Atmachaitanyaji - questions for you

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

In connection with the expression

trikaala

> abhaaditam satyam? Sankara in B.S.B. II.i.16 writes something of the

same import which has relevance for the ongoing discussion of the Real

and the Unreal:

 

 

"Hence from the fact of non-difference before origin, it is understood

that the effect must be non-different from the cause even after its

birth. Just as Brahman, the cause is never without existence *all the

three periods of time*, so also the universe, which is the effect, never

parts with Existence in all the three periods. But Existence is only

one. And this is a further ground for the non-difference of the effect

from the cause."

 

Some closely directed comment from the learned members on this profound

text would be useful.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> "Hence from the fact of non-difference before origin, it is understood

> that the effect must be non-different from the cause even after its

> birth. Just as Brahman, the cause is never without existence *all the

> three periods of time*, so also the universe, which is the effect,

> never

> parts with Existence in all the three periods. But Existence is only

> one. And this is a further ground for the non-difference of the

> effect

> from the cause."

>

> Some closely directed comment from the learned members on this

> profound

> text would be useful.

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

>

 

Michaelji -Pranaams. You have brought the most appropriate reference

from the suutra - essentially the effect is nothing but the cause itself

in different form. The substantive of both the cause and the effect

should remain the same in the so-called transformation of cause to the

effect. Hence the creation of the world or jagat cannot be a parinaama

like milk becoming a yogurt- an irreversible transformation but only

apparent transformation like gold becoming a bangle or a ring etc.

Hence this example in the Ch. Up. leading to tat tvam asi swetaketo.

 

But Michael - Brahman is not only existence that is indivisible and

undifferentiated but also conscious entity. Hence from the above suutra

that cause should persist in the effect, the substantive of the world is

not only existence but that is also consciousness. Hence the jadam or

inert that we see cannot be real, in the absolute sense but it is only

apparent. If a question is raised - why I see or experience jadam if

the substantive is conscious entity, brahman - then we need to examine

more carefully and analyze, whether what we see as jadam, is it real or

unreal. That is where the experience vs. the knowledge of the experience

differ. But all differences get resolved in the consciousness that I am

or the existence that I am when the knowledge that undifferentiated

existence-consciousness-bliss that I am.

 

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]

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

> While I do agree with you on unavailability of any references in

> Upanishadic text on the definition of reality as 'trikAla-

> abAdhyatvam', however, there are more fundamental issues we need to

> take a look in this regard.

 

Shree Sriinivas

 

Greetings. Apparently - scriptural definition is available to that

effect as shown by Shree Sundarji. The list is blessed by his presence.

>

> 1. Definition of satyatvam being one which does not sublate in all

> time 'trikAla-abAdhyatvam', presupposes kAla(time) itself must exist

> always as a framework and deciding criteria for truth. Otherwise if

> kAla itself is not *real*, there is no meaning in holding 'trikAla'

> as a deciding factor.

 

This discussion is taking place in the kaala only. 'trikaala abhaaditam'

is only a teaching for the discriminative mind in contemplation to

nagate that which is bhaaditam as not brahman as in neti neti. So the

definition that it is beyond time is only for nagation to be done in

time - to go beyond the time - like pole vault - use the pole to go

beyond the pole. In the process the very time concept also has no more

relavence.

>So also, in order for us to say Brahmn is

> sattya, kAla must co-exist at least if not anterior to Brahmn.

 

Not true. The negation itself get negated in the transendence of the

knowledge - then this idam that includes kaala - aakaasha and the rest

gets transended. Transendence does not mean eliminating it but seeing

the essence without getting carried way with superimpostions. It is like

seeing the water in the waves. I donot have to eliminate the wave to see

the water. I have to understand that wave is nothing but water and

water alone. The substantive of kaala is also Brhaman since it comes

under the category of 'idam' and hence jadam.

 

I am

> not sure how kAla is preserved in pAramArtha, but according to

> Sri.Sadanand-ji's view, the concept of time and space exist in mind

> only and thus it is vyavahAra only.

 

Yes that is my understanding.

