World, thoughts and reality

[Guest guest]

What a wealth of comments on recent related topics!

 

I'm still finding confusion in the various terminologies that are being

used with respect to illusion/delusion etc. I find the sublation concept

easiest to understand. Thus, (according to Deutsch) there are three levels,

with the middle level being further split: -

1) Reality = pAramArthika.

2) Appearance

a) Highest forms of worldly existence such as bhakti type relations with

God, art etc. (?)

b) Ordinary experience, relations, objects, concepts.

c) Hallucination, day dreams, illusions.

a + b = vyAvahArika

c = prAtibhAsika

c can be sublated by b, which can be sublated by a, which can be sublated

by 1.

3) Unreality. i.e. contradictions such as square circle. This is where the

examples such as 'the son of a barren woman' are used. These things cannot

be brought into existence really or through mAyA. Not meaningful to talk of

sublation.

 

Within this terminology, I am not sure, Sadananda, what you mean by mithya.

This literally means 'incorrectly' or 'wrongly' so I would understand it to

be referring to the fact that we mistake the world to be reality rather

than appearance; that in fact the world consists of these three aspects of

appearance, all of which are sublated by reality. Then I can understand and

agree when you say that the illusion is not the problem, as long as we

remember that it is only an appearance; the problem arises when we are

deluded into thinking it is real. Is this what you are saying?

 

Patrick refers to the meaning of mAyA in the gItA as being best translated

by something like 'divine creativity'. I looked up the literal meaning and

it is more a sense of 'magic' or 'witchcraft' i.e. deception through

supernatural power.(A mAyAkAra is a maker of magic i.e. a conjurer or

magician.) From the standpoint of reality, it does not exist, as Sankara

says in his commentary on GauDapAda's kArikA. (Have you read this

incidentally, Patrick? Sankara says at one point "Yes, we admit the

existence of Scriptural texts supporting creation as actual, but such texts

serve other purposes" and shortly after "..creation, in any sense other

than illusion, is unknown to us, and further, no purpose is served by

admitting (the act of) creation. All creation, whether metaphorical or

actual, refers to the apparent creation caused by avidyA but not to any

creation from the standpoint of Reality.")

 

I'm confused by Frank's statements about the unreality of the world << this

is what, in my view, has become the common misunderstanding. as sadaji

mentioned, the names and forms are the persuasive factors leading us into

not illusion, but *delusion*. (which relates to the famous metaphors

'barren woman's

son'; 'hare's horns'; etc.) for, illusion, like maya, has real and unreal

components, thus it is indescribable.>>

As mentioned above, I thought the barren woman example referred to

Unreality, not Appearance, so has nothing to do with our misunderstandings.

I agree that name and form and our identification with these are at the

heart of our problem. It is the substratum that is real, not the

superimposition. I don't understand your emphasis on differentiating these

terms, however. The appearance is an 'illusion' -so says Sankara. We are

'deluded' by avidyA into thinking this illusion is reality. Do we agree

that, using the terms above, the world is an 'Appearance'; it is neither

'Real' nor 'Unreal'?

 

Devendra provided some excellent quotations - Nisargadatta never beats

about the bush, does he! He says "There is no need of a way out! Don't you

see that a way out is also part of the dream? All you have to do is see the

dream as a dream." Is this not a perfect definition of sublation? "Just

realise that you are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking

for ways out." Beautiful!

 

With reference to the question of the problem of thoughts, Sadananda said

"Hence thoughts and the associated plurality are not the problem. If one

recognises that thoughts are me and knower of the thoughts is also me - I

am there in the thoughts and I am there without the thoughts - Thoughts

raise in me, sustained by me and go back into me. Waves are not the

problem for the ocean - it is the glory of the ocean to have the waves."

Beautiful use of this metaphor! Thank you. It's amazing how a picture such

as this can say so much, so graphically, isn't it?

 

Thanks, too, to Sadananda again for reminding me of the

dR^igdR^ishyavivekaH. I read this two or three years ago and had forgotten

about it. It also has something to say about mAyA. "Two powers,

undoubtedly, are predicated of mAyA viz. projecting and veiling. The

projecting power (vikshhepa-shakti) creates everything from the subtle body

to the gross universe." (i.e. both world and mind). "The manifesting of all

names and forms in the entity which is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss and

which is the same as Brahman, like the foams etc. in the ocean, is known as

creation.The other power (AvaraNa-shakti) conceals the distinction

between the perceiver and the perceived objects which are cognised within

the body as well as the distinction between Brahman and the phenomenal

universe which is perceived outside. This power is the cause of the

phenomenal universe." Simple isn't it? (!)

