Realism and Ishwara (was: Vishistadvaita Ontology)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

-

"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik

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

> > Creation presupposes the existence of Subject, Object and the act

> > of perception.

>

> But that would lead to a circularity because there can't be objects

> without creation. The egg and the chicken story...

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

 

Chittaranjanji, my mistake in confusing you. My hands didnt follow my mind!

Let me pray once again..' mano me vAchi pratiShThitam (bhavatu)' !

 

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

> > Ignorance is the cause for the Creation (of empirical

> > experience) itself.

>

> Cause in the sense of material and efficient cause belongs to Ishwara

> alone - even in Advaita. The first section of Brahman Sutra Bhashya

> says this.

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

 

AchaArya in the brahmasUtra bhAshya preamble clearly says that all worldly

and Vedic activity is due to Ignorance. The Creation, Ishwara and even the

Veda-s as a valid means to Knowledge falls under Ignorance. This should

always be in our mind as a background shruti (as in carnatic music!) while

reading AchArya's bhAshyam-s. The world is Real, no doubt, since it is

Brahman itself. The 'Creation' that we discuss is no more than a (unreal)

modification as the bangle or the ring. We are referring to this

modification when we say 'Creation'. This modification is just the

superimposition which has no existence apart from Brahman and which cannot

be proved as either real or unreal. And this superimposition does not effect

Brahman, the substratum. When I say that the world is real, I am actually

referring to the Brahman as the material cause of the world. The Brahman,

the absolute is the sole reality. This is the limit of my advaitic realism.

I think your concept of advaitic Realism is something more. If Ishwara is

considered as real, then the effect, the empirical world of nAma-rUpa will

also be real in the 'real sense', which advaita doesnt agree to. I agree

that this nAma-rUpa is nothing other than Brahman in the absolute sense. But

not so in the vyavahAric realm where subject and object is discussed.

 

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

> > But an advaitin has to pay a heavy price while resorting to

> > this compromise.

>

> It is not a compromise, but a statement of the Shruti.

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

 

shruti is not here to give the status of creator to Ishwara. It is teaching

us jIva-brahma-aikya.

 

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

> > It is always better to confine Ishwara for prescribed

> > meditation (upAsana).

>

> I agree that Ishwara is prescribed for meditation, but I don't agree

> that Ishwara is merely a provisional concept for meditation.

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

 

In advaita, it is so. The concept of Ishwara is for the low and medium

intellects. AchArya never says that Ishwara is 'Real'. You are free to

disagree.

 

Chittaranjanji, I agree that advaita is not Idealism. However, it is not

pure Realism either!

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

"The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal.

That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be

the meaning of the Vedantic text: "All this is

Brahman"? They only mean that the world is unreal as world,

but is real as Self. If you regard the world as

not-Self, it is not real. Everything, whether you call it

maya or leela or shakti, must be within the Self and

not apart from It. There can be no shakti apart from

the shakta."shri Ramana Maharishi- DAY BY

DAY WITH BHAGAVAN (1977) p.233

 

Salutations to Mauna guru Shri Ramana Bhagwan !

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji,

 

I'd thought that we would be on the same side when the topic of "real

and unreal" comes up for discussion later. Now it seems that I'll

have to face the brick bats all alone! I am truly terrified. :-)

 

Only one small thing...

 

The Acharya in the preamble to the Brahma Sutra Bhashya says that the

non-self and the Self which are completely contradictory by nature

are superimposed on one another. He says that "owing to an absence of

discrimination between these attribuites the human behavior has for

its material cause an unreal necsience and man resorts to it by

mixing up reality with unreality as a result of superimposing the

things themselves or their attributes on each other." Then follows a

discussion on the nature of superimposition. Then follows a

clarification to the objection that something seen cannot be

superimposed on something not seen by asserting that the self is not

entirely unknown, it being apprehended as the content of the

concept "I". After this comes the explanation that "all forms of

worldy and Vedic behaviour that are connected with valid means of

knowledge and objects of knowledge start by taking for granted this

mutual superimposition of the Self and non-self, known as nescience."

 

Where IN THE PREAMBLE does it say that the universe is unreal?

 

I now request that we close this discussion as we shall be taking it

up later when it becomes due. Meanwhile, I'll try to be careful not

to utter anything related to adhyasa or to the reality of Ishwara on

this list.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> -

> "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik>

> --------------

> > > Creation presupposes the existence of Subject, Object and the

act

> > > of perception.

> >

> > But that would lead to a circularity because there can't be

objects

> > without creation. The egg and the chicken story...

> --------------

>

> Chittaranjanji, my mistake in confusing you. My hands didnt follow

my mind!

> Let me pray once again..' mano me vAchi pratiShThitam (bhavatu)' !

>

> --------------

> > > Ignorance is the cause for the Creation (of empirical

> > > experience) itself.

> >

> > Cause in the sense of material and efficient cause belongs to

Ishwara

> > alone - even in Advaita. The first section of Brahman Sutra

Bhashya

> > says this.

> --------------

>

> AchaArya in the brahmasUtra bhAshya preamble clearly says that all

worldly

> and Vedic activity is due to Ignorance. The Creation, Ishwara and

even the

> Veda-s as a valid means to Knowledge falls under Ignorance. This

should

> always be in our mind as a background shruti (as in carnatic

music!) while

> reading AchArya's bhAshyam-s. The world is Real, no doubt, since it

is

> Brahman itself. The 'Creation' that we discuss is no more than a

(unreal)

> modification as the bangle or the ring. We are referring to this

> modification when we say 'Creation'. This modification is just the

> superimposition which has no existence apart from Brahman and which

cannot

> be proved as either real or unreal. And this superimposition does

not effect

> Brahman, the substratum. When I say that the world is real, I am

actually

> referring to the Brahman as the material cause of the world. The

Brahman,

> the absolute is the sole reality. This is the limit of my advaitic

realism.

> I think your concept of advaitic Realism is something more. If

Ishwara is

> considered as real, then the effect, the empirical world of nAma-

rUpa will

> also be real in the 'real sense', which advaita doesnt agree to. I

agree

> that this nAma-rUpa is nothing other than Brahman in the absolute

sense. But

> not so in the vyavahAric realm where subject and object is

discussed.

>

> --------------

> > > But an advaitin has to pay a heavy price while resorting to

> > > this compromise.

> >

> > It is not a compromise, but a statement of the Shruti.

> --------------

>

> shruti is not here to give the status of creator to Ishwara. It is

teaching

> us jIva-brahma-aikya.

>

> --------------

> > > It is always better to confine Ishwara for prescribed

> > > meditation (upAsana).

> >

> > I agree that Ishwara is prescribed for meditation, but I don't

agree

> > that Ishwara is merely a provisional concept for meditation.

> --------------

>

> In advaita, it is so. The concept of Ishwara is for the low and

medium

> intellects. AchArya never says that Ishwara is 'Real'. You are free

to

> disagree.

>

> Chittaranjanji, I agree that advaita is not Idealism. However, it

is not

> pure Realism either!

>

> Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adi_Shakti-ji,

 

It's so nice to hear these words!

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> "The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal.

> That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be

> the meaning of the Vedantic text: "All this is

> Brahman"? They only mean that the world is unreal as world,

> but is real as Self. If you regard the world as

> not-Self, it is not real. Everything, whether you call it

> maya or leela or shakti, must be within the Self and

> not apart from It. There can be no shakti apart from

> the shakta."shri Ramana Maharishi- DAY BY

> DAY WITH BHAGAVAN (1977) p.233

>

> Salutations to Mauna guru Shri Ramana Bhagwan !

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Chittaranji, Rangeetji, Jbji, Adi shaktji and all,

 

I think the following story will be of interest to you all. (you all must have

heard of it)

 

There was a very learned Pandit in the court of a King. He was always lecturing

to the king and the entire court that the “world is just an appearance and there

is not much reality in it, and it is all just Mithya” and “lack of this

knowledge is the root cause of all our problems.” They, including the king, not

only gave no weight to this Pandit and sometimes they used to call him a mad

man.

 

One day the king went on a hunting and asked the Pandit also to join. Deep in

the forest they were proceeding and suddenly a tiger appeared. The king and his

men started shooting at the tiger. However, the Pandit ran away saving his life,

without wasting even a moment.

 

After the party returned to the capital, one day the king asked the Pandit “you

always say there is not much reality in the world and if that is your knowledge

about the world, why did you run away when the tiger appeared” and “did you not

give reality to the tiger?” The clever Pandit replied “the tiger that appeared

before us was mithya and the Pandit, i.e. me, who ran away saving his life was

also equally mithya.”

 

The sole purpose of Advaita Vedanta is only to correct one’s vision about his

own self and the world of objects. We are not to take the world as “not real”.

Our knowledge of the world outside needs correction, and the Advaita Vedanta

does that. When “neti neti” is used “neti neti” pertain to the knowledge one has

about the world based on his notions, and not to the world of objects.

