Brahman & Name ?Form

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander wrote:

>

> Namasthey Bhaskar Prabhu Ji:

>

> >>At the same token Avarna & vikshepa

> >>are not just factual creations of mind

> >>for they exist independent of the mind.

> >>It is the mind that is bewildered by

> >>avarna & vikshepa.

>

> >just I wanted to get the clarification for

> >your above statement

>

> I had meant was that Avarna and Vikshepa are not creations of

our mind. Being unable to perceive Avarana & Vikshepa our mind is

in perpetual illusion in world. To perceive Avarna & Vikshepa is

crossing the barrier of that illusion of world. The reality of

world we percieve is owing to Avarna and Vikshepa.

>

> If we were to argue that Avarna and Vikshepa are mere creations of

mind then it is tantamount to saying that the world which is an

outcome of the same Avarna and Vikshepa is also a creation of mind.

The world is an outcome of maya of Ishwara and not a creation of

our mind and thus Avarna and Vikshepa are also not mere creation of

our mind. When the mind becomes pure it is able to cross the

barrier of Avarna & Vikshepa and be one with Brahman.

>

> I am sure you have a different opinion on this. Kindly let me

know your comments.

>

>

> Sincerely,

> RR

 

Namaste RR et al,

 

Avarana and Vikshep are products of the universal mind. Therefore

are also unreal and not beyond the mind. The error is in think that

the small I mind is any different from the illusion of the big I-I

mind.........Anything other than NirGuna can only be

mind....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Rajesh Ramachander prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

RR prabhuji:

 

I had meant was that Avarna and Vikshepa are not creations of our mind.

Being unable to perceive Avarana & Vikshepa our mind is in perpetual

illusion in world.

 

bhaskar :

 

Since I've not followed this thread completely, I donot know what would

be the interpretation of AvaraNa & vikShEpa shakti that you are

referring. Prabhuji, if you dont mind kindly give brief description of

these two terms, if you are already given your understanding of these two

terms in previous mails, kindly direct me to that mail.

 

 

Firstly, since you are telling AvaraNa & vikShEpa are not mental creation

& has independent existence, I am forced to believe that it is a real

thing/positive entity. If that is the case, any amount of knowledge can

not remove a real thing like *AvaraNa* & fetch us the knowledge of our

true svarUpa. jnApakaM hi shAstraM na kArakaM says clearly shankara in

gItA bhAshya...Knowledge neither removes a really existing thing nor it

has the capacity to *create* anything new...it only helps us to remove

our avidyA about our svarUpa.

 

Secondly, kindly clarify what would be the locus of AvaraNa & vikShEpa if

it is not pertains to antaHkaraNa...whether it belong to brahman itself

or its creative power mAya or AvaraNa that is obstructing to perceive our

true nature is part of adhyAsa/avidyA ??

 

RR prabhuji:

 

To perceive Avarna & Vikshepa is crossing the barrier of that illusion

of world. The reality of world we percieve is owing to Avarna and

Vikshepa.

 

bhaskar :

 

AGain, kindly clarify the description of these two terms AvaraNa &

vikShEpa..based on that we can continue our discussion.

 

RR prabhuji:

 

If we were to argue that Avarna and Vikshepa are mere creations of mind

then it is tantamount to saying that the world which is an outcome of the

same Avarna and Vikshepa is also a creation of mind.

 

bhaskar :

 

No prabhuji, advaita accepts mAya satkArya vAda unlike vijnAna vAda but it

is only from the transactional view point...But from paramArthik view

point...gaudapAda says there is no creation.

 

RR prabhuji:

 

The world is an outcome of maya of Ishwara and not a creation of our mind

and thus Avarna and Vikshepa are also not mere creation of our mind.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, how can there be a lordhood in absolute non-dual brahman?? dont

you think it invariably requires the distinction between the ruler & the

ruled?? It is only in vyavahAra vEdAnta attributes the Ishvarahood or

lordhood on brahman. So, advaita from the standpoint of adhyArOpa when mAya

is seen ( i.e. vyAkruta & avyAkruta form of world/universe)by avidyA in

absolute non-dual self, then only brahman is described as Ishwara, mayAvi

(like in shvEtashvatara upanishad) not in real sense. Shankara clarifies

this in sUtra bhAshya by says Ishwara's sarvajnatva ( quality of

omniscience), sarvashaktitva (quality of omnipotence) etc. etc. holds water

only in vyAvaya & in reality it is yEkamEvAdvitIya..(one without second)..

 

RR prabhuji:

 

When the mind becomes pure it is able to cross the barrier of Avarna &

Vikshepa and be one with Brahman.

 

I am sure you have a different opinion on this. Kindly let me know your

comments.

 

bhaskar :

 

This is what my understanding is prabhuji...kindly correct me if I said

anything wrong here.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namasthey Toni ji

 

According to you ‘I’ or Ishwara is a composite of ‘i’ where ‘i is jiva’. The

world is a manifestation of maya by ‘I’. So maya is therefore always completely

perceptible to ‘I’. ‘i’ is however trapped by maya and if ‘i’ were a part of

‘I’ then the ‘i’ is essentially sub-classed from ‘I’. In reality however ‘i’ is

normally unable to cross-over ‘maya’ and therefore we can conclude that ‘i’

even though sub-classed from ‘I’ does not inherits the perceptible power of ‘I’

which is always private within ‘I’. The access to perceptible power from ‘I’ is

through application of ‘jnana’. Once if ‘i’ is able to access perception of

‘maya’ from ‘I’ then alone is ‘maya’ transparent and ‘i’ merges with ‘Brahman’.

If this argument is accepted then ‘i’ is to be understood as a limited

derivative of ‘I’. Even so ‘Avarana’ & ‘Vikshepa’ is to be overcome by ‘i’ and

hence is beyond ‘i’ unless overcome through the grace of ‘I’ by dropping

illusion. Vikshepa is emanation of Brahman through

‘Avarna’ and hence only the act of ‘Avarna’ is an imperceptible produce of

‘I’. For the pure mind there is only transparency and in that state ‘i’ is one

with ‘I’ and the apparent compositeness of ‘I’ becomes irrelevant.

 

Sincerely,

 

RR

 

 

 

 

Mail

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander wrote:

>

> Namasthey Toni ji

>

> According to you `I' or Ishwara is a composite of `i' where `i

is jiva'. The world is a manifestation of maya by `I'. So maya is

therefore always completely perceptible to `I'. `i' is however

trapped by maya and if `i' were a part of `I' then the `i' is

essentially sub-classed from `I'. In reality however `i' is

normally unable to cross-over `maya' and therefore we can conclude

that `i' even though sub-classed from `I' does not inherits the

perceptible power of `I' which is always private within `I'. The

access to perceptible power from `I' is through application

of `jnana'. Once if `i' is able to access perception of `maya'

from `I' then alone is `maya' transparent and `i' merges

with `Brahman'. If this argument is accepted then `i' is to be

understood as a limited derivative of `I'. Even so `Avarana'

& `Vikshepa' is to be overcome by `i' and hence is beyond `i'

unless overcome through the grace of `I' by dropping illusion.

Vikshepa is emanation of Brahman through

> `Avarna' and hence only the act of `Avarna' is an imperceptible

produce of `I'. For the pure mind there is only transparency and in

that state `i' is one with `I' and the apparent compositeness

of `I' becomes irrelevant.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> RR

 

Namaste RR,

 

The whirlpool and the wave are always part of the ocean, they do not

exist separately, they just appear to...........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhu Ji

Prabhuji, you will agree that ‘Avarana’ is the veiling power in

Advaita. Maya has the power of concealing reality and this phenomenon is the

Avarana – shakthi. Maya also has another capability which is manifested as

vikShepa - sakthi or the projecting power that distorts reality. The veiling

power or ‘Avarana’ conceals distinctions between the perceiver and the

perceived by introducing a severance between Brahman and world. The projecting

power vikShepa then creates everything from the subtle body to the gross world.

Hope you are with me till this point.

>Firstly, since you are telling AvaraNa & >vikShEpa are not

mental creation & has >independent existence,I am forced to believe >that it

is a real thing/positive entity.

 

That is correct. Maya is predicated by Avarana & vikShepa and you would agree

that this phenomenal world is Maya. This world ‘appears’ as real as long as

Brahman is unknown to the perceiver. While Avarna prevents us from seeing the

rope vikShepa superimposes the image of snake on the rope. These powers of Maya

exist irrespective of the fact we apply our mind on the world or not. The world

is perceived by our mind and cannot be non-existent. The experience of world in

our mind is due to a distinction between the mind and the world. This

distinction cannot be subjective as there would then be an infinite barrier to

transcend.

>If that is the case, any amount of

>knowledge can not remove a real

>thing like *AvaraNa* & fetch us

>the knowledge of our true svarUpa. >jnApakaM hi shAstraM na kArakaM says

>clearly shankara in gItA bhAshya...Knowledge >neither removes a really

existing thing nor >it has the capacity to *create* anything >new...it only

helps us to remove our avidyA >about our svarUpa.

True, Acharya conveys that Brahman alone is permanent and we need to

overcome avidya. Brahman is also called as trikalabadhayam implying that which

cannot be negated at any time. It is important to keep in mind that the world

is always real and not an illusion as far as the perceiver lacks

Brahma-anubhava. For a jNani the world is an illusion. The world is Maya and is

not a figment of the perceiver’s imagination. The overcoming of the distinction

between the mind and world is through transcendence through realization.

>Secondly, kindly clarify what would be

>the locus of AvaraNa & vikShEpa if it

>is not pertains to antaHkaraNa...whether

>it belong to brahman itself or its

>creative power mAya or AvaraNa that is

>obstructing to perceive our true nature

>is part of adhyAsa/avidyA ??

 

Avarana & vikShepa are predicates of Maya. Adhyasa is super-imposition on

Brahman of what is not Brahman and is hence Avidya. This Avidya is because of

Maya and if we re-phrased your question then it boils down to whether the locus

or ‘asraya’ of Avidya is Brahman or Jiva? Firstly let us see if there is any

relationship between the three entities to answer the question. Jiva itself

being a product of Avidya and thus Avidya cannot have any locus in Jiva.

Brahman does not have any relation with Avidya as they both are of different

order of being. So can we conclude that Avidya has asraya or locus in Brahman?

Brahman is the uncaused cause of world and is the locus of everything yet

untouched by anything residing in it. Brahman supports everything but nothing

exists in Brahman

>>If we were to argue that Avarna

>>and Vikshepa are mere creations

>>of mind then it is tantamount

>>to saying that the world which

>>is an outcome of the same Avarna

>>and Vikshepa is also a creation

>>of mind.

>No prabhuji, advaita accepts mAya

>satkArya vAda unlike vijnAna vAda

>but it is only from the transactional

>view point...But from paramArthik view >point...gaudapAda says there is no

>creation.

 

There is no creation and in the same vein there is no imagination

either of the creation. So Avarna and Vikshepa are not mere imagination of the

world.

>prabhuji, how can there be a

>lordhood in absolute non-dual

>brahman?? don’t you think it

>invariably requires the distinction

>between the ruler & the ruled??

That is my understanding too prabhuji. Any experience of this

world as being separate from Brahman is a result of Maya. Avarana hides Brahman

causing Avidya and vikShepa superimposes upadhi’s on Brahman. The world we see

emerges out of these imposed upadhi’s of Brahman.The mind super-imposes name &

form on the Brahman. Irrespective of the fact whether we to the

point of view that mind creates these name-forms or think that mind just

cognizes these name-forms also amount to the same thing as there were never any

object to be created or cognized. Without the mind there is no way we can be

aware of these name-forms. The goal of Advaita is to make man realize that he

is a spiritual being beyond all name & forms. In order to realize his self the

mind has to become pure and merge with that ‘One’.

 

This is my understanding and I am open to any correction Prabhuji.

 

Salutations to Adi Shankara

Sincerely,

RR

 

 

 

Mail

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhu Ji

 

Humble praNAms Sri Rajesh Ramachander prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

First, prabhuji, let me clarify that I may not be able to continue this

discussion regularly as I've very restricted accessability to

the system..But whenever system is available definitely I

shall participate in the discussion. Hope you wont mind it.

 

RR prabhuji:

 

Prabhuji, you will agree that 'Avarana' is the veiling power in Advaita.

Maya has the

power of concealing reality and this phenomenon is the Avarana ?

shakthi. Maya also has another capability which is

manifested as vikShepa - sakthi or the projecting power that

distorts reality. The veiling power or 'Avarana' conceals

distinctions between the perceiver and the perceived by

introducing a severance between Brahman and world. The

projecting power vikShepa then creates everything from the

subtle body to the gross world. Hope you are with me till

this point.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, I am afraid, the problem starts for me right from here!! It

seems you are synonymously using avidyA & mAya and

attributing AvaraNa & vikshEpa Sakti to mAya which has the

independent existence. But in shankara vEdAnta mAya has been

described as avidyA kalpita (conjured up by avidyA)..and this

avidyA pertains to antaHkaraNa...According to my limited

knowledge, avidyA is not a shakti. The word *Sakti* of

brahman which has been called as *mAya* and this mAya in turn

conjured up by avidyA. Kindly refer shankara's sUtra bhAshya

wherein shankara explains mAya as avidyA kalpita,

avidyApratyupasthApita, avidyAkruta, avidyAkArya, avidyAtmaka

etc. etc. And more importantly, whenever shankara explains

the nature of avdiyA he clearly states that avidyA is natural

to human mind.. (naisargikOdhyAsaH -vide adhyAsa bhAshya).

 

RR prabhuji :

 

That is correct. Maya is predicated by Avarana & vikShepa and you would

agree that this phenomenal world is Maya. This world 'appears' as real

as long as Brahman is unknown to the perceiver. While Avarna prevents us

from seeing the rope vikShepa superimposes the image of snake on the

rope.

 

bhaskar :

 

Prabhuji, kindly clarify here, whether the *AvaraNa* pertains to rope

itself or wrong congnition of rope?? wrong cognition of rope is due to

adhyAsa which is antaHkaraNa dOsha & it has nothing to do with rope per

se...suerimposition of snake on rope is due to ignorance about the true

nature of rope...and this *AvaraNAtmaka* snake has nothing to do with

rope...In gIta bhAshya shankara uses the word *AvaraNAtmakatvAT* &

clarifies it as *tAmasa pratyaya* pertaining to the intellect or

antaHkaraNa alone and definitely not said this as a *Sakti* & has the

exclusive existence apart from brahman..snake cannot have independent

existence apart from wrong congnition of rope prabhuji...To justify his

claim shankara gives the well known example of the cataract which hinders

the eyesight.

 

RR prabhuji:

 

These powers of Maya exist irrespective of the fact we apply our mind on

the world or not. The world is perceived by our mind and cannot be

non-existent. The experience of world in our mind is due to a

distinction between the mind and the world. This distinction cannot be

subjective as there would then be an infinite barrier to transcend.

 

bhaskar :

 

IMHO, not so prabhuji, we are the witnessing consciousness of jnAnAkAra

vrutti and ajnAna vrutti (vidyAvidyA vrutti)..shankara makes it clear in

br.up. bhAshya. (?? reference not known of hand)..While explaing the

*true nature* (satatvaM) shankara has not said that mAya has the dual

power such as AvaraNa & vikshEpa independent of mind ...but he clearly

says that avidyA projects the non-self (snake) as if it is there in the

self (rope) even though it is really not there. Due to this anAdi avidyA

the dualistic world appears and due to dualism the desire starts etc. By

this also it is clear that according to shankara & lOkAnubhava (universal

experience)the world/mAyA Sakti & dual powers like AvaraNa, vikshEpa etc.

etc. is conjured up by avidyA.

 

RR prabhuji:

 

 

Avarana & vikShepa are predicates of Maya. Adhyasa is super-imposition

on Brahman of what is not Brahman and is hence Avidya. This Avidya is

because of Maya

 

bhaskar :

 

As I have shown above, shankara saying otherway round, he is telling mAya

is because of avidyA...coz. mAya is avidyA kalpita.

 

RR prabhuji:

 

and if we re-phrased your question then it boils down to whether the

locus or 'asraya' of Avidya is Brahman or Jiva? Firstly let us see if

there is any relationship between the three entities to answer the

question. Jiva itself being a product of Avidya and thus Avidya cannot

have any locus in Jiva. Brahman does not have any relation with Avidya

as they both are of different order of being. So can we conclude that

Avidya has asraya or locus in Brahman? Brahman is the uncaused cause of

world and is the locus of everything yet untouched by anything residing

in it. Brahman supports everything but nothing exists in Brahman

 

bhaskar :

 

Shankara himself has answered this question (locus of avidyA) beautifully

in gIta as well as in taitirIya upanishad bhAshya....in gIta bhAshya, as

said above, shankara gives the common experience of life as an

illustration like a man gets cataract in his eyes etc. Due to this

defect non-perception, misconception and doubting will happen with regard

to forms & colours of the objects..this is due to defect of the seer's

instrument i.e. indriya..When this cataract has been removed, the seer

sees the forms & colours as they are!! so the defect pertains to the

instrument alone and NOT to the USER of the instruments...Hence,

ignorance pertains to the instrument i.e. the mind or antaHkaraNa.

 

Now comes the very important stage where shankara states there is no

business such as vidyA & avidyA in absolute non dual reality/brahman. In

taitirIya Up. bhAshya shankara clarifies that from the stand point of

witnessing consciousness (sAkshi anubhava) here and now one can intuit

that one's own true nature is beyond the mundane dealings of jnAna &

ajnAna. Shankara get a question from pUrvapakshi here as to whether

knowledge & ignorance are the qualities of the self?? shankara

emphatically replies "not so, for both knowledge and ignorance have been

objectified...Like I am an ignorant, my knowledge is not distinct etc.

etc. in case of ignorance and similarly the differnce of *knowledge* from

the self is perceived and the enlightened people do communicate the

knowledge of the self to others...Accordingly, both knowledge and

ignorance are to be considered as name & form and they are not attributes

of the self. So, prabhuji, shankara himself clarified here that aspects

vidyA, avidyA are mere modification of antaHkaraNa & our true nature is

devoid of all these attributes...

 

Hope it clears my stand.

 

 

RR prabhuji:

 

That is my understanding too prabhuji. Any experience of this world as

being separate from Brahman is a result of Maya.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

As said above, prabhuji, it is not the result of mAya, it is the result

of avidyA.

 

RR prabhuji:

 

Avarana hides Brahman causing Avidya and vikShepa superimposes upadhi's

on Brahman.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, would you pls. mind to give shankara bhAshya quotes to

substantiate this claim...

