Re Sadananda is not dreaming this!

[Guest guest]

>

>"Max Harris" <max_harris

>

>Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

>

> > . . . What advaita resorts to is

> >consciousness is indivisible, homogenious and one without parts - there

>are

> >no internal distinctions or external relations says Vidyaaranya in

> >Panchadasi.

>

> >No adviata does not say the distinctions vanish when God is realized.

>what

> >advaita says, god realized person sees the distinctions but realizes that

> >these distinctions are only apparent and not real. The real is without

> >distinctions.

> > . . . World will still

> >remain and plurality is still seen by the Jeevan mukta but he has no more

> >notions that what is seen is real. Here real is that which is

>unchanging,

> >ever existing and the very substratum of all that is seen, heard and

> >experienced.

>

>Thank you for the helpful explanations, Sadananda.

>

>I think some of us may have a problem with the use of

>the word "real" in the above. It seems that Advaita is

>saying that that which is not unchanging is not real,

>and that which is unchanging is not really differentiated.

>And yet we all live in a changing world of differentiated

>entities and processes, but because these things change

>as they come into being, perdure for awhile, and then

>pass away, they are therefore not really real.

>

>Why say they aren't 'real'? Why not just say they

>aren't eternal? What's the point of the wordplay?

 

Max Harris – First welcome to the advaitin list.

 

There is no problem as long as what one says has clear meaning. At least

you seem to agree with me for now that we have at least two quantities that

which is existing but continuously changing like the world and that which is

unchanging and eternally existing. And we also have the third possibility –

that which is never existing. Once we accepted that these three

possibilities exist, we can define these in such a way that there is no

ambiguity in the definitions. Real is defined as trikaala abhaadhitam satyam

– that which exists and which does not undergo any mutations in three

periods of time is real. If such a thing exists then it is different from

that which exists but undergoes mutations- is it not.

The third kind is also very clear – that which never exists or more

accurately that which has no locus for existence – that is asatyam or tucham

or asat – or non-existence or unreal. These two definitions are very clear.

A typical example given in Vedanta for unreal is vandyaa putraH – son of a

barren women – if she has a son then she cannot be called barren woman and

if there is a barren woman she cannot have a son. Horns of a man another

example etc.

 

Now comes the problem to define that, which appears to exist in the present,

but undergoes mutations or changes. It does not fulfil the definition of

real or unreal. Since there is locus for existence even temporarily, we

cannot call it unreal and since it undergoes changes we cannot call it as

real according to the above definition. This is called mithya first to

separate from the above two. It is neither real nor unreal – it is not in

between. The world that is continuously undergoes changes comes under this

category. And Advaita calls this as mitya. Mitya also means that which

appears to be there but is not there if one analyzes deeply. Why the world

should be called mithya requires further analysis. At this point we have at

least three kinds to distinguish – sat, asat and mithya.

 

1. Brahman is satyam and unchanging: According to our scriptures, Brahman

is defined as satyam, JNaanam and anantam – that which is real or existing,

knowledge or conscious entity and it is infinite entity. It is also called

sat chit and ananda - existence, consciousness and bliss - It is one

without a second, hence it is infinite or unlimited. That which is

unlimited is happiness or bliss since any limitations (space wise, time wise

or object wise) cause unhappiness. Since it is unchanging and existing it

fulfills the definition of what is real hence it is satyam. “Sat eva soumya

idam agra asiit, ekamevaadvitiiyam” says Ch. U. Existence alone was there in

the beginning (before creation) and it is one without a second. Recently I

quoted sloka from Taitiriiya U. that states with “etova imaani bhuutani

jaayante….” That from which the whole universe rose, sustained and goes back

into, know that is Brahman – by this statement – Brahman is the substratum

for the universe or the world of matter and beings. The raise from Brahman,

sustained by Brahman and goes back into Brahman – hence Brahman is called

the material cause for the world.

Now any creation requires two causes – the material cause and the

intelligent cause. To make a pot one requires the material and the

know-how. The material is the clay and know-how rests with the pot-maker.

