The Real and the Unreal ( Question to Sadaji )

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji

 

All my humble regards to you.

 

Chittaranjanji has metioned about Maya in his posts.

Kindly help me understand better this concept.

 

I think Maya IS illusion as expounded in Sri Gaudapadacharya's Karika.

I will try explain my understanding.

Pls correct me wherever i am wrong.

 

I am talking from viewpoint of Paramarthik satya. I think Maya is nothing

but Qualia which every living being experience due to presence of sense organs.

It is totally dependant on the sense organs. If there were no sense organs ,

there would have been no Maya, no duality, only one brahma.

 

For example - we see a pot in front of us.

we can see the pot only because of vibrations of

electomagnetic rays in certain frequency hit our sense organs(eye). But actually

(w.r.t absolute reality) the pot is colourless. Our eyes have been made such

that if certain frequency rays strike, a certain qualia is generated. That

qualia is temporary, hence unreal (not trikala baaditha satya).

 

Similar is the case for all the sense organs viz touch,

smell, sound, taste.

All these are qualia created due the presense of sense organs.

Since the only means of knowledge of anything outside 'I' is sense organs, that

whole knowledge is nothing but illusion in the sense it is NOT trikala baadith

satya.

Anything that is real has to be trikala baadith satya. And only one entity or

thing that satisfies this condition is the substratum of all, Brahma.

 

Sadaji pls let me know if i am wrong or right ?

i know this is just an intellectual speculation, but i dont know, i am somehow

stuck at this point and need some clarification.

 

Om tat-sat

 

Vishal

 

 

 

*********************************************************

 

6. Maya is not illusion. It is Prakriti that is one with

Purusha. This is not unreal. Maya is also the projective power of

Brahman associated with Time. This too is not unreal. Maya is also

the concealing power within this projection in Time. It is only this

that we may perhaps call unreal. I am not sure.

 

**********************************************************

 

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4 wrote:

 

Shree Vishal Deshpande - Namaskaar - here is my Understanding:

> I think Maya IS illusion as expounded in Sri Gaudapadacharya's

> Karika.

> I will try explain my understanding.

> Pls correct me wherever i am wrong.

 

Unfortunately 'illusion' is incorrect translation of maaya. It gives

impression of unreality. maaya has transactional reality - that is where

human experience counts and action is also involved. It is unreality

from the absolute level. Confusion arises since absolute level is not

different from 'I am'.

> I am talking from viewpoint of Paramarthik satya.

 

Yes, you are then on solid ground, except for the fact that it is

difficult to view from paaramaarthika level since viewer and viewed

have no absolute separateness.

 

 

I think Maya is

> nothing but Qualia which every living being experience due to presence

> of sense organs. It is totally dependant on the sense organs. If there

> were no sense organs , there would have been no Maya, no duality, only

> one brahma.

 

It is not just the sense organs - It is the whole gimmick - it is the

play of intellect supported by mind, which is supported by the sense

organs. The duality can occur in the dream state without our sense

organs at gross level functioning. Play of the mind based on the

memory.

>

> For example - we see a pot in front of us.

> we can see the pot only because of vibrations

> of electomagnetic rays in certain frequency hit our sense organs(eye).

> But actually (w.r.t absolute reality) the pot is colourless. Our eyes

> have been made such that if certain frequency rays strike, a certain

> qualia is generated. That qualia is temporary, hence unreal (not

> trikala baaditha satya).

 

Without going into analysis of colors, it is not that pot is colorless.

Pot is colorful - say red, brown etc - Because of its colors, the

visible spectrum (white light that falls on the pot - certain

frequencies are absorbed by the pot leaving unabsorbed frequencies which

hit our eyes and we see those unabsorbed frequencies and interpret as

colorful pot! The absorption of all other frequencies makes the pot that

colorful. Hence color comes from the pot not at the eye level per sec.

Eyes can have different problem when one is color-blind! If the pot is

red - everybody sees it as red unless one is color blind to red.

> Similar is the case for all the sense organs

> viz touch, smell, sound, taste.

> All these are qualia created due the presense of sense organs.

 

I would say, the qualities are not created by the sense organs.

Qualities inhere in the object and are measured by the sense organs.

Without the sense organs we have no instruments to measure to pick up

those frequencies you mentioned.

> Since the only means of knowledge of anything outside 'I' is sense

> organs, that whole knowledge is nothing but illusion in the sense it

> is NOT trikala baadith satya.

 

The first part is right to some degree - The knowledge you are referring

to is only 'pratyaxa pramaaNa'. There are other pramaaNas besides

pratyaXa from which both relative and absolute knowledge can occur.

 

Worldly knowledge is not illusory but relatively real. The 'baadhita'

that we refer to or 'sublation' of the objective world is in the

understanding that it is temporal and not absolute reality. There is

absolute reality behind the temporal reality and that is what Shree

Chittaranji is emphasizing and that reality comes from Brahman as

'existence' - when we say 'object "is"'.

> Anything that is real has to be trikala baadith satya. And only one

> entity or thing that satisfies this condition is the substratum of

ÿ all, Brahma.

ÿ

Yes - but more correct statement is the substantive of the so-called

baadhita vastu is Brahman, which is real. So we define the absolutely

real - satyasya satyam - is trikaala abaadhita vastu. The others are

'not unreal' since they have temporal existence. Hence they are not

asatya as 'son of a barren women'. Hence they are called mithya or

maaya.

 

Let me give you simple example of maaya - The ring that I am wearing; is

it real or unreal? It is real, all right, since I can use it and

decorate myself and it is different from bangle or bracelet. - hence

naama, ruupa, kriya etc are associated with the ring. But if I destroy

the ring by melting and make a bracelet out of it - what happened to the

ring - Hence it was there but no more there. Hence ring is called

'praagaabhaava and uttaraabaava' - it was not there before and it is

not going to be there after - but it is there now. One the other hand

look at from gold point, which is substantive of the ring. It was gold

before it became ring and it is gold even when we call it as ring and

it will be gold even if we call it something else. At least from the

ring point gold is trikaala abaadhita. Clearly the degree of reality of

ring is different from the gold. Gold does not undergo mutation while

ring has changed into bracelet. The same relation between the Brahman

and the world. Like ring , world is relatively real - but its

substantive is absolutely real like Brahman. Ring is not unreal like

'son of barren woman'. But is not absolutely real since it is

baadhitam. Hence it is maaya. Ch.Up gives precisely this example to

illustrate the point of creation of the world. Who are maayavaadins -

the Upanishads or advaitins! -

> Sadaji pls let me know if i am wrong or right ?

> i know this is just an intellectual speculation, but i dont know, i am

> somehow stuck at this point and need some clarificati

>on.

 

 

I hope, it is clear now.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus