Ajativada and Vivartavada (earlier 'Problem of Evil')

December 3, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

________________________

> bhaskar prabhuji writes:

>

> The point to be noted here before taking the state of sleep is, this

> analysation should be done from the neutral view point i.e. neutral

to all

> the three states. We cannot pass judgement on waking from dream

neither we

> can do so on sleeping holding waking is the only reality & dream &

sleep

> are experiencing from & in waking state. In my y'days mail I said

that

> sAkshianubhava which is giving the knowledge of both jnAna vrutti &

ajnAna

> vrutti...Now, the same witness consciousness to be used to analyse

our

> three states..shankara calls this in kArikA bhAshya as *avasthAtraya

> sAkshi*.

________________________

MN prabhuji asks:

>From which state are you stating the sAkshi's point of view on

avastAtraya!? From which state are you aware of the existence of a

sAkshi? This question relates to most parts of your post which I have

not quoted for the sake of brevity.

__

> bhaskar prabhuji continues:

>

> No, the question of elimination does not come into picture at all,

self

> realization reveals the fact that world was/is/will never be there

& it is

> kEvala avidyA kalpita (figment of imagination) due to our wrong

> identification with limited adjuncts.

__

MN prabhuji has this to point out:

You once vehemently denied using the term "figment of imagination".

Have you forgotten that?

_____

> bhaskar prabhuji continues :

>

> By giving this *folded* umbrella example you are saying that in

deep sleep

> jagat is there in avyAkruta/avyakta rUpa (universe will be there in

deep

> sleep in seed form), but this is what shankara bhagavad pAda

vehemently

> refuted in kArika bhAshya. Further, it is totally unacceptable to

the

> theory that brahman=world here..The problem here is if at all

brahman is

> equated with world, we have to assume that brahman also getting

folded in

> deep sleep state!!! if not, then you will have to agree in the

presence of

> unchanged brahman, the world getting folded & expanding in every

night &

> day...how can it be reconciled in terms of brahman=jagat kindly

clarify.

>

> (I've noted the correction in your last sentence prabhuji.)

_____________________

Amazed MN prabhuji wonders:

If you have noted the clarificatory 'correction', there is no need

for your above paragraph or for the requested clarification from me

because there really is no folding back and unfolding.

______________________

> bhaskar prabhuji says:

>

> Kindly quote me the nearest possible sanskrit word for this *the

inversion

> of persepctive* prabhuji...so that I can able to understand the

context

> better. I know dictionary meaning does not going to help me here.

___________________________

MN prabhuji answers:

What I termed 'outlook' and what I understand is meant by

CNji's "inversion of perspective" is beautifully described by none

other than Sankara himself in the concluding verse of his famous

DakshiNAmUrti Ashtakam thus:

"Sarvaatmattvamiti sphutikritamidam

yasmaadamushmin stave

Tenaasya sravanaattadarthamananaat

dyaanaatchasankirtanaat;

Sarvatmatvamahaa vibhooti sahitam

syaadisvaratvam svatah

Sidhyettatpunarashtadhaa parinatam

chaisvaryamavyaahatam"

"The Knowledge "all-this-Atman (Sarvaatmattvam) has been explained in

this Hymn and so, by hearing it, by reflecting and meditating upon

its meaning and by reciting it, one will attain that Divine State,

endued with the glory of the all-Self-hood, along with the permanent

eight-fold holy-powers of Godhood."

(Transliteration and translation exactly as appearing in "Hymn to Sri

Dakshinamoorthy by Sri Sankaracharya - Commentary - Swami

Chinmayananda).

So, what I meant by 'outlook'(the word I used) is this sarvAtmatvam

as opposed to my ignorant default outlook constricted by upAdhIs (BMI

& ego). This, I understand is what CNji meant by 'inversion of

perspective'. I request CNji to state whether or not I am right in

my understanding and whether or not the above verse reflects his

message.

Now, don't jump in saying that Sankara wrote only bhAshyAs and the

Hymn cannot be attributed to his pen. Then, I will be at a total

loss. I remember you once said something of that sort.

Note: I am only after this sarvAtmatvam and, if it brings along with

it the 'permanent eight-fold holy powers of Godhood', well it is just

a bonus which I cannot resist accepting!

___________________________

> bhaskar prabhuji wonders :

>

> I'd love to join hands with you prabhuji, but what to do my

> mis/understanding of shankara philosophy does not allow me to

accompany

> you..But I earnestly hope we are sailing in the same boat holding

different

> edges to stand stable :-))

_________________________________

MN prabhuji assures:

I am standing quite stable whether the boat shakes or not! And, I

don't see you in the boat. Welcome aboard, Prabhuji, if you so wish!

_________________________________

PraNAms to all Prabhujis.

Madthil Nair

December 4, 2004

Namaste Shri Nair-ji,

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> From which state are you stating the sAkshi's point of view on

> avastAtraya!? From which state are you aware of the existence

> of a sAkshi? This question relates to most parts of your post

> which I have not quoted for the sake of brevity.