 

RR prabhuji:

 

The world we see emerges out of these imposed upadhi's of Brahman.The

mind super-imposes name & form on the Brahman. Irrespective of the

fact whether we to the point of view that mind creates these

name-forms or think that mind just cognizes these name-forms also

amount to the same thing as there were never any object to be created

or cognized. Without the mind there is no way we can be aware of these

name-forms.

 

bhaskar :

 

So prabhuji, here you are agreeing mind is root cause of nAma & rUpa

superimposition on brahman right prabhuji?? Then what is the

mAya/mAyashankti like AvaraNa & vikshEpa apart from nAma & rUpa

superimposed by mind???

 

RR prabhuji:

 

The goal of Advaita is to make man realize that he is a spiritual being

beyond all name & forms. In order to realize his self the mind has to

become pure and merge with that 'One'.

This is my understanding and I am open to any correction Prabhuji.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

To the best of my ability, I have explained my stand prabhuji...kindly

correct me if I strayed anywhere from shuddha shankara siddhAnta.

 

Salutations to Adi Shankara

Sincerely,

RR

 

Humble praNAms onceagain,

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

Your recent posts on this matter prompted me to make a "blog" entry,

in particular about the relationship between avidya and maya, as well

as Shankara's comments against the vijnanavadas. I did not write about

vikshepa and avarana, but here is my opinion on the matter. I'm not

sure to which extent you would agree with it:

 

There is much debate regarding the role of the mind in relation to the

world in Shankara's system of Advaita Vedanta. Shankara seems to

accept that the world is a creation of the mind, but he also rejects

the Vijnanavada's claim that there is no external world.

 

At first sight, these two positions seem to be incompatible. The usual

way of solving this apparent problem is by taking one statement as

provisional and the other one as real and final. There is no doubt

that a lot of statements Shankara makes are provisional ones (eg:

endorsement of parinamavada). However, in this case Shankara actually

gives a lot of arguments against the world being external to the mind

so we have to examine how the two statements could possibly be

reconciled meaningfully.

 

To get a better understanding, it seems helpful to look at the way the

Madhyamakas interpreted Nagarjuna on the issue of whether there is an

external world or not. The Madhyamika position holds that phenomena

are a collection of their constituents and are empty in so much as it

is only a conceptual imputation that makes them "things" (the analysis

of non-compounded phenomena are complex, but we don't have to get into

that here of course). The table is a collection of wood, screws, etc..

.. and the "table" is just a concept used to describe a collection of

these constituents when arranged in a certain way. If you take out one

leg, its still a table. If you take two, its still a table. But if you

take all four, it probably isn't going to be considered a table. Where

do you draw the line of what is needed for a table to be a table

(especially considering at an atomic level)? There is no definatory

essence of the table, its just a convention. Thus Chandrakirti says

"svabhava is nisvabhava".

 

Now Nagarjuna does not explicitly say whether there is a world

external to the mind or not. (Most) Vijnanavadas clearly say that

there is no world external to the mind. They account for the world as

emmerging from alayavijnana, the foundational basis conciousness

(which is different from Advaita however, in that it is not

undifferentiated and its made up of a string of moments). Later

Madhyamakas had to take a stance on what Nagarjuna really thought and

this lead to two different positions.

 

One line of interpretation is that advanced Shankatarkshita,

Kamalasila, etc... This is sometimes called Yogacara-Madhyamika since

these writers hold that there is no world external to the mind. The

main difference between these and the general Yogacara is that these

Madhyamakas do not hold that the mind exists, but hold that the mind

is, like other phenomena, empty.

 

The other important view is the one taken by Chandrakirti, Shantideva

and others. These hold that there is an external world consisting of

atoms, etc... but this world too is empty (which is supposed to be

shown through Madhyamaka analysis of the atoms, etc...) The

consequence is that while there is an external world just as much as

there is an internal world, the very notion of an external world is a

creation of the mind. In this way, we have a position where there is

an external world, but all worlds are ultimately a creation of the

mind.

 

Shankara's position is similar in my opinion, but we have to swtich to

Advaita terminology. We can say in Advaita that there is avidya and

maya. Without getting into overly abstract uses of the term, it is

quite clear that avidya, ignorance, pertains to the ignorant

individual and not the omniscient Ishvara. Maya, on the other hand, is

a universal power. It would be fair to equate maya with

Ishvara-srishti and avidya with jiva-srishti (these words could be

defined differently, but this is how I am defining them here). The

question that follows is what is the relationship between the two?

 

Ishvara-srishti (Maya) is universal in that it doesn't depend on any

one mind for its existence. So we cannot say avidya creates maya in

that strong sense. If it did, then when my mind vanishes, maya should

vanish for everyone. But it doesn't because maya is a universal power

not dependent on any one mind's ignorance. Thus Shankara rejects the

theory that there is no external world to the mind.

 

However, we cannot also say maya creates avidya - this would be quite

incompatible with non-dualism. It is vital to remember that in the

absence of avidya, there is no maya. Maya is Ishvara's manifestation.

When we assume a seperation between Ishvara and Ishvara's

manifestation, only then we can talk about Ishvara's manifestation.

When there is no seperation, how can we speak of something that has

been manifested?The very notion of maya is a product of our ignorance.

In that sense and only in that sense we can say that avidya is the

cause of maya. So the external world is indeed conventional but in a

special way: not because its externality with respect to the mind is

conventional, but because the world itself(internal or external) is

only conventionally real.

 

We can see then, how this is similar to Chandrakirti's view about the

external world which is just a notion created by the mind, but which

has as much conventional existence as everything else. Now, for the

Buddhists the external world was made up of atoms, etc... What is the

external world in Vedanta?

 

There are some important considerations. One of the most important is

that whatever this external world is, it cannot be outside Brahman (or

else we have Dvaita and even provisional parinavada has not been

endorsed - provisional acceptance parinamavada is part of Advaita).

The external world is essentially the "world" in the absence of the

mind. What is the world like when the mind is absent? There is no

world in such a state, however the possibility of a world coming later

is there. For instance in deep sleep, in the absence of the mind,

there is no world, but the world can emmerge later. Ignorance in such

a state cannot be described as active and in some sense it does seem

acceptable to say that there is "no ignorance". However, ignorance

exists as a potential or as a seed. Based on this potential, the world

can re-emmerge. Note that the potential is not a "thing" its just a

potential.

 

Thus we have quite an elegant model here. When the tree is not being

percieved by anyone, it is there as potential in Brahman. When a mind

actualizes that potential, that is the manifestation of the tree. Maya

is just the eternal potentiality which gets actualized by jiva-srishti

or avidya. However, the very notion of this potential is a product of

avidya. The notion of avidya (and jiva-srishti) too is a product of

avidya. In the absence of avidya, there is no srishti of both kinds.

Thus nothing arrises, nothing abides, nothing ceases.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

R prabhuji:

 

Your recent posts on this matter prompted me to make a "blog" entry,

in particular about the relationship between avidya and maya, as well

as Shankara's comments against the vijnanavadas. I did not write about

vikshepa and avarana, but here is my opinion on the matter. I'm not

sure to which extent you would agree with it:

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks a lot for taking your time to write to me about shankara's stand on

mAya & avidyA & yOgAchAra buddhism. Prabhuji, unfortunately, I have not

studied any of the works of buddhism thoroughly. Hence, I am afraid, I am

not competent enough to pass on any comment on mAdhyAmika works that you

have quoted. So, with your kind permission, I shall leave those portions

pertain to buddhism for the comments of other prabhuji-s who are familiar

with these works.

 

With regard to *AvaraNa*, I am failed to understand its relationship with

outer things!! If the *AvaraNa* is a positive entity that encompasses the

outer things, then it is quite obvious that any amount of jnAna can remove

it...As it is clear from shankara bhAshya *jnAna* cannot removed an

existing thing!! So, IMHO, there cannot be any avidyA AvaraNa on the outer

things...As said earlier, avidyA means non-perception, misconception &

doubting which are entirely pertain to antaHkaraNa & nothing else.

 

Anyway, let that be aside, let us come to the current topic of avidyA &

mAya.

 

R prabhuji:

 

There is much debate regarding the role of the mind in relation to the

world in Shankara's system of Advaita Vedanta. Shankara seems to

accept that the world is a creation of the mind, but he also rejects

the Vijnanavada's claim that there is no external world. At first sight,

these two positions seem to be incompatible. The usual

way of solving this apparent problem is by taking one statement as

provisional and the other one as real and final. There is no doubt

that a lot of statements Shankara makes are provisional ones (eg:

endorsement of parinamavada). However, in this case Shankara actually

gives a lot of arguments against the world being external to the mind

so we have to examine how the two statements could possibly be

reconciled meaningfully.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, I agree with you that this seeming contradiction is there in Shankara

siddhAnta with respect to *world*...But shankara's stand on this topic has

to be understood contextually by taking two different view points.

>From the transactional reality, the world what we are congnizing in our day

to day life is not an illusion. This transactional reality has its own

parameters for testing whether what we are perceiving is real or unreal.

As you pointed out above, it is buddhists (mainly vijnAnavAdins) who deny

the reality of external world..but shankara says " it is on the evidence or

want of evidence of some valid means of knowledge, that we have to

determine the conceivability or the inconceivability of the existence of a

thing and not vice versa ( reference vide sUtra bhAshya)..