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

PLEASE TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE AN ILLUSION IS A MISPERCEPTION

OF REALITY..... A DELUSION IS A FALSE BELIEF HELD TRUE

DESPITE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRAY. ONLY YEARS LATER DID I FULLY

APPRECIATE THIS EMPHASIS ON THIS DISTINCTION REALITY IS THE

MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATION OF ALL POSSIBILITIES JUST PLAIN BILL

THANKS

[Guest guest]

Greetings Dennis, Gokul and Anand:

 

The meeting of the minds of the Advaitins during the

past two weeks has contributed to better understanding

of Advaita Philosophy of Shankara. However due to our

limited (unlimited) vision we are also confused! We

can call this state of our mind as ‘mithya.' Two

quotations came to my mind, one from Einstein and

another from Jettu Krishnamoorthy.

 

1. 'I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are

details' -- Albert Einstein

2. ‘Truth is a Pathless Land!' – Jettu

Krishnamoorthy.

 

Without details if we can consume the thought that we

are the TRUTH, then we can stop our search!

Nisargadatta Maharaj was able recognize the dream as a

dream, enjoy it without building castles and

conducting analysis. But we are not there and hence we

want the details.

 

Instead of looking inside, we go all over the world in

search of it, postulate IT, conjecture IT and get into

a loop of no return. We are so determined to proceed

with search in spite of all pitfalls of our approach.

Mithya is outcome of our detailed search but

unfortunately it became a question rather than an

answer and we are back to square one. Here is the

paradox:

 

TRUTH is real; Mithya is neither real nor unreal; All

that we perceive is only Mithya and we are nothing

but the TRUTH! I have to agree with Patrick that this

status of our mind (or whatever name or form we want

to give to it) is ‘Ishwara Sristui (God's creativity).

Sri Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya recognize it as

the Leela of Narayana (God's play) where all the Jivas

act according to His desire. There is mysticism

behind all mind indulged thought process which

includes all attempted questions and answers. One of

that question is - whether the world is real or

unreal? All that I can see is that I need some

support to proceed in my life and the best support for

me is to have the faith to believe what I don't see

and willing to wait until I see it!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> What a wealth of comments on recent related topics!

>

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

> I'm confused by Frank's statements about the unreality of the world << this

> is what, in my view, has become the common misunderstanding. as sadaji

> mentioned, the names and forms are the persuasive factors leading us into

> not illusion, but *delusion*. (which relates to the famous metaphors

> 'barren woman's

> son'; 'hare's horns'; etc.) for, illusion, like maya, has real and unreal

> components, thus it is indescribable.>>

> As mentioned above, I thought the barren woman example referred to

> Unreality, not Appearance, so has nothing to do with our misunderstandings.

> I agree that name and form and our identification with these are at the

> heart of our problem. It is the substratum that is real, not the

> superimposition. I don't understand your emphasis on differentiating these

> terms, however. The appearance is an 'illusion' -so says Sankara. We are

> 'deluded' by avidyA into thinking this illusion is reality. Do we agree

> that, using the terms above, the world is an 'Appearance'; it is neither

> 'Real' nor 'Unreal'?

>

 

don't worry, i'm confused by my statements too! :-)

i'm confused, ultimately, by *all* statements.

and this is what we're looking for.....to short

circuit the sterile reason-hooked Mind...oh Mind,

obsessed with divisions foaming out of judgments(!),

product of the interior Heresy of Seaparativeness...

 

________

 

with the ecxeption of one point--and i think it's

a vital one (explain why below)--we're quite in

concordance..

 

in order to set up the point of my rebuttle, let me

digress for a moment...

 

really, the importance of coming to terms with all

these ideas, has to do with how to release the Mind

from doing battles. and the battles concern our

ancient addiction to making judgments. once this

habit is broken and dissolved, we can then live in

choiceless awareness and simply BE. we can then

rise above ideas of being 'this such way' or 'that

such thing,' and simply primally *BE*.

 

therefore, the philosophical approach i've been

attempting to convey [in apprehending the nature

of perception] is, to me, the most effective for

achieving this end. the one you outlined by

deutsch, to me, fails to consider or convey the

reality component within the Appearance category.

 

let me try once more to explain [this admittedly

difficult and sometimes hair-splitting categorization

process. but, if we keep in mind, the whole purpose

of involving ourselves in this effort, is to RELEASE

THE MIND FROM ITS OBSESSIONS WITH JUDGMENTS...source

of all limitation and thus suffering.

 

it is the mechanism [of maya] that is responsible

for the appearance of names and forms (which are

*in of themselves* mithya or unreal) which is the

real constituent involved in the world-projection

in/of brahman (i.e. the leela).

 

the changeful/temporal effect (appearance or mithya)

has a changeless/timeless causal foundation (maya).

 

*however*--and this is the point of what i see as

the common misunderstanding--is that even the

appearance aspect, although fleeting, has a real

component. that the mithya aspect uniquely comes

in due to our taking the appearance of names and

forms as real *apart* from their source in brahman.

and this is where delusion occurs [and the metaphors

'barren woman's son,' etc. applies].

 

it's interesting that 'illusion' has a parallel

meaning in the english language as 'maya,' insofar

as its possessing real and unreal components; which

is why interpreting the statement: 'the world is an

illusion' as something that is utterly unreal, is

so misleading, causing as it does therefore a very

fundamental duality.

 

the ego-Mind, in its obsession to get caught up in

battles in terms of attractions and repulsions is

due to this misunderstanding. Jeddu Krishnamurti's

popularizing the vedantic concept of choiceless

awareness speaks to this very issue. that is, no

matter what or where the Mind goes, it is immersed

in satchidananda. that our reactive judgments of

its adventures (viz. that what we're witnessing is

compulsively being categorized as real or unreal--

that internal struggle!--based on a condensed,

exclusive focus on the Particulars, instead of

their holistic effulgent Source in brahman) is

the real culprit sustaining our internal and

ancient struggle.

_________________

 

here's [an amusing, perhaps, in its doggedness

value] collection of my past attempts to convey

the central idea of the Mind's obsessive-compulsion

with limitation.

 

the Particular can never have any weight, since it

can never be considered something unto itself and

apart from its source in brahman.

 

really the root of our problem is getting captured

by Particulars and thus becoming disconnected through

that capture, which is what leads to the duality or

plurality of our awareness. therefore the method has

to address that process of being captured.

 

the ancient exclusivity-trap has become, over time,

a permanent dynamic in our field of awareness, and

is thus permanently set and continuously snares us

into the belief that each Particular is experienced

as apart from its source in brahman.

 

it's a matter of liberating the awareness from the

trap of Particulars.

 

it's a matter of disengaging our habit of allowing

the Particulars to set their exclusivity-traps on

our awareness. in other words, our awarenesss moves

into a given Particular and we allow that to cause us

to forget its [and our] substratum which leads to

our suffering.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

>Dennis Waite <dwaite

 

Thanks for the comments- Was out of town and just saw your post.

 

 

>

>Within this terminology, I am not sure, Sadananda, what you mean by mithya.

>This literally means 'incorrectly' or 'wrongly' so I would understand it to

>be referring to the fact that we mistake the world to be reality rather

>than appearance; that in fact the world consists of these three aspects of

>appearance, all of which are sublated by reality. Then I can understand and

>agree when you say that the illusion is not the problem, as long as we

>remember that it is only an appearance; the problem arises when we are

>deluded into thinking it is real. Is this what you are saying?

 

For clear definition and description of what is mithya according to advaita

vedanata - one should study - more or less the final in the series of

discussions - is by Madhusuudana Saraswati on Advaita Siddhi - He answers

all the objections raised by Shree Jayathiirtha of Dwiata Philosophy and

Shree Vedanata Deshika of VishishhTaadvaita Philosophy. There was

discussion little more than year ago between Shree Gummaluru Murthy and

myself on this topic in this list serve on what is real, unreal and false

or mithya. Advaita Siddhi was used as a basis for discussion. One can

look up in the archives. Shree Madhusuudana provides the five definitions

of on the falsity. Shree Anand Hudli is now providing the detailed

traslation of the Advaita Siddhi and some commentary along with it in the

advaita list. There is an English Traslation and commentary of the Advaita

Siddhi -only on the portion pertaining to the falsity or mithya- by

Professor Karuna Bhattachaarya and the book can be obtained easily.

 

>Thanks, too, to Sadananda again for reminding me of the

>dR^igdR^ishyavivekaH. I read this two or three years ago and had forgotten

>about it. It also has something to say about mAyA. "Two powers,

>undoubtedly, are predicated of mAyA viz. projecting and veiling. The

>projecting power (vikshhepa-shakti) creates everything from the subtle body

>to the gross universe." (i.e. both world and mind). "The manifesting of all

>names and forms in the entity which is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss and

>which is the same as Brahman, like the foams etc. in the ocean, is known as

>creation.The other power (AvaraNa-shakti) conceals the distinction

>between the perceiver and the perceived objects which are cognised within

>the body as well as the distinction between Brahman and the phenomenal

>universe which is perceived outside. This power is the cause of the

>phenomenal universe." Simple isn't it? (!)

>

>Dennis

 

Yes - here is one sloka that partains to what you have discussed:

 

antar dRik drusyayor bhedam bahischa braham sargayoH|

aavRinoscha paraashaktiH saa samasaarasya kaaraNam||

 

The distiction between the seer and the seen in the mind, and the creation

and Brahman or the creator outside the mind is due vailing power of the

maaya and it is the cause for the samaasaara.

 

Remember maaya itself is maaya - it is a factor brought in to explain the

creation since one sees the creation and asking why and where from etc.

>From the point of truth there is no creation hence the no need of a creator

or maaya either to explain that which does not exist. Hence from what

reference one is asking the question and from what reference one is

answering the question are important. Hence Nisargadatta Maharaj's answer

that was well quated.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623