That's a very good question, Nairji, and one which is fundamental to

Advaita Vedanta as a philosophy. The true answer to this question is

what fixes the frame of reference for Advaita as articulated through

the bhashyas on the prastana traya. It points out the reference-frame

for the formalism of 'nyayavada' as it exists within the praxis of

Vedic tradition.

Maya is self-referencing to itself and what is seen from the waking

state is self-referencing to the waking state. Maya determines the

deep contextual reflex with which we both see and respond to

experience, and this 'automatic' reflex cannot be overcome by any

amount of thinking or imagining oneself to be situated in another

state. It is one thing to consider and study the dream and deep sleep

states from the waking state and another thing to actually take

currently non-present states as the frames of reference.

The self-referencing nature of Maya presents many paradoxes. The

false difference that arises from this nature of Maya forms the basis

on which Shankara subtly knocks out the arguments of both the

bhedabhada and Dvaita schools (even before Dvaita had arrived on the

scene).

> What I termed 'outlook' and what I understand is meant by

> CNji's "inversion of perspective" is beautifully described

> by none other than Sankara himself in the concluding verse

> of his famous DakshiNAmUrti Ashtakam thus:

>

> "Sarvaatmattvamiti sphutikritamidam

> yasmaadamushmin stave

> Tenaasya sravanaattadarthamananaat

> dyaanaatchasankirtanaat;

> Sarvatmatvamahaa vibhooti sahitam

> syaadisvaratvam svatah

> Sidhyettatpunarashtadhaa parinatam

> chaisvaryamavyaahatam"

>

> "The Knowledge "all-this-Atman (Sarvaatmattvam) has been

> explained in this Hymn and so, by hearing it, by reflecting

> and meditating upon its meaning and by reciting it, one will

> attain that Divine State, endued with the glory of the

> all-Self-hood, along with the permanent eight-fold

> holy-powers of Godhood."

>

> So, what I meant by 'outlook'(the word I used) is this

> sarvAtmatvam as opposed to my ignorant default outlook

> constricted by upAdhIs (BMI & ego). This, I understand

> is what CNji meant by 'inversion of perspective'. I

> request CNji to state whether or not I am right in my

> understanding and whether or not the above verse reflects

> his message.

We are in perfect agreement Nairji.

> Now, don't jump in saying that Sankara wrote only bhAshyAs and the

> Hymn cannot be attributed to his pen. Then, I will be at a total

> loss. I remember you once said something of that sort.

I am with you here Nairji. Shankara is One - the One that wrote the

prastana-traya bhashyas, the Sri Vidya text called 'Saundaryalahari'

and the 'Dakshinamurty Stotra' Hymn that is a bridge between Advaita

and Advaita Tantra.

Lastly, I am tempted to say these words: When we insist that the

unreal is REALLY unreal, we ground ourselves further into duality

THINKING that we have got to Advaita. When we see that there REALLY

is no unreal, then All is Real. That is Advaita that is Purna.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

December 4, 2004

namaste.

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> MN prabhuji asks (shri Bhaskar prabhu-ji):

>

> From which state are you stating the sAkshi's point of view on

> avastAtraya!? From which state are you aware of the existence of a

> sAkshi? This question relates to most parts of your post which I

have

> not quoted for the sake of brevity.

>

and shri CN-ji heartily endorses this question in his post. I am

sure shri Bhaskar-ji will present his understanding based on

prasthAnatraya bhAShya. In the meanwhile, let me present my

understanding on this.

The whole discussion originated from equating world to brahman

and ascribing the same reality to the world as to brahman -

all this being a continuation from the discussions of a few

months ago and surprisingly with the same participants.

I still hold the views I expressed at that time, viz that

jagat is mithya and does not have the same reality as brahman.

Now, for my understanding of the question raised by shri

madathil-ji.

Yes, the discussion is taking place in the wake-up state. But

it is the state that is causing the problem in understanding.

It is the rogue state with the antahkaraNa in its most ugly

rage, raising its head every second and completely masking

the sAkshibhAvatvam of the Atman . This sAkshibhAvatvam of

the Atman is there in every state but in the wake-up state

this sAkshibhAvatvam has been completely ignored by the

antahkaraNa. What we need to do is to struggle to make the

sAkshibhAvatvam shine in spite of the confusion created by

the wake-up state antahkaraNa. It has been stated in the

upanishads ( e.g. Chandogya upanishad 6.8.1) to study the

deep sleep state where the antahkaraNa is at rest so that

the confusion level (caused by the antahkaraNa) is not there

and sAkshi-bhAvatvam is the only thing that is present.

Unfortunately, our tool of study is the antahkaraNa and

hence the study has to be done in the wake-up state. But

study the deep-sleep state so that we have a much better

understanding of the sAkshibhAvatvam.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

December 4, 2004

Dear Shri Murthy-ji,

A small clarification....

