The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji

[Guest guest]

--- pgraj <pgraj wrote:

 

>

> Hello All,

>

> I am Silent reader of this mailing list. I have enjoyed every mail of

> this list thank you all great people who are involved in this

> discussions. I do not reply to all the mails as I do not know If I am

> wrong or right or will I be diverting the topic of discussion.

 

Shree Govind - thanks for comming out of silence. In silence we do not

know who is listening and who is not and whether the discussion is of

any help to any one else other than considered as lot of noise by the

discussors with no one to benefit from the discussions.

 

> I have a small calrification.

>

> Though Iam not good in Sanskrit can you please tell me the meaning of

> the following words

>

> 1) abaadhitam

> 2) ahaara

> 3) samharaa

>

 

Here in the context of our discussion baadha is used as negation or

sublimation. There was a discussion in the use of the word 'sublimation'

by Michael some time back.

 

by putting 'a' in front, we take it as nonnegatable or not sublimable.

A simple example is 'gold' is non-negatable in the transient forms of

ring, bangle etc. Ring can become a bangle or bracelet but gold remains

the same in all these transactions.

Similarly truth or real is defined as that which cannot be negatable in

time. That which exists cannot cease to exist and that existence is

what is real or sat.

 

The second word is aahaara - meaning 'food' that one eats. By adding

'aa' to 'haara' the garland become food to eat! - In the context of

Shree CNJi discussions it is food for thought.

> My 2nd Question

>

> 1) What is the diference between Shakthi , Paraa Shakthi and Adi

> ParaaShakthi. ?

 

They all sound like maaya shakti to me!

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> thank you.

> Om Sri Sai Ram Guru deva Datta

> Govind

>

> kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- Chittaranjan Naik wrote:

>

> >

> > It could be as you say, for I am not conversant with Sanskrit. I

> > would be grateful if anyone here can throw light on the root of the

> > word 'mithya' - to me it has the connotation of 'myth' and

> 'fiction'.

> >

> > With regards,

> > Chittaranjan

>

>

 

 

=====

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]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan:

 

Honestly most of us agree with you on most of what you have

articulated in your essays. Many have already their admiration for

your sincerity and dedication while posting those essays and your

willingness to answer the questions. Since all of us do want to make

sure that the general audience gets the full flavor of Sankara's

advaita philosophy, we explore our understanding through these

exchanges. We are all benefiting by contemplating on the thoughts

expressed by the learned members of this list.

 

The subject matter of 'world' is rather complex. In simplistic terms,

 

World = Brahman + maayaa

 

Though I agree that 'Brahman + maayaa' = Brahman, we can't conclude

that World = 'Brahman"

 

We have no problme accepting the fact that "Brahman" is REAL, but if

we state that World is 'as REAL as' the Brahman, we can't explain the

changes that we perceive in the World. Only at the paramarthikal

level of reality (from jnani's point of view) 'maayaa' is nullified

so that Brahman is identical to WORLD.

 

As for as I can see that the 'mithya' is responsible for our

differences. According to Sankara, with the revealation of 'vidya'

(wisdom), the maayaa will likely disappear!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> You raise an important question in the context of Advaita.

> While many in this forum may not agree with me, I would atleast

> like to provide my understanding of the Advaitic answer to the

> question you ask.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

One other complexity which I forgot to mention is that there is no

maayaa without Brahman.

 

It is just like the statement of Dwaitans, that there will be no Lila

without Narayana.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjan:

>

> Honestly most of us agree with you on most of what you have

> articulated in your essays.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadananda-Ji:

>

> > I have a small calrification.

> >

> > Though Iam not good in Sanskrit can you please tell me the

meaning of

> > the following words

> >

> > 1) abaadhitam

> > 2) ahaara

> > 3) samharaa

> >

>

> Here in the context of our discussion baadha is used as negation or

> sublimation. There was a discussion in the use of the

word 'sublimation'

> by Michael some time back.

>

> by putting 'a' in front, we take it as nonnegatable or not

sublimable.

> A simple example is 'gold' is non-negatable in the transient forms

of

> ring, bangle etc. Ring can become a bangle or bracelet but gold

remains

> the same in all these transactions.

> Similarly truth or real is defined as that which cannot be

negatable in

> time. That which exists cannot cease to exist and that existence

is

> what is real or sat.

>

> The second word is aahaara - meaning 'food' that one eats. By

adding

> 'aa' to 'haara' the garland become food to eat! - In the context of

> Shree CNJi discussions it is food for thought.

>

> >

 

 

 

vagbhatta has used the word "ahaara" to convey express "non-

digestable" food.

 

May be a double negation of this by adding an another "a" it could

have become "digestable".

 

Regards,

 

Yadunath

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> Namaste Sadananda-Ji:

>

> >

> > > I have a small calrification.

> > >

> > > Though Iam not good in Sanskrit can you please tell me the

> meaning of

> > > the following words

> > >

> > > 1) abaadhitam

> > > 2) ahaara

> > > 3) samharaa

> > >

> >

> > Here in the context of our discussion baadha is used as negation or

> > sublimation.

> >

> > The second word is aahaara - meaning 'food' that one eats. By

> adding

> > 'aa' to 'haara' the garland become food to eat! - In the context of

> > Shree CNJi discussions it is food for thought.

> >

> > >

>

>

>

> vagbhatta has used the word "ahaara" to convey express "non-

> digestable" food.

>

> May be a double negation of this by adding an another "a" it could

> have become "digestable".

 

Namaste,

 

In fact Shankara defines aahaara as anything taken in through

the organs. (Bhashya on Chandogya upan. 7:26:2)

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan:

 

I have one request from you which will help all of us to clear our

doubts. You might have already noticed that the condensed version of

your essays (more than 50 pages) as understood by Sri Madathil has

generated most of the recent discussions. I do believe that what you

have provided is an important contribution. If you can provide one or

couple of pages of a summary of your theses to the general audience,

this will motivate more members to take a serious look at those

essays.

 

Since this one of the most important topics, your essays and the

summary will be very useful for the readers around the world.

 

Thanks again for your fine contribution,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: When I prepare my technical reports (some of them go over 100

pages), I will be asked to provide a one or two-page executive

summary. In addition, I have to provide an abstract consists of less

than 300 words.

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

[Guest guest]

--- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

> advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> >

> > vagbhatta has used the word "ahaara" to convey express "non-

> > digestable" food.

> >

 

Well - if that 'ahaara' continues it can become cause for 'samhaara'!

 

On the other hand in this county one cannot think of 'vihaara' without

stuffing with some kind of 'phalahaara' even if it is 'ahaara' - or junk

food.

 

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]

CNji - If I can add to what Ram mentioned, if that summary includes the

synopsis of the topics - essential objections and responses in condensed

form or where it is discussed- that will be good.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

--- Ram Chandran <RamChandran wrote:

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjan:

>

> I have one request from you which will help all of us to clear our

> doubts. You might have already noticed that the condensed version of

> your essays (more than 50 pages) as understood by Sri Madathil has

> generated most of the recent discussions. I do believe that what you

> have provided is an important contribution. If you can provide one or

> couple of pages of a summary of your theses to the general audience,

> this will motivate more members to take a serious look at those

> essays.

>

> Since this one of the most important topics, your essays and the

> summary will be very useful for the readers around the world.

>

> Thanks again for your fine contribution,

>

> regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> Note: When I prepare my technical reports (some of them go over 100

> pages), I will be asked to provide a one or two-page executive

> summary. In addition, I have to provide an abstract consists of less

> than 300 words.

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

>

>

 

 

=====

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]

Namaste Sri.CN-ji,

 

Thanks for your reply.

>> Good point. While pondering about this, got a question in similar

>> lines and your answer is greatly appreciated. How our worldly

>> notions 'real' and 'unreal' themselves under sleep of avidya,

>> similarly, why shouldn't our very notion of 'avidya', which is yet

>> another worldly notion, itself be under yet to know real avidya ?

 

>You raise an important question in the context of Advaita. While many

>in this forum may not agree with me, I would atleast like to provide

>my understanding of the Advaitic answer to the question you ask.

>Firstly, I would like to clarify that I am not using the

>word 'avidya' as meaning the world itself, but as the falsity that

>clouds our understanding of the truth of things. Therefore, when I

>say that something is clouded by 'avidya', I do not mean that what is

>seen is false, but that what is seen is coloured by one's own notions

>which may not be in accordance with the innate nature of what is

>seen. Thus, the truth is not completely hidden, but is not completely

>revealed either. What is yet to be known is already known through a

>veil, as it were, but is to be still revealed in its purity. The

>meaning of the terms 'real' and 'unreal' are to be uncovered thusly.

