To what extent is the world a product of the mind? contrast with vigyanavada

[Guest guest]

Hello....

 

Is it right to say, that on realizing the self, the object

disappears and all that is left in the subject. In that case, how is

advaita different from vigyanavada or buddhist idealism. I could not

grasp the advaitin's criticsm of vigyanavada in the brahma sutras.

Could someone plz clarify

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Shree frederico - PraNAms

>

> The world is not illusion - that is the wrong translation of the

word

> mithyaa. Mithyaa is what apprears to be real in its frame of

reference

> but get sublated at higher frame of reference.

>

> The dream world is real for a drem subject but when awakened to

higher

> state, gets resolved into the waker's mind.

>

> Similarly the waking world is real for a waker until he is

awakened to

> the higher state of consciousness that he is.

>

> Just as dream is the projection of waker's mind, this world is

> projection of the total mind. The reality is relative. Absolute

> reality alone is the truth and in that there is no creation either.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

> --- atmadarshanam <fsgss wrote:

>

> > Namaste all,

> >

> > I have often read in Advaita that the world is an illusion

and a

> > product of the mind. But to what extent can we say this? Can one

say

> > for example that it is memory (samskara) which produces similar

forms

> > as appearances, sounds, smells, solids, tasteables and mental

> > formations in the Jagrat state? Is this correct? Or is the world

said

> > to be a mental projection just on the basis that what we see is

> > actually different because we project our own notions into what

we

> > see, therefore we don´t see the same thing, we see a thing with

all

> > our notions superimposed on it. But the question arises: how did

this

> > world come into being? How is it being produced? It SEEMS to me

that

> > memory or samskaras are stored and re-played continuously,

creating

> > the illusion of the world. Can anyone clarify this to me?

> > Pranams,

> > Frederico

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Saurav <azygos678 wrote: Hello....

 

Is it right to say, that on realizing the self, the object

disappears and all that is left in the subject. In that case, how is

advaita different from vigyanavada or buddhist idealism. I could not

grasp the advaitin's criticsm of vigyanavada in the brahma sutras.

Could someone plz clarify

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Shree frederico - PraNAms

>

> The world is not illusion - that is the wrong translation of the

word

> mithyaa. Mithyaa is what apprears to be real in its frame of

reference

> but get sublated at higher frame of reference.

>

> The dream world is real for a drem subject but when awakened to

higher

> state, gets resolved into the waker's mind.

>

> Similarly the waking world is real for a waker until he is

awakened to

> the higher state of consciousness that he is.

>

> Just as dream is the projection of waker's mind, this world is

> projection of the total mind. The reality is relative. Absolute

> reality alone is the truth and in that there is no creation either.

Respected sir,

An unbiased reading of the works of

Bhaghavan Ramana indicates that the essential refrain of his teachings is that

there are not two minds, that of the individual and the cosmic; but there is

only one mind, that of the individual to whom it appears, who has to ask the

question to whom does this arise, and abide in the non-objective source, which

process does not involve analysis, discursive reasoning, and even the

conceptualization, " I am That," all these things being talked about only in

traditional advaita. According to Ramana-this is my understanding, which helps

me, too, greatly in dismissing the rationalistic, dualistic, mind- our

individuality is also one among the projections of the mind, the mind alone

being real ( tentatively ), which is our unreal individuality, and not its

projections. This discountenances the srsti-drsti vada or krama-srsti, very much

talked about in all the Upanishads, except Mandukya. Hence, the positing of a

Cosmic

Mind is relevant only in the matter of satisfying the intellectually oriented

philosophical queries, having no bearing on the quest. In the book, " Maha

yoga," Sri Lakshmana sarma has unequivocally dismissed all notions of cosmic

mind on account of their smacking of dualistic thoughts. In fact, Ramana has not

used the word, ' Brahman,' but has confined his terminology to the word, ' Nan,'

not admitting of any externalizations like Brahman and Iswara. In verse 534 of,

' Guru Vacaka Kovai,' Bhaghavan clearly says, "Let the highly mature and

courageous aspirant who has a bright and sharp intellect, firmly accept that

there is only one jiva, and thereby become established in the heart ( by

enquiring, ' Who am I, that one jiva?â€). Guru Vacaka Kovai, though authored by

saint Muruganar, contains the essential teachings of Bhaghavan, having been

approved by him. It is only to suit that scriptures generally speak of jivas as

many. Even the vijnanavada, speaking of only intellectual

states of momentary cognitions as against the reality of fixed, rigid,

objective phenomena, is a bold advance towards the state of no-mind. But the

rational mind wants to philosophize every thing, and create a belief-system,

which is the problem. The liberating knowledge is not a belief-system. All

theories of creation are only entertainment for the intellectually, logically,

oriented, minds.

Sankarraman

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

>

 

 

 

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates

starting at 1¢/min.