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

> The whole discussion originated from equating world to brahman

> and ascribing the same reality to the world as to brahman -

There is a slight misunderstanding here. The same reality is not

ascribed to the world as to Brahman. A better way to express the

inexpressible would be to say that the world is 'nothing' without

Brahman as its Reality. There is an insurmountable barrier imposed by

language beyond this point.

> Unfortunately, our tool of study is the antahkaraNa and

> hence the study has to be done in the wake-up state.

True. I would state the same thing in a slightly different manner:

The waking state in which we have to study is inevitably the frame of

reference for the articulation of Advaita darshana. But the frame of

reference is certainly not the Truth, it is a point on the axis of

truth-falsity from where the falsity has to be dissolved to reveal

the Truth.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

December 4, 2004

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Murthy-ji,

>

> A small clarification....

>

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

>

> > The whole discussion originated from equating world to brahman

> > and ascribing the same reality to the world as to brahman -

>

> There is a slight misunderstanding here. The same reality is not

> ascribed to the world as to Brahman. A better way to express the

> inexpressible would be to say that the world is 'nothing' without

> Brahman as its Reality. There is an insurmountable barrier imposed

by

> language beyond this point.

>

namaste shri CN-ji,

Why do we want to try to express the inexpressible? Is it

not sufficient to say that brahman is inexpressible and

leave It at that? By trying to express the inexpressible

in this way, I feel an incorrect expression is being made.

Further, please see these differences. brahman is inexpressible

(as you also agreed). The world is fully expressible. Brahman

is always the subject (viShayi). World is always the object

(viShayam).

> > Unfortunately, our tool of study is the antahkaraNa and

> > hence the study has to be done in the wake-up state.

>

> True. I would state the same thing in a slightly different manner:

> The waking state in which we have to study is inevitably the frame

of

> reference for the articulation of Advaita darshana. But the frame

of

> reference is certainly not the Truth, it is a point on the axis of

> truth-falsity from where the falsity has to be dissolved to reveal

> the Truth.

>

Now, is the difficulty with the *understanding* or *articulation*

of advaitam? I see the present difficulty leading to this

discussion is due to the difference in the understanding of

advaitam. Articulation of advaitam is impossible because it

is beyond language. Many sages have said that maunam is the

best way of articulating advaita. I think we should be happy

with the correct understanding in which case we will see that

articulation is not possible.

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

December 4, 2004

Namaste Murthyji.

My comments are in . CNji has done a splendid job of explaining.

Yet, I thought a few words from my side are necessary.

______________________________

> The whole discussion originated from equating world to brahman

> and ascribing the same reality to the world as to brahman -

> all this being a continuation from the discussions of a few

> months ago and surprisingly with the same participants.

> I still hold the views I expressed at that time, viz that

> jagat is mithya and does not have the same reality as brahman.

[No one said that the world as seen limited and diverse is not

mithyA. Please recall Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi's quote that I

endorsed - "The world is unreal (mithyA) as the world but not as

Brahman". The whole discussion resulted not from equating *that

world* (as seen limited and diverse) to Brahman but from the vehement

declaration that the world is a figment of imagination that is to be

totally ignored or done away with.]

_

> Now, for my understanding of the question raised by shri

> madathil-ji.

>

> Yes, the discussion is taking place in the wake-up state. But

> it is the state that is causing the problem in understanding.

> It is the rogue state with the antahkaraNa in its most ugly

> rage, raising its head every second and completely masking

> the sAkshibhAvatvam of the Atman . This sAkshibhAvatvam of

> the Atman is there in every state but in the wake-up state

> this sAkshibhAvatvam has been completely ignored by the

> antahkaraNa. What we need to do is to struggle to make the

> sAkshibhAvatvam shine in spite of the confusion created by

> the wake-up state antahkaraNa. It has been stated in the

> upanishads ( e.g. Chandogya upanishad 6.8.1) to study the

> deep sleep state where the antahkaraNa is at rest so that

> the confusion level (caused by the antahkaraNa) is not there

> and sAkshi-bhAvatvam is the only thing that is present.

> Unfortunately, our tool of study is the antahkaraNa and

> hence the study has to be done in the wake-up state. But

> study the deep-sleep state so that we have a much better

> understanding of the sAkshibhAvatvam.

[Agreed. But, the deep sleep *experience* where the antahkarana is

at rest is studied and analysed after waking up. The sAkshibhavatvam

that reveals through the study will be proportional to the degree of

antahkarana suddhi. When the suddhi is total, the sAkshibhavatvam

completely shines forth without any trace of doubt. In other words,

the antakharana itself transforms into sAkshibhAvatvam freeing itself

from its erstwhile shackles of limitations to total freedom and

universality. Then, there is no more any constricted individual

antakharana that sees the erstwhile limited and diverse world as

separate from itself and plagued by that separation. Has the world

been done away with now? No. It remains one with the

sAkshibhAvatvam - the transformed universal antahkarana, where the

world cannot be a limited 'part' as the 'situation' cannot brook

any 'parts'. It is even wrong to call it a bhAvatvam. That is

SAkshi without there remaining anything to witness - the only ONE

WITHOUT A SECOND. The world has no existence aside from that ONE

and, as such, the world should be advaitically understood as that ONE

whether or not the sAkshibhAvatwam has fully blossomed or not. Thus,

while one with deficient antahkarana suddhi like me habitually sees

the world as separate and limited (mithyA) and suffers therefrom, the

one who has purified himself through sAdhana sees it as himself. As

himself, the world cannot be unreal or mithyA. If he says so, then

he is negating himself. That is my contention.]

[Well, Murthyji, in your brilliant post # 22759 of 10th May 2004, you

wrote thus:]

QUOTE

The guru is saying: What is beyond the senses is infinite

or full. (All of us on the List are accepting this.)

The guru is further saying: What we can infer, know from

the senses is also infinite or full. Here, there seem

to be a difference of view, some saying that what is

inferred (necessarily, the jagat) is limited.

I think such cannot be the case for the following reasons:

1. If we say the jagat is limited, it means our senses

have inferred what all they can infer and there is nothing

beyond to be known or inferred. That would not hold because

everyday our sensual perception, both microscopically and

macroscopically, is increasing and more and more things are

added to the idam. Thus idam has also to be infinite.

2. Let us say for a moment that jagat (idam) is limited.

The idam has for its substratum the adaH and this forms

the latter half of line one of this mantra (pUrNAt

pUrNamudacyate). That is, from an infinite substratum,

the limited jagat arose. If the jagat is limited and the

substratum is infinite, there have to be a series of finite

idams arising. Such cannot be the case as idam can also be

one and infinite.

Our vedAnta is not concerned about increasing our intellectual

perceptions. vedAnta is arguing that whatever is inferred or

known by the senses, however infinite it is, they all owe their

existence to adaH. Without adaH, idam is not there. Further,

adaH is beyond the senses and is known only through idam,

by names and forms. Brahman can only be visualized through the

upAdhI-s only. Without upAdhI-s, adaH can never be known.

UNQUOTE

[Having said in that last sentence that, without upadhI-s, adaH can

never be known, I am baffled why you are now apathetic to the waking

state of upAdhis from where we have to necessarily do our study and

analysis of the deep sleep state and infer our real nature of

sAkshibhAvatwam?]

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 5, 2004

Namaste Murthyji.

If I am permitted to interpose, my comments are in . Please read

them as a continuation of my post earlier today.

__________________

> Why do we want to try to express the inexpressible? Is it

> not sufficient to say that brahman is inexpressible and

> leave It at that? By trying to express the inexpressible

> in this way, I feel an incorrect expression is being made.

[Well, what is the harm in giving expression to the best of our

ability? The whole of prastAnatrayA and the bhAshyAs thereto are an

attempt to express the inexpressible.]

______________________

> Further, please see these differences. brahman is inexpressible

> (as you also agreed). The world is fully expressible.

[Agreed.]

>Brahman is always the subject (viShayi).

[brahman is not vishayi because vishayi presupposes the existence of

vishaya. Vishayi is the unenlightened one who suffers from

separation. Brahman encompasses vishayi-vishaya without even a trace

of separation between the two as Reality cannot brook separation.]

>World is always the object (viShayam).

[Yes. It lasts in that manner (as vishayam) only as long as there is

a vishayi who suffers from separation.]

__________

> Now, is the difficulty with the *understanding* or *articulation*

> of advaitam?

[both.]

> I see the present difficulty leading to this discussion is due to

the difference in the understanding of advaitam.

[You are right.]

>Articulation of advaitam is impossible because it is beyond

>language. Many sages have said that maunam is the

> best way of articulating advaita. I think we should be happy

> with the correct understanding in which case we will see that

> articulation is not possible.

[Answer in the first [ } above answers. The question is what is the

right understanding. Any understanding that has the danger of dwaita

inherent in it cannot be the right understanding is the only

criterion by which we can proceed. SarvAtmatwam eminently passes

that rule as compared to other explanations expressed here. That

exactly is the sAkshibhAva we discussed earlier today where

separation is undone to unify diversity in ONE.]

_____________________

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 5, 2004

Namaste Shri Murthy-ji,

Some questioning answers made in half a lighter vein....

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

> Why do we want to try to express the inexpressible? Is it

> not sufficient to say that brahman is inexpressible and

> leave It at that?

Then shouldn't we also abstain from saying that Brahman is Real and

the world is Mithya? To say that Brahman is Real is a tautological

expression. When Brahman is not known, both terms of the tautological

expression are not known. What kind of an expression would it then be?

> By trying to express the inexpressible in this way, I feel

> an incorrect expression is being made.

This way or any way, aren't all expressions on the nature of Brahman

incorrect? But paradoxically, all are expressions of Brahman. This

world itself is an expression of Brahman. We express Brahman with

every breath of ours whether we want to or not!

> Further, please see these differences. brahman is inexpressible

> (as you also agreed). The world is fully expressible.

Murthyji, according to you, the world is mithya. What does it mean to

say that mithya is fully expressible?

The world is fully expressible only when Brahman is known, otherwise

one is expressing the hollow shell of a gourd and not the world that

has the Self as its reality.

> Brahman is always the subject (viShayi). World is always the

> object (viShayam).

Since you are trying to express Brahman here (by saying that Brahman

is always the subject), I think there is going to be a problem of an

inexpressible kind. To begin with, how do we fit in the shruti

statement that 'Brahman is All' into the assertion that Brahman is

always the subject? When does the object merge with the subject?

> Now, is the difficulty with the *understanding* or *articulation*

> of advaitam?

Both. All are difficulties until Brahman is known because All is

Brahman.

> I see the present difficulty leading to this

> discussion is due to the difference in the understanding of

> advaitam. Articulation of advaitam is impossible because it

> is beyond language. Many sages have said that maunam is the

> best way of articulating advaita. I think we should be happy

> with the correct understanding in which case we will see that

> articulation is not possible.

The bee can't help buzzing until it drinks the nectar. When there is

no mauna, and there is usually noise. Isn't it better to make some

music instead? :-)

Everyone loves the Self. It is for the sake of the Self that the wife

is loved, that the husband is loved, that everything else is loved.

The lover always likes to talk about the Beloved. How can that be

stopped? :-)

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

December 5, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> [No one said that the world as seen limited and diverse is not

> mithyA. Please recall Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi's quote that I

> endorsed - "The world is unreal (mithyA) as the world but not as

> Brahman". The whole discussion resulted not from equating *that

> world* (as seen limited and diverse) to Brahman but from the

> vehement

> declaration that the world is a figment of imagination that is to

> be

> totally ignored or done away with.]

> _

>

namaste shri madathil-ji,

It is nice to be discussing this and other advaita-related

topics with you again.

It does not matter how the discussion started. In a discussion

group such as ours, any comment would have triggered such

discussion with participants having strong convictions on

either side. It is not my intention to point fingers at any

one in this discussion when I made the comment that prompted

your response above.

(a) Now, you and I and everyone agree that there is no place

that is not pervaded by brahman at any time past, present or

future. Brahman pervades all with no exceptions. For any thought

to occur or for any object to occur, there is brahman as

its substratum. You have quoted a single sentence quote from

shri bhagawan RamaNa maharShi of which I do not know the context.

But what I know is for any thought to occur, there is brahman

as its substratum. Thus brahman as substratum of the world or

any inferrable graspable thing is a given.

Our quest in this analysis is what is mithya and what is real

and also what is unreal. Again I like to stress that brahman

is the substratum for all including this discussion. Our

investigation is: (i) is the world real as the world?

(ii) is the brahman real as the brahman? What I am saying

is: world is mithya as the world; brahman is real.

(b) Continuing what I stated in (a), according to your argument

quoted above, vandhyaputra (barren woman's son) has also to be

real, but you (and shri CN-ji) agreed that vandhyaputra is

unreal. But according to your argument, vandhyaputra has to

be real because vandhyaputra occurred in the thought and the

substratum for the thought is brahman. Any thought, any object

with brahman as substratum is real as brahman according to

your argument. But we both agree that vandhyaputra is unreal, asat.

be real (independent of whether it is viewed in the dream-state

or the wake-up state) because that is also with brahman as the

substratum.

So my point is: to say "world is real as brahman" as a

statement to stand by itself based on the logic you provided

is a type of statement that leads to consequential derivations

which are not tenable.

> The world has no existence aside from that ONE

> and, as such, the world should be advaitically understood as that

> ONE

> whether or not the sAkshibhAvatwam has fully blossomed or not.

> Thus,

> while one with deficient antahkarana suddhi like me habitually sees

> the world as separate and limited (mithyA) and suffers therefrom,

> the

> one who has purified himself through sAdhana sees it as himself.

> As

> himself, the world cannot be unreal or mithyA. If he says so, then

> he is negating himself. That is my contention.]

>

Saying the world is mithya is not negating oneself. It is

equivalent to saying that I am not this body, mind or intellect.

There is no negative connotation with mithya. Mithya is the

joyous life we live in. seeing the world as mithya does not

lead to any suffering. I would be grateful if you please

explain why the recognition of the mithyaic nature of the

jagat leads to any suffering.

> [Well, Murthyji, in your brilliant post # 22759 of 10th May 2004,

> you

> wrote thus:]

>

> QUOTE

>

> [...]

> Without adaH, idam is not there. Further,

> adaH is beyond the senses and is known only through idam,

> by names and forms. Brahman can only be visualized through the

> upAdhI-s only. Without upAdhI-s, adaH can never be known.

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> [Having said in that last sentence that, without upadhI-s, adaH can

> never be known, I am baffled why you are now apathetic to the

> waking

> state of upAdhis from where we have to necessarily do our study and

> analysis of the deep sleep state and infer our real nature of

> sAkshibhAvatwam?]

>

shri madathil-ji, I am not apathetic to the waking state.

What I meant by the last sentence of that long quote which

you presented of my post of a few months ago: adaH, the brahman

can only be known through the upAdhi-s. If the upAdhi-s are not

there (i.e. if brahman were there in its pure homogeneity

a la SAT of uddAlaka of chandogya upanishad chapter 6),

brahman cannot be known even to be there. upAdhi-s are required

to know brahman. But that does not make the upAdhi-s are real

or the upAdhi-s have the same level of reality as the substratum.

I look forward to your comments.

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--

December 5, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Murthyji.

>

> If I am permitted to interpose, my comments are in . Please

read

> them as a continuation of my post earlier today.

> __________________

>

> [Well, what is the harm in giving expression to the best of our

> ability? The whole of prastAnatrayA and the bhAshyAs thereto are

> an

> attempt to express the inexpressible.]

> ______________________

>

namaste shri madathil-ji,

I am not saying the expression has to be curbed. But knowing

the brahman to be inexpressible, we want what we want to express

as close to the Truth as possible. If the sages and bhAShyakArA-s

have dared to express the inexpressible, we recognize, of course,

that it is out of compassion to the future generations so that

these generations do not have to reinvent the wheel.

Now, for us, we still have doubts whether we understood It

correctly. If the understanding is correct and we are having

difficulty expressing It, it is one thing. But if our

understanding itself is probably clouded and if we couple it

with difficulty expressing That that is inexpressible, it makes

it all the more difficult. That is the reason why, when shri

CN-ji brought up understanding and articulation, I tried to

stress that understanding is more important than articulation.

> > Further, please see these differences. brahman is inexpressible

> > (as you also agreed). The world is fully expressible.

>

> [Agreed.]

>

> >Brahman is always the subject (viShayi).

>

> [brahman is not vishayi because vishayi presupposes the existence

> of

> vishaya. Vishayi is the unenlightened one who suffers from

> separation. Brahman encompasses vishayi-vishaya without even a

> trace

> of separation between the two as Reality cannot brook separation.]

>

> >World is always the object (viShayam).

>

> [Yes. It lasts in that manner (as vishayam) only as long as there

> is

> a vishayi who suffers from separation.]

I stand corrected on the 'vishayi'. But that does not negate

the point I am trying to make.

> > Now, is the difficulty with the *understanding* or *articulation*

> > of advaitam?

>

> [both.]

>

> > I see the present difficulty leading to this discussion is due

> > to

> > the difference in the understanding of advaitam.

>

> [You are right.]

Please see my comment above.

> [...]

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--

December 5, 2004

Namaste Murthyji.

May I desist from inserting comments in brackets and narrow down to

the seeming difference in our understanding.

Firstly, I fully agree with you on the advaitic classification of

real, mithyA and unreal. In fact, I never disagreed on that.

Thus, I would venture the following definitions:

Brahman is Real (the only Reality)

MithyA is all that we see (all perceptions included) as coming and

going conditioned by space-time (jagat)

Unreal is an impossibility in mithyA (e.g. horns of a rabbit).

However, with regard to the third definition, a small correction in

understanding is called for. The *thought* of unreal (e.g. the

*thought* or *visualization* of the mithyAic impossibility of a

barren woman having progeny) is mithyA by virtue of it being a

thought or visualization. Thus, all talk about the unreal is also

mithyA because we do the talking in mithyA.

Let us, therefore, keep the unreal per se out of our discussion and

concentrate on mithyA – all the paraphernalia that are transient

perishing in space-time which include our thoughts and talk of the

unreal. All things mithyA constitute this universe of ours. That

includes our dreams, thoughts, ego, body, perceivership, sense of

agency in actions, actions, wakefulness, sleep, even samAdhi etc.

Each one of them is perceived and acknowledged as a separate

transient entity popping up in space (mental or external) and time

and perishing in space and time.

But, what about the totality of them all – which we call the

universe? Does the totality perish in space and time? If we say

yes, then we have limited the universe spatially and temporally. In

that case, we have to necessarily size up the universe as a spatial

existence like we measure and peg out a plot of land. Besides,

temporally we do have to fix its dates of birth and death.

Supposing we do all this through some hitherto unknown ingenious

means, the questions of a temporal before and after and a spatial

beyond will await us calling for answers. Where does that take us?

The only conclusion that is plausible and possible in the

circumstances is to acknowledge that the universe comprising of

elements mithyA including the perceiving me is really infinite

without a before, after and beyond. Anything without a beyond

(outside) cannot have an inside too. If it is thus infinite, there

cannot be any entity other than or second to it.

It is illogical that something infinite without a before, after,

inside or outside to be comprising of parts. However, that is our

normal experience. The universe presents itself before us as

consisting of innumerable parts, which are all separate from us.

That is a logical contradiction. Contradictions result from errors.

Now we have a choice:

Accept the universe as divided and consisting of innumerable mithyAic

entities as we experience it.

Acknowledge its totality as Wholeness devoid of constituents where I

am also merged with it without separation. That totality cannot be

mithyA any more simply because it is homogeneous with space-time

undone.

I vote for the latter simply because the very innumerability of

constituents in the first choice points at infinity. If I do so, I

have to necessarily conclude that the very thing that I call mithyA

is the real error. MithyA is the essence of separation and divisions

that kills things in space-time. Appreciating the Wholeness of the

universe demands only the removal of this mithyAhood of it whereby

seeming divisions, like I, you, we, they, he, she, it etc.,crop up.

I don't have to do away with the totality because if I do so I would

be eliminating myself (the very enquirer) from the equation.

I don't then have to hunt for an inexpressible, elusive Brahman

outside the totality of the Universe. (Where is the outside?) The

Truth is there *right in front of my eyes* - the infinite totality

of the universe of which the erstwhile perceiving me and perceived

mithyaic entities are just impossible parts. When the impossibility

of divisions is thus appreciated, the totality shines as the Truth of

everything. That totality is no more mithyA. MithyAhood imposed on

the universe through error vanishes with the exit of divisions and

separation. The totality is the only Reality there is. Thus, the

contention - the world is mithya perceived by error as consisting of

transient entities but Real as a totality without divisions and

separation (Brahman). That totality is me – the ever unborn Existence

that is Knowledge and Fullness. I am the Wholeness that is the

Universe. I am not a part of the Universe. There is nothing second

to me.

I had laboured to present this point of view in my pUrNamadah post on

31st March. May be I was not quite effective in my attempt. Hence,

this repetition. Thus, I have no problem with the statement `jagat

mithyA'. Things that come and go are just mithyA only. Mithya arises

out of error or is an error. But, the totality of the whole play that

cannot brook parts or going and coming is reality. This is the only

point I want to drive home, which I hope will settle the apparent

difference between our points of view.

I have typed this out in a hurry. There may therefore be errors and

omissions in the way I have presented my thoughts. Yet, I hope you

will be able to appreciate the general direction of my drive.

About the question you asked at the end of your post, seeing or

appreciating the mithyaic nature of the world doesn't cause any

suffering. You seem to have misunderstood me here. Suffering results

from feelings of separation, want, limitations and lack of knowledge

which are all in mithyA and results from not having a proper

understanding of one's true nature.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 7, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I am bit late in reply...kindly bear with me prabhuji.

MN prabhuji asks:

>From which state are you stating the sAkshi's point of view on

avastAtraya!? From which state are you aware of the existence of a

sAkshi? This question relates to most parts of your post which I have

not quoted for the sake of brevity.

bhaskar :

The answer is, the state (??) from which we are objectifying all the three

states...if the waking state itself is a hard reality from which if you

think you are analysing other two states, that is not correct...because

alongwith dream & sleep states you are equally objectifying the waking

state also...how could you able to do it?? can you sit on your own

shoulder prabhuji?? shankara asks this same question while narrating the

sAkshianubhava. It is really surprising to see the questions like this

from an advaitin. Kindly refer kArikAbhAshya & tell me from which state

shankara asking us to analyse the three states.

> bhaskar prabhuji continues:

>

> No, the question of elimination does not come into picture at all,

self

> realization reveals the fact that world was/is/will never be there

& it is

> kEvala avidyA kalpita (figment of imagination) due to our wrong

> identification with limited adjuncts.

__

MN prabhuji has this to point out:

You once vehemently denied using the term "figment of imagination".

Have you forgotten that?

bhaskar :

Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I was the one repeatedly telling that mAya is

avidyAkruta, avidyA parikalpita, avidyA paryupasthApita etc. Ofcourse,

based on shankara's usage of these words...I think it was CN prabhuji who

denied the usage of this term!!In the ArabhaNAdikaraNa bhAshya shankara

uses the word *avidyAkalpita* while describing mAya..If this *figment of

imagination* is not palatable, kindly suggest the suitable words to say it

in English.

Amazed MN prabhuji wonders:

If you have noted the clarificatory 'correction', there is no need

for your above paragraph or for the requested clarification from me

because there really is no folding back and unfolding.

bhaskar :

but you are advocating the seed form of jagat in sushupti right?? If no,

kindly clarify your position about *jagat astitva* in sushupti. If yes, my

objection still holds good inspite of your subsequent clarification.

MN prabhuji answers:

Now, don't jump in saying that Sankara wrote only bhAshyAs and the

Hymn cannot be attributed to his pen. Then, I will be at a total

loss. I remember you once said something of that sort.

bhaskar :

:-)) prabhuji, if I am too fussy about the prasthAna traya it is because

diversified teaching of these prakaraNa grantha-s...if you take diNdima it

says jagat mithya, if you take advaita pancharatna it tells something

else...if you take mAnasOllasa ( a commentary on dakshiNamUrthy stOtra) it

says who jagat is gandharva nagari...take vivEka chUdAmaNi or upadEsha

sAhasri or sarva vEdAnta siddhAnta sAra saNgraha it gives completely

different picture of jagat sathyatva!!!, prabhuji, do you know what

prashnOttara mAlika says about jagat?? & finally in dakshiNa murthy stOtra

itself I can show you how the jagat has been explained differently

elsewhere.So, for tattva nirdhAraNa (to determine shankara siddhAnta)

prasthAna trayi is the ideal mode of reference which has been unanimously

accepted as genuine shankara works. So, it will be a futile to prove the

point from prakaraNa grantha-s.

MN prabhuji:

Note: I am only after this sarvAtmatvam and, if it brings along with

it the 'permanent eight-fold holy powers of Godhood', well it is just

a bonus which I cannot resist accepting!

bhaskar :

see, how it is propagating dvaita shAstra...do you anywhere see attaining

gupta siddhi-s (subtle powers) even after attaining realization in

prasthAna trayi bhAshya?? what for he requires *powers* when he is ONE

without second?? do you still think on *additional* bonus prabhuji in that

state??

___________________________

> bhaskar prabhuji wonders :

>

> I'd love to join hands with you prabhuji, but what to do my

> mis/understanding of shankara philosophy does not allow me to

accompany

> you..But I earnestly hope we are sailing in the same boat holding

different

> edges to stand stable :-))

_________________________________

MN prabhuji assures:

I am standing quite stable whether the boat shakes or not! And, I

don't see you in the boat. Welcome aboard, Prabhuji, if you so wish!

bhaskar :

How come you are excluding me in your big boat of alltruism prabhuji:-))

PraNAms to all Prabhujis.

Madthil Nair

Humble praNAms

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

December 8, 2004

Namaste Bhaskarji:

My comments to relevant sections of your post are in .

> The answer is, the state (??) from which we are objectifying all

the three

> states...if the waking state itself is a hard reality from which if

you

> think you are analysing other two states, that is not

correct...because

> alongwith dream & sleep states you are equally objectifying the

waking

> state also...how could you able to do it??

>Can you sit on your own

> shoulder prabhuji?? shankara asks this same question while

narrating the

> sAkshianubhava. It is really surprising to see the questions like

this

> from an advaitin. Kindly refer kArikAbhAshya & tell me from which

state

> shankara asking us to analyse the three states.

[i don't have the bhAshya. I may not be an advaitin as you accuse.

I only meant that we do the analysing when we are awake because

analysing involves an analyser and the analysed. The existence of

the sAkshi is a conclusion we arrive at in waking. If you have

totally identified with the sAkshi, then where is the need to analyse

and what is there to analyse. If you are analysing therefore, you

have not found perfect identification with the sAkshi. You are only

a waker then who acknowledges the existence of sAkshi. Thus,

Sankara is only asking us to do the analysis in the waking state from

the sAkshi point of view.]

_______________

> Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I was the one repeatedly telling that

mAya is

> avidyAkruta, avidyA parikalpita, avidyA paryupasthApita etc.

Ofcourse,

> based on shankara's usage of these words...I think it was CN

prabhuji who

> denied the usage of this term!!In the ArabhaNAdikaraNa bhAshya

shankara

> uses the word *avidyAkalpita* while describing mAya..If this

*figment of

> imagination* is not palatable, kindly suggest the suitable words to

say it

> in English.

[it is your baby. Call it any way you want. There is no

unpalatability. I only wanted to point out that you once denied

using that translation.]

____________________

> but you are advocating the seed form of jagat in sushupti right??

If no,

> kindly clarify your position about *jagat astitva* in sushupti. If

yes, my

> objection still holds good inspite of your subsequent clarification.

[Perhaps, you haven't been reading me properly. What is the use of

this discussion then? When I hold on to non-creation from the

absolute point of view, where is the question of jagat astitva in

sushupti?]

______________________

>MN SAID about the last verse of DakshinAmUrthy Ashtakam: Note: I

am only after this sarvAtmatvam and, if it brings along with

> it the 'permanent eight-fold holy powers of Godhood', well it is

just

> a bonus which I cannot resist accepting!

>

> bhaskarji asks:

>

> see, how it is propagating dvaita shAstra...do you anywhere see

attaining

> gupta siddhi-s (subtle powers) even after attaining realization in

> prasthAna trayi bhAshya?? what for he requires *powers* when he is

ONE

> without second?? do you still think on *additional* bonus prabhuji

in that

> state??

___________________________

Everyone wants to be immortal, happy and without limitations. The

stanza only assures that these are there with sarvAtmatwam. I don't

see any dwaita here.

____________________________

>

> How come you are excluding me in your big boat of alltruism

prabhuji:-))

(You brought in the boat in your previous post, Bhaskarji? How can

it be mine? What do you mean by altruism? That I accept whatever you

say as a matter of charity and love?)

_____________________

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 13, 2004

Namaste Bhaskarji:

praNAm Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

MN prabhuji:

My comments to relevant sections of your post are in .

bhaskar :

Thanks. Kindly allow me to say few words here.