 

I do not think we have to negate Nama, Roopa, and other attributes of the

objects, what requires negation rather correction, is our knowledge. Each person

projects his own world according to his notions. There is nothing wrong with the

world of objects.

 

Warm regards

 

Hari Om

 

Mani

 

 

 

 

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:Namaste Adi_Shakti-ji,

 

It's so nice to hear these words!

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

-

"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik

 

After this comes the explanation that "all forms of

> worldy and Vedic behaviour that are connected with valid means of

> knowledge and objects of knowledge start by taking for granted this

> mutual superimposition of the Self and non-self, known as nescience."

>

> Where IN THE PREAMBLE does it say that the universe is unreal?

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

 

Is there any universe other than worldly and Vedic?

 

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

> I now request that we close this discussion as we shall be taking it

> up later when it becomes due. Meanwhile, I'll try to be careful not

> to utter anything related to adhyasa or to the reality of Ishwara on

> this list.

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

 

Lets wait Chittaranjanji.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji,

 

-

"R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani

 

I do not think we have to negate Nama, Roopa, and other attributes of the

objects, what requires negation rather correction, is our knowledge. Each

person projects his own world according to his notions. There is nothing

wrong with the world of objects.

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

 

The nAma-rUpa is nothing but mAya. And this has to be negated by the valid

means of Knowledge which is the Veda-s. No doubt about it.

 

We are not at all interested in the world being right or wrong. What we are

really interested is the degree of reality of the world. The world of

objects springs up only when we take for granted the subject experiencing

it. Being a subject experiencing an object clearly presupposes ignorance. If

all this remains after 'na iti, na iti', the Veda-s become useless.

 

The fact that we are able to distinguish between subject and object proves

the existence of natural beginningless avidya. Once this has been accepted,

the nAma-rUpa of the world, mAya, becomes the non-Self and the world in its

true nature becomes the Self, the homogenous substratum of all. Using the

Knowledge from the Veda-s, we negate this illusionary 'appearance' of the

world and the limiting adjuncts of the body, mind and intellect imagined

through Ignorance , thereby attaining the highest puruShArtha.

 

Maniji, we will discuss more of this when Chittaranjanji takes up the topic

for discussion.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji,

 

Despite wanting to avoid further discussion on this topic at present,

I am impelled to respond to one point in your post because of the

wide reaching ramifications that it would have on the interpretion of

the Bhashya.

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

 

 

Chittaranjan:

> > After this comes the explanation that "all forms of

> > worldy and Vedic behaviour that are connected with valid

> > means of knowledge and objects of knowledge start by taking

> > for granted this mutual superimposition of the Self and

> > non-self, known as nescience."

> >

> > Where IN THE PREAMBLE does it say that the universe is unreal?

 

 

Ranjeet:

> Is there any universe other than worldly and Vedic?

 

 

Chittaranjan:

 

You left out the next word after "worldly and Vedic" -- the

word "behaviour".

 

"Worldly and Vedic BEHAVIOUR" does not mean "worldly and Vedic

UNIVERSE". They have different meanings. The Acharya is here talking

of worldy and Vedic behaviour which, he says, is dependent on the

superimposition of the non-self on the Self. Am I demanding something

unreasonable in asking to abide by the words of the preamble?

 

I am aware that there are later sections of the Bhashya containing

statements to the effect that the superimposition of the world on

Brahman is unreal, but let us not bring this into the preamble when

the preamble itself does not contain it. In view of the importance

that you (rightly) give to the preamble when you say that it should

be kept as a background sruti to the reading of the Bhashya, it

becomes obligatory that we refrain from instilling more meaning into

it than is contained therein so that it doesn't colour the meaning of

the entire Bhashya. I assure you that I am not being merely pedantic:

this is important.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste SrI Ranjeet-ji,

 

 

> The nAma-rUpa is nothing but mAya. And this has to be negated by

the valid

> means of Knowledge which is the Veda-s. No doubt about it.

>

> We are not at all interested in the world being right or wrong.

What we are

> really interested is the degree of reality of the world. The world

of

> objects springs up only when we take for granted the subject

experiencing

> it. Being a subject experiencing an object clearly presupposes

ignorance. If

> all this remains after 'na iti, na iti', the Veda-s become useless.

 

 

 

Marvellous! If only I had more time, I would have added my thoughts.

Looking at all the realism flowing here these days, I was really

wondering whether this is an advaita list.

 

 

Regards

Raghavendra