Clay is different from pot maker. Pot comes from clay, sustained by clay

(that is if clay is removed from pot, nothing of pot remains) and goes back

into clay. (This example is given in the Chadigya itself after the above

statement “sadeva …”). Hence according to T.U. statement Brahman is the

material cause. Since there is nothing other than Brahman he has to be the

intelligent cause too. Thus in the creation of the world, both intelligent

and material cause are one and the same – Advaita uses this knowledge to

establish the advaitic nature of the reality. Dream is an example provided

by nature that it is possible to have a case where both material cause and

the efficient cause can be one and the same. Is Dream unreal – not to the

dreamer who experiences during the dream. Is it real – not according to the

definition given. Hence it falls under the category of the mithya. Just as

the dream world appears to be real for the dreamer as long as the dream is

continuing, in the same way the waking world also appears to be real for the

waker until he realizes the truth behind the changing world. If something

is changing then there has to be something that supports these changes

without undergoing any change. This is the law of conservation principle in

science – Krishna declares in B.G – naasato vidyate bhaavo na bhaavo vidyate

sataH – that which is non-existence can ever come into existence and that

which exists can never cease to exist – Hence creation then is only

transformation of that which exists. If we bring all these concepts

together – we have clear understanding – first, for the changing world there

has to be something that remains changeless – second, world comes from

Brahman, sustained by Brahman and goes back into Brahman – third, Brahman is

real that means it does not undergo any change. From all these Advaita

brings out the synthesis, consistent with the scriptural declarations –

Brahman is real and is the unchanging substratum of the world – hence he is

the sat part of the changing world. World is nothing but changing of names

and forms and since it does not fall under the category of sat or asat, it

is mitya. It is similar to, gold becoming ornaments – gold remains as the

substratum while bangle, ring, necklace etc are names and forms with

utilities. Bangle we cannot say is not existing, since we are wearing it,

and is different from a ring and necklace. But it is not real since it was

not there before and may not be there in the future – you cannot say it is

sat and you cannot say it asat – You cannot say it is same as gold (then

every bangle is gold) you cannot say it is different from gold since it is

full with gold. You cannot say it does not have parts (it has ID and OD

some width etc) yet from gold point it has no parts. And every creation is

like that. Hence Shankara defines mithya or Maya as

It is neither sat nor asat nor both

It is neither same nor different nor both (from Brahman)

One cannot say it has parts cannot say it does not have parts nor say that

it has parts and no parts

It is really a wonder of wonders and of inexplicable nature.

 

The world falls under this category – It is there in the waking state, is

negated in the dream state and deep sleep state – it seems to exist but if

one goes into detailed analysis it is only an apparent existence - and

intimately related to the mind of the perceiver.

 

Hence they give an example of snake that one sees, when there is really a

rope. Is snake really there – yes only in the mind of the seer who sees –

Is it real – yes only in the mind of the seer who sees a snake – But if one

goes into deeper inquiry the snake disappears and one sees the substratum

that is supporting the snake – where did the snake go – it was only a notion

in the mind of the seer and there was no snake to start with –

non-apprehension of the rope caused misapprehension of the rope as a snake.

This is the theory of adhyaasa or superposition.

 

Hence Advaita accounts for the world as only superposition on Brahman and

Brahman alone is real and who is that Brahman – Scripture provides a very

profound truth through maha vaakyaas – tat twam asi – you are that – and

ayam atmaa Brahman – this self is Brahman and aham brahmaasmi – I am that

braham – who is that I am – PraJNaanam Brahman – consciousness is Brahman –

 

The logic is very precise and at the same time follows the scriptural

statements exactly. Hence Shree T.P. Mahadevan, a retired professor of

Philosophy and a great advaitic master says – Advaita although translated as

non-dualism, it is not an –ism; and the non-part negates not only the

duality but also –ism too.

 

Just as bangle, ring and necklace appear to be real – they are considered as

vyaavahaarika satyam – relatively real (this is same word as mithya) –

vyavahaara also means transaction – Hence for purpose of transaction it is

real but if one goes into deeper inquiry it is nothing but gold. Gold it

was, gold it is and gold it will be – but bangle is only for transactions

since I can use gold as bangle and the name and form is useful. So is the

world. For transactional purpose, I am different, you are different and she

is different. There is no confusion here. One can see these differences

yet recognize the unity that runs through as the substratum. Just as

scientist who recognizes that all mater is the same from the point of

fundamental particles; electron protons and neutrons yet gold is different,

iron is different etc. differences are not fundamental but transactional.

In terms of fundamental particles all differences are resolved.

Similarly the world is real at the transactional level – vyaavahaarika

satyam but from the absolute level it is temporal and there is a substratum

that is real satisfying the fundamental definition of reality. And that is

Brahman and that is you, says the scripture – Advaita emphasizes that.

Reality or ontological aspects are different from trasactional reality.

Dream provides a clear cut example of relative reality. Objective science

also provides the same analysis. Is rope real - only at a relative level -

If I pull all the fibers out - there is no more rope but fibers are real and

rope is no more - but that exist as basic material still exists - are fibers

real - only real in a realative sense and if one goes deeper fibers are just

bunch of molecules and molecules are bunch of atoms and atoms are bunch of

more basic particles - we are yet to find what those unchanging fundamental

particles which alone real - Vedanta recognizes the same problme at

different level-but essentially analyzes ontological aspects through pramaNa

or means of knowledge. In all what reamins changeless is the one who is

anlyzing these - the analysist is a conscious entity - the subject - and if

one analyzes he is nothing but consciousness alone. I am that - Hence in

the Mount sanai - Moses asks the Lord who he is - his defines himself as I

am that I am - implying -am - existence and I the consciousness - sat chit

aspect . That is precisely what Chandigya says - Existence alone was there

alone in the begining and that existence if of the nature of consciousness.

Exisence cannever cease to exist. It remains as the fundamental and

transcendental and vedanta brings further and declares "you are that" - This

is a daring statement and proves it is so logically too. Hence T.P.

Mahadevan statement - advaita is not an ism - It reveals the very substratum

of the reality.

 

 

 

Hari Om!

sadananda

[Guest guest]

Thank you very much, Sadananda, for your very thorough reply.

I will have to meditate upon this within my consciousness

for a while.

 

-- Max

 

 

 

 

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

FREE - yourname - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net