RE: Does the world disappear

[Guest guest]

Hi Maniji,

 

ajAtivAda - the theory that nothing has ever been born; that there literally

has not been any creation - does not mean that, upon realization, everything

disappears.

 

This idea is a misunderstanding. No, there never has been anything new

created. There is just the continual, ever-changing, ever-new, yet always

the same. Simply different names and forms of the non-dual reality. Bangles

changing into bracelets but always still gold. To this extent, the

neo-Advaitins have always been right - This is it! Already.

 

What is there 'after realization' cannot be anything new - it is That

already; always has been and always will. Upon realization, outwardly

everything remains the same - still the same house and garden, still the

same getting up to go to work, still the same poverty-stricken starvation in

Africa. The point is that it is now known, irrevocably, that this is all

simply an outward form of the Self, whose essence has always been perfect

and complete. It is avidyA, ignorance, that veils the truth and projects the

illusion of suffering. Subtract the avidyA from the jIva, the apparent

individual, and what you are left with is Atman.

 

I always liked Sadaji's example of the sun rising and setting. Humanity may

once have thought that the sun went around the earth but now everyone knows

differently. In respect of sun perambulation, everyone is now 'enlightened'.

But this makes no difference at all to our enjoyment of a beautiful sunset.

 

Strictly speaking, the world is neither completely real nor completely

unreal in the first place. The metaphor that is often used in this context

is that of clay and pot. The clay exists before the pot is made. Whilst the

pot is in use to hold something, it is still clay. And after the pot has

been broken, the clay is still there. Advaita defines 'real' as being that

which exists in all three periods of time (past, present and future), so

that it is only actually the clay that is real by this definition. Yet

whilst the clay is in the form of the pot, it would not be true to say that

the pot does not exist. Clearly it has some reality but it cannot be

described as real according to the definition. But neither is it false,

since we can use it to carry water about, while the clay can almost

certainly not. Its reality is entirely dependent upon the clay and,

moreover, it is always clay and nothing but clay whether it is in the form

of the pot or not. There is no word in English to describe this dependent

reality. The word in Sanskrit is mithyA.

 

Similarly, the world did not exist a few billion years ago and will be

swallowed up by the sun in few more. The reality upon which it depends is

brahman. Brahman exists before during and after the world. The world, whilst

it exists is nothing but brahman. Brahman is the only reality; the world is

mithyA.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Maniji,

>

> ajAtivAda - the theory that nothing has ever been born; that there

literally

> has not been any creation - does not mean that, upon realization,

everything

> disappears.

>

> This idea is a misunderstanding. No, there never has been anything

new

> created. There is just the continual, ever-changing, ever-new, yet

always

> the same. Simply different names and forms of the non-dual

reality. Bangles

> changing into bracelets but always still gold. To this extent, the

> neo-Advaitins have always been right - This is it! Already.

>

> What is there 'after realization' cannot be anything new - it is

That

> already; always has been and always will. Upon realization,

outwardly

 

Namaste,D-ji,

 

This opinion is not going far enough IMHO. It is true as far as the

embodied Mukta is concerned but it is untrue for the disembodied

Mukta. This Mukta is surely Nirguna Brahman.

 

The ultimate truth is that there never was a snake and there never

was a rope. There is no beginning to this illusion, but there is an

end for it never happened in the first place---hence no beginning.

 

If the world disappears on Moksha, and yet still exists as

appearance for those still in it Mukta or Not. Then the argument

could be made that Brahman is lacking in someway, which is patently

absurd.

 

So the only conclusion is that it never happened in the first place,

not even the 'appearance', not even the appearance of bracelets on

gold; there never was any gold....That doesnt' mean there isn't some

validity to it whilst we are in it but it is personal only. We have

to use it as a vehicle and realise unity with illusion. So realising

Nirguna at some level at the same time, waiting for the body to

drop..............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Tony-ji

Truth is. It surely cannot be one thing for the jeevan muktha and a

different thing for someone with the dehatma budhi!- what kind of

truth will it be then

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

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

> > Hi Maniji,

> >

>

> Namaste,D-ji,

>

> This opinion is not going far enough IMHO. It is true as far as the

> embodied Mukta is concerned but it is untrue for the disembodied

> Mukta. This Mukta is surely Nirguna Brahman.

>

>

> drop..............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Similarly, the world did not exist a few billion years ago and will be

swallowed up by the sun in few more. The reality upon which it depends is

brahman. Brahman exists before during and after the world. The world,

whilst

it exists is nothing but brahman. Brahman is the only reality; the world is

mithyA.

 

 

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You are absolutely right here prabhuji...world that which was not there

earlier & that which is going to be vanquished in due course can not be

considered as *existent* even now!!! There is a kArika maNtra which

explicitly mentions this. & yes ofcourse, when the waking world (jAgrat

prapaNcha) is seen in the waking state is nothing but brahman!! but how??

because there is no second thing called world apart from brahman, so, the

Aspada for the appearance of *world* is brahman just like rope is the

adhiShTANam for the *appearance* of snake!!!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

 

I think we have been here before, haven't we and agreed to disagree on the

consequences of ajAtivAda?

 

You say: "It is true as far as the embodied Mukta is concerned but it is

untrue for the disembodied Mukta."

 

I suggest that a disembodied anything sees nothing since organs of

perceptions are required to see and they belong to the body.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it is done in this message!)

 

 

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

> Hi Tony,

>

> I think we have been here before, haven't we and agreed to

disagree on the

 

Namaste,

 

Perhaps we have been here before.

 

Of course the disembodied Jiva/Ego sees 'nothing' for the Ego is

gone. However the body/mind complex completing its prarabda karma

see pretty well. As Sankara says it is real enough whilst we are in

it. We don't have to believe its true though. I think that even in

illusion it proves that sans the ego things go on karma only. Which

in fact is as near to the truth in illusion one can get....ONS...Tony