously conferred! I only act as a librarian/resource person for

the list.

 

My reading is very simple: mithyA is satya + anRita, what

one negates is the anRita part, not the whole, of the world.

 

For a Jivanmukta's exposition of Advaita, one can meditate

on this dialogue with Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati (Sringeri

Mathadhipati 1912-1954):

 

http://www.srisharada.com/QA/Advaita.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "atmachaitanya" <atmachaitanya>

wrote:

>

> 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 doctrines.

[Guest guest]

Sunder-ji writes...

 

(Please let me disclaim any such attribute you have so

generously conferred! I only act as a librarian/resource person for

the list.)

 

Classic Understatement .

 

A man of few words but when He speaks , pearls copme out of our

Sunder-ji's sri mukham ( mouth)

 

over the past few months, i have learned so much from our Sunderji.

He has his Guru's GRACE And Devi's Kataksham ( the divine mother's

infinite grace) ... He is twice blessed!

 

now, sunder-ji , i am royally confused...

 

what does *Mithya* mean?

 

1) unreal

 

2) false

 

3) dream

 

4) maYa

 

5) illusion

 

6) myth

 

7) fiction

 

8) untrue

 

ETC....

 

How come this has become such a 'complex' issue?

 

Maybe, JAGAT IS NOT MITYA? WILL THAT SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

 

SINCE EVERYTHING IS BRAHMAN WHICH INCLUDES JAGAT AS WELL, WHY NOT

ADMIT THAT JAGAT IS 'REAL' AS IT IS 'BRAHMAN' AND SINCE bRAHMAN ALONE

IS REAL ALL ELSE IS REAL .... THE ONLY UNREAL THING IS ALL THESE

INVOLVED DISCUSSIONS LEADING TO 'NO MAN'S LAND' ? .... i think , it

is time to move on.... from the unreal to the real... the next topic-

Greg GoOdde's hOW TO PRACTICE VEDANTA IN REAL LIFE?

 

regards

 

ps in tamizh, there is a saying when a cat closes its eyes , it

thinks the whole world is asleep !! maybe we vedantins can close our

eyes and dream that the World is Real!!!!!! smiles!!!!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

praNAm Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Do you accept the statement "The world, as it really is, is Brahman

alone"?

 

bhaskar :

 

which world do you want me to accept as brahman that is my simple query to

you :-)) should I call this world (waking??!!) is real & brahman or should

I call my dream world which is as real as waking world when I am dreaming

is real & brahman...what happens to both these brahmans when I am in deep

sleep?? if the world is brahman what makes its absence in my deep sleep??

If brahman is the ONLY reality why should I prefix & suffix it by the word

world is brahman, mAya is brahman etc.etc.?? As said earlier reality

should be existed unchanged & without any intermission. The waking & dream

world cannot meet this requirement. Either brahman also should have the

dependent existence to call everything brahman or reality should be

uninterrupted for ever without getting swayed by time & space...which one

of the definition you want me take as final say.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Your posts in the past have given the impression that you are

unwilling to accept this Truth. Your current post has confirmed it.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, as far as possible I clarified my stand on reality based on

avasthAtraya prakriya.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

You are right you have never rejected the world from vyAvahArika

drishti. You can't afford to do that because you are very much in the

vyAvahArika playing roles. I am no exception.

 

bhaskar :

 

thanks for accepting it. Atleast now you can say I am not throwing world

to the dustbin in vyavahAra :-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

The question that now remains to be answered is if you do accept that

the world, as it really is, is Brahman alone - a statement supported

by shAstrA?

 

bhaskar :

 

AGain which world you are talking here prabhuji?? shruti gives same status

to both vishwa & taijasa (saptAnga yEkOnaviMshati mukhaH --see mAndukya

shruti). Kindly let me know which world should I accept as brahman & why??

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Kindly note that the word world or universe encompasses all the seen -

all objectified phenomena - including dreams, thoughts, concepts,

ideas etc. So, it is the sum of all externalizations and

internalizations through waking, dream states etc. Also, please

don't call miTyA unreal.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji can you tell me whether in our avastha there is world or in world

we are having avastha-s?? which is the more appropriate word in english

for mithyA prabhuji??

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

Humble praNAms

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The entire discussions on "Real and Unreal" and "Mithya- myth or ...

something else" are quite fascinating. This 'akaara or food for

thought' though tasty but it appears rather too much for our

digestion. Sooner or later we may reach the conclusion that

this `akaara' could become detrimental to our `well-being!'

 

The original starting point is the scriptures where the following

assertions have been either made or implied:

(1) "Brahman only knows the Brahman."

(2) "More we know, the more we don't know!"

 

Our discussions during the past several months (Purnamidham by Sri

Madhathil, 'mAyA in Vedas' by Sri Ken and "Real and Unreal" by Sri

Ken provided substantial evidence in support of the above two

assertions. At the same time these discussions did not reveal

nothing more than the above two assertions. The first

assertion, "Brahman only knows the Brahman" is identical to the

assertion, "Brahman is the only Brahman."

 

Now the answer to the question, "What is World?" depends on how we

define the world. Any definition of the 'world' will also bring the

unwanted intruder, "mithya." The natural question that comes to our

mind is "who defines the world?" The one and only who is qualified

to define the "world" is the Brahman! Sankara Bhagavadpada

identified this puzzle and made the assertion: Brahman is the Truth

(Brahmaiva Satyam) and the World is mithya (Jagat mithya). I

believe that Sankara's assertion is consistent with assertions from

the scriptures. The fundamental question that remains unanswered is -

"Who is the Brahman" or "Who am I?" Obviously the answer to the

question is necessarily that "Brahman is self-revealed."

 

The central question, "whether the world is real?" yielded more than

one answer. Each answer to the above question depended on how the

world is defined. The three competing answers (each is conceivable

as well as refutable at the same time) are

:

(1) World is "Real" with the assumption that there is no world

without the Brahman.

(2) World consists of real and unreal (myth) and myth part is due to

ignorance (avidya)

(3) World is a myth and the entire world is due to ignorance (avidya)

 

In the presence of the `myth' (due to avidya) it is impossible for

any of us to categorically declare that Sri CN (first definition of

the world) or Murthygaru (second definition of the world) or Bhasker

Prabhuji (third definition of the world) is the `real' winner of

these debates. Recently someone asked the question, then why should

we waste our time creating, discussing and negating the `myths.'

That question effectively is also a `myth!'

 

For all of us this and other questions and doubts often arise in our

minds: "who is asking these questions and who is creating the

answers?" The doubts and answers can be attributable to the

presence of myth. The final myth is our belief that we will get

the `real'when the "Brahman is self-revealed!"

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: In the presence of `avidya' that everything that I have

written above is also a `myth!'

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

My answer to your question:

 

The world of externalized as well as internalized objectifications

where you know that you were a dreamer and a sleeper, where you say

that you dreamt and slept, inclusive of the contents of your dreams.

The world from which you don't have the experience of waking up as

you normally do from dreams and dreamless sleep.

 

The question is not if it is *real and brahman*. The question is: Do

you accept Shri Atmachaitanyaji's statement "The world, as it really

is, is Brahman alone"?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

 

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

> Namaste Bhaskarji.

>

> praNAm Sri MN prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> Do you accept the statement "The world, as it really is, is Brahman

> alone"?

>

> bhaskar :

>

> which world do you want me to accept as brahman that is my simple

query to

> you :-)) should I call this world (waking??!!) is real & brahman

or should

> I call my dream world which is as real as waking world when I am

dreaming

> is real & brahman...what happens to both these brahmans when I am

in deep

> sleep?? ...............................

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nairji,

 

Having read your reply to Shri AtmaChaitanyaji, I fully agree with

you that the focus of negation is duality and not the world. The same

world that is seen as plural and multitudinous when in the thrall of

avidya then sublimates into the Oneness of Brahman. I use the

word 'sublimates' because it seems appropriate to say that the world

is made sublime when it is revealed in its identity with the

effulgence of Brahman. I believe that your focus on the removal of

bheda is the right approach to pure Advaita. Thank you.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> 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 .

> ________________________

>

> [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.]

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> 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.

 

It may appear from my objections to some of your points that I

disagree with you much more than I do, but actually I find your

position closer to what I understand than those of many others. Also,

I have learnt/realised two very important things by reading your

notes in the files section - (1) About two types of errors, one due

to viparya and the other due to vikalpa, and (2) that the truth is

partially revealed even when there is an error. The second point

(which is from your notes on adhyasa) confirms to me what I had

always believed - that vyavaharika sathya is the One Truth seen

through avidya. Thank you.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

 

praNAm MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

My answer to your question:

 

The world of externalized as well as internalized objectifications

where you know that you were a dreamer and a sleeper, where you say

that you dreamt and slept, inclusive of the contents of your dreams.

 

bhaskar :

 

but dont we objectifying the waker also in our analysis prabhuji?? If the

waker is the our true svarUpa, how can we objectify the waker like dreamer

& sleeper prabhuji?? There should be *something* which is mere witness to

all these three states is it not?? for him/it/her can you attribute any

world prabhuji??

 

MN prabhuji:

 

The world from which you don't have the experience of waking up as

you normally do from dreams and dreamless sleep.

 

bhaskar :

 

I know you are talking about shankara's objection in sUtra bhAshya here.

But prabhuji pls. note this is shankara's refutation of vijnAnavAdin who

has not accepted the existence of chaitanya in deep sleep. From this single

statement of shankara, we may not be able to ascertain what exactly was

there in his mind about avasthAtraya & our sAkshi svarUpa. Shankara made

his stand amply clear in kArikA bhAshya wherein he says both worlds are

mere appearance in ever existing sAkshi. By the way, while dreaming do you

think " just now I came from waking to the dream & now I am dreaming ??

dreamer is the *waker* in his dreaming just like waker in his world.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

The question is not if it is *real and brahman*. The question is: Do

you accept Shri Atmachaitanyaji's statement "The world, as it really

is, is Brahman alone"?

 

bhaskar :

 

I request Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji to elaborate more on this line *the

world as it really is*...Ultil that my question i.e. * which world* should

I accept *as it is* & is *really brahman*....remains intact

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

Please see inside the brackets .

 

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

>

> praNAm MN prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> My answer to your question:

>

> The world of externalized as well as internalized objectifications

> where you know that you were a dreamer and a sleeper, where you say

> that you dreamt and slept, inclusive of the contents of your dreams.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> but dont we objectifying the waker also in our analysis prabhuji??

If the

> waker is the our true svarUpa, how can we objectify the waker like

dreamer

> & sleeper prabhuji?? There should be *something* which is mere

witness to

> all these three states is it not?? for him/it/her can you

attribute any

> world prabhuji??

_______

 

[i said all objectifications. So, this also is included.]

_______

> MN prabhuji:

>

> The world from which you don't have the experience of waking up as

> you normally do from dreams and dreamless sleep.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> I know you are talking about shankara's objection in sUtra bhAshya

here.

> But prabhuji pls. note this is shankara's refutation of

vijnAnavAdin who

> has not accepted the existence of chaitanya in deep sleep. From

this single

> statement of shankara, we may not be able to ascertain what exactly

was

> there in his mind about avasthAtraya & our sAkshi svarUpa.

Shankara made

> his stand amply clear in kArikA bhAshya wherein he says both worlds

are

> mere appearance in ever existing sAkshi. By the way, while

dreaming do you

> think " just now I came from waking to the dream & now I am

dreaming ??

> dreamer is the *waker* in his dreaming just like waker in his world.

_________________

 

[i am not talking Sankara. I am talking common-sense and normal

experience. To that last question: I have often become aware in

dreams that I am dreaming and I should wake up. This mostly happens

during day-sleep when there is a lot of external stimulii like light

and sound around. Often, I wake into another dream and then into

another before hitting the so-called world of wakefulness. This is

the case with many people. There is a recorded classic example of

Bertrand Russel waking through several dream states after

anaesthesia. However, I have never woken up from the so-called state

of wakefulness.]

________________________________

> MN prabhuji:

>

> The question is not if it is *real and brahman*. The question is:

Do

> you accept Shri Atmachaitanyaji's statement "The world, as it really

> is, is Brahman alone"?

>

> bhaskar :

>

> I request Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji to elaborate more on this line

*the

> world as it really is*...Ultil that my question i.e. * which world*

should

> I accept *as it is* & is *really brahman*....remains intact

____

 

[He has said what he has to say. Don't throw the ball again to him.]

 

[As we say at the end of official letters: Thanks for your excellent

cooperation.]

 

[i am closing this issue.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

praNAm MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

 

MN prabhuji:

> bhaskar :

>

> but dont we objectifying the waker also in our analysis prabhuji??

If the

> waker is the our true svarUpa, how can we objectify the waker like

dreamer

> & sleeper prabhuji?? There should be *something* which is mere

witness to

> all these three states is it not?? for him/it/her can you

attribute any

> world prabhuji??

_______

 

[i said all objectifications. So, this also is included.]

_______

 

bhaskar:

 

when all are objectified there must be something to objectify it no?? it

cannot be waker in that case :-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[i am not talking Sankara. I am talking common-sense and normal

experience.

 

bhaskar :

 

when shankara talks about avasthAtraya he is not talking common sense &

normal experience prabhuji:-)) what is normal experience here?? when we

are talking *normal* experience, this experience should include all the

experiences of waker & dreamer as well. We cannot validate the experience

of dream from waking coz. waker cannot go to the dream !!

 

MN prabhuji:

 

To that last question: I have often become aware in

dreams that I am dreaming and I should wake up. This mostly happens

during day-sleep when there is a lot of external stimulii like light

and sound around. Often, I wake into another dream and then into

another before hitting the so-called world of wakefulness. This is

the case with many people. There is a recorded classic example of

Bertrand Russel waking through several dream states after

anaesthesia. However, I have never woken up from the so-called state

of wakefulness.]

 

bhaskar :

 

dreamer having dreams in dream is also a *dream* only when you are talking

about it from waker's point of view!! otherwise you'll have to agree that

the dreamer who is having the dreams in dream is *waker* & analysing his

*dreams* in dreams...do you agree with it prabhuji?? dont you wake up to

the dreaming world everynight from waking prabhuji:-))

MN prabhuji:

 

[He has said what he has to say. Don't throw the ball again to him.]

 

bhaskar :

 

I could not able to read his delivery. Hence defended back to him for the

next delivery :-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[As we say at the end of official letters: Thanks for your excellent

cooperation.]

 

bhaskar :

 

thanks prabhuji :-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[i am closing this issue.]

 

bhaskar :

 

but for me this is still an open issue :-))

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Followers of This Thread,

 

Although I thought I made my possition as clear as possible

reagarding the status of the world according to Guadapada, Shankara

and Suresvara, It seems as if there still might be some ambiquity

regarding my viewpoint. I Shall try once again to make it as clear as

possible:

NO CREATION, NO DESTRUCTION, NO SOUL IN BONDAGE,

NO ONE PRACTICING, NO ONE DESIRING LIBERATION AND

NO ONE LIBERATED. THIS IS THE HIGHEST TRUTH. GK.2-32

 

The focus of negation is not merely Duality, it is the World!

Duality and the World are not two diferent things. When one goes the

other goes. There is no Duality without the World and there is no

World without Duality. For those trying to remove the Duality and

retain the World, to remove all distinctions and continue to percieve

the world, to get rid of all Bheda(differences)yet know the world(even

as 'non-different'from Brahman)have not only taken on an impossible

task, they contradict the Bhrid. Upanishadic passage:

 

 

"Where there is Duality 'AS IT WERE" (IVA), then one sees an

other, one hears another....one knows another.

But, when to the wise one, All has become the Self ALONE, then

what will He see and with what, what will He hear and with

what.....what will he know and with what?"

 

 

For those who are trying to retain the World, Names and Forms,or

anything else in th Non-Dual Absolute by the misguided approach of

appealing to Shankaras discussions regarding the relation of Cause and

the Effect(Karana Karya Sambandha), or the relationship of the

Unviversal and the Particular (Samanya,Vishesha Sambhanda), ther have

entirely missed the point of these teachings.

 

Brhaman is niether a Cause nor is it a Universal. these

ascriptions are merely attributed to Brahman in order to negate other

wrong ideas that one may be harboring. After these ideas have served

their purpose, they too are negated leaving the Self-Revealed, Self-

Established Brahman to shine forth of its own accord. This is the

traditional method of Vedanta . Adhyaropa, Apavada: Deliberate

superimposition of some attribute on the Absolute, and the subsequent

reccision of that attribute after it has served its purpose.

Cause and Effect

1) For example Brahman is said to be the 'Cause' of everything in

order to deny that there is any other source for this universe. Then

the Universe is shown to be merely an appearance, a creation of

speach, a phenomena that comes and goes with Waking or Dream, and so

non-existent as it appears. Once the 'Effect' has been negated then

Brahman is no longer seen as a 'Cause' for anything. It then remains

in its true nature as the Non-Dual Absolute. As a knower of the true

Vedantic Tradition has clearly pointed out:

 

"As for creation variously described( in the Srutis) by

illustrations such as clay, gold and sparks etc., IT IS ONLY A DEVICE

for introducing (the seekers mind to the Non-duality of the Self).In

fact, There are no disticions whatsoever." GK. 3-15

 

Later in the 4th chapter of his Karikas Gaudapada shows how the two

possible views regarding causality (sat karya vada--asat karya vada)

can not withstand rational scrutiny.

 

"'Nothing that already exists can be born', 'That which is

non-existant can never be born'! The dualists are thus disputing and

so ar revealing the fact of NO BIRTH." GK.4-4

 

"For him whose opinion is that the CAUSE is the EFFECT

the Cause itself is born; being born how could it be without

 

birth, and how could it be changed and yet be eternal?"GK 4-11

 

(This is a refutation of the view that the Effect pre-exists in

an eternal Cause. Therefore the Vedantis conclusion is that there is

really nothing born, the only Reality being One without a second)

To repeat, the description of Brahman as the cause of the bith,

sustenation and dissolution of the Universe is only a device- the

device of deliberately superimposing a causal nature on Brahman in

order to transcend all idea of cuasality.

Universal and Particular

2)From the standpoint of Ultimate Reality there can be no

creative Cause, efficient or materia; there can be no Univese created

as an effect; no action, instruments of action, or the fruits of

action; no time, space or causality; and thus, nothing predicable as

substace or quality, nothing changefull or changeless, born or unborn,

no act or its consequence and;

'NO RELATION OF UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR'

However, For the purpose of teaching, out of compassion, the

Sritis and the Gurus take hold of certain empirical examples to

illustrate how the Universal is indespensible for the Particulars to

enjoy their being, and hence concludes that the Universal is ther real

Being. And thus deliberately superimposing Universality upon Brahman,

the Srutis apply various examples to demonstrate that all Particulars

in the world depend upon Brahman for its being and is therefor

identical with it. The Upanishad gives the following example:

 

"Just as while a drum is being beaten, one cannot grasp the

particular sounds apart from it, but being grasped as the sounds of a

drum, or as the outcome of its beating the drum, the sound is

grasped." Br 2-4-7

 

Other examples are then given to demonstrate that the particular

sounds in themselves cannot be grasped except by referring them to

their source. Shankara then expains the purpose of these various

illustrations of particulars and their universals;

 

" The citation here of many examples, is to draw the listener's

attention to the fact that there are many genera. For there are many

sub-genera, sentient and non-sentient. Therefore the intention is to

show how in succession all of them are included in the Highest genus

of Pure Consciousness just as sub-varities of sounds of the drum,

conch and the vina, are comprhended in sound in general. Thus during

the state of sustination, since the sub-genera are not apart from

Brahman, it is possible to conclude the BRAHMAN ALONE IS REAL."

Br.Bh.2-4-9

 

The force of the argument lies in the fact that no phenomenon

in the empirical realm can lay claim to any being of its own, unless

it is recognized as a species of a genus common to all particular

phenomena of its nature. Now, all these genera are themselvs

ultimately dependent on the Pure Consciouness which is Brahman.That

all phenomena, interior,(psychic) or exterior (physical) enjoy their

existence through the grace of Consciouness--not empirical

consciouness, but the Pure Witnessing Consciouness-- whose non-

existence is inconcievable,is not a mere speculation, a religous

dogma, an artical of faith or an inferential conclusion, but rather it

is based on the firm ground of universal common experience. That no

object can exist except within a State (waking or Dream), and no State

can or does ever exist except in the Unchanging Eternal light of Pure

Conciouness is based on an appeal to UNIVERSAL COMMON EXPERIENCE, and

thus can never be refuted by any logician now or in the future.

 

Thus we see that the vedantas make use of the device of Adhyaropa

Apavada Deliberate superimposion and recission by taking the

illustrations of Universals and Particulars from common life and

superinposing the charactoric of the supreme Universal on Brahman,

leads the seeker to the realization of the Brahman who is non dual ,

One witout a second, forever bereft of particularsand therefor not a

Universal ( This is the Apavada).

 

Hari Om Tat Sat

Atmachaitanya

 

PS. When Chitaranjan states 'Happiness and sorrow and all

qualifictions are eternal in Brahman; When he states 'Shankara does

not say that Names and Forms are created by Ignorance;When he says

'In Shankara,Avidya is equated to maya as one atribute of Maya'. When

he says' it is wrong to deny that avidya is bhava rupa (deny that

ignorance is a positive thing) and still insist that the world of

forms is caused by Ignorance. He merely betrays a total lack of

correct understanding with regard to Advaita Vedanta, to the

Tradtional Method of Vedanta, nor has he grasped Shankara's Heart,

being the pre-eminent representative and the greaest elucitator and

clarifyer of this extremly profoud methodological approach to Truth

and Reality. Shankara himself so highly esteems this 'traditial

method' that he writes forcefully in the following manner:

 

"Though a Man be learned in all the scriptures, should he be

bereft of the Tradtional Method of Teaching,the Method of Deliberate

superimpositin and Recission (Adhyaropa Apavada) he should be regarded

as a FOOL, as a Blind Man leading the Blind!" (Gita Bhashya)

 

 

 

"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

 

Namaste Shri Nairji,

>

> Having read your reply to Shri AtmaChaitanyaji, I fully agree with

> you that the focus of negation is duality and not the world.

I believe that your focus on the removal of

> bheda is the right approach to pure Advaita. Thank you.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>