The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

I just completed reading Chittaranjanji's (CN) nine `monuments' on

the real and the unreal. While the series appeared, I was running

about in India and starved of internet access. I therefore thought I

was really unfortunate in not being able to actively participate in

the List discussions on the topic. However, having now printed out

the series and perused the material in peace, I feel that I was

indeed fortunate to be away. The reason: I would otherwise have

interposed the discussions with many a doubt as did other Members.

 

Having read him completely in one go, I believe I do now have an

advantage over others who had to do it piecemeal with profusely

sprouting doubts about the final conclusion. In fact, it would have

been better if it was possible for CN to have posted the entire work

in one piece even though that would have meant deluging the list with

about 51 A4 sheets in single space in one single bombardment. An

impracticable proposition indeed!

 

I say this because the whole series in one piece grants an excellent

bird's eye view without scope for much doubts. The nine essays are

nine peaks, flying over which the reader has the option where to land

and perch without taxing his wings.

 

Needless to say, many a peak is indeed impossible to fully scale for

a person like me not much exposed to western thoughts. The terrain

involving most of western philosophy was very unfamiliar and gave

rise to a number of doubts. The terminology, particularly in quotes,

was tough. All that I have in these areas is my flirtation with

existentialism with the likes of Sartre. I used to hug the works of

Camus to my heart. If I understood him didn't then matter. Outside

that, there was Bertrand Russel and Aldous Huxley too, who had held

my fancy for a number of years. In retrospect, that was a folly of my

young days, committed as fashion and to keep up with the Jonses

(sp?), for I must confess I didn't understand them at all and

pretended to others that I did just to feed my exuberant ego. In

those days, talking existentialism was a fad with our local writers

and even reading indirect references to or reviews on existentialist

literature was an essential qualification to being called an

intellectual – whatever that term meant. Everyone

aspired `intellectualdom' and existentialist angst. I was no

exception and very much in that foolish crowd. That was sad

travesty.

 

Having now buried decades and taken to advaita, I now feel that I can

understand the West better and spot where they slipped from scaling

the peak to which they were so very close. CN's brilliant commentary

to integrate them to the Indian pinnacle is absolutely marvelous and

admirable in this context. I am in utter awe at the revealing ease

with which he has handled their thoughts. Much unlike me, I am sure

CN was a very serious student of Western philosophy. The

unmistakable marks of his erudition are very much evident throughout

the series. Although the terminology and language are a little

taxing, I now see the reason why he took the Western route to the

Indian hinderlands of Absolute Truth.

 

That brings us to the question of reality-divide with which he begins

his essays. He has been questioned about why he didn't begin his

expedition along the Sankara route of sat (Real), asat (unreal) and

miTyA (non-real). As an aspiring advaitin, if I were to write about

the real and unreal, I would sure have followed that route totally

avoiding the West as that is the one I am familiar and comfortable

with. But, here CN belongs to a different background and perhaps is

addressing an audience comprising predominantly Indians educated on

Western lines or Westerners (or for that matter to masses across the

continents in general not much exposed to advaitic traditions), to

whom reality is what is encountered internally and externally. What

therefore matters is not the beginning but the conclusion. Although

I notice that he is yet to wrap up the series, I perceive that his

conclusion is ultimately advaitic. Can't we, therefore, permit him

the liberty of trying an alternative route that doesn't violate the

tenets of advaita? I believe we can considering the immense insights

he has very kindly granted us all through his profound cogitations on

Western and Indian thoughts.

 

To say the least, his effort is a beautiful garland placed on the one

and only advaitic truth of pUrNamidam that is pUrNamadah too. I am,

therefore, particularly happy that it follows and runs as a natural

corollary to our earlier attempts at expounding the pUrNamadah prayer.

 

CN has done a great service to advaita and brought in new insights

which are a rarity these days. His vision should go a long way in

refurbishing and reestablishing the right understanding of this great

philosophy, for which he deserves only hearty congratulations.

 

The thrust of his efforts, I notice, is directed against the so-

called advaitic negation. Although he has not mentioned nEti, nEti,

it is the real intent of this beautiful expression that receives his

incisive scrutiny. I have Sw. Gambhiranandaji strongly vibing with

CN here, who, in his preface to B.S.B. has rightly translated this

much misunderstood phrase as `Not thus, Not thus' and not "Not this,

Not this". That makes a world of difference as I have endeavoured

before to elaborate on this List. CN's essay # IV (Sections:

Illusion and Reality – the Surface and the Deep, The Context of

Adhyasa) is the most beautiful unraveling of this conundrum that I

have ever read, where he forcefully concludes that "the negation of

the superimposition of the world on Brahman does not negate the world

in so far as the world is the attributive mode of Brahman, but

negates the world in so far as it is perceived as independently

subsisting". "Neti, Neti" is, therefore, the negation of this

separation and not of the world as such, which indeed is me. How can

I negate myself? Hats off to CN.

 

Again, CN's insightful clarity on Mandukya (essay # IV under

Inference Used in the Karika) where he dissects vyApti is a very bold

attempt that deserves serious study by advaitiins. In fact, we can

reserve that section as a topic for a future month and request him to

lead us, as that is the very ground on which we have considerable

difference of opinion. I would love to see turIyA established as the

one and only substratum pervading the avastAtraya and that

avastAtraya cannot be other than turIya if not for our ignorance.

 

In reference to "Refutation of Stimulus Response Theory" in Essay #

6, where CN quotes his post # 20931, I do have to point out

something. An uncomfortable CN says: "On the one hand, placing the

cause of perception in the brain creates a logical conundrum and

demands that the cause of perception be placed outside phenomena. On

the other hand, there is a definite causal relationship between the

brain and our perception of the world (as revealed through the

effects of drugs and electrical stimulus on the brain)". (Words in

brackets mine). Is this after all as uncomfortable as we imagine

when we know that there is a `knower' of the effects of external

stimuli on the brain and the resulting altered perception where the

effects themselves are objects of perception of the subject (if he is

drunk or drugged) or the investigator conducting the experiments?

There therefore is only the seer and the seen and the seen (the

knowledge of altered perception) is empty of itself without the

ground of consciousness.

 

We are thus left with Yajnavalkya's last and final question to

Maitreyi quoted by CN: "Through what indeed should one know That

owing to which all this is known – through what. O., Maitreyi, should

one know the knower?" The knower is in the known. There is no

knowing then. That is Knoweldge where all the known subside, abide

and reside without separation (bhEda). What have we negated now

other than the bhEda? This is exactly what we arrive at from another

route: the consciousness equations where when all the variables are

removed from either side what remains is the Knowledge that I AM

Consciousness.

 

I have not yet perused all the responses CN's essays have generated.

I have perhaps addressed Murthyji's observations. I request him and

other advaitins to kindly re-read the essays substituting Sankara's

traditional terminology (for the real and unreal) wherever needed (if

that is the way they are comfortable) considering that the reality-

divide of CN is the miTyA of Sankara. That would be a very satisfying

and stimulating attempt. I very much wish that CN soon returns to the

List from his preoccupations to deliver the final conclusion of the

series.

 

I also wish if we advaitins kept our eyes open and saw themselves

everywhere in everything instead of slumbering deep into themselves

imagining that the Truth lies somewhere down there in an abysmal

nothingness. Well, that is a tall order. Yet, all earnest

advaitins have to keep placing that order repeatedly and untiringly

as CN has done. That is our tribute and homage at the Feet of

Fullness.

 

Whatever I have expressed above doesn't presuppose I have understood

the material well. I will be rereading the essays in the coming days

to delve into greater depths. That I am sure would be a very

rewarding experience. This is just my first impression. Perhaps, the

learned opinions expressed by others, which I am yet to read will

definitely open up the floodgates of knowledge.

 

Thanks again to CN for a very stimulating month.

 

PraNAms to all.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> I just completed reading Chittaranjanji's (CN) nine `monuments' on

> the real and the unreal.

> [...]

 

 

namaste shri madathil-ji,

 

Thanks very much for your very illuminating overview of

shri CN's essays of the past month. I was looking for such

an overview from an unbiased source for me to have a go at

these essays. You have provided a brilliant review of the

series of essays. As you said, you have the advantage of

looking at all the essays one after the other right away

rather than being fed piecemeal throughout the month. I now

have a feel of where shri CN's essays are rooted in.

 

shri madathil-ji, you have given the impression that shri

shankara's conclusions and shri CN's conclusions are the same.

I have doubts on that. In his last essay, shri CN said that

the cloth is as real as the yarn. I still claim that is not

what shri shankara said. If that argument (that cloth is as

real as the yarn) were accepted, then the pot is as real as

the clay. [My understanding: pot is real as clay but pot is

not *as* real as clay). If cloth is as real as the yarn, then

that would certainly negate Uddalaka's teaching to Svetaketu.

I think there is a difference in what I understand as shri

shankara is teaching and what shri CN-ji presented in the

essays.

 

While shri madathil-ji's brilliant overview is extremely

helpful, but because of my inability to follow that route

due to my limited knowledge of western philosophy, I would

tend to stick to my attempts to understand shri shankara

through His traditional bhAShyA-s.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthygaru:

 

Let me also join you and congratulate dear Madadthil-ji for his

excellent overview of CN's essays.

 

First, I haven't read CN's essays as thoroughly as I wish, but

according to my understanding, that Shankara's conclusions and Sri

CN's conclusisons are essentially the same. The question that we

should ask ourselves whether our conclusions are based on at the

Paramarthika level (absolute perspective) or at vyavaharika level

(relative perspective.)

 

You are quite right that at the vyavaharika level, the gold is more

real than the ornaments! The bangle and chain may be perceived

different but gold is the common denominator! The western

philosophers didn't distinguish between the two levels of reality

where as Shankara explains the both levels of reality very

extensively. Shankara's framework and thought process are certainly

different from the western thinkers but in the final end they both

arrived at the same conclusion - the superimposition of the knower

and the known!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

>

> shri madathil-ji, you have given the impression that shri

> shankara's conclusions and shri CN's conclusions are the same.

> I have doubts on that. In his last essay, shri CN said that

> the cloth is as real as the yarn. I still claim that is not

> what shri shankara said. If that argument (that cloth is as

> real as the yarn) were accepted, then the pot is as real as

> the clay. [My understanding: pot is real as clay but pot is

> not *as* real as clay). If cloth is as real as the yarn, then

> that would certainly negate Uddalaka's teaching to Svetaketu.

> I think there is a difference in what I understand as shri

> shankara is teaching and what shri CN-ji presented in the

> essays.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Madathil:

 

That is a very insightful assertion in support of Sri CN's essays.

You have stated it beautifully and thoughtfully on the impossibility

of the 'unreality' of the world!

 

This analysis reminds me the algebra of 'infinity.' This

illustration is presented by limiting the operation to 'addition' to

avoid unnecessary complication and confusion:

 

Infinity is a concept with no form or name

the finite numbers have names and forms - 1, 2, 3, 4, ... etc.

 

Infinity + any finite number = Infinity

 

Similarly Brahman has no form or name

 

Brahman + (body, mind, intellect) is still = Brahman

 

By identification with (body, mind and intellect) we perceive the

world!

By detach our identification with (body, mind and intellect) we

realize the Brahman!

 

The same Brahman is perceived as the 'world' and also can be

realized as the 'Brahman.' What we negate is not the world but

the 'body, mind and intellect.' The identification of body, mind and

intellect is responsible for the creation of 'names and forms.' When

we detach our identification with the body, mind, and intellect, we

negate the names and forms. The 'world' that we perceived becomes

the 'Brahman' by negating the self created names and forms.

 

The Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita have identified the fundamental

problem and have made the assetion that we disown (detach) body,

mind and intellect. Happiness and peace can never be derived through

body, mind and intellect.

 

Whether it is eastern philosophy or western philosophy, they say the

same thing but they use different frameworks of thoughts. The

framework of thought process is again due to 'body, mind and

intellect.' At some point of time, we may need to abandon all the

frameworks to understand what is real. Sri J. Krishnamoorthy implies

the same fact through his assertion, 'The Truth is a pathless land!'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> .....

> The cloth exists in the yarn. Then how indeed does the cloth

become

> false when the yarn is true, for if the yarn is true, the cloth as

a

> condition of the yarn cannot be untrue. I feel that this question

> should not be dismissed under the mere assertion that whatever

> pertains to names and forms is false because such an assertion,

> merely on the strength of the assertion, would amount to a dogma.

> For it would be a complete surrendering of Advaita to the void of

> nihilism to say that the world is *absolutely* negatged - because

> such a thesis makes the comprehending initellect converge to

Brahman

> as the limit of nothingness rather than expand the intellect unto

its

> dissolution in the expansive Heart that sees Brahman as beyond all

> limits. That is the identity of the Heart (self) with Brahman."

>

> Kindly note my asterisks on the word *absolutely*, which means CN

> doesn't avoid negation but only refutes absolute negation demanded

by

> certain advaitins. Haven't we already seen such insistence on

> absolute negation here on our List itself? Perhaps, CN means to

> answer his detractors here very logically. But, he hasn't

certainly

> said *as real as*. He is very much on record as having said that

it

> is only the bhEda (separation) that is to be negated and not the

> world as such. His cloth-yarn analogy from BS is to be understood

in

> this context.

[Guest guest]

Just a thought !!

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

 

>You have stated it beautifully and thoughtfully on the impossibility

> of the 'unreality' of the world!

>

> This analysis reminds me the algebra of 'infinity.' This

> illustration is presented by limiting the operation to 'addition'

to

> avoid unnecessary complication and confusion:

>

> Infinity is a concept with no form or name

> the finite numbers have names and forms - 1, 2, 3, 4, ... etc.

>

> Infinity + any finite number = Infinity

>

> Similarly Brahman has no form or name

>

> Brahman + (body, mind, intellect) is still = Brahman

>

 

 

May be for this very reason the symbol for INFINITY is a "TWISTED

ZERO".

 

Zero has no beginning or an end. [it always remains complete (0 - 0

= 0)]

 

This is also applicable to Infinity as well. The only difference is

the twist at the center.

 

But both are "aadya-anta-rahita"

 

For this reason the wedding band has become a representation

of "LOVE/MARRIAGE" in this material world.

 

Just a thought !!

 

Regards,

 

Yadunath

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote:

> The same Brahman is perceived as the 'world' and also can be

> realized as the 'Brahman.' What we negate is not the world but

> the 'body, mind and intellect.' The identification of body, mind and

> intellect is responsible for the creation of 'names and forms.' When

> we detach our identification with the body, mind, and intellect, we

> negate the names and forms. The 'world' that we perceived becomes

> the 'Brahman' by negating the self created names and forms.

 

 

This has always been my position too.

It is how we *interpret* experience

that matters. If we identify with body

and mind, then we perceive these as

self-sustaining realities *other* than

Brahman. Then the rest of the 'world'

also 'solidifies' into apparently self-

sustaining objects, as a kind of parallel

reflection of our own view of ourself.

This is the discriminating mind in action.

The so-called 'matter' is merely the

grossest form of this vision. And this

view of discrete self-sustaining

objects is what most people call 'reality'.

 

It is THAT false interpretation of reality

which is being denied by Advaitins and

Idealists. When they say that the 'external'

world is 'unreal', they mean the world

interpreted as discrete self-sustaining

objects other than Brahman. It is that

false vision which is being called 'unreal'.

 

But if all is viewed as Brahman or

Consciousness, then there is an inherent

unity to consciousness which precludes

the interpretation of experience as discrete

self-sustaining objects, since in any

case of consciousness there is always

the one 'seer' who cannot be distinguished

from the 'seen', except through a

misunderstanding. Where is the dividing

line between seer and seen in any

instance of consciousness? It is not there

if you look closely and carefully.

Hence the unity of the seer implies a

unity to the seen that is incompatible

with the interpretation of experience

as discrete self-sustaining objects.

 

This much can be understood through

a careful and detached examination

of the situation and is not absolutely

dependent on scriptural revelation,

in my opinion, though faith in and

comprehension of the Upanishads can

only be very helpful. But for those who

don't like any kind of 'blind faith', a

careful examination of the situation

a la Ramana, Nisargadatta or Atmananda

will also lead to the same conclusion.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Murthyji.

>

> Thank you, Sir, very much for the good words.

>

> Let me come to the points:

> [...]

 

 

namaste shri madathil-ji and also shri CN-ji,

 

Thanks for your elaborate response and the reference to BSB.

I will go through your post(s) carefully and respond in due

time. In the meanwhile, I would like your response (direct,

to the point and brief) to the following:

 

1. The way you have stated in your post(s), I would assume

you contend that the mind and intellect (as we refer them) are

also real. Am I correct in that assumption?

 

2. In your understanding then, are mind and intellect jaDa or

caitanya?

 

3. If all the names and forms are real (sat) as contended by

you, then what is the non-duality for which we are all committed

to?

 

4. I am saddened the word "unreal", "false" are rather *freely*

used by shri CN-ji and other respondees. The point of contention

is made to be: Is the jagat *real* or *unreal* and the word

mithya is completely made to be absent in this discussion.

This is fighting imaginary enemies. Shri CN-ji used the word

"false" in discussing the cloth. No one has said the world

is unreal or the cloth is false. If we say we are going to

follow shri shankara's nomenclature, we should be discussing:

is the jagat mithya or not.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-

[Guest guest]

--- gmurthy_99 <gmurthy wrote:

>If we say we are going to

> follow shri shankara's nomenclature, we should be discussing:

> is the jagat mithya or not.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

 

Murthy gaaru - let us get down to basics. The way I see it - Advaita

implies non-duality. Brahman alone is, which is real.

 

The implication is the substantive of all is Brahman and that alone is

real - that includes whatever we perceive - the perceiver-perceived and

perceiving - the substantive of all is nothing but Brahman - that is

Advaita.

 

The duality of perceiver-perceived and perceiving - is it real or not

the question. - Yes Real from the substantive point.

 

The rest is not asatya or not unreal like vandyaa putraH. Do you call it

it is not real and not unreal - well now we are getting into dialectic

orguments and one can approach this falsity from various points. CNji

has discussed from his understanding - the points to be pondered about.

 

Now you can all it whatever you want and however way you want to

describe it - as vyavahaarika satya or mityaa or maaya - the facts

remain the same. Experience of the world cannot be denied since denial

is within the realm of experience. It is real from the experience since

he is experienced. Illusion is wrong translation of the world maaya.

 

It is real till one realizes the real real – then It becomes apparently

real that is sitting as Brahman.

 

The rest are all theories to be pondered about - for a saadhak to

inquire within.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

=====

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, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

>

> Murthy gaaru - let us get down to basics. The way I see it -

> Advaita

> implies non-duality. Brahman alone is, which is real.

>

 

 

namaste shri sadananda garu,

 

Thanks very much for your intervention and clarification.

You were asking me a few weeks ago where I am now. I have

now settled back in Canada after a seven month spiritual

journey through India staying at various maThams and Ashrams

and visiting temples. I am just now only slowly getting to

attending the goings on. Now, to the point in question:

 

1. I think what we learnt from studying shri shankara is:

the jagat is neither sat nor asat (real or unreal. I agree

with shri madathil-ji and shri CN-ji that the jagat is not

unreal. It is experienced. It cannot be unreal like

vandhyaputra. Then what is the word we use to describe

this jagat which is not unreal? shri shankara gave us

the word "mithya" and my contention is: should we not be

using it?

 

2. Also, shri shankara kept the word "sat" (translated as

real) for the non-dual parabrahman and my contention is:

are we correct in using that word "real" to describe the

jagat?

 

3. The words sat, asat, mithya [real, unreal, mithya]

have definite meanings and we should try to be precise

in using the nomenclature. I am not saying the words

are used imprecisely, but the word real is used conveying,

as per my understanding, a wrong meaning.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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