Guest guest Posted July 18, 2004 Report Share Posted July 18, 2004 Namaste, Advaitins, I have just opened my Mail after about ten days. Oosh, there are more than 800 mails to be read. There are quite a lot on “Real and Unreal” which I must read first. Before reading any of them, I thought I must also add my understanding of “Real”: “Real” Cannot be defined. One can attempt to define something provided: -It belongs to a Species (Jati) -It has a Guna (attribute) -It has a Kriya (action) -It can be related to something else (Sambandha) If “Real” fulfils any one or more of the above requirements so that it can be defined, “Real” will no more be “Real”. “Real” as understood in Advaita is not opposite of Unreal. In the vision of Vedanta, particularly Advaita, there is no unreal, and there is only Real and that is Atma or Aham or Brahman. It is Consciousness per se (Chit) or Knowledge per se (Gnanam). Yes, Real, though formless, may appear to be having forms and appear to have one nor more of the above i.e. Jati, Guna, Kriyha and Sambandha. Such appearance/s is/are “Mithyas”. Mithya is not Unreal, nor is it real, it is just an appearance for the time being i.e. Swakale Astivat Bhati. (Example: dream) Such appearances are there only for Mithyas (i.e. jeevas or knowers with reference to the knowns). In the absolute realm of “Real” there is neither Knower, nor known, nor knowing, i.e. the Tripudi. However, “Brahman” has been “defined” rather indicated as “Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma” in Tai. Up. It is just for understanding or appreciation of the meaning of Brahman. IMHO, any amount of debates/discussions/commentaries in trying to define “Real” will take one no where. HARI OM AND WARM REGARDS Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2004 Report Share Posted July 18, 2004 Thank you Mani-Ji: Our ancestors tried their best to pass on this message for the future generations. Your post reminded me of the final message from mahaabhaarata, which is known as "bhaarata saavitrii", where veda vyaaasa says - jiivo nityo heturasya tvanityaH || Meaning - jivaatvmaa (aatmaa @ individual level/parmaatmaa as the soul of the universe) is nitya (real / true) and everything that has been resulted through it's bandhana (bindings / imprisonment) are "anitya" (unreal or non-truths), there by meaning all the manifestations. That is why he reminds us for understanding the "significance of daharma" at each and every corner as 'darmo nityaH' What a wonderful discussion ! aa no bhadraaH kratavo yantu vishvataH Yadunath advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > Namaste, Advaitins, > > I have just opened my Mail after about ten days. Oosh, there are more than 800 mails to be read. There are quite a lot on "Real and Unreal" which I must read first. Before reading any of them, I thought I must also add my understanding of "Real": > > "Real" Cannot be defined. One can attempt to define something provided: > > -It belongs to a Species (Jati) > > -It has a Guna (attribute) > > -It has a Kriya (action) > > -It can be related to something else (Sambandha) > > If "Real" fulfils any one or more of the above requirements so that it can be defined, "Real" will no more be "Real". > > "Real" as understood in Advaita is not opposite of Unreal. In the vision of Vedanta, particularly Advaita, there is no unreal, and there is only Real and that is Atma or Aham or Brahman. It is Consciousness per se (Chit) or Knowledge per se (Gnanam). > > Yes, Real, though formless, may appear to be having forms and appear to have one nor more of the above i.e. Jati, Guna, Kriyha and Sambandha. Such appearance/s is/are "Mithyas". Mithya is not Unreal, nor is it real, it is just an appearance for the time being i.e. Swakale Astivat Bhati. (Example: dream) Such appearances are there only for Mithyas (i.e. jeevas or knowers with reference to the knowns). In the absolute realm of "Real" there is neither Knower, nor known, nor knowing, i.e. the Tripudi. > > However, "Brahman" has been "defined" rather indicated as "Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma" in Tai. Up. It is just for understanding or appreciation of the meaning of Brahman. > > IMHO, any amount of debates/discussions/commentaries in trying to define "Real" will take one no where. > > HARI OM AND WARM REGARDS > > Mani > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Thank you Very much Sri Yaduji, YOur quotation of the one line sloka conveys the spirit of Advaita. Warm regards Mani ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: Thank you Mani-Ji: Our ancestors tried their best to pass on this message for the future generations. Your post reminded me of the final message from mahaabhaarata, which is known as "bhaarata saavitrii", where veda vyaaasa says - jiivo nityo heturasya tvanityaH || Meaning - jivaatvmaa (aatmaa @ individual level/parmaatmaa as the soul of the universe) is nitya (real / true) and everything that has been resulted through it's bandhana (bindings / imprisonment) are "anitya" (unreal or non-truths), there by meaning all the manifestations. That is why he reminds us for understanding the "significance of daharma" at each and every corner as 'darmo nityaH' What a wonderful discussion ! aa no bhadraaH kratavo yantu vishvataH Yadunath advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > Namaste, Advaitins, > > I have just opened my Mail after about ten days. Oosh, there are more than 800 mails to be read. There are quite a lot on "Real and Unreal" which I must read first. Before reading any of them, I thought I must also add my understanding of "Real": > > "Real" Cannot be defined. One can attempt to define something provided: > > -It belongs to a Species (Jati) > > -It has a Guna (attribute) > > -It has a Kriya (action) > > -It can be related to something else (Sambandha) > > If "Real" fulfils any one or more of the above requirements so that it can be defined, "Real" will no more be "Real". > > "Real" as understood in Advaita is not opposite of Unreal. In the vision of Vedanta, particularly Advaita, there is no unreal, and there is only Real and that is Atma or Aham or Brahman. It is Consciousness per se (Chit) or Knowledge per se (Gnanam). > > Yes, Real, though formless, may appear to be having forms and appear to have one nor more of the above i.e. Jati, Guna, Kriyha and Sambandha. Such appearance/s is/are "Mithyas". Mithya is not Unreal, nor is it real, it is just an appearance for the time being i.e. Swakale Astivat Bhati. (Example: dream) Such appearances are there only for Mithyas (i.e. jeevas or knowers with reference to the knowns). In the absolute realm of "Real" there is neither Knower, nor known, nor knowing, i.e. the Tripudi. > > However, "Brahman" has been "defined" rather indicated as "Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma" in Tai. Up. It is just for understanding or appreciation of the meaning of Brahman. > > IMHO, any amount of debates/discussions/commentaries in trying to define "Real" will take one no where. > > HARI OM AND WARM REGARDS > > Mani > > > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages advaitin/ advaitin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.