 

Your position of 'truth coloured by one's own notions', is that

universal & applies to all the things & which still persist as of

now ? OR for case by case basis and effective only to certain things

as of now?

 

If former, we'll end up with no single knowledge is definite yet

(because all knowledge are covered or colored). Which means, there is

no such thing as 'pramANa' and that renders pratyaksha and Agama

useless as a pramANa. Objectivity dies because everything is

subjective. Epistemology looses it's meaning. Worse yet, there won't

be any hopes at all for us to say (now or in future) we know the full

truth of things, for, we wouldn't have any criteria of 'full truth'

of things.

 

Thus, if it is later case only we know certain things established as

objective truth and they can play a definite role as 'pramANa' in our

truth building exercise. In this model, truth of the things are built

incrementally and in an integrated manner. This justifies the

Vedanta's acceptance of pratykshAdi means as pramANa-s.

 

Having said this, thus correct understanding of 'real' or 'unreal' is

fully justified only by already established truths such as pratyksha,

anumAna & Agama.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I hope the following demonstration often employed by PUjya Sw.

Dayananda Saraswathiji to articulate miTyA will be helpful:

 

Swamiji shows a flower and asks his audience what it is. They answer

that it is a flower. Then he removes one of the pollen grains and

asks what it is. The obvious answer is pollen grain. Then the

pollen stem receives his attention and the audience is in agreement

with him that it is the pollen stem. This process is repeated

through the petals and their supports until only the flower stem

remains in his hand and his listeners rightly call it flower stem.

Swamiji then breaks into a cackle and asks them where the flower is.

The flower of nAmA rUpA is thus shown as miTyA (It is there and it is

not there!) and this analysis can be applied to all the objects in

this universe. MiTyA is also what is not there, what is there and

again what is not there. It is conditioned by space and time while

it apparently exists as a nAma-rUpa.

 

The entire gamut of advaita aims at showing that miTyA is dependent

on something else for its apparent existence and that something is

the all-pervading Consciousness like gold is the substratum for all

the nAma-rUpAs of gold like chains, rings and bracelets. Thus,

Consciousness is, miTyA is. It can never be the other way round.

There isn't anything at all in this universe that can run contra to

this rule because all its objects are dependent on Consciousness for

their apparent existence. Hence, the universe is mItyA – jaganmiTyA -

totally dependent on Consciousness for its manifestation.

 

It is in this context that I like to refer CN's reality-divide as

miTyA.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

>

> > In the mitya part there is a satya part and there is

> > transient part, which keeps changing - the names and

> > forms.

>

> Such an interpretation ignores one of the central tenets of

Advaita. .....................

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Srinivas-ji,

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p>

wrote:

> Your position of 'truth coloured by one's own notions',

> is that universal & applies to all the things & which

> still persist as of now? OR for case by case basis

> and effective only to certain things as of now?

 

It is effective for what is not known, and not effective for what is

known. Otherwise, the expression 'knowing' would have no meaning, and

the word 'knowledge' would go out of the vocabulary. That is how the

pramanas have validity, because they are known as pramanas. The

buddhi, intellect, is what discriminates, and what it determines is

the truth. When something is not known, it is to be understood as the

prevarication of manas and not the contribution of buddhi; otherwise

the word 'buddhi' loses its meaning.

 

> If former, we'll end up with no single knowledge is

> definite yet (because all knowledge are covered or

> colored).

 

What is covered is not knoweldge. When something is covered,

knowledge is that which is below the cover, and which is never

absent.

 

> Which means, there is no such thing as 'pramANa' and

> that renders pratyaksha and Agama useless as a pramANa.

> Objectivity dies because everything is subjective.

> Epistemology looses it's meaning. Worse yet, there won't

> be any hopes at all for us to say (now or in future) we

> know the full truth of things, for, we wouldn't have

> any criteria of 'full truth' of things.

 

There is certainly such a thing as pramana, but the problem usually

lies in lack of shraddha, or conviction in one's own self. What

pratyaksha shows is the truth, and what the mind superimposes on it

is the untrue. What buddhi discrimnates is the truth, but

unfortunately the buddhi is hindered in its operations by the motives

of the mind with its desires and passions, and the buddhi then stops

being operative. Therefore, in our search for Vedantic knowledge,

shraddha plays an important role. Without shraddha in oneself and in

the words of the shruti, there is little hope of making progress.

 

> Thus, if it is later case only we know certain things

> established as objective truth and they can play a

> definite role as 'pramANa' in our truth building exercise.

> In this model, truth of the things are built

> incrementally and in an integrated manner. This justifies the

> Vedanta's acceptance of pratykshAdi means as pramANa-s.

 

But look at where the world has gone by such incremental building of

the truth. Even what we call the pramanas get derailed without

shraddha. Are you aware of modern 'theories of truth'? Some say truth

is the 'correspondence to things', some say it is merely 'coherence',

some say it is a 'pragmatic' device, some say it is only a

justifiable 'stance'. The pramanas are recognised as pramanas only

when one has faith in the certainty of one's own Self.

 

> Having said this, thus correct understanding of 'real' or

> 'unreal' is fully justified only by already established

> truths such as pratyksha, anumAna & Agama.

 

Already established by what criteria? In the final analysis, there is

shraddha involved, isn't it? Otherwise one gets trapped in what is

called 'the Gettier problem', where you start looking for an external

basis for the most fundamental element of knowledge -- which you can

never find externally.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sunder-ji,

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> A brief bibliography, perhaps not to exceed 5-10, of the most

> useful references would add to the value of the study.

 

Sir, I had initially intended to add a bibliography to the essays

considering that I have quoted from many sources, but due to lack of

time I wasn't able to do it. It is only fair that I acknowledge the

sources of these quotes and I will post it in a few days time.

______________

> Further annotations on some sentences will also be helpful.

> [For example, I have collected the following from Parts I

> and II] - (I hope others will keep adding to the list!)

 

I will try my best.

 

 

1. asparsa

 

I have pickup up this word from Gaudapada Karika where it is used to

convey that the path of Advaita is 'asparsa' and cannot be defined.

It says that looking for the trail of a jnyani is like trying to find

the foot-prints of a bird in the sky.

 

 

2. negate

 

I have used this term as the dictionary defines it - to deny, to make

ineffective, to nullify.

 

 

3. Sublation

 

The way I have used it mostly is as 'seeing the meaning of unreality

in something' ie, when we say: 'It is sublated', it would mean that

it is seen as unreal.

 

 

4. qualia-filled consciousness

 

This is a term picked up from modern philosophy and modern cognitive

science which differentiates the forms that we directly experience -

as presented by the 'brain' or whatever - from actual objects out

there somewhere in the real world. According to this modern theory,

what we experience directly is only qualia.

 

 

5. bicameral mind.

 

The word 'bicameral mind' is generally used to describe the state of

the human mind when it was not yet troubled by too much of

differentiated thinking. (Of course, this is how modern thinking sees

it.) The bicameral mind is thought to be a mind that lacks a layer

that intellectualises before it sets out to act. The term has been

used to describe the state of mind of characters such as Achilles and

Hector and others in the Illiad and Odyssey.

 

 

6. ontological

 

Ontology has been described by Aristitle as the study of being, qua,

being, and this meaning has been picked up by later philosophy. In

the context of Indian philosophy, it is the seeking out of the

meaning of the term 'real' or 'existence'.

 

 

7. hermeneutic

 

Hermeneutics is the science of sentence-interpretation, but it is

used nowadays as a mode of philosophising that is interpretational as

opposed to logical.

 

 

8. idealism of Buddhist philosophy

 

The Buddist philosophy (Vijnanavada) which says that objects are

nothing but the content of an inner experience that appears as though

external.

 

 

9. fallacy

 

An invalid argument which appears logical, but where logic has

actually been derailed.

 

 

10. medieval scholasticism

 

This term is usually used for much of European Philosophy during the

medieval ages, particularly those starting from Thomas Acquinas and

ending before Descartes. Much of it is theistic and Aristotelian.

 

 

11. idealism

 

The philsophy that says that objects are idea. Started in the West

with Berkeley and has continued under some name or the other.

 

 

12 British Empiricism

 

The empirical philosophies of Berkeley, Hume, etc in which only

empirical has validity, somewhat like in the Charvaka philosophy of

India. (I once read a small excerpt of the Charvaka philosophy, and

it was almost like reading Hume!)

 

 

13. German Idealism

 

The idealistic philsophies of Fitche, Kant, Schoppenhauer, Hegel,

Nietzsche, etc which all say, in some form or another, that objects

are idea.

 

 

14. American Pragmatism

 

The pragmatic philosophies of Pierce, James, Dewey, and others.

 

 

15. Continental Existentialism

 

Generally used to refer to the Phenomenology of Husserl and to the

Existential philosophies of Sartre, Heidegger, Monty, and others

which it inspired.

 

 

16. transcendental epoche

 

This term was introduced by Husserl. Husserl went back to Cartesiam

(Descartes type) Meditations with the intention of throwing out

everything that we know, to go back to the pure subject "I", and to

build everything anew from these meditations. Husserl said that the

world that we know is the world of consciousness, and the objects

that we know are the objects of consciousness. He said that once we

suspend judgement about the question of the outside world (Kant's

noumena) - which suspension he called the transcendental epoche -

then we are able to see that objects are only what the mind is

directed to. Husserl was infact going back to the conception of

objects as it existed in ancient and medieval philsophy (and which

has always existed in Indian Philosophy), but unfortunately the

philosophical world is still too much taken in by Lockean notions to

be able to hear Husserl's call of 'back to the objects themselves'.

 

 

17. eidetic investigation

 

Again, a term from Husserl. As used by Husserl, 'eidetic' means

standing clearly to consciousness.

 

 

18. intentional consciousness

 

Again, from Husserl. Husserl said that consciousness is always

consciousness of something. He said that 'consciousness is

intentional' - that it is consciousness when it 'intends' towards

something. This postion would seem very odd for a Vedantist.

 

 

19. transcendental reason

 

This term is from Kant and it means finding the ground of reason in

the (transcendental) apriori conditions that already lie within the

mind, and become applicable to our experience.

 

 

20. truth-assertion

 

Traditionally it has been understood that an assertorical sentence

asserts truth. But modern logic makes a distinction between

sentences, which it calls propositions (meaning-bearing statements),

and the judgment about the truth of the proposition. A statement is a

proposition. The judgment whether its meaninng is true is a truth

judgment.

 

 

21. Vijnanavadins

 

The Buddhist 'idealist' school mentioned above.

 

 

22. Scholastic philosophy

 

Same as Medieval Scholasticism. (see above).

 

 

23. positivism of August Comte

 

August Comte is the one who introduced a kind of philosophy that is

called 'Positivism'. According to Positivim, Vedanta and other

philosophies belong to a more primitive stage in the intellectual

development of man before man got onto the exact study of the world

through science. Naturally, we don't agree. :-)

 

 

24. Lockean duality

>From Locke's philsophy which states that whatever we see of objects

are only secondary qualities seen according to the way our perceptual

instruments makes it possible for us to see them, and what belongs

actually to the objects are its primary qualities.

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

>

> A philosophy that seeks to answer these questions must explain the

> world and not negate the very thing that is to be explained.

>

> {****Is this not contrary to the logic that unless one knows

> one's own true nature, no explanation of the world can be

> valid?*****}

 

When one sees one's own true nature, it is then that one knows the

world. One does not then deny the world, but explains it. When one

knows the world, one can answer the question of the true nature of

the world instead of saying there is no world and hence nothing to

answer. The answer to the question about the world must retain the

world. The denotation of the word 'world' does not go away even when

one says there is no world because in denying the world one is using

the word 'world'. Hence the question about the world demands an

answer.

 

> The limits of the world are the limits of language.

 

While these words are borrowed from the language-philosopher

Wittgenstein, one finds that it has deep roots in Indian Philosophy -

in Nyaya, Vyakarana, and Mimamsa.

 

> The "outside world" cannot appear in its vocabulary because

> the other side of the reality-divide reduces to an absence

> of a referent. It does not remain a denotative symbol, but

> reduces to a meaningless warp in the use of language.

 

This has its base in Yoga Sutra, Chapter I, Sutra #9 which

states: "Vikalpa (verbal delusion) arises when words do not have

corresponding reality".

 

> conflation between the descriptive and the prescriptive

> aspects of Advaita.

 

The descriptive aspect is the formal philosophical interpretation of

Advaita Vedanta, and the prescriptive aspect is a set of instructions

devised to take a sadhaka easily to the truth.

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan