Why advaitins say Jagat/World is mithya??

November 29, 2004

praNAms prabhuji-s,

Hare Krishna

It seems the topic *world reality* becoming never ending story in this

advaita forum!! ( it is really something strage for me to see the

*reality of the world* on par with ultimate reality of non-dual brahman) .

Since, this topic again gaining currency by the participation of Sri Frank

prabhuji, Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji etc., I think this is an appropriate

time to share my personal notes based on my discussion with my guruji Sri

ChandramouLi avadhAni during vEdAnta camp at Mattur.

How one can accept when advaitin say "this perceived world" is *mithyA*

(illusion??... for want of better English word) & *mAyA mAtra* (concocted

by avidyA)?? After all we all know the word 'perception' itself proves

that there is something out there for cognition. Does this very

'perception' not enough to prove the "reality of the world"?? How can the

*jagan mithyatva* (the falsity of the world) be proved when we are verily

living in this world?? Is there any logic in saying that which is there

for regular perception is mithyA?? How can we say that which is very

abstract in its very nature is satya..and that which we are seeing with

utmost regularity is mithya or non-existing?? Dualist can say, advaitins

special clinging to jagan mithyatva is self defeating & self contradicting

& cannot withstand the result of our direct experience of the world.

But, a little indepth analysis of the *cognitive world* brings us the fact

that jagat has only temporal reality & has only restricted existence at

particular state. (This perspective is from * In ever existing world

avastha-s (different states) are being seen)

First, let us ask ourselves one simple question " how are we seeing this

world?? The spontaneous answer is "through eyes" or in general "through

senses". The next question is where are these eyes/senses?? Naturally, it

is in our body. Where is this body?? obviously it is in the world!! So,

in summary we can say, in this world we have this body & in body we are

having senses from which we are *seeing* this world. Now, the question

here needs to be answered is " how can this single part (yEka dEsha) of

this world i.e. body & senses can have the perception of the *whole

world*?? Not only that, actually what we are calling as jagat / world

here?? is it not a big bag of body, senses, mind, intellect, life force

(prANa vAyu), Ego (ahaM), paNcha mahAbhUta-s ( five primordial eliments),

five types of attributes (shabda(sound), sparSha(rouch), rUpa(form),

rasa(taste) & gandha(smell) ), the time & space factor, the concept of

cause & effect etc. etc.?? Being an infinitesimal part of this vast

universe, how can these body & senses can see & have the *complete*

knowledge of conglomeration of all these eliments?? To get the knowledge

of this objective world, dont we have to take out our body & senses & make

it to sit in *subject* seat ?? If we think, we are dragging out our body &

senses from the world to have an objective outlook of the same...question

is from which platform body & senses doing this seeing business?? If we

cannot bifurcate body & senses & the world, then we have to say *a* part of

the world is looking at *another* part of the same world. So, *same thing*

which is doing dual role that is seer ( pramAtru/viShayi) as well as being

seen ( pramEya / viShaya)!!! Is this logical to think like this?? Is it

directly comply with our direct knowledge?? the answer is big NO, as we

all know it is an axiomatic statement that the subject should be always

different from the object, to get the objective knowledge of the external

objects. I am looking at the monitor & key board to type this mail. The

subject *me* should be different from the object called monitor, keyboard

etc. is it not?? This subject-object bifurcation is indispensable in all

our empirical knowledge. But here in the above analysis (world AND

body/senses) do we have this bifurcation?? which is subject & which is

object here?? OK, one may argue our Atman or the true self which is beyond

this names & forms of world is *seeing* this world!! But again, the

question is how can he *see* the world?? does he has body & senses?? if

yes, which are those body & senses?? is it aprAkrutik (unnatural) set of

body & senses?? ( like our dualists assert!!) How can this set of

indriya-s be proved from pratyakSha, anumAna etc. If you take shruti to

substantiate this claim, shruti clearly saying Atman is devoid of *all

types* of indriya-s (sarvEndriya vivarjita vide shwetAshwatara upanishat).

As said above, if something is not there in direct experience how can we

accept it as truth?? Again, if we think Atman is using this gross (stUla)

set of body & senses, we will ask in which compartment you are going to put

this?? whether this set of gross body & senses pertains to Atman or the

world?? If you say it belongs to Atman, it should be always there

alongwith ever existing Atman is it not?? But my deep sleep experience

says that I was not identifying with this gross body/senses. If we say it

belongs to world itself, we have seen above what would be the problem in

accepting it.

Further, we can think Atman without the aid of all these things can see the

world...but is this statement withstand our experience?? where is this

world in my deep sleep state?? if Atman is invariably seeing this world how

can it disappear in my sushupti?? how can it change colour from waking to

dream?? if the world is there in sushupti, it cannot be called as sushupti

(jagat bIja (seed form of universe) is only from the view point of waker

who believes his waking world is real)...This is quite evident in our

experience when we are not biased from waker's influence.

Finally, what this analysis brings us is, even in waking state (where we

are seeing the world with subject & object bifurcation) when we donot

identify ourselves with this limited adjuncts (upAdhi-s) like body, senses

etc. then the resultant perception of the world also will not be there.

This is what paramArtha jnAna (ultimate knowledge) shruti advocating.

chAndOgya shruti says yatra nAnyat pashyati........vijAnAti sa bhUma (

where there is no duality that is bhUma the abode of absolute non duality).

speaking in the same lines bruhadAraNyaka says yatra tasya sarvamAtmaiva

bhut tatkEna kam pashyEth??...vijAnIyAt etc. means when we realise the

true nature the duality of subject - object will get sublated & in that

state how can one *see* with what?? how can one know with what?? etc.

Shruti further confirms this brahman *at the biginning* was secondless.

Again, chAdOgya (6-2-1) says sadEva soumya idamagra AsIt yEkamEvAdvitIyaM.

Here one should note that brahman the truth has been described as *alone*

in the past tense..why?? so that the seeker may not mix it with the

empirical truth of multiplicity which we are wrongly cognising due to

avidya. how this multiplicity is only for the name sake & substance is the

only reality, same shruti elsewhere (6-1-4) says that yaTha soumyEkEna

mrutpindEva sarvaM.........vAchAraMbhaNam vikArO nAmadhEyaM *mruttikEtyEva

satyaM*...The socalled effect here described as mere play of words, a mere

name...the clay (brahman) is the ONLY reality. Why clay is the only

reality?? why names & forms made up of clay is not the reality?? when it

is clay itself ultimately?? shruti asserts further in 6-8-1 (kindly see

the original sanskrit text) In sushupti when this jIva bhAva merged in

brahman there is no egoity & he is then verily dissolved into his own self.

IN THIS STATE OUR SOCALLED WORLD IS NOT THERE BUT YOU ARE THERE VERY MUCH

IN YOUR TRUE NATURE...

So, in conclusion, if we are seeing the objective world by sitting in the

subject seat it is the result of avidya only. It is through our ignorance

we are dividing the undivided brahman & thinking brahman has kAraNa (

cause) & kArya ( effect) difference. Unless you identify yourself with

body & senses *you cannot* see the world ...no matter whether it is brahman

itself or otherwise. After all, we know, nobody can see the world without

body & senses. It is in this spirit advaitins say mAyA mAtraM idaM sarvaM

(muNdaka), brahmaiva satyaM, jagan mithyA ( vEdAnta diNdima) etc. This is

noway an exagerated emotional eccentricity of the advaitin. This point has

been derived after analysing this *world reality* from all the possible

angles.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

November 29, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

Much to my chagrin, we are back at square one.

I have no major problem upto the concluding paragraph (quoted below)

of your long essay.

You say (in the last para): We are dividing the undivided Brahman

etc.

That presupposes the prior existence of a 'we' to divide the

undivided Brahman. If Brahman is all there is, where can that 'we'

(the dividers) come from?

Where does the avidya (the cause that prompts the division) come from?

If all these are 'outside' Brahman, well then you have reduced

Brahman to a limited entity or, if you still insist that Brahman is

limitless, you have created impossible and unaccountable parallel

realities.

If you say avidya was there in Brahman, then would you have a

problem acknowledging that the result of avidya which is the world

was also there in Brahman?

Besides, by using the word 'dividing', you are confirming that the

parts that arise from the division are parts of Brahman. Aren't you?

The safest and only logical alternative, therefore, is to consider

Brahman as Wholeness indivisible and undrstand the whole world

encompassing the experiencer and experienced (perceiver and world) as

a single, undivided unit. Then, that undivided whole will be verily

Brahman merely by virtue of the fact that you cannot have two

Brahmans. THIS IS THAT. In other words, this means that there is no

creation at all. This understanding doesn't leave out any

externalities (like we, avidya, world, subject, object etc.) to be

accounted for when the conundrum is finally resolved.

This is the position I am advocating as the core theme of advaita. I

don't think anybody here claimed that the world, as *perceived*,

consisting of limited entities, is not mithyA (conditioned by space-

time). The limited entities come and go in space and time (jagat).

But, when the world is appreciated as a WHOLE from the point of view

of its limitlessness and innumerable diversity, one with the

perceiver, the REALITY of it as ONE expresses forth. Then, there are

no more limited divisions and a perceiver of the divisions - It is

Wholeness, Limitlessness, Timelessness, PurNam, Real and Brahman.

You seem to miss this point expressed beautifully in Bhagawan

Ramana's words quoted by Frankji: "The world is unreal (mithyA) as

the world but real as Brahman".

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

__________________

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

......

> So, in conclusion, if we are seeing the objective world by sitting

in the

> subject seat it is the result of avidya only. It is through our

ignorance

> we are dividing the undivided brahman & thinking brahman has kAraNa

(

> cause) & kArya ( effect) difference. Unless you identify yourself

with

> body & senses *you cannot* see the world ...no matter whether it is

brahman

> itself or otherwise. After all, we know, nobody can see the world

without

> body & senses. It is in this spirit advaitins say mAyA mAtraM idaM

sarvaM

> (muNdaka), brahmaiva satyaM, jagan mithyA ( vEdAnta diNdima) etc.

This is

> noway an exagerated emotional eccentricity of the advaitin. This

point has

> been derived after analysing this *world reality* from all the

possible

> angles.

>

November 30, 2004

Thank you shriman Nair-ji for your spontaneous response to my

question on the oft quoted Keno upanishad verse on 'braHman' and also

clarifying the advaitic position on 'jagat mithya' .

i think your position on Advaita is closer to my heart than other

postions held by some members in this august forum.

you state ...

( The safest and only logical alternative, therefore, is to consider

Brahman as Wholeness indivisible and undrstand the whole world

encompassing the experiencer and experienced (perceiver and world)

as a single, undivided unit. Then, that undivided whole will be

verily Brahman merely by virtue of the fact that you cannot have two

Brahmans. THIS IS THAT. In other words, this means that there is no

creation at all. This understanding doesn't leave out any

externalities (like we, avidya, world, subject, object etc.) to be

accounted for when the conundrum is finally resolved.)

Exactly. In a state of 'braHmanhood', all conundrums , all

confusions, all complexities , all questions, and of

course 'paradoxes' cease to exist - all there is only 'Bliss '- Pure

*Delight* - pure *Love* and there is Perfect Harmony and perfect

Balance and perfect 'Rta'.

i was amused to read sri Ramji's post ... where he called me and

himself as 'non-brahmans' ....

Anyday, i would prefer to be a dynamic, active and creative'Shakti'

inherent in Brahman (pure consciousness) than a *Brahman* full of

paradoxes!!! smiles!!! lol!!!! btw, i enjoyed Sunderji-s humorous

anecdote on this issue!!!!

and finally, only a Jnani that too only a Parama jnani can resonate

with Sri Ramana's statement "The world is unreal (mithyA) as

the world but real as Brahman".

and for

another point, in the chapter on Vibhuti yoga in the Srimad Bhagwat

Gita, Bhagwan Krishna says ...

"Among all the trees I am the Aswaththa tree (The sacred tree of life

with its roots above and branches below). "

and in the Katha upanishad also, Brahman is compared to an Ashwatta

tree in reverse whose roots are above and the branches spread down

below. "Its pure root is Brahman from whom the world draws

nourishment ....."

and Thus the impersonal Brahman is also the personaL GOD KRISHNA

FROM WHO WE DRAW ALL THE NOURISHMENT. Vasudevam sarvam iti!

we all quote scriptures from time to time but i do not want to sound

like the devil quoting the scriptures ....

However , Brahman is also described as the LORD OF LOVE.

I LEAVE YOU WITH THIS QUOTE FROM KATHA UPANISHAD...

"The Purusha (Self), of the size of a thumb, resides in the middle of

the body as the lord of the past and the future, (he who knows Him)

fears no more. This verily is That. The seat of the Purusha is said

to be the heart, hence It "resides in the middle of the body."

Although It is limitless and all–pervading, yet in relation to Its

abiding–place It is represented as limited in extension, "the size of

a thumb." This refers really to the heart, which in shape may be

likened to a thumb. s light is everywhere, yet we see it focused in a

lamp and believe it to be there only; similarly, although the life–

current flows everywhere in the body, the heart is regarded as

peculiarly its seat."

YES! we cannot see Brahman with our physical eyes but Brahman is

forever existing in our spiritual heart!!!!

love and regards

November 30, 2004

Namaste Adi-ji:

As you may be aware, in Tamil, "Non-Brahman" literally means "I am

Brahman!" (smiles!!)

regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>

> i was amused to read sri Ramji's post ... where he called me and

> himself as 'non-brahmans' ....

>

December 1, 2004

Hari OM! Jai Poojya Gurudev,

If we are so much attached to the body & Senses then Bhaskar

Prabhuji's wording seems to be ok, because of the "Poorva Karma

Phalam" we may have to pass through many many bodies and again

millions of years, (as per the time in the Earth) to realize that,

this world is Mithya, otherwise either Body, mind or Intellect will

trouble us.

Where this so called modern science ends "Advaita Vedanta" starts, the

superior science, as Poojya Gurudev Swami Chinmayanadaji says, where

Modern Science ends VEDANTA starts, it is open to everybody, but

there should be a special blessing to comprehend and understand it,

and again understanding also is in the level of intellect!

Brahma Satyam, Jagat Mithya, Jivo Brahmaiva naparah

Brahma Satyam :

Brahman is the all pervasive life principle, consciousness. Not the

conditioned consciousness which manifests at the level of brain, but

'that' which exists before & inspite of the manifestation too. Not

'consciousness of something', but the very conscious principle as

such. Contrary to what some people believe that 'life' is a product of

some chemistry, the Upanishads thunder that Consciousness is that

which isthe ultimate truth, the timeless & transcendental reality. It

exists first and matter follows after. This is not only what the

scriptures reveal, but also what is logical too. If we look at matter

- the atoms, the electron, proton etc then we find that these things

are so perfectly created & organised that there has to be some

intelligence working. That which existed before to have brought about

such an orderly & beautiful creation has to be a conscious entity. We

can never imagine the whole process getting started with lifeless,

inert matter. Consciousness alone has to be the first & eternal

reality. Rest is created, and is thus perishable. That is what this

sutra reveals. Brahma Satyam. The word satya means that which exists

in all the three periods of time. Past, present & future. That which

transcends time, and is thus timeless. That which exists at all times,

that which cannot be effaced by time. Consciousness is that which not

only exists at all times but also at all places. It exists as the very

truth of all that is. It is the atma of everything - living or

non-living things. It is our basic essence, our truth too. That is the

God which we all worship.

Jagat Mithya :

The word Jagat embraces in itself this entire world, this cosmos. All

that which is or can be an 'object' of our knowledge. It includes not

only the gross but also the subtle 'objects'. The thoughts, emotions,

the energy all come under this word 'Jagat'. That which is near or

far, inside or outside, now or later, good or bad everything is part

of this Jagat. This word has been described as reffering to that which

is 'Jayate gachati iti jagat', i.e. that which is born & dies is

jagat. Birth & death are movements in time. That which is in time

constantly changes, there is a constant flux. Something starts this

process of activation & manifestation of time and thus we see this

dynamic flux. A realm of experience presents itself in front of us.

What exactly starts this process is a different matter, but the point

here is that all what is thus brought about is ultimately transient,

is not ultimately there. It is comparable to being in a dream world.

Something activates the process of dreaming, and when it does get

activated we see a realm of experience which is not ultimately there.

Mithya is that which is not there in all three periods of time. That

which had a birth at a particular time and that which will certainly

die at some point of time. It is there in this present moment, because

of some reason - known or unknown. The above aphorism of 'Jagat

Mithya' thus implies that all what is available for experience is

transient.

Mithya also implies that which does not have the capacity to give us

that which we basically seek. It is certainly beautiful,in fact very

beautiful, it is also true that 'objects' of the world alone are

useful for our worldly needs & purposes, but at the same time this is

also a fact that we basically remain where we were. It is like eating

a dream food, with which we never satiate our hunger. However much we

eat the dream food, we will still remain basically hungry. Whatever we

have sought in this world may have helped our life to get comfortable

& organised, but has certainly not helped us in eliminating the

fundamental desire 'to seek' something more. Like hunger the seeking

still remains as it is. The only difference is that it now manifests

differently. That which is Mithya does not have any independent

existence, thus it is not really dependable, for the simple reason

that it itself is perishable. What ever our heart basically seeks will

never be got from this Jagat. That is the implication of this sutra.

It is something to be seen in a detached way & not taking too

seriously. Whatever happens in the world never really matters, knowing

this a person should not plan to aggrandise & enjoy, he should rather

serve & give. This philosophical tenet, which is a fact of life

provides us a logic & basis for our religious values, culture & even

the real goal of life.

Jivo Brahmaiva naparah :

This sutra means that 'every jiva - the apparent limited & finite

entity is basically the infinite & limitless Brahman, and nothing

else. The truth & essence of an indiidual is the truth & essence of

this whole world or rather God. Every Jiva is basically God himself

wearing a cloak of limited equipments, and moreover, identified with

ones equipment he lives a limited & transient life. It is basically a

case of non-apprehension followed by mis-apprehension of the truth of

oneself. We take ourselves to be limited and therefore we are & remain

limited. Body & all our equipments are certainly limited in time

&space but 'I' who knows and objectifies all these is not. A seer is

always different from seen. We are conscious of the body & mind

complex so we have to be different from them. We are that which knows,

that which illumines, that eternal life principle - Brahman. The

Upanishads reveal that whoever knows his or her true reality is a

healthy person, rest are diseased. They are certainly not at ease,

there seems to be some bug in them. It is the bug of mis-apprenhension

of ones true self as a limited guy. If we were really limited then

someone 'could' have helped us, but when we just errorneously take

ourselves to be limited then it is something which God also cannot do

anything about, except come and provide right knowledge. It is we who

have to pause, think, deliberate, meditate & realise. Everything of

this individual gets changed, except the 'I' - the self-effulgent,

blissful essence. One who knows that alone lives a true life which

every human deserves to live. That alone was the secret of all saints,

sages & even the avatar purushas. This alone is the real teaching of

all our scriptures.

The awakening of limited Jiva to the realm of limitless Brahman is not

a journey in the realm of time, but it is by transcending the very

time, by right knowledge. Karma is a means to attain something in the

realm of time, so it is not really relevent here. With karma we attain

that which is unattained. In karma we turn our attention to that which

should be rather than that which is. So in order to awake to our true

self, one has to keep aside all cravings to 'do or achieve something'.

One has to relax and be highly observant and see some fundamental

facts of life & our true self. That which is limitless & infinite is

not sometjhing to be attained but that which is to be known. It is

already attained, one should realise that 'I am already that', We just

have to directly know it. All sadhanas are directedonly for this

ultimate goal of life. This is the objective of sanyas & Moksha. Drop

the hankering for everything, relax, and see that which alone is.

Consequences of the opposite :

If a person does not understand & see these facts directly then it is

obvious that the fellow will take resort to that which is its

opposite. Lets see what will be the consequences of that. Such a

person is too fascinated by the glare of the world, he will remain an

extrovert, and also an eternal seeker. To live an ego-centric

existence will be his destiny, and to face the music of egocentricity

an unavoidable fact. Inside him there will always remain a sense of

lack and outside he will continuously keep on seeking something or the

other. He will take worldly things too seriously, and will be able to

go to any extent for achieving such worldly things. Such people alone

play dangerous games with nature and will still not be satisfied with

it. Resorting to that which is opposite amounts to create & produce

the devils. Communicating these tenets of Vedanta alone amounts to

helping the individual in particular & also the world at large. This

is what all Rishis declared, this is what Lord Ram & Krishna lived and

this is what Bhagwan Sankaracharya worked & lived for. Lets go into

these deeply and see these facts of life. Lets redeem ourselves with

true knowledge.

With Love & OM!

Krishna Prasad

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:26:36 +0530, bhaskar.yr

<bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms prabhuji-s,

> Hare Krishna

>

> It seems the topic *world reality* becoming never ending story in this

> advaita forum!! ( it is really something strage for me to see the

> *reality of the world* on par with ultimate reality of non-dual brahman) .

> Since, this topic again gaining currency by the participation of Sri Frank

> prabhuji, Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji etc., I think this is an appropriate

> time to share my personal notes based on my discussion with my guruji Sri

> ChandramouLi avadhAni during vEdAnta camp at Mattur.

>

> How one can accept when advaitin say "this perceived world" is *mithyA*

> (illusion??... for want of better English word) & *mAyA mAtra* (concocted

> by avidyA)?? After all we all know the word 'perception' itself proves

> that there is something out there for cognition. Does this very

> 'perception' not enough to prove the "reality of the world"?? How can the

> *jagan mithyatva* (the falsity of the world) be proved when we are verily

> living in this world?? Is there any logic in saying that which is there

> for regular perception is mithyA?? How can we say that which is very

> abstract in its very nature is satya..and that which we are seeing with

> utmost regularity is mithya or non-existing?? Dualist can say, advaitins

> special clinging to jagan mithyatva is self defeating & self contradicting

> & cannot withstand the result of our direct experience of the world.

>

> But, a little indepth analysis of the *cognitive world* brings us the fact

> that jagat has only temporal reality & has only restricted existence at

> particular state. (This perspective is from * In ever existing world

> avastha-s (different states) are being seen)

>

> First, let us ask ourselves one simple question " how are we seeing this

> world?? The spontaneous answer is "through eyes" or in general "through

> senses". The next question is where are these eyes/senses?? Naturally, it

> is in our body. Where is this body?? obviously it is in the world!! So,

> in summary we can say, in this world we have this body & in body we are

> having senses from which we are *seeing* this world. Now, the question

> here needs to be answered is " how can this single part (yEka dEsha) of

> this world i.e. body & senses can have the perception of the *whole

> world*?? Not only that, actually what we are calling as jagat / world

> here?? is it not a big bag of body, senses, mind, intellect, life force

> (prANa vAyu), Ego (ahaM), paNcha mahAbhUta-s ( five primordial eliments),

> five types of attributes (shabda(sound), sparSha(rouch), rUpa(form),

> rasa(taste) & gandha(smell) ), the time & space factor, the concept of

> cause & effect etc. etc.?? Being an infinitesimal part of this vast

> universe, how can these body & senses can see & have the *complete*

> knowledge of conglomeration of all these eliments?? To get the knowledge

> of this objective world, dont we have to take out our body & senses & make

> it to sit in *subject* seat ?? If we think, we are dragging out our body &

> senses from the world to have an objective outlook of the same...question

> is from which platform body & senses doing this seeing business?? If we

> cannot bifurcate body & senses & the world, then we have to say *a* part of

> the world is looking at *another* part of the same world. So, *same thing*

> which is doing dual role that is seer ( pramAtru/viShayi) as well as being

> seen ( pramEya / viShaya)!!! Is this logical to think like this?? Is it

> directly comply with our direct knowledge?? the answer is big NO, as we

> all know it is an axiomatic statement that the subject should be always

> different from the object, to get the objective knowledge of the external

> objects. I am looking at the monitor & key board to type this mail. The

> subject *me* should be different from the object called monitor, keyboard

> etc. is it not?? This subject-object bifurcation is indispensable in all

> our empirical knowledge. But here in the above analysis (world AND

> body/senses) do we have this bifurcation?? which is subject & which is

> object here?? OK, one may argue our Atman or the true self which is beyond

> this names & forms of world is *seeing* this world!! But again, the

> question is how can he *see* the world?? does he has body & senses?? if

> yes, which are those body & senses?? is it aprAkrutik (unnatural) set of

> body & senses?? ( like our dualists assert!!) How can this set of

> indriya-s be proved from pratyakSha, anumAna etc. If you take shruti to

> substantiate this claim, shruti clearly saying Atman is devoid of *all

> types* of indriya-s (sarvEndriya vivarjita vide shwetAshwatara upanishat).

> As said above, if something is not there in direct experience how can we

> accept it as truth?? Again, if we think Atman is using this gross (stUla)

> set of body & senses, we will ask in which compartment you are going to put

> this?? whether this set of gross body & senses pertains to Atman or the

> world?? If you say it belongs to Atman, it should be always there

> alongwith ever existing Atman is it not?? But my deep sleep experience

> says that I was not identifying with this gross body/senses. If we say it

> belongs to world itself, we have seen above what would be the problem in

> accepting it.

>

> Further, we can think Atman without the aid of all these things can see the

> world...but is this statement withstand our experience?? where is this

> world in my deep sleep state?? if Atman is invariably seeing this world how

> can it disappear in my sushupti?? how can it change colour from waking to

> dream?? if the world is there in sushupti, it cannot be called as sushupti

> (jagat bIja (seed form of universe) is only from the view point of waker

> who believes his waking world is real)...This is quite evident in our

> experience when we are not biased from waker's influence.

>

> Finally, what this analysis brings us is, even in waking state (where we

> are seeing the world with subject & object bifurcation) when we donot

> identify ourselves with this limited adjuncts (upAdhi-s) like body, senses

> etc. then the resultant perception of the world also will not be there.

> This is what paramArtha jnAna (ultimate knowledge) shruti advocating.

> chAndOgya shruti says yatra nAnyat pashyati........vijAnAti sa bhUma (

> where there is no duality that is bhUma the abode of absolute non duality).

> speaking in the same lines bruhadAraNyaka says yatra tasya sarvamAtmaiva

> bhut tatkEna kam pashyEth??...vijAnIyAt etc. means when we realise the

> true nature the duality of subject - object will get sublated & in that

> state how can one *see* with what?? how can one know with what?? etc.

> Shruti further confirms this brahman *at the biginning* was secondless.

> Again, chAdOgya (6-2-1) says sadEva soumya idamagra AsIt yEkamEvAdvitIyaM.

> Here one should note that brahman the truth has been described as *alone*

> in the past tense..why?? so that the seeker may not mix it with the

> empirical truth of multiplicity which we are wrongly cognising due to

> avidya. how this multiplicity is only for the name sake & substance is the

> only reality, same shruti elsewhere (6-1-4) says that yaTha soumyEkEna

> mrutpindEva sarvaM.........vAchAraMbhaNam vikArO nAmadhEyaM *mruttikEtyEva

> satyaM*...The socalled effect here described as mere play of words, a mere

> name...the clay (brahman) is the ONLY reality. Why clay is the only

> reality?? why names & forms made up of clay is not the reality?? when it

> is clay itself ultimately?? shruti asserts further in 6-8-1 (kindly see

> the original sanskrit text) In sushupti when this jIva bhAva merged in

> brahman there is no egoity & he is then verily dissolved into his own self.

> IN THIS STATE OUR SOCALLED WORLD IS NOT THERE BUT YOU ARE THERE VERY MUCH

> IN YOUR TRUE NATURE...

>

> So, in conclusion, if we are seeing the objective world by sitting in the

> subject seat it is the result of avidya only. It is through our ignorance

> we are dividing the undivided brahman & thinking brahman has kAraNa (

> cause) & kArya ( effect) difference. Unless you identify yourself with

> body & senses *you cannot* see the world ...no matter whether it is brahman

> itself or otherwise. After all, we know, nobody can see the world without

> body & senses. It is in this spirit advaitins say mAyA mAtraM idaM sarvaM

> (muNdaka), brahmaiva satyaM, jagan mithyA ( vEdAnta diNdima) etc. This is

> noway an exagerated emotional eccentricity of the advaitin. This point has

> been derived after analysing this *world reality* from all the possible

> angles.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

> 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

>

> Links

>

December 2, 2004

Namaste Sri Krishna Prasadji:

Thanks for sharing the well written article of Swami Atmanandaji with

the list. For members who want to know the source, this article is

available at:

http://members.tripod.com/vedantamission/gurus/adisank3.htm

Swami Atmanandaji (a disciple of Swamiji Chinmayandaji) is the head

of Vedanta Mission and incidently, he is a former member of this list

for few years before starting his own list. I am also happy to note

that Swamiji has given his blank consent for reposting her articles

in this list for discussions. Members are reminded that articles

copied from Webpages of Internet such as this one should be properly

acknowledged with site reference and permission, etc. This is the

list policy and I and other moderators of this list will appreciate

your cooperation and understanding in this regard.

Members, please make sure that you have permission to post articles

from WEB pages before posting. Most of the time, the authors will be

very happy to provide such permissions.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

Note: I noticed that several of your previous postings are also taken

from websites and please provide appropriate site references for

those postings.

advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...>

wrote:

>

> Brahma Satyam, Jagat Mithya, Jivo Brahmaiva naparah

>

December 2, 2004

RamChandranji, Namaste ! Thanks for posting the link.

Is Swamiji suggesting in the lines below that matter

is the product of Spirit or Consciousness ?

"If we look at matter - the atoms, the electron,

proton etc then we find that these things are so

perfectly created & organised that there has to be

some intelligence working. That which existed before

to have brought about such an orderly & beautiful

creation has to be a conscious entity. "

thanks,

Shailendra

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

December 2, 2004

sri Ram-ji!

IF I RECALL, SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD-JI stated at the very outset of this

dicussion that he is relying on Swami Dayananda's book on "Value of

ValueS" regarding these 20 Tattwas. and we are grateful to shri

Krishna prasad-ji for bringing all these to our attention in this

great group by placing them all within easy reach! .

There are many links on this topic

here is one

http:// www.arshavidya.org/vision/v1n10.htm - 10k - Cached

thank you

love and regards

=========================

A Special Note to Adi-ji:

Namaste,

Please read carefully, my comments before you on this thread. The author of the

article posted by Sri Krishna Prasad-ji is not Swami Daynanadaji but certainly

it is Swami Atmanandaji of Vedanta Mission. I fully appreciate and respect the

efforts of Sri Krishnaji in leading this important discussion. When you have

questions regarding my comments in the role of a moderator, please contact me or

Sunder-ji directly instead of posting your objections to the list. I don't

understand or appreciate your remarks and we the moderators of this list take

our duty seriously. We do insist all members to follow the list guidelines and

unwritten ethical rules of Internet seriously. I appreciate your full

cooperation and understanding,

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

December 2, 2004

Hi Bhaskar-ji and Tony-ji,

So the world is not real in any way? Does this not lead us to all sorts of

incongruous conclusions? Are you not basing all of your conclusions on

unreality in the first place? The shruti cannot be real. Your messages are

not real. The words that you are using, the keyboard on which you are

typing. I am not real and neither are you. If all is illusion then, having

realised this truth, why did vyAsa, shaMkara, ramana etc. bother writing

anything down or speaking? For whom were they writing and to whom speaking?

If the waking world is truly as unreal to the enlightened one as the dream

world is to the waker, then what would be the incentive or purpose? As the

waker, you do not attempt to help the injured person in the dream that you

have just awoken from.

(mithyA is not illusion, as has been pointed out before, but 'neither real

nor unreal'. The world is not real 'in its own right' but real by virtue of

the underlying brahman that is its true essence. My understanding of

ajAtivAda is not that there is and never was a world but that a world did

not need to be created because, as brahman, it has always and will always

exist. It is simply the form that is constantly changing, even if this be

through dissolution and re-formation, big bang and big phut!)

Best wishes,

Dennis

December 2, 2004

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Bhaskar-ji and Tony-ji,

>

> So the world is not real in any way? Does this not lead us to all

sorts of

> incongruous conclusions? Are you not basing all of your

conclusions on

> unreality in the first place? The shruti cannot be real. Your

messages are

> not real. The words that you are using, the keyboard on which you

are

> typing. I am not real and neither are you. If all is illusion

then, having

> realised this truth, why did vyAsa, shaMkara, ramana etc. bother

writing

> anything down or speaking? For whom were they writing and to whom

speaking?

> If the waking world is truly as unreal to the enlightened one as

the dream

> world is to the waker, then what would be the incentive or

purpose? As the

> waker, you do not attempt to help the injured person in the dream

that you

> have just awoken from.

>

> (mithyA is not illusion, as has been pointed out before,

but 'neither real

> nor unreal'. The world is not real 'in its own right' but real by

virtue of

> the underlying brahman that is its true essence. My understanding

of

> ajAtivAda is not that there is and never was a world but that a

world did

> not need to be created because, as brahman, it has always and will

always

> exist. It is simply the form that is constantly changing, even if

this be

> through dissolution and re-formation, big bang and big phut!)

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

Namaste D,

There is no world or underlying Brahman only Nirguna. Having said

that Sankara said it is real whilst one is in it. So we have to deal

with it. You premise that it is a form is just a step pointing to

its own unreality and it never happened....I think we have covered

this ground before with Gaudapada etc....ONS...Tony.

December 2, 2004

Hari OM! Jai Poojya Gurudev!

Dear Ramachandraji,

Thank You for the info, Yes, this is taken from Vmission website, as

Adiji pointed out, before starting Value of Values I have mentioned

that this is from Swami Dayanandaji's Value of Values book, this one I

missed out, and previously I remember Advaitin list suggested not to

post links to read, but to paste the matter with the author's name.

The most surprising thing is now for Vedanta also copyright! Our

Rishis never claimed anything as their own, (Since it is heard during

their deep mediation, the only real author for this is Lord himself

and he never claims rights or royalty for that), so I think for our

reference with the author's name imprinted(the last one I missed it,

since I am busy with my work, sorry about that).

I am continuing the value of values still, and it is referred and

studied from the book written by Swami Dayanada Saraswathi, people in

this list who might not have a chance to read that book will be

benefitted also. after reading Value of Values I am adding whatever I

understood (Intellectually!) from that book also. Sorry once again for

any confusion created by my post.

With Love & OM!

Krishna Prasad

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:08:44 -0000, Ram Chandran

<ramchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Krishna Prasadji:

>

> Thanks for sharing the well written article of Swami Atmanandaji with

> the list. For members who want to know the source, this article is

> available at:

> http://members.tripod.com/vedantamission/gurus/adisank3.htm

>

> Swami Atmanandaji (a disciple of Swamiji Chinmayandaji) is the head

> of Vedanta Mission and incidently, he is a former member of this list

> for few years before starting his own list. I am also happy to note

> that Swamiji has given his blank consent for reposting her articles

> in this list for discussions. Members are reminded that articles

> copied from Webpages of Internet such as this one should be properly

> acknowledged with site reference and permission, etc. This is the

> list policy and I and other moderators of this list will appreciate

> your cooperation and understanding in this regard.

>

> Members, please make sure that you have permission to post articles

> from WEB pages before posting. Most of the time, the authors will be

> very happy to provide such permissions.

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> Note: I noticed that several of your previous postings are also taken

> from websites and please provide appropriate site references for

> those postings.

>

> advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Brahma Satyam, Jagat Mithya, Jivo Brahmaiva naparah

> >

>

> 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

>

> Links

>

December 2, 2004

Namaste Sri Krishna Prasad-ji:

I appreciate your reply and thanks for your understanding.

Unfortunately many of the written materials of Vedanta fall into the

copyright category. Only when we cross the 'Kali-Yug' we may

hopefully reinherit our great vedic traditions. Your postings

of "value of values" were quite timely for all of us refocus our mind

on the importance of leading the Dharmic way of life. thanks again,

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...>

wrote:

> Hari OM! Jai Poojya Gurudev!

>

> Dear Ramachandraji,

>

> Thank You for the info, Yes, this is taken from Vmission website, as

> Adiji pointed out, before starting Value of Values I have mentioned

> that this is from Swami Dayanandaji's Value of Values book,

December 2, 2004

sri Krishna Prasad-ji !

Thank you for taking my message in the right spirit.

Sri Ram-ji had already posted swami Atmananda's article on 'jagat

mithya etc' verbatim in message number 24132 at the height of

ChItta's discussion on 'real and unreal' .... but, it was still a

pleasure to read the same article again when you posted it. sOME

ARTICLES NEVER LOSE THEIR 'FRESHNESS' !

i am glad you will be completing the series on 'value of values.' we

will be looking forward to them!

take care !

love and regards

Note from the List Moderator: Members are once again requested not to include

the tail ends of previous posters' messages while sending replies. Members/

cooperation is very much appreciated by list moderators to follow the list

guidelines while sending their messages to the list.

December 3, 2004

Hi Bhaskar-ji and Tony-ji,

praNAm Sri Dennis prabhuji

Hare Krishna

DW prabhuji:

So the world is not real in any way?

bhaskar :

No prabhuji, advaitins never say like that...it grants empirical reality to

the world for all practical purposes. (kindly refer my mail to Sri Frank

prabhuji)

DW prabhuji:

Does this not lead us to all sorts of incongruous conclusions?

bhaskar :

In a way you are right!! wherever jnAtru (knower) jnAna (knowledge) &

jnEya (known) distinctions there that is under the influence of adhyAsa.

Even our shAstrIya vyavahAra (scriptural injuctions) are in the realm of

avidyA vyavahAra.

DW prabhuji:

Are you not basing all of your conclusions on unreality in the first place?

bhaskar :

yes, for reality no pramANa is required. Since it is not *outside* of us

no need to arrive any type of conclusions externally...what is to be

negated or concluded or discriminated is anAtma vastu wrongly perceived

through conditioned adjuncts.

DW prabbhuji:

The shruti cannot be real. Your messages are not real. The words that you

are using, the keyboard on which you are typing. I am not real and neither

are you.

bhaskar :

Anyway, you & me i.e duality is not real that we all know in advaita's

elimentary class...Even shruti for that matter, as you said, cannot be real

in the absolute state..that is what bruhadAraNyaka says too...atra vEda -

avEda ( shruti-s are no shruti-s) as this is the absolute non-dual state.

Having said this advaita does not side lining the practical usage of this

*world* at the empirical level.

DW prabhuji:

If all is illusion then, having realised this truth, why did vyAsa,

shaMkara, ramana etc. bother writing anything down or speaking? For whom

were they writing and to whom speaking?

bhaskar :

Yes, its a very good point...good enough for a separate thread ..shall we

take it in a separate thread prabhuji..By the way shankara himself

addressed this issue in sUtra bhAshya..I think you must be aware of it.

DW prabhuji:

If the waking world is truly as unreal to the enlightened one as the dream

world is to the waker, then what would be the incentive or purpose?

bhaskar :

The purpose of analysing the three states is not just analysing the states

per se...by this we have to derive the point that our svarUpa is mere

sAkshi to all the avasthAs & in avastha-s world may come & go but as a

witnessing conscious entity we are there undisturbed as ever...that is why

shruti says Atman has 3 avastha-s & all the three are svapna-s. Atleast

from this analysis, we will come to know the *waking world* what we are

holding close to chest as concrete reality has only temporal existence only

in a particular state.

DW prabhuji:

As the waker, you do not attempt to help the injured person in the dream

that you

have just awoken from.

bhaskar :

yes prabhuji, helping the injured person in the dream is the duty of

dreamer & not the waker..so is the case with dreamer with waker's waking

world is it not?? both are come & go & in sleep both are absent...Atman is

mere witness to all these states.

DW prabhuji:

(mithyA is not illusion, as has been pointed out before, but 'neither real

nor unreal'.

bhaskar :

OK prabhuji agreed...can we say the same thing to the brahman also i.e.

brahman is neither real nor unreal when shruti crying at top of its voice

it is *satyasya satya* ( really true!!) world has the ambiguity like real

or unreal but brahman does not have this ambiguity as this is the

paramArtha satya. Under these circumstances, how can we say world (real or

unreal) = brahman (ONLY reality)??

DW prabhuji:

The world is not real 'in its own right' but real by virtue of

the underlying brahman that is its true essence. My understanding of

ajAtivAda is not that there is and never was a world but that a world did

not need to be created because, as brahman, it has always and will always

exist. It is simply the form that is constantly changing, even if this be

through dissolution and re-formation, big bang and big phut!)

bhaskar :

There is one without second that is ultimate reality which is described as

nEti nEti & shruti itself saying *not this* *not this* is the ONLY suitable

& appropriate method of teaching brahman...if at all one perceives world

with its vagaries as an outside reality it is due to wrong identification

of oneself with upAdhi-s (limited adjuncts).

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

December 3, 2004

Namaste,

Advaita consists of a lot of riddles and unanswered questions. Given

below is some of them. I don't intend to start any heated debate on

these riddles. This is just to encourage members to do some

objective inquiry and to figure out if their understanding of

Advaita can answer these riddles satisfactorily:

1. If the perceived world is real, does it mean that there is

more than one reality ( Brahman and world objects) ?

2. If the world objects are just modifications of Brahman (like

gold and ornaments), does it mean that Brahman is a constantly

changing entity like gold which changes its texture, temperature,

shape, thickness etc. when it changes from one ornament to another?

3. If the Brahman is the substratum and never undergoes change,

and the world appears just like snake on a rope due to adhyAsa, does

that means there are two things - Brahman and adhyAsa ?

4. Advaitins speculate a lot about Brahman, and its relation to

the world. Since all these speculation happens within the realm of

avidya (wrong knowledge), how can it help one in knowing Brahman

which is beyond the realm of avidya ?

5. The knowledge about Brahman is obtained within the realm of

avidya. ( Vedas, Gurus etc. all exist in the realm of avidya). How

can things existing within the realm of avidya point to something

outside its realm?

6. Wouldn't it be better to strive for achievable objects in the

world ( money, comforts, fame etc.) instead of wasting time

speculating about things which are beyond the realm in which one

exists?

7. If the waking state and dream state have the same level of

empirical reality, then what is the purpose of pUjas, sAdhanas or

seeking of enlightenment ? The dream will eventually get over

whether you seek enlightenment or not. Wouldn't it make more sense

to invest that time in seeking more enjoyable physical comforts?

8. To say that all subject-object duality occurs within adhyAsa,

one should have seen adhyAsa as an object. If somebody has seen

adhyAsa as an object, that act of seeing also involves subject-

object duality. Doesn't this fall into an infinite regression?

9. If nobody has seen adhyAsa as an object, why call it adhyAsa ?

One can as well call it a lIla or drama or movie or video game (

Brahman is playing a video game and we are all the characters in

that game. How about that ?)

10. If Brahman is beyond the realm of adhyAsa, to whom does the

adhyAsa occur? If it occurs to Brahman, then does it mean that

there are times when Brahman is "under influence" and other times

when Brahman is normal?

11. If adhyAsa doesn't occur to Brahman, then how can we say that

adhyAsa occured? Doesn't it mean that adhyAsa never occured?

12. If adhyAsa never occured, then how can the world of subject-

object duality ever exist ? If the world never was, then how can

Vedas or Sanskrit exist ? If Sanskrit never existed, how can the

term "Brahman" exist ?

13. If the term "Brahman" never existed, then why so much

importance is given to that term and why all this speculation about

that term ?

Pranaam,

Raj.

December 3, 2004

Hi Bhaskar-ji,

Happy with most of your responses here (or at least, I do not see any future

in pursuing them! ).

Just a few small points:

<<Dennis:

If all is illusion then, having realised this truth, why did vyAsa,

shaMkara, ramana etc. bother writing anything down or speaking? For whom

were they writing and to whom speaking?

bhaskar :

Yes, its a very good point...good enough for a separate thread ..shall we

take it in a separate thread prabhuji..By the way shankara himself

addressed this issue in sUtra bhAshya..I think you must be aware of it.>>

No! I may not have confessed this before on this list but I have not read

BSB! I always found the Swami Gambhirananda version unreadable. I have

recently purchased a two-volume edition by V. H. Date from India. This looks

readable and I intend to try it soon (probably after the Epistemology book).

Do you have the reference for this? I'll have a look.

<<Dennis:

As the waker, you do not attempt to help the injured person in the dream

that you

have just awoken from.

bhaskar :

yes prabhuji, helping the injured person in the dream is the duty of

dreamer & not the waker..so is the case with dreamer with waker's waking

world is it not?? both are come & go & in sleep both are absent...Atman is

mere witness to all these states.>>

I did not understand what you were saying here. You did not seem to be

addressing the point I was making which was why would a Shankara have any

reason to wish to communicate with an illusion. It is really a continuation

of the earlier point by example.

<<DW prabhuji:

(mithyA is not illusion, as has been pointed out before, but 'neither real

nor unreal'.

bhaskar :

OK prabhuji agreed...can we say the same thing to the brahman also i.e.

brahman is neither real nor unreal when shruti crying at top of its voice

it is *satyasya satya* ( really true!!) world has the ambiguity like real

or unreal but brahman does not have this ambiguity as this is the

paramArtha satya. Under these circumstances, how can we say world (real or

unreal) = brahman (ONLY reality)??>>

Because the *essence* of the world is brahman. It is the supposed separate

names and forms of the world that are mistaken.

Best wishes,

Dennis

December 3, 2004

advaitin, "rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair>

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

> Advaita consists of a lot of riddles and unanswered questions.

Given

> below is some of them. I don't intend to start any heated debate on

> these riddles. This is just to encourage members to do some

> objective inquiry and to figure out if their understanding of

> Advaita can answer these riddles satisfactorily:

> [...]

>

> Pranaam,

> Raj.

namaste.

It seems to me these are not really riddles. Some of them

seem to be based on incomplete and wrong understanding of

what we know as advaita and some of them are mis-representations

and some of them blatantly provocative with wrong pre-suppositions.

I am assuming shri rajkumarnair-ji presented them here with

tongue-in-cheek manner only and is not looking for serious

answers. I like to jump in with some "answers".

1. The pre-supposition "If the perceived world is real..."

is not correct, and hence this question does not arise.

2. World objects are *not* modifications of the brahman but

are adhyAsa only. Brahman has not undergone any change.

3. No. There is only brahman. The superimposition is

never there. Snake is a superimposition on the rope, but the

snake is never there. Snake is there only in the imagination

of the person, but is not a reality. A person in avidya sees

only the superimposition. A realized person sees only the

brahman. Brahman and the superimposition are never there

simultaneously just like the rope and the snake are never

there simultaneously.

4. No, the speculations do not help in knowing brahman. Yet,

the speculations and the continuous mananam and nidhidhyAsanam

are a must to throw away or get rid of avidya.

5. One has to know Atman by one-self. The guru is there only

to guide. If the supposition in statement 5 were correct,

then one would be perpetually in avidya which cannot be the case.

6. Statement 6 is such an outrageous statement that it does not

require further comment.

7. PujA-s, sAdhanA-s are for purification of the human heart.

Statement 7 is so much against spiritual quest, that it need

not be commented further.

8. AdhyAsa is a trick played on the mind by avidya. When we

superimpose, we naturally intermingle subject and object

erroneously.

9. AdhyAsa is not an object. Further, there is no *separate*

brahman playing a video game.

I do hope and believe these questions are framed light-heartedly

and with tongue-in-cheek. The questions do not seem to be riddles

but seem to be a deliberate presentation of advaita in a light-

hearted way, playing with words and with tongue-in-cheek. If they

are supposed to be light-hearted and do not require answers, my

apologies in trying to answer them.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

December 4, 2004

If you understand Advaita truly, there are no riddles and no questions

arise at all. The essence of Advaita is to Know Thyself. This knowing is not

the knowing of answers to questions but the Self-Knowing that swallows the

mind which raises questions.

Approaching the Truth with humility is helpful. Grace and blessings descend

more easily on a bowed head.

But any start is a good start.

Love to all

Harsha