 

Whereas, from the absolute view point, the same shankara says in his

preamble to sUtra bhAshya (adhyAsa bhAshya) " It is on the presupposition

of the superimposition of the Atman and the un-Atman called avidyA that all

conventions of pramANa and pramEya (means and objects of knowledge) and all

the ShAstra whether vidhi (injuctive) or niShEdha (prohibitive) or even

teaching mOkSha, function"...

 

See prabhuji, when it comes to paramArtha, how drastically his stand

differs!! shankara at once, puts all the vyAvahAra & valid means of

knowledge etc. etc. (which he has used to establish the external world) in

the compartment of avidyA..interestingly the socalled mOksha also..

 

However, shankara does not deny the validity of pramANa-s in the empirical

field even while he does assert that they can never survive to function

after the dawn of ultimate knowledge.

 

So prabhuji, as you said above the reconciliation of different statements

from the same bhAshyakAra to be done contextually.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Shankara's position is similar in my opinion, but we have to swtich to

Advaita terminology. We can say in Advaita that there is avidya and

maya. Without getting into overly abstract uses of the term, it is

quite clear that avidya, ignorance, pertains to the ignorant

individual and not the omniscient Ishvara. Maya, on the other hand, is

a universal power. It would be fair to equate maya with

Ishvara-srishti and avidya with jiva-srishti (these words could be

defined differently, but this is how I am defining them here). The

question that follows is what is the relationship between the two?

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, as a matter of fact avidyA cannot be said as jIva srushti though

it pertains to antaHkaraNa...coz. shankara himself says that this

avidyA/adhyAsa is anAdi (anAdi naisargikOdhyAsaH - adhyAsa

bhAshya)..Moreover, it is also important to note that mAya and avidyA are

not synonymous terms. avidyA is natural to human mind and it is subjective

and mAya is the name given to prakruti (mayAntu prakrutim vidyAm says

shvetAshvatara shruti) or name & form (nAma & rUpa) in seed form (avyAkruta

rUpa) which gives rise to all the different phenomena. But it is

interesting to note that whenever shankara gives explanation to mAya, he

invariably attributes it to avidyA by saying avidyAkalpita, avidyAkruta,

adidyAtmaka etc. etc.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Ishvara-srishti (Maya) is universal in that it doesn't depend on any

one mind for its existence. So we cannot say avidya creates maya in

that strong sense. If it did, then when my mind vanishes, maya should

vanish for everyone.

 

bhaskar :

 

But prabhuji if you take the avasthAtraya prakriya and analyse this world

phenomena, it gives you a different picture altogether is itnot?? this

*everyone* & their respective world etc. etc. are comes under the one

broader category of waker's waking world which vanishes tracelessly in

dreaming world where dreamer without an aid of waker *enjoying his own

world & importantly sees everyone's world as well as in waking

world*....Anyway, this is altogether a different issue...Let us come back

to Ishwara & his srushti..I think I have shared my thoughts about Ishwara

shakti as mAya in my previous mail to Sri Rajesh Ramachander. I dont think

shankara anywhere said mAya is Ishwara srushti...at some places mAya has

been explained as Ishvara shakti...But I've already posed my problems in

accepting this as an absolute reality in non-dual brahman.

 

R prabhuji:

 

But it doesn't because maya is a universal power not dependent on any one

mind's ignorance. Thus Shankara rejects the theory that there is no

external world to the mind.

However, we cannot also say maya creates avidya - this would be quite

incompatible with non-dualism. It is vital to remember that in the

absence of avidya, there is no maya. Maya is Ishvara's manifestation.

When we assume a seperation between Ishvara and Ishvara's

manifestation, only then we can talk about Ishvara's manifestation.

When there is no seperation, how can we speak of something that has

been manifested?The very notion of maya is a product of our ignorance.

In that sense and only in that sense we can say that avidya is the

cause of maya. So the external world is indeed conventional but in a

special way: not because its externality with respect to the mind is

conventional, but because the world itself(internal or external) is

only conventionally real.

 

bhaskar :

 

You are absolutely right in your observation that mAya does not create

avidyA and when there is no avidyA there no mAya either since mAya is mere

figment of avidyA. But it is also important to note that the term mAya has

been described differently at various places in shankara bhAshya at most of

the places, shankara says mAya is kEvala avidyA kalpita (one can easily say

that this would be the ultimate stand of shankara coz. of rigor of this

usage in prasthAna traya bhAshya)..but in some other places shankara

explains mAya as vyaktA (manifestated form) and avyaktAtmaka (unmanifested

form) and again in some other places he says mAya is anirvachanIya &

finally as you said above mAya as Ishvara shakti...But while explaining all

these different concepts nowhere shankara mentions (atleast as far as my

knowledge goes) that this mAya is an independent & exclusive of avidyA

influence..If you are interested, we can take these different aspects of

mAya one by one & analyse it in a separate mail.

 

R prabhuji:

 

There are some important considerations. One of the most important is

that whatever this external world is, it cannot be outside Brahman (or

else we have Dvaita and even provisional parinavada has not been

endorsed - provisional acceptance parinamavada is part of Advaita).

The external world is essentially the "world" in the absence of the

mind. What is the world like when the mind is absent? There is no

world in such a state, however the possibility of a world coming later

is there. For instance in deep sleep, in the absence of the mind,

there is no world, but the world can emmerge later. Ignorance in such

a state cannot be described as active and in some sense it does seem

acceptable to say that there is "no ignorance". However, ignorance

exists as a potential or as a seed. Based on this potential, the world

can re-emmerge. Note that the potential is not a "thing" its just a

potential.

 

bhaskar :

 

Your above observation comes under the category of *vyakta and

avyaktAtmaka* or *vyAkruta and avyAkruta* role of mAya. But this aspect of

seed form & manifested form (bIja & ankura) has been accepted in shankara

vEdAnta to teach the true nature of the non-dual self. Hence the

manifested and unmanifested form of the universe are there in nirvikAri

brahman due to ignorance. From this standpoint the false appearance of the

universe and its potential/seed form are called as *effect* (kArya) and

brahman which is substratum of this false appearance is called as *cause*

(kAraNa). So prabhuji here cause means substratum and effect means false

appearance which is superimposed on brahman due to ignorance. In the

ArabhaNadhikaraNa sutra bhAshya shankara clearly clarifies his stand about

it. For the purpose of teaching when vEdAnta accepts the seed form and the

manifested form of the universe, it described the theory of cause and

effect respectively. But from the standpoint of absolute both socalled

*cause* & *effect* are effects only due to ignorance.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Thus we have quite an elegant model here. When the tree is not being

percieved by anyone, it is there as potential in Brahman. When a mind

actualizes that potential, that is the manifestation of the tree. Maya

is just the eternal potentiality which gets actualized by jiva-srishti

or avidya. However, the very notion of this potential is a product of

avidya. The notion of avidya (and jiva-srishti) too is a product of

avidya. In the absence of avidya, there is no srishti of both kinds.

Thus nothing arrises, nothing abides, nothing ceases.

 

bhaskar :

 

Oh!! thats great prabhuji....this is the ultimate teaching of vEdAnta...you

have summarized it beautifully.

 

Regards,

Rishi.

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

Thank you for your kind reply.

 

Regarding avarana, I never expressed my opinion on that. It really

depends on how the term is defined.

 

"From the transactional reality, the world what we are congnizing in

our day

to day life is not an illusion."

 

This is not a satisfactory resolution of the situation. This

resolution would mean that Shankara is being irrational and is

applying double standards. The Vijnanavadins, like everyone else,

accepts pramana, etc... as well as external world from transactional

point of view. Shankara had to know this because if he didn't know the

pramanas they accepted and he did not know their model of describing

different layers of reality, then he really did not know anything at

all about them and had no business criticizing them.

 

Your resolution amounts to saying "The Advaitin can hold provisional

views, but the Vijnanavadin is irrational if he does".

 

Such a resolution is not a resolution at all unless you accept that

Shankara is engaging is sophistry, don't you think?

 

"prabhuji, as a matter of fact avidyA cannot be said as jIva srushti

though

it pertains to antaHkaraNa...coz. shankara himself says that this

avidyA/adhyAsa is anAdi (anAdi naisargikOdhyAsaH - adhyAsa

bhAshya).."

 

In the absence of antahkarana there cannot be avidya and in the

absence of jiva, there cannot be antahkarana. Therefore if avidya is

anadi, so is the jiva.

 

"Moreover, it is also important to note that mAya and avidyA are

not synonymous terms."

 

I have said this clearly many times in this article itself.

 

"avidyA is natural to human mind and it is subjective

and mAya is the name given to prakruti (mayAntu prakrutim vidyAm says

shvetAshvatara shruti) or name & form (nAma & rUpa) in seed form

(avyAkruta

rUpa) which gives rise to all the different phenomena."

 

Thats more or less my position as well.

 

"ut it is

interesting to note that whenever shankara gives explanation to mAya,

he

invariably attributes it to avidyA by saying avidyAkalpita,

avidyAkruta,

adidyAtmaka etc. etc."

 

But the real question is in what sense this is the case. Avidya does

not create nama-rupa in seed form, what avidya creates is the very

notion of nama-rupa in seed form. Nama-rupa is potential form (Maya)

does not have a beggining so we cannot say it was created by something

that existed before it.

 

Rather, the concept of maya is what is created by avidya.

 

"this

*everyone* & their respective world etc. etc. are comes under the one

broader category of waker's waking world which vanishes tracelessly in

dreaming world where dreamer without an aid of waker *enjoying his own

world & importantly sees everyone's world as well as in waking

world*"

 

If there is not a universal creation, then how is it possible that our

minds can interact at all?

 

"I dont think

shankara anywhere said mAya is Ishwara srushti...at some places mAya

has

been explained as Ishvara shakti..."

 

He doesn't use such terminology, but surely you agree that at least

conventionally maya is the manifestation of Ishvara? Otherwise, how

can you account for Ishvara being a creator at all (even relatively)?

 

This is the problem here. You cannot say that Ishvara is not the

creator in any way but we will accept this provisionally. There is a

huge gap between your ultimate and conventional reality which insures

that one cannot account for the other! Surely you agree that ultimate

and conventional reality are not completely seperate; if this were the

case then you have two parralel realities: one existent and one

non-existent. Other than being very awkward, I do not see how you can

say Brahman is absolutely non-dual when there is a non-existent world

in addition to it. Shankara says even non-existence is included in

Brahman.

 

"But while explaining all

these different concepts nowhere shankara mentions (atleast as far as

my

knowledge goes) that this mAya is an independent & exclusive of avidyA

influence"

 

But no one is saying this. What is being said is that maya is

absolutely undifferentiated from Brahman. Shankara says that seer,

seeing and seen are undifferentiated in the ultimate state. You seem

to suggest that the seer and the seeing are undifferentiated and the

seen is different from these but non-existent.

 

"But from the standpoint of absolute both socalled

*cause* & *effect* are effects only due to ignorance."

 

Of course, no Advaitin will deny this. But you cannot address issues

about conventional reality by invoking ultimate reality.

 

If I ask you: "Where is the bathroom?" you don't answer "There is no

bathroom, Brahman alone exists". Rather you answer "Walk up the stairs

and turn to the right" or something along those lines.

 

You cannot run away from analyzing conventional reality and just state

ultimate truth. The only way to ultimate truth is by looking at

conventional truth,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

Humble praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

R prabhuji:

 

Thank you for your kind reply.

 

Regarding avarana, I never expressed my opinion on that. It really

depends on how the term is defined.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly pardon me for stretching my discussion on AvaraNa...just by seeing

the words AvaraNa & vikshEpa, my mind tempted to say something more on the

topic...sorry for that.

 

R prabhuji:

 

"From the transactional reality, the world what we are congnizing in

our day to day life is not an illusion."

 

This is not a satisfactory resolution of the situation. This

resolution would mean that Shankara is being irrational and is

applying double standards. The Vijnanavadins, like everyone else,

accepts pramana, etc... as well as external world from transactional

point of view.

 

bhaskar :

 

I see, again, kindly pardon me, I didnot know that even buddhists

(vijnAnavAdins) accept the existence of external world apart from mind from

the transactional reality!!! do they also have dual view point like

vyAvahArik & pAramArthik prabhuji?? kindly clarify.....As I said earlier, I

am not familiar with buddhists' works. My understanding of this school

mainly restricted to whatever intruded as buddhistic view in advaita

works...According to that I was thinking, they do deny the reality of

external world/objects by saying that the objects are identical with the

idea since both of them are experienced together!! Since the independent

existence of the outside object/world is inconceivable they conclude that

it is the idea within alone that appears as though it were outside!! And it

is with this background, I have quoted shankara's words on pramANa

yesterday.... I never knew that vijnAnavAdins provisionally accept the

existence of outer objects independent of mind... My apologies for my

ignorance.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Shankara had to know this because if he didn't know the

pramanas they accepted and he did not know their model of describing

different layers of reality, then he really did not know anything at

all about them and had no business criticizing them.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji-s those who are familiar with both advaita & buddhism works can

comment on this...Since shankara refuted buddhistic theory in his prasthAna

trayi bhAshya, I earnestly hope that he is doing so after completely

understanding buddhistic view points. If that is not the case, then

definitely I'd agree with you that shankara does not have any business to

criticize the school that which is alien to him!!

 

R prabhuji:

 

Your resolution amounts to saying "The Advaitin can hold provisional

views, but the Vijnanavadin is irrational if he does".

Such a resolution is not a resolution at all unless you accept that

Shankara is engaging is sophistry, don't you think?

 

bhaskar :

 

Again, I am completely blind to comment on this...By the way, what are all

the things that they will accept provisionally when talking about the world

& its existence?? do they provisionally accept the validity of shruti,

Ishwara, Karma theory also?? what would be their stand on pAramArthic

reality?? Has shankara anywhere discussed about the provisional acceptance

of external world by vijnAnavAdins?? If yes, kindly give me the

reference...In what context then shankara refuted vijnAnavAdins theory in

vEdAnta sUtra-s like *na abhAva upalabdeH & vaidharmyAccha na svapnAdivat*

etc...Kindly clarify.

 

bhaskar :

 

"prabhuji, as a matter of fact avidyA cannot be said as jIva srushti

though it pertains to antaHkaraNa...coz. shankara himself says that this

avidyA/adhyAsa is anAdi (anAdi naisargikOdhyAsaH - adhyAsa bhAshya).."

 

R prabhuji:

 

In the absence of antahkarana there cannot be avidya and in the

absence of jiva, there cannot be antahkarana. Therefore if avidya is

anadi, so is the jiva.

 

bhaskar :

 

This puzzle can be resolved by taking the help of avasthA prakriya...The

outer world, jIva's cognition of this world through senses, and his inner

mind (antahkaraNa) and all the notions such as time, space, causation etc.

appear simultaneously in the dream state....So, also the same is the case

with the waking state. Again this is tobe realised taking a stand in the

witnessing principle which is the substratum of both waking as well as

dreaming states...From the stand point of this sAkshi realization there is

no cause & effect..As you have agreed at the end of your yesterday's mail,

all the notions of cause and effect etc. are in avidyA i.e. in the

Me-notion...This Me-notion itself is called avidyA (Me-notion is nothing

but I am jIva, I have mind, I've intellect etc. in short ahaNkAra &

mamakAra)..and that which appears to this false notion is called as

mAya...For this reason only I have said above avidyA is the subjective

defect (i.e. primarily denotes a species of knowledge) and mAya is

objective one (i.e. an illusionary object)...

 

One very important thing to be noted here is the idea like avidyA, jIva,

antahkaraNa etc. are not imagination of brahman but these are all

imagination of socalled individual soul...Hence any objections/complaints

about avidyA or mAya are from the stand point of this individual soul and

not from the witnessing principle of life..Hope you will agree that in

brahman there is no thing called avidyA & mAya...it is brahman & brahman

ONLY..Just for the purpose of teaching this yEkamEvAdvitIya brahman vEdAnta

attributed these two concepts called avidyA to individual soul & mAya to

external objects and we should never ever think that these are some real

concepts that should be defended as a fact!! When knowledge of brahman is

revealed both will be falsified..This is one of the method in adhyArOpa

apavAda.

 

R prabhuji:

 

If there is not a universal creation, then how is it possible that our

minds can interact at all?

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, dont you think interaction of your mind is restricted on one

state?? The universality of this creation differs from one state to

another is it not?? after all we know & it is there in our experience that

waking world and our interaction with this waking world cannot get entry in

dream state...

 

bhaskar :

 

"I dont think shankara anywhere said mAya is Ishwara srushti...at some

places mAya

has been explained as Ishvara shakti..."

 

R prabhuji:

 

He doesn't use such terminology, but surely you agree that at least

conventionally maya is the manifestation of Ishvara? Otherwise, how

can you account for Ishvara being a creator at all (even relatively)? This

is the problem here. You cannot say that Ishvara is not the

creator in any way but we will accept this provisionally. There is a

huge gap between your ultimate and conventional reality which insures

that one cannot account for the other! Surely you agree that ultimate

and conventional reality are not completely seperate; if this were the

case then you have two parralel realities: one existent and one

non-existent. Other than being very awkward, I do not see how you can

say Brahman is absolutely non-dual when there is a non-existent world

in addition to it. Shankara says even non-existence is included in

Brahman.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes relatively we can accept Ishwara is creator & mAya is the potent of

Ishwara..when mAya is seen (i.e. world in vyAkruta & avayAkrut form)

through ignorance in non-dual brahman then only this non dual brahman

described as Ishwara or mayAvi (magician) etc. The very Ishitavya

(Ishvarahood / Lordhood) is attributed on the non-dual brahman through this

mAya which is in turn a figment of avidyA when it is thought of as the

cause and rule of the world consisting multiple jIva-s only for the purpose

of teaching. Again Ishvaratva is mere adhyArOpita on absolute non-dual

brahman..Here one thing to be noted that avidyA does not produce the mAya

per se...but it creates the mis-understanding that non dual brahman as the

universe and its seed form...So, prabhuji, IMHO gor has not created mAya

intentionally as you are telling above..but mAya is conjured up by avidyA.

Through Atma vidyA when this avidyA is removed, then the mAya will be

falsified means jnAni realises that this is only a false appearance gets

sublated from one state to another...Because of this reason shankara

describes mAya in mAndUkya kArika as *sA cha mAya na vidyAte, mAya iti

avidyAmanasya akhyA* (mAya does not exist the idea being that the term

mAya relates to something non-existing*)..