 

>

> 2. Searching for any pramANa (for the definition of satyattvam)

> either in shruti or elsewhere is futile, for two reasons as I see ;

 

That seach is also with in the kaala. Futility is when one transceds in

the realization of Brahman when - 'everything' is recognized as Brahman

- that is myself - sarva bhutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani.

>

> - 'pramANa' as such in general (in Advaitic definition "pramAkaraNaM

> pramANam.h" guarantor of valid knowledge) is itself in the realm of

> avidya only, as per Sri.Shankara

> "sarvE pramANapramEyavyavahArA loukikA vaidikAscha pravrutaH sarvANi

> cha ShAstrANi vidhipratiShEdamOkShaparANi" (in his introduction to

> sUtra bhAShya)

> (All conventions of the means (pramANa) and objects (praMEya) of

> right knowledge-whether loukika or vaidika - & all the ShAstrAs

> dealing with injuction (vidhi) & pratishEda (prohibition) or final

> release deliverance (mOkSha) are in the realm of avidya.)

 

No - that is not correct understanding of adviata or whatexactly

shankara says. Pramaa karanam pramaanam is only validation of the means

for valid knowledge, pramaa. Pramaana is anaadigata abhaadita jnaana

janakam pramaanam - which also ultimately leads to trikaala abhaaditam

is jnaanam which is brahman. The rest of your arguments seems to me

coming from dvaitic misunderstanding of adviata.

 

>

> -The shruti itself is not sattya (and not preserved in pAramArtha)

> according to Sri.Shankara in his gItA bhaashya

> 18.20 "

 

Sir I may point out that upanishad declare even the shruti as apara

vidya only - please do not get mixed up vidya as avidya - where avidya

in advaita referes to non-apprehension of reality that is Brahman.

Avidya of the apra vidya-s is different from avidya of para.

 

 

...navedAnayajnAnatIrthambruvanti | avidyAvadvishhayANyeva ---

> shAstrANicha |" (There is no Veda, no yajna, nor tIrtha-s. shAstrA-s

> are for ignorant people who believe that they are true). Thus, there

> is no use to find the support for definition of satyattvam in shruti

> either.

 

Please take these arguments to jalpaavali (I mean vaadavali). There is

no use of your discussion here either.

>

> 3. If satyattvam is trikAla-abAdhyatvam, then what is the difference

> between the words 'sattya' and 'nittya'? The distinction between them

> is lost. Why does shruti is using them distinctly?

 

No the nitya is satya and satya is nitya. Nitya means that which is

eternal and eternity is not long time - it is beyond the concept of

time too. Satya is chiatanya and caitanya is ananda - sat-chit-ananda

is ekama eva advitiiyam and therefore my friend advaitam.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

>

>

>

 

 

=====

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.SadAnada gAru;

 

Sir, couple of observations if you don't mind;

> Beautiful Sundar, you suceeded. The trikaala abhaditatvam is implied

> in the 'naasto vidyate bhaavo na abhaavo vidhyate sataH ! But

> the direct

> reference to the Narayanopanishad is very good indeed.

>

 

Quoted (many thanks to Sri.Sunder-ji) nArayaNa

upanishad's 'kAlatrayAbAdhitaM brahma' and 'sarvakAlAbAdhitaM

brahma' indicates Brahmn's kAlatrayAbAdhitatvam and

sarvakAlAbAdhitatvam, no doubt, but that does not indicates satyttvam

can be defined *only* as kAlatrayAbAdhitaM or kAlatrayAbAdhitaM.

 

In other words, Brahmn is sattya, no doubt, so also no question about

Brahmn's kAlatrayAbAdhitatvaM either, but that laxaNa of Brahmn is

not indicative of criteria of satyattvam in general and thus can not

be held as a definition of satyattvam.

 

To put it in yet another way, we have following direct shruti vAkyas ;

 

1. 'Brahman is kAlatraya abhAditamm'

2. 'Brahmn is sattya'.

3. 'Brahmn is consciousness'

>From 1, 2 & 3; it does not follow that sattya is *only* which is

kAlatraya abhAditamm as you seems to hold.

 

> As I had mentioned 'Brahman is kAlatraya abhAditamm' is a direct

> statement and is obvious for that which is satyam. But a converse

> statement 'kAlatraya abhaadhitam brahma' is a converse statement and

> make it more rigorous just as 'prajnaanam brahma'. It becomes an

> operative definition for Brahman. (Dvaitins in the list donot

> jump on me

> that we are defining Brahman! - it is operative difinition who are

> suffering in or due to dvaita.- because I find my e-mail is

> flooded with

> mails from Jay that I have no interest even to open them.)

>

> In view of this converse statement - anything that is transient

cannot

> be Brahman - The world is transient, looking from the ruupa, form

and

> naama, name - or as agglomeration of objects.

 

Yes, anything that is transient cannot be Brahman. I agree for that.

Brahmn is changeless.

 

>The substantive is Brahman as is trikaala abhaaditam and therefore

real.

 

Brahmn is real, no doubt, but He is so not because He is trikaala

abhaaditam. Your conclusion does not follow from any shurti

statements and I am not sure how did you derive it.

>This is

> different from the

> claim that objects are eternal as shree Chittaranjanji argues. The

> transient world cannot be Brahman as per the rigorous

> definition leaving

> only, that which is unchanging (tri kaala abhaaditam) as the

> substantive

> in the transients alone as Brahman.

 

Thus, the conclusion is, transient world is not Brahmn. Yes, I agree.

> 1. Prajnaanam brahman - consciousness is brahman which is converse

of

> saying Braham is consciousness. – that is any thing

> non-conscious cannot

> be brahman.

>

 

Yes, non-conscious cannot be Brahmn. But that does not rule out the

reality of non-conscious altogether.

> And

>

> 2. trikaala abhaaditam brahman - that which cannot be

> sublated in three

> periods of time (that which is essentially independent of

> time) alone is

> Brahman which is converse of statement that Brahman is trikaala

> abhaaditam. Therefore anything that is changing in time or transient

> cannot be Brahman by the converse theorem.

>

 

Sure, anything which is transient cannot be Brahmn, but the question

is not that, the question is 'anything that is changing' is real or

not ? If 'change' is real (otherwise we wouldn't be talking about

change to begin with), why things which are changing is not? In other

words, if things are not real, how can we attribute real 'changeness'

to them ?

 

> From both aspects we cannot but dismiss the world which is 1)

> jadam and

> 2) transient – cannot be brahman since it is transient and therefore

> not real and it is jadam.

>

 

Sir, 'transient and therefore not real' part is debatable.

 

I am not sure how trikaala abhaditatvam is implied in the 'naasto

vidyate bhaavo na abhaavo vidhyate sataH'.

 

In fact it is other way;

 

nAsatO vidyatE bhAvO nAbhAvO vidyatE sataH |

ubhayOrapi drusTOntaH tvanayO statva darSibhiH ||10.16||

 

"That which is not-real has no manifestation, and that which is

unmanifest has no reality"

 

And in fact, given that something is manifest at some time (and at

some space) is enough to show that it is real, by SriKrishna's word.

For if it were not real, it would not be manifest at all. A "bhaava-

padArtha" that exists in any one or more points of time-space

is "sat," because "nAsato vidyate bhAvaH."

 

If trikaala abhaditatvam were to be the only criteria, SriKrishna

wouldn't have used the term 'manifestation' to define the reality.

For, 'manifestation' has fixed start and end points & function of

time with changeness as attribute. Thus 'manifestation' implies one

which is not trikAlika nittyattva.

 

Any bhaava-entity *has* to be real, given the rule "nAsato vidyate

bhAvaH" -- since the universe consists of bhaava-entities, it is real

as well. This is inline with Veda saying "vishwam satyam maghavAnA"

etc.

 

Also, jIva which also manifest with various dEha in this samsAra

during stusti is also real as per "Satya Aatmaa, satyo jiivaha,

satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa," etc.

 

Of course, we are not saying trikaala abhaditatvam is not real per

se, but that can not be the definition of reality. trikaala

abhaditatvam or nittya entities such as Brahmn is sattya of course,

but that case is covered in our definition of 'one or more time-space

points' becuase, Brahmn exist in all time points (nittya) and

everywhere (sarvAntaryAmin) and thus does not left out, but covered

in our definition of satyattvam.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.