The Real and the Unreal - Part IV - The Dream Analogy

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> CN prabhuji:

>

> I agree that all vyavahara is due to ignorance. This statement

> however does not mean that the entire world is false like the

> son of a barren woman.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> I agree but at the same time it cannot be said that the

> world is brahman or pUrNa either...this entire world of

> waking traces no place in dream world & in sushupti neither

> waking world nor dream world but YOU are there !! is it not??

 

When you say that this entire world does not exist in swapna and

susupti, I think you are applying the word 'exist' as

meaning 'present to the senses'. This is certainly one meaning of the

word 'existence' as we employ it in our day to day lives. I think

that the path of Advaita is to enquire about this meaning until the

true meaning of 'existence' shines.

 

______________

> CN prabhuji:

>

> The Acharya says that superimpsition is the mistaking

> of one thing for another. All our behaviour arises from

> mistaking the non-Self for the Self. When this error is

> removed, there is no sense of agency and hence there is

> no more any behavior or vyavahara.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Right prabhuji, then could you please educate me what is

> self & what is non-self according to you prabhuji.

 

Self is that sentient being within (and without). Non-self here is

the city of nine gates.

______________

 

Bhaskar Prabhuji:

> As far as I know, in your case, in snake-rope analogy

> both snake & rope are real.

 

No, in the snake-rope error, the rope is real and the snake is false.

But the falsity of the snake seen in the rope does not establish the

unreality of snakes, though it does establish the unreality of the

snake seen in the rope.

 

___________

> CN prabhuji:

> > Now the question is how is the waking point of view known to

> > be the result of an error?? the answer is already stated above,

> > it is coz. the waking state takes the body and the organs of

> > senses etc. to be real without any warrant & mixes up the real

> > witnessing Atman & the unreal not-self.

>

> I will here reproduce Shankara's words on superimposition: "It is an

> awareness, similar in nature to memory, that arises on a different

> basis as a result of some past experience. With regards to this,some

> say that it consists in the superimposition of the attributes of one

> thing on another. But others assert that wherever a superimposition

> on anything occurs, there is in evidence only a confusion arising

> from the absence of discrimination between them. Others say that the

> superimposition of anything on any other substratum consists in

> fancying some opposite attributes on that very basis. From every

> point of view, however, there is no difference as regards the

> appearance of one thing as something else".

>

> bhaskar:

>

> if you can see above, I was referring about waking state & trying

> to explain why it is ajnAna janita. But prabhuji, here you are

> giving me shankara's adhyAsa bhAshya statements.

 

That is because asked: 'Now the question is how the waking point of

view is known to be the result of an error??' Since we are talking of

errors and since that is the context in which Shankara brings in

adhyasa, superimposition becomes relevant.

_________________

 

Bhasjar Prabhuji:

> I hope we are talking about avathAtraya prakriya here.

 

What does that mean?

_________________

> CN prabhuji:

>

> The unreality of the non-Self lies in the fact that it

> appears falsely as the Self.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> whatever appears is not the self (achintyam, agrAhyam &

> apramEyaM) so says shruti.

 

Whatever appears is not the Self since it is what appears to the

Self.

 

Achintyam, etc needs the context in which these words appear. We

can't apply them anywhere out of context.

_________________

> Then what is this false appearance as the self??

 

The city of nine gates.

_________________

> CN prabhuji:

>

> I can see that there is no severence of truth according to your view

> because you are considering the world to be non-existent like 'the

> son of a barren woman'.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> No, I've been telling world has a temporal reality & has

> vyavahArika satya & from paramArtha drshti ONLY Atman is

> the ultimate reality. prabhuji, do you atleast now make

> out the reality of the world from my perspective??

 

I am sorry Bhaskarji, I can't figure out what you are saying when I

consider that you say that there is no world in paramarthika sathya.

What happens to all those forms that you saw in temporal reality?

They could not have vanished since they are not like the 'son of a

barren woman' and since the existent (temporal or otherwise) can

never become non-existent just as the non-existent can never become

the existent.

_______________

 

Bhaskar Prabhuji:

> On the other hand, what you are telling is world has ever

> existing reality as absolute brahman.

 

The world is eternal, yes.

> Despite the fact that its existence entirely dependent on

> avastha-s.