Yes, as you said even non-existence is included brahman since apart from

brahman there is nothing...nothing can have independent existence apart

from brahman...world does not have independent existence apart from brahman

but brahman can be there in his full glory even when world is not there!!!

Our deep sleep state clears this beyond doubt.

 

R prabhuji:

 

But no one is saying this. What is being said is that maya is

absolutely undifferentiated from Brahman. Shankara says that seer,

seeing and seen are undifferentiated in the ultimate state. You seem

to suggest that the seer and the seeing are undifferentiated and the

seen is different from these but non-existent.

 

bhaskar :

 

No prabhuji, I am not saying see is different from the seer...but seer can

be there even when the seen is not there...shankara makes this clear in

bruhadAraNyaka shruti, and sureshwara in bruhadAraNyaka vArtika...Lord says

in gIta nAsatO vidyatE bhAvO nabhAvO vidyatE sataH..(our Sri sadananda

prabhuji's favourite quote :-))the existence never belongs to the unreal

nor does non-existence belong to the real...An entity that which exists

unchanged is real...that which is trikAla abhAditaM can be called as

satya...Sri gaudapAda says in kArika whatever has no existence before and

after does not exist even now!! the seen what we are talking above though

does not have independet existence from ever seeing seer...gets changed

from one state to another...& vanishes completely in deep sleep state...So,

there is seer & his seeing power eternally even when seen is absent or gets

changed its colour from one state to another..

 

R prabhuji:

 

 

"But from the standpoint of absolute both socalled

*cause* & *effect* are effects only due to ignorance."

 

Of course, no Advaitin will deny this. But you cannot address issues

about conventional reality by invoking ultimate reality.

 

bhaskar :

 

but at the same time, we cannot hold the conventional reality as ultimate

reality & completely ignore the ultimate reality while doing brahma jignAsa

is it not??

 

R prabhuji:

 

If I ask you: "Where is the bathroom?" you don't answer "There is no

bathroom, Brahman alone exists". Rather you answer "Walk up the stairs

and turn to the right" or something along those lines.

 

You cannot run away from analyzing conventional reality and just state

ultimate truth. The only way to ultimate truth is by looking at

conventional truth,

 

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, this analogy holds good only in guiding us to the bath room:-)) but

when you are doing brahma jignAsa in vyavahAra we have to always keep our

feet rooted firmly in paramArthika satya...after all we are all here to

realize the pAramArthik satya of our svarUpa...is it not prabhuji?? This

distinction of absolute reality and vyavahArik or conventional reality from

the standpoint of empirical life should be borne in mind in order to

reconcile the several seeming self contradictory statements in shruti

vAkya-s & ultimate siddhAnta of it prabhuji...conventional reality has very

limited validity in brahma jignAsa we cannot carry it forever in the path

of jnAna prabhuji...Anyway, this is my humble opinion.

 

Regards,

Rishi.

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

"do they also have dual view point like

vyAvahArik & pAramArthik prabhuji??"

 

Yes, the Madhyamakas have had the two-truth system for a few centuries

before Advaitins as far as we know. In the Madhyamika they talk about

samvriti and paramartha. The Yogacara have a three truth system where

they divide conventional reality into parikalpita and paratantra, and

in addition have paramartha.

 

"According to that I was thinking, they do deny the reality of

external world/objects by saying that the objects are identical with

the

idea since both of them are experienced together!!"

 

They say that apart from a cognition of an object, there is no object.

 

However, if you accept avyaktarupa as something conventionally

independent of the mind, then this is different from the Vijnanavadas'

position and in that case I agree with you.

 

You give provisional reality to the external world, but I'm not sure

in what way you give it external reality. Is it just a matter of

saying "Let it be given" or is there a specific way in which it is

conventionally real?

 

"do they provisionally accept the validity of shruti,

Ishwara, Karma theory also??"

 

Well, like other Buddhists they accept karma but reject shruti and

Ishvara. I am not completely sure of this, but I believe that like

most Buddhists the Yogacara accept inference and perception as

pramana.

 

"One very important thing to be noted here is the idea like avidyA,

jIva,

antahkaraNa etc. are not imagination of brahman but these are all

imagination of socalled individual soul..."

 

I agree, so whats the problem with saying avidya is jiva-srishti? It

is what the jiva creates. In the absence of the jiva, it too is

absent.

 

Incidentally, while I believe this is quite clearly Shankara's

position, it seems like Gauadapada thinks differently, don't you

think?

 

"Hope you will agree that in

brahman there is no thing called avidyA & mAya..."

 

Conventionally, maya IS in Brahman. Ultimately, the concept of maya

has been superimposed upon Brahman by the jiva.

 

"prabhuji, dont you think interaction of your mind is restricted on

one

state??"

 

Nevertheless, there is interaction. How is this possible without

something common between all of them (even if just in the waking

state)?

 

Also, if we all superimpose our own waking worlds seperately, how come

there is similarity in what we superimpose? Co-incidence?

 

"The very Ishitavya

(Ishvarahood / Lordhood) is attributed on the non-dual brahman through

this

mAya which is in turn a figment of avidyA when it is thought of as the

cause and rule of the world consisting multiple jIva-s only for the

purpose

of teaching."

 

I disagree here. Ishvarahood is maya-shakti and maya-shakti has been

superimposed on Brahman by the jiva.

 

"Here one thing to be noted that avidyA does not produce the mAya

per se...but it creates the mis-understanding that non dual brahman as

the

universe and its seed form..."

 

I would say that what avidya does is creates the mis-understanding

that there is a seed-form, whereas in reality there is only Brahman.

It invents the concept of "seed-form".

 

"but seer can

be there even when the seen is not there"

 

Of course.

 

"but at the same time, we cannot hold the conventional reality as

ultimate

reality & completely ignore the ultimate reality while doing brahma

jignAsa

is it not??"

 

We cannot, but we need to have a consistent model of conventional

reality which can lead to our model of ultimate reality.

 

When people cannot do this they start chasing experiences such as

nirvikalpa samadhi. This is why nirvikalpa samadhi became so important

in Advaita - the position stopped making any sense so people could

only defend it with mysticism and not with our ordinary life.

 

"conventional reality has very

limited validity in brahma jignAsa we cannot carry it forever in the

path

of jnAna prabhuji..."

 

Apart from conventional reality, there is no other ultimate reality.

We should not think of ultimate reality as something outside

conventional reality - a parralel reality as it were. Rather ultimate

reality is just the true nature of conventional reality. Apart from

the conventional, we have no way to the ultimate.

 

If the Advaitin cannot create consistent view of the world that we all

see, then how can we possibly expect him to create a consistent view

of something we don't see?

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

R prabhuji:

 

Yes, the Madhyamakas have had the two-truth system for a few centuries

before Advaitins as far as we know.

 

bhaskar :

 

then prabhuji, you mean to say here shankara without knowing buddhist's two

levels of reality unnecessarily framed his objection against him!! this is

really news to me prabhuji...

 

R prabhuji:

 

In the Madhyamika they talk about samvriti and paramartha. The Yogacara

have a three truth system where they divide conventional reality into

parikalpita and paratantra, and

in addition have paramartha.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly elaborate those terminologies...parikalpita & paratantra have any

relevance to our prAtibhAsika & vyAvahArika satya?? what is the paramArthA

satya according to buddhists pls. clarify...what is the pramANa that they

are holding for that??...Since I donot know anything about buddhism...I

could ask only questions!! Hope you wont mind.

 

R prabhuji:

 

They say that apart from a cognition of an object, there is no object.

 

bhaskar :

 

Is this view from their conventional reality or paramAthik reality?? kindly

be specific prabhuji...And also I am failed to understand here..in what way

it is going to establish that they accept existence of external objects

apart from world!!!

 

R prabhuji:

 

However, if you accept avyaktarupa as something conventionally

independent of the mind, then this is different from the Vijnanavadas'

position and in that case I agree with you.

 

bhaskar :

 

shankara explicitly mentions that bIja & ankura (seed & sprout form)

vyAkruta and avyAkruta (manifestation & un-manifestation) of saMsAra / mAya

is nothing but avidyAkruta from paramArtha drushti..In his introduction to

bruhadAraNyaka shankara says sa yESha bIjAnkuravat avidyAkrutaH

saMsAraH...and in mAndUkya commentary he confirms this further by saying

tasya *aparamArtha rUpam avidyAkruta rajjusarpAdisamaM uktaM pAdatraya

lakShaNam bijAkurasthAnIyaM*...It is due to our ignorance about kEvalAtman,

we think there is a seedform of jagat in sushupti..and that holds good only

in vyavahAra..whereas from the standpoint of absolute reality there

was/is/never will be any sort of duality like avyAkruta & vyAkruta in

absolute non-dual brahman!!

 

R prabhuji:

 

You give provisional reality to the external world, but I'm not sure

in what way you give it external reality. Is it just a matter of

saying "Let it be given" or is there a specific way in which it is

conventionally real?

 

bhaskar :

 

As said earlier vyAvahArika satyatva (transactional reality) granted to the

external world through mAya satkArya vAda...it is given only conventional

reality coz. it does not withstand the acid test of trikAla abhAdita

satyaM..yEka rUpENa hi avasthitO yOrthaH sa paramArthaH...says shankara in

sUtra bhAshya...the conventional reality of this external world does not

fulfill this requirement (yEkarUpa) Hence has only conventional reality.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Well, like other Buddhists they accept karma but reject shruti and Ishvara.

 

bhaskar :

 

Well, how can karma theory can fit into the theory of kshaNikavAdin?? do

they accept karma phala also prabhuji??

 

R prabhuji:

 

I am not completely sure of this, but I believe that like

most Buddhists the Yogacara accept inference and perception as

pramana.

 

bhaskar :

 

How can their paramArtha reality be proved only through pratyakha

(perception) and anumAna (inference) pramANa?? Whether they use these

pramANa-s to prove their two types of conventional reality or pAramArthik

reality?? Again, kindly pardon me for merely asking questions!!

 

R prabhuji:

 

I agree, so whats the problem with saying avidya is jiva-srishti? It

is what the jiva creates. In the absence of the jiva, it too is

absent.

 

Incidentally, while I believe this is quite clearly Shankara's

position, it seems like Gauadapada thinks differently, don't you

think?

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont think shankara anywhere deviated from his paramaguruji while doing

siddhAnta pratipAdana...could you please elaborate your above observation

prabhuji?? I believe context is very important here while ascertaining the

position of shankara Vs gaudapAda. As said earlier, the notion of jIva

itself is avidyA as we dont have another chaitanya entity called jIva apart

from yEkamEva advitIya chaitanya that is brahman.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Conventionally, maya IS in Brahman. Ultimately, the concept of maya

has been superimposed upon Brahman by the jiva.

 

bhaskar :

 

If you permit me to rephrase your statement, I would say, conventionally

mAya is in brahman...ultimately there is concept of mAya, jIva, Ishvara

etc. etc. it is ONE & ONLY brahman.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Nevertheless, there is interaction. How is this possible without

something common between all of them (even if just in the waking

state)?

 

bhaskar :

 

but this commonality what you are attributing to waking world equally

applied to dream as well..is it not prabhuji?? It is in my waking state I

see different mind & its commonality..and in my dream state too I see

commonality with same degree of reality..dont you think this commonality is

restricted & valid to one particular avasthA??

 

R prabhuji:

 

Also, if we all superimpose our own waking worlds seperately, how come

there is similarity in what we superimpose? Co-incidence?

 

bhaskar :

 

This all waking worlds is there only in my experience of single waking

state is it not??

 

R prabhuji:

 

I disagree here. Ishvarahood is maya-shakti and maya-shakti has been

superimposed on Brahman by the jiva.

 

bhaskar :

 

You are welcome to disagree with me prabhuji...but shankara's position is

that Ishwara's Ishitavya, his omnipotence, omniscience etc. etc. are holds

good only in vyavahAra.

 

 

R prabhuji:

 

I would say that what avidya does is creates the mis-understanding

that there is a seed-form, whereas in reality there is only Brahman.

It invents the concept of "seed-form".

 

bhaskar :

 

that is true prabhuji, I agree with you.

 

R prabhuji:

 

We cannot, but we need to have a consistent model of conventional

reality which can lead to our model of ultimate reality.

 

bhaskar :

 

consistency cannot be attributed to conventional reality..that is the

reason why we call it *only* vyAvahArik reality...consistency in seeing the

inconsistency of conventional reality is the model that advaita has given

us to realize the ultimate reality.

 

R prabhuji:

 

When people cannot do this they start chasing experiences such as

nirvikalpa samadhi. This is why nirvikalpa samadhi became so important

in Advaita

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, I do agree with you prabhuji...it is pity to note that nowadays

advaitins are thinking that nirvikalpa samAdhi is indispensable to realize

advaita's paramArtha jnAna!! even our socalled traditional AchArya's

narrating their experiences in NS to substantiate their claims in advaita

jnAna. This is because, I think, lack of understanding of vastu tantra &

purusha tantra jnAna.

 

R prabhuji:

 

- the position stopped making any sense so people could

only defend it with mysticism and not with our ordinary life.

 

bhaskar :

 

shankara does clearly states his position that advaita jnAna is not

vyavahAra *shUnya* but it is sublated knowledge (bhAdita jnAna/avagati) of

vyavahAra. The knowledge of neither Sun really rise nor set does not come

in the way of my daily routine planned according to sun rise & set...so

vyavahAra has its validity in its own realm...

 

R prabhuji:

 

Apart from conventional reality, there is no other ultimate reality.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes the ultimate reality is nothing but sublated knowledge of conventional

reality.

 

R prabhuji:

 

We should not think of ultimate reality as something outside

conventional reality - a parralel reality as it were. Rather ultimate

reality is just the true nature of conventional reality. Apart from

the conventional, we have no way to the ultimate.

 

bhaskar :

 

Very well said prabhuji...I whole heartedly agree with you.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

I do not have much internet access now, so might take quite a lot of

time to reply - however, I will reply at some point.

 

"then prabhuji, you mean to say here shankara without knowing

buddhist's two

levels of reality unnecessarily framed his objection against him!!

this is

really news to me prabhuji..."

 

Well, here I think this is a more complicated issue. I think that

after Nagarjuna, the serious Madhyamika philosophical tradition was

absent for several centuries (until Buddhapalita and Bhavaviveka's

time). While Shankara's criticisms of Madhyamika do not apply to these

more sophisticated writers (not to speak of Chandrakirti and so on), I

think they did apply to a lot/most of the Madhyamikas. This is because

all Indian sects (including the Vijnanavadins) accused the Madhyamika

of Shunyata being abhava, and other extreme positions (which Nagarjuna

clearly rejects).

 

So I think Shankara refuted in large part the position taken by most

Madhyamakas at that time, so he was not doing anything wrong. It seems

like he is misrepresenting the Madhyamika but this is because the

famous Madhyamika authors held views different from the popular

nihilistic Madhyamika. Of course this is a big issue and I have more

arguments in favour of this point, but this is my opinion personally.

 

"Kindly elaborate those terminologies...parikalpita & paratantra have

any

relevance to our prAtibhAsika & vyAvahArika satya?? what is the

paramArthA

satya according to buddhists pls. clarify...what is the pramANa that

they

are holding for that??...Since I donot know anything about buddhism...

I

could ask only questions!! Hope you wont mind."

 

The correspondence is not exactly perfect, but its similar. The

ultimate reality, which the Yogacara call parinispanna is supposed to

be paratantra minus parikalpita.

 

The ultimate reality for the Yogacara is that vijnana alone exists.

For the Madhyamikas the ultimate reality is that all dharmas have no

svabhava (or Chandrakirti says, the svabhava is nisvabhava). The

Madhyamikas do not deny the reality of appeareances as such - they say

that there are appereances and we impute phenomena onto them. You can

see how this is quite different from the absolute nihilism which is

interpreted of them (though I think many Buddhists did hold absolute

nihilism - just not the more intelligent ones).

 

"Is this view from their conventional reality or paramAthik reality??

kindly

be specific prabhuji..."

 

This is from the ultimate perspective for the Vijnanavada. The

position is not accepted by most Madhyamikas.

 

"whereas from the standpoint of absolute reality there

was/is/never will be any sort of duality like avyAkruta & vyAkruta in

absolute non-dual brahman!!"

 

Okay, but do you accept that avyaktarupa of samsara is conventionally

independent of the mind?

 

"As said earlier vyAvahArika satyatva (transactional reality) granted

to the

external world through mAya satkArya vAda...it is given only

conventional

reality coz. it does not withstand the acid test of trikAla abhAdita

satyaM..yEka rUpENa hi avasthitO yOrthaH sa paramArthaH...says

shankara in

sUtra bhAshya...the conventional reality of this external world does

not

fulfill this requirement (yEkarUpa) Hence has only conventional

reality."

 

Of course, I'm not asking why it isn't ultimately real. I am asking

why it has EVEN conventional reality?

 

"Well, how can karma theory can fit into the theory of kshaNikavAdin??

do

they accept karma phala also prabhuji??"

 

Yes, of course they accept karma phala. Ksanikavada does not mean they

don't believe the various moments are not casually connected with each

other. One moment of conciousness, for instance, is supposed to

produce to the next.

 

"How can their paramArtha reality be proved only through pratyakha

(perception) and anumAna (inference) pramANa?? Whether they use these

pramANa-s to prove their two types of conventional reality or

pAramArthik

reality?? Again, kindly pardon me for merely asking questions!!"

 

Well here I do not know the answer to this exhaustively but I will try

to explain what I do know.

 

According to one group of Madhyamakas called prasangikas, the

Madhyamika is not a view to be established. All that has to be done is

that all other views have to be refuted. The Madhyamika position is

not a view. They argue this but it is highly unconvincing of course.

 

Another group of Madhyamakas called svatantrikas try to proove

shunyata with inferences. This actually is quite nifty and clever at

times I find.

 

However, in practice they take another approach (shared with the

Vijnanavada). They use an inference to proove that the Buddha is

omniscient about the path (HIGHLY unconvincing inference). Based on

this, they use Buddhist scripture as an authority.

 

So seriously speaking, in my opinion, they basically have some kind of

shabda-pramana, but a non-Vedic one. They try to dress this up but it

doesn't work too well.

 

"I dont think shankara anywhere deviated from his paramaguruji while

doing

siddhAnta pratipAdana...could you please elaborate your above

observation

prabhuji?? I believe context is very important here while ascertaining

the

position of shankara Vs gaudapAda. As said earlier, the notion of jIva

itself is avidyA as we dont have another chaitanya entity called jIva

apart

from yEkamEva advitIya chaitanya that is brahman."

 

Verse 12, 19 of Vaitathya Prakarana to me seems to go against

Shankara's view in general. I don't think they are entirely

incompatible from the ultimate perspective but I think its an entirely

different prakriya from Shankara's.

 

"but this commonality what you are attributing to waking world equally

applied to dream as well..is it not prabhuji?? It is in my waking

state I

see different mind & its commonality..and in my dream state too I see

commonality with same degree of reality..dont you think this

commonality is

restricted & valid to one particular avasthA??"

 

But nevertheless you agree that conventionally speaking, people you

encounter in waking state have minds, but people you encounter in

dreams don't.

 

How do you explain the interaction of minds conventionally speaking?

 

"This all waking worlds is there only in my experience of single

waking

state is it not??"

 

Conventionally no, otherwise when my mind switched off, everyone

else's mind also would switch off.

 

Basically what I am asking is, how does your conventional reality

reconcile with your position that the whole world is hallucinated by

the mind out of nothing?

 

"You are welcome to disagree with me prabhuji...but shankara's

position is

that Ishwara's Ishitavya, his omnipotence, omniscience etc. etc. are

holds

good only in vyavahAra."

 

No one disagrees with this.

 

"consistency cannot be attributed to conventional reality..that is the

reason why we call it *only* vyAvahArik reality...consistency in

seeing the

inconsistency of conventional reality is the model that advaita has

given

us to realize the ultimate reality."

 

But then why can't one choose anything random as conventional reality?

 

Why can I not say: "Conventionally, this whole world is green

elephant. However ultimately there is only Brahman, nothing arrises,

nothing subsides."

 

Can I defend that position by saying that "conventionaly reality is

contradictory by nature". Again you can't just declare something to be

conventionally true, there is still difference between conventional

truth and absolute untruth.

 

"yes the ultimate reality is nothing but sublated knowledge of

conventional

reality."

 

Yes, very well said!

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Rishi,

 

Namaste.

 

Your article about Buddhists reminds me some quotes given by

Sri.Madhva.

> "Kindly elaborate those terminologies...parikalpita & paratantra

have

> any

> relevance to our prAtibhAsika & vyAvahArika satya?? what is the

> paramArthA

> satya according to buddhists pls. clarify...what is the pramANa

that

> they

> are holding for that??...Since I donot know anything about

buddhism...

> I

> could ask only questions!! Hope you wont mind."

>

> The correspondence is not exactly perfect, but its similar. The

> ultimate reality, which the Yogacara call parinispanna is supposed

to

> be paratantra minus parikalpita.

>

> The ultimate reality for the Yogacara is that vijnana alone exists.

> For the Madhyamikas the ultimate reality is that all dharmas have

no

> svabhava (or Chandrakirti says, the svabhava is nisvabhava). The

> Madhyamikas do not deny the reality of appeareances as such - they

say

> that there are appereances and we impute phenomena onto them. You

can

> see how this is quite different from the absolute nihilism which is

> interpreted of them (though I think many Buddhists did hold

absolute

> nihilism - just not the more intelligent ones).

>

 

Sri. Madhva quotes a shUnyavAdI literature regarding dual nature of

reality in his Tattvodyouta ;

 

 

`sattvaM tu dvividhaM proktaM sAMvR^itaM pAramArthikam.h |

sAMvR^itaM vyavahAryaM syAt.h nivR^ittau pAramArthikam.h ||'

 

-- iti |

 

`The reality is said to be of two sorts, the obscured and the

transcendental; The obscured or Samvritam reality is the

Vyavaharika or empirical reality, while the total secession

is the absolute reality,' thus."

 

B.N.K. Sharma reports that the verse is not presently available in

its original source as the ancient Buddhist works are mostly lost,

but enough evidence remains in the extant Buddhist literature, such

as Nagarjuna's:

 

dve satye samupAshritya buddhAnAM dharmadeshanA |

loke saMvR^itisatyaM cha satyaM cha paramArthataH ||

 

to show that it not a fabrication from Madhva's side.

 

 

At this point we can recall the Vedaanta paribhaashhaa of dharmaraaja

from Advaita perspective :

 

yadvaa trividhaM sattvaM -- paaramaarthikasattvaM brahmaNaH,

vyaavahaarikaM sattvamaakaashaadeH, praatibhaasikaM sattvaM

shuktirajataadeH |

 

The absolute reality of Brahman is paaramaarthika satya, the

empirical reality of the objective world, which includes space etc.,

is vyaavahaarika satya, and the illusory appearance of silver in

nacre (oyster-shell), etc. is praatibhaasika satya.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

pradon me onceagain for the belated reply....

 

Thanks for taking your time to brief me about the stand points of

mAdhAmika, vijnAna vAda, kshaNika vAda & SUnyavAdins...

 

With your permission, I'd like to close this discussion with few of my

observations...

 

R prabhuji:

 

Okay, but do you accept that avyaktarupa of samsara is conventionally

independent of the mind?

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, when we say conventional reality itself is avidyA vyavahAra since

this reality involves duality i.e. pramAtru & pramEya... how does it matter

whether saMsAra in seedform is within mind or independent of mind?? After

all, I think we are here to understand the pAramArthik reality by analysing

the futility of conventional reality...and NOT conventional reality & its

vagaries per se...Hope you agree with me.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Of course, I'm not asking why it isn't ultimately real. I am asking

why it has EVEN conventional reality?

 

bhaskar :

 

shankara says it is coz. of naisargika (natural) adhyAsa...once the

ultimate knowledge of svarUpa dawns, jnAni would realize that ultimate

reality is the only reality (satyasya satya) & there was no conventional

reality as such at any point of time!!

 

R prabhuji:

 

Verse 12, 19 of Vaitathya Prakarana to me seems to go against

Shankara's view in general. I don't think they are entirely

incompatible from the ultimate perspective but I think its an entirely

different prakriya from Shankara's.

 

bhaskar :

 

as far as my knowledge goes, this prakaraNa deals with avasthAtraya

prakriya..right prabhuji...I dont think here shankara taking any deviation

from his parama guruji's siddhAnta..(if you have shankara's 2-2-29 sUtra

bhAshya commentaries in mind then it has to be understood

contextually..otherwise, we are forced to conclude either author of kArikA

bhAshya & sUtra bhAshya are different or shankara contradicting himself in

his own works!!)...

 

R prabhuji:

 

But nevertheless you agree that conventionally speaking, people you

encounter in waking state have minds, but people you encounter in

dreams don't.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly look at the *anubhava* part of your dream without giving judgement

from waking state...In dream, dreamer does not think that the people who

are there in his world donot have minds & they are all his own creation!!

he behaves as if there are multiple minds & he will be reacting to the

various needs of those minds!! is it not?? that is the reason why shruti

does not make any difference between waking & dream states & asserts

*saptAnga yEkOnaviMshati mukhaH* for both vishwa & taijasa.

 

R prabhuji:

 

Conventionally no, otherwise when my mind switched off, everyone

else's mind also would switch off.

 

bhaskar :

 

when our mind switched off from the waking state, we will be awaken to

entirely new world i.e. dreaming...and in dreaming we would see various

minds with switch on parallel to our own mind with switch on !!! is it

not?? so, if we firmly hold our anubhAva, it is evident that we are simply

inferring that other minds are switched on even when our mind is switched

off!!! there is no direct knowledge about the activities of other minds

even when our mind switched off!!

 

R prabhuji:

 

Basically what I am asking is, how does your conventional reality

reconcile with your position that the whole world is hallucinated by

the mind out of nothing?

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, one point needs to be understood here is whenever we are

approaching the truth with different prakriya-s (methodologies)...the

ultimate goal is to understand our svarUpa according to shruti & anubhava

but not wandering within the prakriya-s itself...If you take avasthA traya

prakriya, it says the cognizing world has only relative reality &

restricted to one particular state & our svarUpa is the witness to all

these state ...if you take kArya-kAraNa prakriya, it says something else

about the kArya/world & its status...but finally, all prakriya-s lead us to

one & only reality that is secondless brahman..so too much roaming within

the conventional reality itself does not serve our ultimate purpose...with

this if you see the world, conventionally it is a creation or invention of

something..or a thing which is created...but the world if you analyse from

the absolute stand point it is mere projection of an appearance or the

world as a kArya is mere superimposition on absolute non-dual brahman...

 

bhaskar :

 

"consistency cannot be attributed to conventional reality..that is the

reason why we call it *only* vyAvahArik reality...consistency in

seeing the inconsistency of conventional reality is the model that advaita

has

given us to realize the ultimate reality."

 

R prabhuji:

 

But then why can't one choose anything random as conventional reality?

 

bhaskar :

 

That is what we are doing now is it not:-))?? we are thinking we are this

BMI despite shruti telling you are THAT...

 

R prabhuji:

 

Why can I not say: "Conventionally, this whole world is green

elephant. However ultimately there is only Brahman, nothing arrises,

nothing subsides."

 

bhaskar :

 

if our conventional reality of green elephant can lead us to ultimate

reality of nothing arises, nothing subsides & we are yEkamEvaadvitIya

brahman then I'd happily accept that module of *green elephant world* :-))

But as you know, there is pramANa (pratyaksha & anumAna) to determine the

characteristics of this conventional reality..we have to analyse the

conventional reality with the help of those pramANa-s...

 

Since I donot have much to add to this discussion..this would be my last

post prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar