mithyA

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-j,

You have said:--

" .Shankara says in sUtra bhAshya that this mAya is

*fictitiously imagined* by avidyA & this mAya has been equated with

*prakruti*(avyAkruta rUpa - the original state of the world before

creation)... which, as you said above, cannot be defined to be identical

with brahman nor a quite distinct entity from brahman " .

 

Please state the particular brahmasutra in the bhAshya of which Sankara has

said that " this mAyA is fictitiously imagined by avidya " . I have heard that

the world is fictitiously imagined by avidyA.

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Please state the particular brahmasutra in the bhAshya of which Sankara has

said that " this mAyA is fictitiously imagined by avidya " . I have heard that

the world is fictitiously imagined by avidyA.

S.N.Sastri

 

Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

prabhuji, problem for me is, I've been writing these mails from my office &

most of them from my memory and it is impossible for me to carry big big

volumes of my parama guruji-s sUtra bhAshya commentary with me to quote the

exact reference.....(My parama guruji has written his purports in Kannada

on shankara's sUtra bhAshya in 2 big volumes...each one runs nearly 1000

pages!!)...Hence, I cannot give references straight away when it is

asked...

 

Anyway, prabhuji, for this *avidyA kalpita mAya* statement of shankara, you

can look in araMbhaNAdhikaraNaM sUtra bhAshya, where shankara elaborately

covers the creation theory (kArya -kAraNa) in advaita vEdAnta. Shankara

equates here avidyA kalpita nAma rUpa with mAya, prakruti, shakti etc.

 

Not only in this place, shankara uses words like avidyA kruta, avidyA

paryupasthApita, avidyA lakshaNa, avidyA kArya, avidyAtmaka etc. at various

places in prasthAna trayi bhAshya.. From all these it is implied that mAya

is an false appearance due to ignorance (avidyA) or figuratively, ignorance

(avidyA) gives the existence (astitvata) for the false appearance (mAya).

 

Kindly let me know if you need any more details on this.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

> Anyway, prabhuji, for this *avidyA kalpita mAya* statement of

shankara, you

> can look in araMbhaNAdhikaraNaM sUtra bhAshya, where shankara

elaborately

> covers the creation theory (kArya -kAraNa) in advaita vEdAnta.

Shankara

> equates here avidyA kalpita nAma rUpa with mAya, prakruti, shakti

etc.

 

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

Were you referring to the following sutra bhAshya?

 

" Fictitiously imagined by avidyA as though they were identical with

the omniscient lord, name and form undefinalbe either as (ishwara)

himself of distinct from Him, the cause of this manifold world of

mundane life, are called in the shruti and smriti, mAyA, causal

potentiality and prakriti. "

 

S.Bh.2-1-14.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

Were you referring to the following sutra bhAshya?

 

" Fictitiously imagined by avidyA as though they were identical with

the omniscient lord, name and form undefinalbe either as (ishwara)

himself of distinct from Him, the cause of this manifold world of

mundane life, are called in the shruti and smriti, mAyA, causal

potentiality and prakriti. "

 

S.Bh.2-1-14.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

 

praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks a lot for quoting this reference immediately.....Yes, this is what I

had in mind....I hope Sri Sastri prabhuji would elaborate above shankara's

sUtra bhAshya for a further clarity. Elsewhere mAya also called vyaktA &

avyaktAtmaka..which is very much relevant to the on going discussion on

mithyA, I think. This jagat appears in the waking state (mAya appears

here is vyaktAtmaka rUpa) and disappears in sushupti (somebody says here

mAya or prakruti will be in avyaktAtmaka rUpa or in seedform (bIja

rUpa))....Shankara, as you mentioned above, says mAya is anirvachanIya,

gives the example of waves, bubbles, foam etc. and explains how these are

not quite the same as water or otherwise. In upadEshasAhasri &

bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya too shankara talks a lot about tattvAnyatava of this

mAya. From this what we conclude is jagat which appears in brahman with

its multifarious nAma & rUpa in jAgrat & swapna is mere false appearance

due to our ignorance about non-dual brahman, and its seed form is just

inferred only from the standpoint of this manifested world...From the

absolute standpoint, this false appearance of mAya or prakruti etc. (both

avyAkruta and vyAkruta) is not there in brahman and it has no independent

existence (svatantrAstitvA) apart from brahman. So shankara says it is

neither tattvA nor anyatvA therefore it is anirvachanIya.

 

If possible, I request you to dig out the references from bruhadAraNya

bhAshya & US also.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> Please state the particular brahmasutra in the bhAshya of which

Sankara has

> said that " this mAyA is fictitiously imagined by avidya " . I have

heard that

> the world is fictitiously imagined by avidyA.

> S.N.Sastri

 

Dear Shastri-ji,

 

mAyA which is triguNAtmikA has become the world which we perceive,

isn't it?(at least, imagined to be so due to our ignorance). Then,

how can we say that only world is imaginged by avidyA but not mAyA

which is its causal or seed form?

 

Or am I missing something here?

 

========

 

Bhaskar-ji,

 

Have a related reference from upadEsha sAhasrI which is as under:

 

avidyAprabhavam sarvamsattasmAdidam jagat|

tadvatA drishyatE yasmAtsushuptE na cha gruhyatE||

 

" Unperceived in deep sleep but perceived(in waking and dream) by

those who are ignorant, the whole of this universe is an outcome of

ignorance and therefore unreal.

 

(XVII-200)

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Sir,

Thanks for this explanation. I am grateful to you for this.

 

///// Your statement " If vedas are mithya, it can't be a proof for brahman "

> is faulty. For we know the mirror reflection is only an appearance,

> mithya, it is not as real as we are. Still it gives us a proof whether

> we have a tilak on our forehead or not. So even 'mithya' can offer a

> proof for something of a higher order of truth. /////

 

vedas do not JUST " reflect " the brahman - or sub-stratum. vedas are

said to be not even the " product " of brahman - but exist along with

them. This later statement, made in Sruthi itself, confuses me.

Vedas also talk about limitations of jeevas and provide these jeevas a

mechanism to remove the avidya. Therefore, I consider Sruthis to be

a unique creation which fully " knows " brahman - but at the same time

exists apart from Brahman. This later statement is apparently

impossible in advaita and hence I wanted clarification. Further,

your assertion that mitya is a mirror " reflecting the brahman " should

apply to all vyavaharika samsAra and therefore should hold true. But,

I believe this is not the case as I can't get the same " reflection of

the truth " from other mityas. What is unique about Sruthis then? If

I accept that there is something unique about Sruthi, then how I can

identify (through my avidya) that this particular mitya is indeed the

" correct reflection " and rely on Sruthi when I haven't had any

evaluation (which is not possible as you can't evaluate the competency

of something which you don't know...)

 

I thank you for your clarification in advance.

 

Jay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 06/11/2007, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk wrote:

advaitin , " ஜயராமன௠"

> <vaithikasri wrote:

> >

> > Sir

> > I have a query. Pardon my ignorance.

>

> > I now ask...

> >

> > What about the vedas? Are they " mitya " or " sathya " ? Because, if

> > vedas are mithya, then it can't be a proof for brahman. If vedas are

> > " sathya " , then this is another sathya apart from brahman, which is not

> > possible (to have 2 sathyas).

> > How does advaita address this paradox?

> >

>

> Namaste Vaithikasri-ji

>

> Your statement " If vedas are mithya, it can't be a proof for brahman "

> is faulty. For we know the mirror reflection is only an appearance,

> mithya, it is not as real as we are. Still it gives us a proof whether

> we have a tilak on our forehead or not. So even 'mithya' can offer a

> proof for something of a higher order of truth.

>

> PraNAms to all adaitins.

> profvk

>

>

 

 

 

--

http://jayaraman.wordpress.com/

[Guest guest]

vedas do not JUST " reflect " the brahman - or sub-stratum. vedas are

said to be not even the " product " of brahman - but exist along with

them. This later statement, made in Sruthi itself, confuses me.

Vedas also talk about limitations of jeevas and provide these jeevas a

mechanism to remove the avidya. Therefore, I consider Sruthis to be

a unique creation which fully " knows " brahman - but at the same time

exists apart from Brahman. This later statement is apparently

impossible in advaita and hence I wanted clarification.

 

praNAms Jay prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

shruti itself says vEda is the exhalation of vEda purusha...and elsewhere

it also says *in that state of absolute non-dual reality* even vEdA-s are

no vEda (atra vEda avEda...says bruhadAraNyaka)...Then how can shAstra be

the *antya pramANa* in brahma jignAsa ?? shruti at one place says *brahma

vidApnOti paraM* & tat vijnAnArthaM sa gurumEvAbhigacchEt samitpANiH

shrOtrIyaM brahmanishTaM.. and with the same breath it is also expressing

its inability to define brahman (yato vAcho nivartante aprApya manasa saha

- taitirIya shruti, kO addhA vEda ka iha pravOchat, kuta AjAtA kuta iyaM

vsrushtiH?? - R^ig vEda ) Shankara clears this doubt and says shAstra does

not bring anything new to us it only reminds us what we are already

(jnApakaM hi shAstraM na kArakaM)...For that matter shAstra does not

objectively teach us brahman as such & such a thing (na hi shAstraM

idaNtayA vishabhUtaM brahma pratipipAdaishati..says shankara in

tattusamanvayAt sUtra bhAshya)..ultimately shAstra itself admits nEti nEti

is the highest teaching...Sri Ramachandran prabhuji in this list very

often gives pole vault example while explaining the role of shAstra in

brahma jignAsa.

 

Hope this would help...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Thanks for this lucid and referenced explanations. I am grateful to you for

this clarification. I am not aware that Sruthi is " downgraded " to mitya in

advaita. I think that Sruthi is the breath of not veda-purusha but

parama-purusha. So I thought, Sruthi will exist as long as brahman exists -

for ever. With this simili, It appears that this is part of eternal

sathya. Hence, I got confused.

 

Thanks for your patience and guidance.

 

Jay

 

 

On 07/11/2007, bhaskar.yr <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> vedas do not JUST " reflect " the brahman - or sub-stratum. vedas are

> said to be not even the " product " of brahman - but exist along with

> them. This later statement, made in Sruthi itself, confuses me.

> Vedas also talk about limitations of jeevas and provide these jeevas a

> mechanism to remove the avidya. Therefore, I consider Sruthis to be

> a unique creation which fully " knows " brahman - but at the same time

> exists apart from Brahman. This later statement is apparently

> impossible in advaita and hence I wanted clarification.

>

> praNAms Jay prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> shruti itself says vEda is the exhalation of vEda purusha...and elsewhere

> it also says *in that state of absolute non-dual reality* even vEdA-s are

> no vEda (atra vEda avEda...says bruhadAraNyaka)...Then how can shAstra be

> the *antya pramANa* in brahma jignAsa ?? shruti at one place says *brahma

> vidApnOti paraM* & tat vijnAnArthaM sa gurumEvAbhigacchEt samitpANiH

> shrOtrIyaM brahmanishTaM.. and with the same breath it is also expressing

> its inability to define brahman (yato vAcho nivartante aprApya manasa saha

> - taitirIya shruti, kO addhA vEda ka iha pravOchat, kuta AjAtA kuta iyaM

> vsrushtiH?? - R^ig vEda ) Shankara clears this doubt and says shAstra does

> not bring anything new to us it only reminds us what we are already

> (jnApakaM hi shAstraM na kArakaM)...For that matter shAstra does not

> objectively teach us brahman as such & such a thing (na hi shAstraM

> idaNtayA vishabhUtaM brahma pratipipAdaishati..says shankara in

> tattusamanvayAt sUtra bhAshya)..ultimately shAstra itself admits nEti nEti

> is the highest teaching...Sri Ramachandran prabhuji in this list very

> often gives pole vault example while explaining the role of shAstra in

> brahma jignAsa.

>

> Hope this would help...

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

http://jayaraman.wordpress.com/

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

avidyAprabhavam sarvamsattasmAdidam jagat|

tadvatA drishyatE yasmAtsushuptE na cha gruhyatE||

 

" Unperceived in deep sleep but perceived(in waking and dream) by

those who are ignorant, the whole of this universe is an outcome of

ignorance and therefore unreal.

 

praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Onceagain, thanks a lot for picking the precise quote from US....shankara's

stand in the above quote & in sUtra bhAshya quoted earlier with regard to

mithyatva of jagat is very clear. vyAkruta & avyAkruta both are mere

superimposition (adhyArOpita) on non-dual parabrahman...It is evident that

brahman is kAraNa only in the sense that kArya in the form of

vyaktAvyaktAtmaka jagat is superimposed on brahman. It is only for the

purpose of teaching vEdAnta accepts the seed-form and the manifested form

of the universe & accordingly describes the cause and effect respectively.

But from the stand point of absolute both are kArya (effect) only which is

avidyAkruta...kAraNa remains *as it is* always!!!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Sir

 

I thank you for this excellent advice and specific pointer to the fault in

my understanding.

 

I may be brahman - but I don't know that now. ONLY Sruthi says so. My

intellect and other senses are actually disproving Sruthi. Therefore, I

need to know which one is the truth. I need a specific pointer to exactly

identify which is an accurate " reflection " of me - Sruthi or samsAra.

This is what I meant by " proof " . Hope this clarifies.

 

Once again, I am grateful for your explanation.

 

Thanks

 

Jay

 

 

On 07/11/2007, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

>

> My dear Shri Jay,

>

> Your post is addressed to Prof. VK - ji and I am sure he will respond

> appropriately.

>

> Since I was previously involved in this discussion and since your

> first post was directed at me, I would like to present the following

> common-sense (yet holistic) solution to the conundrum that is

> bothering you.

>

> The Brahman we are talking about is not any special external entity

> that resides somewhere in the unknown beyonds. It is You (and,

> therefore, me). Do you need any proof for yourself. So, this talk

> about vedAs providing 'proof' for Brahman is absolute poppycock. You

> don't have to prove yourself to you. So, Brahman doesn't need any

> proof. " Advaita Makaranda " has said this beautifully: " ahamasti,

> sadA bhAti, kadAcid nAhmapriya.H " (I exist, I shine and never am I

> not dear to me).

>

> VedAs and the stotriya gurus who interpret them to you only urge you

> to realize the above simple Truth that you yourself are Brahman and

> help you remove your wrong assumptions about yourself. This is the

> content of all our mahAvAkyAs. The gurus, vedAs and all this duality

> are you yourself and resolve into the totality that is you when you

> self-realize. Neither do they have any separate existence nor are

> they independent of yourself. You have them in you and, yet, they

> are not parts of you because you are Brahman who can't brook

> compartmentalization and division.

>

> Looked at from this common-sense angle, your conundrum is non-

> existent.

>

> I know from the way your messages are worded that you know all this

> very well.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ____________________________

>

> --In advaitin <advaitin%40>,

" ஜயராமன௠"

> >

> > vedas do not JUST " reflect " the brahman - or sub-stratum. vedas

> are

> > said to be not even the " product " of brahman - but exist along with

> > them. This later statement, made in Sruthi itself, confuses me.

> > Vedas also talk about limitations of jeevas and provide these

> jeevas a

> > mechanism to remove the avidya. Therefore, I consider Sruthis to

> be

> > a unique creation which fully " knows " brahman - but at the same time

> > exists apart from Brahman. This later statement is apparently

> > impossible in advaita and hence I wanted clarification. Further,

> > your assertion that mitya is a mirror " reflecting the brahman "

> should

> > apply to all vyavaharika samsAra and therefore should hold true.

> But,

> > I believe this is not the case as I can't get the same " reflection

> of

> > the truth " from other mityas. What is unique about Sruthis then?

> If

> > I accept that there is something unique about Sruthi, then how I can

> > identify (through my avidya) that this particular mitya is indeed

> the

> > " correct reflection " and rely on Sruthi when I haven't had any

> > evaluation (which is not possible as you can't evaluate the

> competency

> > of something which you don't know...)

> >

> > I thank you for your clarification in advance.

> >

> > Jay

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

http://jayaraman.wordpress.com/

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks for this lucid and referenced explanations. I am grateful to you for

this clarification. I am not aware that Sruthi is " downgraded " to mitya in

advaita.

 

praNAms Sri jay prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

is it an ironical statement on advaita?? or is it my *mis-reading*??

Kindly clarify... advaita Acharya-s never ever downplay the efficacy of

shAstra in brahma jignAsa. They only say when you realize that you are

secondless brahman, all pramAtru-pramEya vyavahAra sublated...So, sublation

of shAstra vyavahAra also quite obvious..is it not?? By the way, there is

no difference between parama purusha & vEda purusha in advaita, the actual

shruti quote says that *mahatO bhUtasya niHshvasitAni*....When brahman is

shAstra mUla, how can this shAstra reveal the brahman?? No doubt, shruti

is *utkrushta shabda*...but how can it reveal the *real nature of

nirvishEsha brahman*?? Hence, shruti (mundaka) itself admits that all

vEda-s will come under the scope of aparA vidyA...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hi Jay, don't just go yet.

 

Neither do I *know* that I am Brahman. But, I have an academic

understanding of it which has grown in me to a sort of firm

conviction (yet much short of self-realization) in recent years. It

has happened through listening to teachers, satsangh, reading and

reflection on the understanding so gained.

 

You can also do that instead of despairing from the fact that your

intellect and other senses are actually disproving shruti. Such a

feeling had occurred to me also long long back. I was a self-

proclaimed athiest/rationalist/materialist/communist. But, mind you,

advaita is quite logical and rational if imbibed from a right guru.

Unfortunately, I sense that you have not been fortunate yet in that

respect. That is why you are desparately hunting for proof for what

is the most obvious.

 

You can well begin from the following:

 

1. Asking yourself whether you want to know yourself (Unless you

really want to change, no change can ever take place.)

2. Logically understanding that you exist always, you self-shine as

awareness and that you are indeed full and without wants and

therefore limitless.

 

Here is wishing you best of luck. God bless you.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , " ஜயராமன௠"

<vaithikasri wrote:

>

> I may be brahman - but I don't know that now. ONLY Sruthi says

so. My

> intellect and other senses are actually disproving Sruthi.

Therefore, I

> need to know which one is the truth. I need a specific pointer to

exactly

> identify which is an accurate " reflection " of me - Sruthi or

samsAra.

> This is what I meant by " proof " . Hope this clarifies.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay,

 

" What is unique about Sruthis then? If

I accept that there is something unique about Sruthi, then how I can

identify (through my avidya) that this particular mitya is indeed the

" correct reflection " and rely on Sruthi when I haven't had any

evaluation (which is not possible as you can't evaluate the competency

of something which you don't know...) "

 

If it were possible to independently evaluate the competency of

Shruti before making use of it, Shruti would be useless. The content

of Shruti cannot be derived from other means of knowledge and this is

precisely the reason why Shruti is needed at all. Faith in Shruti (or

anything contained therein) arrises as a result of punya acquired in

previous lives. This faith can be supported by logic, but the latter

is not a replacement for the former.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namaste, All

I am suffering with terrible pain as a thorn has pierced under my foot. I take

another thorn and with that I remove the one from my foot. What a relief! I

throw away both the thorns.

Similarly to get relief from the pain of samsara, I apply the Shruties

(particularly the Upanishads) as taught by my teacher. The Mithya samsara pain

is removed by the Mithya Teaching. Once the pain is removed and I am relieved of

the pain, what is the use of the Teaching.

The Teaching of Advaita has only this purpose, i.e. to liberate me from

Samsara.

All mithyas are useful and they all serve a purpose.

With warm regards and hari om

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Risrajlam sir,

Agreed. This clarifies fully. And, also, personally speaking,

this immensely satisfies me as this places bhakti / faith as the

cornerstone of jnana.

Thanks

Jay

 

On 07/11/2007, risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

Dear Jay,

>

> " What is unique about Sruthis then? If

> I accept that there is something unique about Sruthi, then how I can

> identify (through my avidya) that this particular mitya is indeed the

> " correct reflection " and rely on Sruthi when I haven't had any

> evaluation (which is not possible as you can't evaluate the competency

> of something which you don't know...) "

>

> If it were possible to independently evaluate the competency of

> Shruti before making use of it, Shruti would be useless. The content

> of Shruti cannot be derived from other means of knowledge and this is

> precisely the reason why Shruti is needed at all. Faith in Shruti (or

> anything contained therein) arrises as a result of punya acquired in

> previous lives. This faith can be supported by logic, but the latter

> is not a replacement for the former.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>