 

Its existence does not depend on avastha-s. We need first to get to

the meaning of the terms 'change' and 'existence' before we judge

about existence in relation to temporal states.

_______________

> CN prabhuji:

>

> "The birth of a thing that exists can reasonably be possible only

> through Maya and not in reality. For one who holds that things take

> birth in a real sense, there can only be the birth of what is

> already born."

>

> bhaskar:

>

> Thats fine...I am not denying the mAya satkArya vAda in kArika

> prabhuji.

 

Okay.

__________________

> CN prabhuji:

>

> Link this to the Brahma Sutra that says that the effect is pre-

> existent in the material cause. Thus the world is not really born

> because it is already pre-existent in the cause, and the

> differentiation which makes it seem to come into being is false.

> It is the birth through Maya of what is already existent.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> if creation is not real, whats your explanation on various

> account of creations in shruti-s??

 

Creation exists in accordance with the meaning of words. Creation is

false if it is meant in the sense that something absolutely non-

existent is said to come into being.

__________________

> In sUtra bhAshya also shankara gives acceptance to creation &

> Ishvara while talking about para & apara brahman. How can you

> accept upAdAna kAraNa without accepting the srushti?? How do

> you reconcile shruti purports about srushti??

 

I see no contradiction that needs to be reconciled because I don't

take the world to be unreal.

________________

> & prabhuji, you have not replied to shankara's quote which says

> pre-existence of the world in seed form (avyakta, avyAkruta, bIta

> shakthi) in the cause is avdiyAkruta. See sUtra bhAshya (2-1-9)

> yathA hi avibhAgEpi paramAtma.........apratibaddhaiva

> vibhAgashaktiH anumAsyatE.

 

In Shankara bhashya you will find that there is a razors edge between

the power of the Lord and the avidya of the jiva. We will discuss

this when we come to the topic of Ishwara.

________________

> CN prabhuji:

>

> I do not see that the objections of the Dvaitins are valid against

> Shankara siddhanta, but I see them as being eminently valid against

> your siddhanta. :-)

>

> bhaskar:

>

> You may be right prabhuji:-) My humble request to you is to

> educate me true shankara siddhAnta through *shankara bhAshya*

> not through your well articulated intellectual answers..After

> all I am here on cyber gurukula to learn shankara vEdAnta.

 

First of all, my apologies for my comments about 'your siddhanta'. As

for educating you, I am not the one qualified to do it. Bhaskarji, I

am only sharing my meagre understanding here and learning on the way.

But I don't understand how one can understand Shankara bhashya

without the intellect. The power of discrimination belongs to the

budhhi. Of course, for one with pure chitta, the shruti goes to the

heart instantly, but otherwise one needs to study and do manana on

the meaning of the shruti statements - and that is an intellectual

activity (it is done through the buddhi or intellect).

__________________

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

 

Bhaskar Prabhuji:

> As far as I know, in your case, in snake-rope analogy

> both snake & rope are real.

 

No, in the snake-rope error, the rope is real and the snake is false.

But the falsity of the snake seen in the rope does not establish the

unreality of snakes, though it does establish the unreality of the

snake seen in the rope.

 

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

 

Neither does it prove the reality of snakes !!

 

The analogy shows that rope is real and snake is unreal 'at the moment of

superimposition'. There is no need to go beyond that 'at the moment' !!

 

In haste..

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

ALL-NEW Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ranjeetji,

 

advaitin, Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch>

wrote:

>> No, in the snake-rope error, the rope is real and the snake

>> is false. But the falsity of the snake seen in the rope does

>> not establish the unreality of snakes, though it does

>> establish the unreality of the snake seen in the rope.

>

> Neither does it prove the reality of snakes !!

> The analogy shows that rope is real and snake is unreal 'at

> the moment of superimposition'.

 

A slight correction -- at the moment of superimposition, it was the

snake that was real and the rope that was unreal. It was only at the

moment of sublation when the superimposition was removed that the

snake 'became' unreal and the rope was seen as real. :-)

 

> There is no need to go beyond that 'at the moment' !!

 

Ranjeetji, by your logic there would be no need to go beyond what you

see 'at the moment' and think that there is the rest of the world

when all you see 'at the moment' are the walls of your room and some

features therein. There is of course, no other room in the house, nor

the person to whom you are writing the mail to because he is not

seen 'at the moment'. There is even not the back side of the screen

that completes the assembly of the computer monitor. Thus we arrive

at a perfect articulation of the 'theory of momentariness' held by

the Buddhists!

 

> In haste..

 

I'm sure, otherwise I can't imagine our Ranjeetji professing Buddhist

doctrines! :-)

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I am following with interest the back and forth discussions

between shri Bhaskar and shri Chittaranjan. I think I have

a reasonable idea of where they stand on the matter of

jagat/brahman.

 

To clarify my own understanding, I would request these two

as well as other learned members to comment on the following:

 

In what way does jagat evolving out of brahman different or

similar to a banyan tree evolving out of the seed? Can they

be viewed as exact analogies or are they not?

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Murthy Gaaru

 

Where are you located now?

-----------

 

Here is my understanding:

 

In the DakshaNamuurthy text - there is a sloka that starts with -

 

biijasyantarivAnkuro jagadidam prak nirvikalpam manaH

.......(not sure exact words - writing out of memory)

 

This comes after the first sloka that makes a big bang showing the

analogy to dream state - which I wrote last week.

 

This seed-tree analogy - is important - to show

 

1.The cyclic nature of the creation-sustenance-and annihilation process.

Hence no beginning - seed to tree and tree to seed.

 

Seed comes from a tree and tree comes from a seed. One from the basis

for the other.

 

2. Banyan tree comes from banyan seed not from tomato seed. Implication

is the prior samkaara for the tree is imbedded in the seed as genetic

code! It is like the projection of the snake (and not projection of

gaagaabuubu) on the rope, prior samskaara is required - that is the

knowledge of the snake that has some saadRisyam (similarity) with the

rope. In the snake example the locus of the snake attributes is

elsewhere in the creation. For the world, just as for the seed, the

samskaara comes from, previous life (for individual, vyashhTi) and world

before pralaya for total (samashhTi)

 

3. Any claim that the world is independently created will be incorrect -

it is like claiming that the seed is independent of a tree - In a cyclic

process, each depends on the other - anyonya aasraya -

 

4. Role of Iswara (samashhTi) and role of Jiiva(vyashhTi) are like whole

and part. But from the point of their essence (Brahman) -even the

concept of part and whole - falls apart.

 

5. Vyavahaara satya falls in the cycle - paarmaarthika is looking at the

essence of the cycle - both from the vyashhTi and samashhTi.

 

6. Ultimately - the question about the reality of the world is raised by

jiiva who sees the world separate from him. The advise of the scriptures

is that we need to recognize the relative cyclic nature of the universe

and see (understand) the essence that is the substratum for the cycle

which does not undergo any cycle.

 

7. When Upanishads talk Brahman as the material cause - it is pointing

about the essence of the cycle. In the seed example it is talking about

the cyclic nature of the creation and Brahman is subsantive for both the

seed and the tree - since he does not undergo any mutation during

creation. Hence He alone is real. The rest is changing reality - or flux

- hence we use the word vyavahaara. As long as we separate the relative

reality versus absolute reality, there should not be any confusion.

Then the relative reality is by definition depends on the reference. If

one says the world is real for a waker - so is the dream world for a

dreamer - this is embeded in the reference states. That is way scripture

uses satyam and satyasya satyam - one to indecated the relative reality

and the other to indicate the absolute reality.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- gmurthy_99 <gmurthy wrote:

 

> In what way does jagat evolving out of brahman different or

> similar to a banyan tree evolving out of the seed? Can they

> be viewed as exact analogies or are they not?

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

>

> namaste.

>

> I am following with interest the back and forth discussions

> between shri Bhaskar and shri Chittaranjan. I think I have

> a reasonable idea of where they stand on the matter of

> jagat/brahman.

>

> To clarify my own understanding, I would request these two

> as well as other learned members to comment on the following:

>

> In what way does jagat evolving out of brahman different or

> similar to a banyan tree evolving out of the seed? Can they

> be viewed as exact analogies or are they not?

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

 

 

Namaste, Murthy-garu, We are really missing you in all these

discussions. Well, in addition to what Sada-ji has already posted in

reply to your question, I want to add the following:

 

"bIjam-avyayaM" -- The seed in the brahman-world analogy is the

unchanging imperishable seed. Whereas, in the case of the banyan

tree, the seed transforms into the banyan tree by an actual

transformation . When jagat evolves out of brahman, brahman is

still brahman as it is, with no change. "pUrnasya pUrnam AdAya... !"

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

> Neither does it prove the reality of snakes !! The

analogy shows that rope is real and snake is unreal

'at the moment of superimposition'.

 

 

CN:

A slight correction -- at the moment of

superimposition, it was the snake that was real and

the rope that was unreal. It was only at the moment of

sublation when the superimposition was removed that

the snake 'became' unreal and the rope was seen as

real. :-)

-----------

 

 

The rope-snake analogy is introduced to explain

superimposition, ie mistaking one thing as another.

Here, the snake is a 'mistake' and is never real. It

doesn't rise, remain or subside in the rope at any

time. So it is unreal even at the moment of

superimposition. A real snake can never become unreal,

whether at the moment of sublation or at any other

moment. If, as you suggest, the snake is real at the

time of superimposition, then how can this example be

used to explain superimposition? If snake is seen as

snake, where is the superimposition? Where is the

mistaking of one thing as another?

 

> There is no need to go beyond that 'at the moment'

!!

 

 

CN:

Thus we arrive at a perfect articulation of the

'theory of momentariness' held by the Buddhists!

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

 

Chittaranjanji, I didn’t think about buddhist

momentariness even for 'a moment'! Neither does my

statement lead one to the buddhist theory. I was just

once again pointing out the basic flaw in your

analysis. How will anyone be able to explain the

complexities in the theory of superimposition by

analysing a prAtibAsika error? Rope-snake shows that

one thing is mistaken for another. Bas..There ends the

use of this analogy.

 

CN:

 

I'm sure, otherwise I can't imagine our Ranjeetji

professing Buddhist doctrines! :-)

----

 

Neither can I !! :-))

 

I have a feeling that in your series you will end up

saying that Ishvara is also real!

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself

http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ranjeetji,

 

advaitin, Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch>

wrote:

>

> CN:

> A slight correction -- at the moment of

> superimposition, it was the snake that was real and

> the rope that was unreal. It was only at the moment of

> sublation when the superimposition was removed that

> the snake 'became' unreal and the rope was seen as

> real. :-)

>

> Ranjeetji:

>

> The rope-snake analogy is introduced to explain

> superimposition, ie mistaking one thing as another.

> Here, the snake is a 'mistake' and is never real. It

> doesn't rise, remain or subside in the rope at any

> time. So it is unreal even at the moment of

> superimposition. A real snake can never become unreal,

> whether at the moment of sublation or at any other

> moment. If, as you suggest, the snake is real at the

> time of superimposition, then how can this example be

> used to explain superimposition? If snake is seen as

> snake, where is the superimposition? Where is the

> mistaking of one thing as another?

>

> There is no need to go beyond that 'at the moment'!!

 

 

Ranjeetji, one needn't go beyond that 'at the moment' if one doesn't

want to, but I believe that going beyond helps one understand the

meanings of the terms 'real' and 'unreal' as they are applied to the

situation when we say that the rope is real and the snake is unreal.

And of course, I wasn't suggesting that the snake was real at the

time of the error. I was suggesting that there would have been no

error at all if the snake didn't appear real at the instant of the

error. We both understand this. What was there all the time was the

rope. We both understand this too. The question is whether the

situation 'at the moment' is a sufficient condition to explain the

appearance of the snake as real.

 

Now, let me approach this from a different direction. Suppose you

were to fall prey to a snake-in-the-rope error, and were later on to

see a real snake, then you would see a likeness between the false

snake that you saw in the error and the real snake that you see later

whereby you apply the same name 'snake' to point out in one case that

it was false and in the other that it was real. What is it that

persists between the moment when you saw the false snake and the

moment that you see the real snake whereby you see the likeness of

snake in both?

 

> I have a feeling that in your series you will end up

> saying that Ishvara is also real!

 

It will. Ishwara is real. I see no reason to say it otherwise.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> Ranjeetji, one needn't go beyond that 'at the moment' if one doesn't

> want to, but I believe that going beyond helps one understand the

> meanings of the terms 'real' and 'unreal' as they are applied to the

> situation when we say that the rope is real and the snake is unreal.

> And of course, I wasn't suggesting that the snake was real at the

> time of the error. I was suggesting that there would have been no

> error at all if the snake didn't appear real at the instant of the

> error. We both understand this. What was there all the time was the

> rope. We both understand this too. The question is whether the

> situation 'at the moment' is a sufficient condition to explain the

> appearance of the snake as real.

> Now, let me approach this from a different direction. Suppose you

> were to fall prey to a snake-in-the-rope error, and were later on to

> see a real snake, then you would see a likeness between the false

> snake that you saw in the error and the real snake that you see later

> whereby you apply the same name 'snake' to point out in one case that

> it was false and in the other that it was real. What is it that

> persists between the moment when you saw the false snake and the

> moment that you see the real snake whereby you see the likeness of

> snake in both?

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

 

 

When I say that snake is unreal, I dont mean to imply that all snakes are

unreal! When a snake is perceived as a snake in its true nature, there is no

error (in the empirical level). I only mean to say that when the rope-snake

analogy is used in advaita, it is to drive home the point that one thing is

mistaken for another. However, I object to your further analysis on the

analogy which brings in the conditions for superimposition etc. Here also,

I am only objecting when you take the same conditions and characteristics of

this prAtibAsika error to explain 'all' superimposition in advaita.

 

 

As for the meanings of the terms real and unreal, Shri sha~Nkara says in

Tai.Up.Bh-2-1-1:

" As for 'satya' (real), a thing is said to be satya, true, when it is does

not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said

to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own.

Hence a modification is unreal, for in the text, 'All transformation has

speech as its basis, and it is name only. Clay as such is the

reality.(Ch.Up.Bh-6-1-4)', it is been emphasised that that alone is true

that exists. "

 

> > I have a feeling that in your series you will end up

> > saying that Ishvara is also real!

>

> It will. Ishwara is real. I see no reason to say it otherwise.

 

 

You ARE a hard-core-realist !! :-))

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Murthyji,

> --- gmurthy_99 <gmurthy wrote:

>

>

> > In what way does jagat evolving out of brahman different or

> > similar to a banyan tree evolving out of the seed? Can they

> > be viewed as exact analogies or are they not?

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

 

Shri sha~Nkara didn't make much use of this analogy in his bhAshyam-s.

Nevertheless, He had mentioned the same in some other places while

explaining some other concepts. From those, we will come to know how He saw

the analogy.

 

In B.S.B-2-2-26:

" Even in the cases of the seed and the rest where there is an appearance of

destruction, that is understood to be the cause of the subsequent state; for

what is admitted is that those parts (or cells) of the seed and the rest

which remain undestroyed and which persist (in the sprouts and the rest)

become the material causes of the sprouts and the rest. "

 

Please note that this is a reply to the view that existence (sprout) can

come out of non-existence (destruction of seed).

 

 

Further in Gau.Ka-4-20, He rejects the use of this analogy to explain

beginninglessness!

 

" Objection: Is it not a matter of experience that the casual relation

between the seed and the sprout is without a beginning?

 

Reply: Not so, for it is admitted that the earlier ones have their beginning

like the succeeding ones. Just as a separate sprout that has originated now

from a seed has a beginning and another seed born out of a separate sprout

has also a beginning by the very fact of succession in birth, similarly the

antecedent sprouts as well as the antecedents seeds must have a beginning.

And thus since each one of the whole chain of seeds and sprouts must have a

beginning, it is illogical to assert eternality for any of them. So also is

the case with regard to causes and effects. If now it is argued that the

chain of causes and effects is without a beginning , we say, no; for any

unity of such a series cannot be upheld. Indeed, apart from the causes and

effects, even those who talk of the beginninglessness of such a series do

not certainly vouch for a unitary entity called either a chain of seeds and

sprouts or a procession of causes and effect. "

 

...hara hara sha~Nkara jaya jaya sha~Nkara..

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ranjeetji,

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> When I say that snake is unreal, I dont mean to imply that

> all snakes are unreal! When a snake is perceived as a snake

> in its true nature, there is no error (in the empirical level).

> I only mean to say that when the rope-snake analogy is used in

> advaita, it is to drive home the point that one thing is

> mistaken for another.

 

We are in perfect agreement here. It is this very fact that I was

trying to present in 'Part II - The Preamble' -- that the snake-rope

error only shows that one thing is mistaken for another. And

naturally, when one thing is mistaken for another, there are two

things involved in it - the one and the other.

 

> However, I object to your further analysis on the analogy

> which brings in the conditions for superimposition etc.

> Here also, I am only objecting when you take the same

> conditions and characteristics of this prAtibAsika error

> to explain 'all' superimposition in advaita.

 

The purpose of an analogy is to point out some distinguishing

characteristic that is common between the analogy and the thing to be

illustrated which is shown by pointing out: 'this is like that'. If

the distinguishing characteristic is not sifted and separated out

from the example, then the analogy does not serve its purpose. The

problem with the snake-rope analogy (in discussions on Advaita) is

that there is a debate on what it is supposed to mean in the context

of Reality and the world. It is because of this controversy that I

have been saying that the meanings of the terms 'real' and 'unreal'

as applied in the snake-rope analogy are to be investigated and

unearthed. However, such an andeavour takes it beyond the analogy

because the aim now becomes the understanding of the structure of the

analogous event itself rather than the original aim of the analogy.

That is how the condition for superimposition comes into the

discussion. However, we should now move on to a different mode of

study, and if you've seen my latest post you might have noticed that

there is a shift in it from analogies to a metaphysical

interpretation of Advaita - of course limited to my understanding of

the subject.

 

> As for the meanings of the terms real and unreal, Shri

> sha~Nkara says in Tai.Up.Bh-2-1-1: "As for 'satya' (real),

> a thing is said to be satya, true, when it is does

> not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own;

> and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature

> that is ascertained to be its own.

 

A thing can never change its nature without ceasing to be itself. The

change that is attributed to it is itself a superimposition of the

mind. I think this is what the Acharya is saying here.

 

> Hence a modification is unreal, for in the text, 'All

> transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name

> only. Clay as such is the reality.(Ch.Up.Bh-6-1-4)', it

> is been emphasised that that alone is true that exists."

 

But what do these words mean? Does the qualification of 'unreal'

point to the transformation, or to the thing that is seen to

transform? Isn't the problem here related to the nature of change?

Let us discuss this topic when we come to Part VII, (which I intend

to post within 2 to 3 days from now) if you don't mind.

 

> > Ishwara is real. I see no reason to say it otherwise.

>

> You ARE a hard-core-realist !! :-))

 

The hardest that can be!! :-) Everything is real. The unreality of

the world is just an upaya to show the way to the Truth of Advaita!!

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste All.

 

advaitin, "gmurthy_99"

<gmurthy@m...> wrote:

> [Message # 23863]

 

<<<<

In what way does jagat evolving out of brahman

different or similar to a banyan tree evolving

out of the seed?

Can they be viewed as exact analogies

or are they not?

<<<<

 

Shree Sadaji and Shree VkJi had already answered

the same.

Here are more references:-

a) The well-known Chandogya-Up. 6.12.1 :-

That Thou art,Svetaketu - that which

is the subtle essence. That which you

cannot percieve, of this very subtleness,

stands this huge banyan tree. He goes on

to add another analogy of salt and water

and states, although Existence is not

perceived, It is verily present everywhere

- That Thou art Svetaketu.

b)Yoga-Vasistha 4.1.1..33

Vasistha: "It is appropriate to say that the

tree exists in the seed, because both these

have appropriate forms. But in that which

has no form (Brahman), it is inappropriate to

say that this cosmic form of the world exists".

Vasistha adds, "In truth, Brahman alone exists

and what appears to be the world is That alone".

The conversation continues with Rama asking more

questions as to how this enormous universe exists

in the mind, etc.

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

In another context, the following discussion took

place:-

 

advaitin, S Venkatraman

<svenkat52> wrote:

> Namaste Murthyji,

>

>

>

> Without the real, unreal cannot be seen.

> Without the unreal, real cannot be seen.

>

> The first leg of what you say above is quite clear;

not so the

second one. May I seek further elucidation please.

>

> pranAms,

>

> Venkat - M

>

 

namaste shri venkat-ji,

 

What I meant by the second sentence above is: The

Absolute, the

Real, the Consciousness is beyond the reach of the

senses. But,

It can be visualized through the upAdhI-s and through

the

upAdhI-s only. It is through the jagat that Atman can

be

perceived. If there is no upAdhi, Atman cannot be

perceived.

Atman, subtlest of the subtle, pervades through all

and is

visualized through upAdhi only.

 

I hope the observation is not wrong.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

 

Regarding the second sentence, here is a

reference from "Kapilopadesha" 2.3

[publ.by Advaita-Ashrama(R.K.Math)] :-

"The Purusha is the beginningless Atman.

He is not constituted of the disposition(Gunas)

of Prakriti(Universal Nature),but is distinct

from, and superior to,Prakriti.

While He reveals everything in its distinctiveness,

He Himself is self-revealing, requiring no other

revealer. He has brought the forces of evolution

together and set them in motion."

---

What is interesting is the statement,

"He Himself is self-revealing, requiring no other

revealer".

---

In 1.15, Kaplia states,

"It is the view of wise men that the mind indeed

is the cause of both the bondage and liberation

of embodied beings. If the mind is attached to the

Gunas of Prakriti and their products, it leads to

bondage; but when it begins to feel delight and

attraction for the Lord (Purusha), it leads to

liberation".

 

With Love,

Raghava

----------

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

> ---

> What is interesting is the statement,

> "He Himself is self-revealing, requiring no other

> revealer".

> ---

> With Love,

> Raghava

 

Also there is this example of spider applied here. Spider itself is

the string, it needs no other external strings in order to weave its

own web!

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

This important analogy that distinguishes between the relative

reality of the spider and the string. We like the spider 'creates'

our dreams (thoughts consists of concepts and notions) and by

negating our 'creation' we reccognize our 'True Identity.'

 

It should be pointed out the 'World' consists of two parts: True

Being + creation. Only by negating the creation, the true being is

revealed. It should be pointed that the world is not negated but only

the 'attributes of the world created by the mind or thoughts' are

negated.

 

Banana is the True Being. Rotten banana, good banana, ugly banana are

our own creation of the true being. If we remove all the attributes,

then the true being is revealed! When we remove the 'ego' the Self is

revealed!

 

The fundamental issue is to understand that duality is due

to 'creation,' and by negation, we establish 'nonduality.'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madhava Turumella" <madhava@m...>

wrote:

>

> Also there is this example of spider applied here. Spider itself

> is the string, it needs no other external strings in order to

> weave its own web!

[Guest guest]

Hi Venkatji.

 

In order to cover the heaps of mail that I missed at Advaitin during

my recent holiday in India, I was doing a name-search.

 

And, lo, here I find this gem of a post from you. The conundrum of

animals and liberation has long bothered me and no saint worth his

name has been able to advise me so effectively. Thanks to you, I now

have the answer!

 

Keep up the sense of humour on these arid planes. Was it Harshaji

who long back asked if humour has a place here?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin, S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote:

> Namaste Benjamin,

>

> Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

>

> (I do not believe that lower animals can be liberated, and Shankara

> says so too. Precious is the human birth! Let us not waste it.)

>

>

> Venkat - M thinks

>

> Nor do lower animals want to be liberated because they are not

under the illusion of being bound. Also since these animals do not

consider their life to be precious, they do not waste it!!!

>

> pranams,

>

> Venkat - M

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shree Nairji and VenkatJi -

 

I read just a few days back, that, indeed, there are a

few worms and insects with Brahma-consciousness while

there are some gods in some planes with the lack of

it. I will have to backtrack and find out where I read

it...will do it later.

Please Note that there are 2 cases - an insect wanting

to get liberated and an already liberated insect.

Regards,

Raghava

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran

Nair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Hi Venkatji.

>

> In order to cover the heaps of mail that I missed at

Advaitin during

> my recent holiday in India, I was doing a

name-search.

>

> And, lo, here I find this gem of a post from you.

The conundrum of

> animals and liberation has long bothered me and no

saint worth his

> name has been able to advise me so effectively.

Thanks to you, I now

> have the answer!

>

> Keep up the sense of humour on these arid planes.

Was it Harshaji

> who long back asked if humour has a place here?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________

>

> advaitin, S Venkatraman

<svenkat52> wrote:

> > Namaste Benjamin,

> >

> > Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

> >

> >

> > (I do not believe that lower animals can be

liberated, and Shankara

> > says so too. Precious is the human birth! Let us

not waste it.)

> >

> >

> > Venkat - M thinks

> >

> > Nor do lower animals want to be liberated because

they are not

> under the illusion of being bound. Also since these

animals do not

> consider their life to be precious, they do not

waste it!!!

> >

> > pranams,

> >

> > Venkat - M

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste All.

>

> advaitin, "gmurthy_99"

> <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> > [Message # 23863]

>

> <<<<

> In what way does jagat evolving out of brahman

> different or similar to a banyan tree evolving

> out of the seed?

> Can they be viewed as exact analogies

> or are they not?

> <<<<

>

> Shree Sadaji and Shree VkJi had already answered

> the same.

> Here are more references:-

> a) The well-known Chandogya-Up. 6.12.1 :-

> That Thou art,Svetaketu -

> [...]

>

> b)Yoga-Vasistha 4.1.1..33

> Vasistha: "It is appropriate to say that the

> tree exists in the seed, because both these

> have appropriate forms. But in that which

> has no form (Brahman), it is inappropriate to

> say that this cosmic form of the world exists".

> [...]

>

> With Love,

> Raghava

 

 

namaste shri Raghava-ji,

 

Thanks very much for your comments on the two matters that

I raised earlier. I am responding to them in two separate posts

as the two together may get too long.

 

Re: the banyan tree coming out of the seed as a proper

analogy to jagat vis-a-vis brahman. In Taittiriya u. bhAShya

(translation by Alladi Mahadeva Sastry), the vedantin answers

the objection this way (quoted from p 328)

 

".. Let us first see what sort of a thing that is which we call

mAyA in common parlance. That which presents itself clearly

to our mind, but which it is not possible to explain, -

people apply to that the term mAyA, as for instance, the

indrajAla, the phenomenon produced by a juggler. Now, the

universe clearly presents itself to our consciousness; but

its explanation is impossible. Therefore, the universe is

a mere mAyA, as you may see if you view the matter impartially.

 

"Even if all learned men were to join together and proceed to

explain the universe, ignorance stares them in the face in some

one quarter or another. What answers, for instance, can you

give to the following questions? - How are the body, its sense

organs and the rest produced from semen? How has consciousness

come to be there? - Do you say that such is the very nature of

semen? - Then pray tell me how you have come to know it. The

inductive method of agreement and difference fails you here;

for there is such a thing as sterile semen. "I know nothing

whatever;" this is your last resort. It is for this reason

that the Great ones regard the universe to be a magic. On

this the ancients say: " what else can be a greater magic than

the semen abiding in the womb should become a conscious being

endued with various off-shoots springing from it such as hands,

head and feet, and that the same should become invested with

the marks of infancy, youth, and old age following one another

and should see, eat, hear, smell, go and come?" As in the case

of the body, so in the case of the fig seed and tree and the

like. Ponder well. Where is the tiny seed and where is the

big tree? Therefore rest assured that the universe is a mAyA.

As to the TArkikA-s (logicians) and others who profess to give

a rational explanation of the universe, they have all been taught

a severe lesson by Harshamisra and others. Manu says that those

things which are beyond thought should not be subjected to

argument, and it is indeed impossible to imagine even in mind

how the universe has been produced. Be assured that mAyA is

the seed endued with the potentiality of producing what is

unthinkable. This seed, mAyA, is alone present to consciousness

in sushupti or deep dreamless sleep." ..

 

In Telugu, there is a classic advaitic text titled "SitArAmAnjaneya

saMvAdamu", teaching by Lord RAma to Anjaneya. In that, in verse 21

of chapter 2, Lord RAma says to Anjaneya " .. In the seed of the

banyan tree, there is the power of producing a huge banyan tree.

In fire, there is the power of producing heat. In the magician,

there is the power of producing illusion. In stones, there is

the power of being hard. In water, there is the power of being

in liquid form. In semen, there is the power of producing a

human body. We have seen all these powers. Similarly, I have the

mAyA shakti which creates the universe. " Lord RAma continues

on about the "location" of this mAyA.

 

I should have stated in my original post "jagat evolving out of

avidyA or mAyA" rather than jagat evolving out of brahman.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy