Mithya in Advaita

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

Sri Subramanian in his posting dated July 2, 2006 states:

<Finally, the sentence in the Sri Vidyaranya's introduction, 'By the

whole of that inert matter the self-luminous Consciousness is

veiled', informs us that (a) the cause (inert matter) veils the

Consciousness. That is why, in the presence of ajnana persisting,

Consciousness is not apprehended as it is. But in Samadhi/Sakshatkara

where ajnana is absent, there is the apprehension of Consciousness in

its pristine pure form. (b) the effect (inert matter) veils the

Consciousness. That is why in waking and dream, engrossed as one is

with the manifest duality, one is unable to apprehend Consciousness

as it is. Thus inert matter, jada, both as the cause and as the

effect, veils Consciousness, the Chit.>

The sentence in the Sri Vidyaranya's introduction , " by the whole of that inert matter the self-luminous Consciousness is veiled" appears to be wrongly conceived by the author. How can the inert matter veil the self-lumilous consciousness? Self-luminous Consciousness which is none other than Brahman is ananta , Then inert matter also should be ananta to cover Brahman which is also ananta. This is absurd because there cannot be two anantas. Probably the word "Veiling" may have a different meaning .

Secondly, who has witnessed inert matter veiling Self-luminous Consciousness ? The witness also should be consciousness to witness the veiling happening. Are there two consciousnesses, one to witness the other being veiled by inert matter?

Is the above statement a verifiable fact since the author has written it as a fact? If it cannot be verified it becomes a dogma or speculation and in

Vedanta and Sri Sankara's tradition dogmas and unverifiable statements do not find place as can be seen from the Great Acharya's commentaries.

With respectful regards,

Sreenivasa murthy.

 

 

 

India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new Click here

Catch all the FIFA World Cup 2006 action on India Click here

[Guest guest]

advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145

wrote:

>H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

Sri Subramanian in his posting dated July 2, 2006 states:

 

<Finally, the sentence in the Sri Vidyaranya's introduction, 'By the

whole of that inert matter the self-luminous Consciousness is

veiled', informs us that (a) the cause (inert matter) veils the

Consciousness. That is why, in the presence of ajnana persisting,

Consciousness is not apprehended as it is. But in Samadhi/Sakshatkara

where ajnana is absent, there is the apprehension of Consciousness in

its pristine pure form. (b) the effect (inert matter) veils the

Consciousness. That is why in waking and dream, engrossed as one is

with the manifest duality, one is unable to apprehend Consciousness

as it is. Thus inert matter, jada, both as the cause and as the

effect, veils Consciousness, the Chit.>

 

The sentence in the Sri Vidyaranya's introduction , " by the whole

of that inert matter the self-luminous Consciousness is veiled"

appears to be

wrongly conceived by the author. How can the inert matter veil the

self-lumilous

consciousness? Self-luminous Consciousness which is none other than

Brahman is

ananta , Then inert matter also should be ananta to cover Brahman

which is also

ananta. This is absurd because there cannot be two anantas. Probably

the word

"Veiling" may have a different meaning .

Secondly, who has witnessed inert matter veiling Self-luminous

Consciousness ? The witness also should be consciousness to witness

the veiling

happening. Are there two consciousnesses, one to witness the other

being veiled

by inert matter?

Is the above statement a verifiable fact since the author has

written it as a fact? If it cannot be verified it becomes a dogma or

speculation and in

Vedanta and Sri Sankara's tradition dogmas and unverifiable

statements do not

find place as can be seen from the Great Acharya's commentaries.

 

With respectful regards,

Sreenivasa murthy.

 

 

Namaste Sri Sreenivasa Murthy ji,

 

The original wording of Sri Vidyaranya is :

 

"yathA loke sAkalyena rAhugrastaH chandramAH svakIyaOjjvalatvasya

AcchAditatvena svayam malino ambare bhAsamaano rAhum cha avabhaasyan

tena rAhuNA tAdAtmyam prApta iva avabhAsate, evam advayAnanda

ekarasaH chidAtmA svayam anAdirUpa avidyApaTalena bahuvidha-

dvaitarUpeNa jagatA yukto duHkhI, svachaitanyena svAtmAnamavidyAm cha

avabhAsayan avidyayA tAdAtmyam prApta iva 'aham ajnaH' iti ekiikritya

vyavaharati. so'yam ekIkaraaro avidyaagranthiH."

 

The overall translation "By the whole of that inert matter the self-

luminous Consciousness is veiled. By Consciousness thus veiled, both

itself and the inert matter shine forth, just as both the moon and

Rahu – the shadow eclipsing it – shine by the moon. Thereby

Consciousness neither becomes extinct nor loses its light, any more

than the moon." is quite alright.

 

This example is used by the Acharya Himself in His Sridakshinamurti

stotram sixth verse:

 

rAhugrasta divaakarendu sadrisho maayaa-samAcchAdanAt….

The 'Acchaadana' of the Self by maayaa is quite accepted in Vedanta.

We find another reference similar to this in the Hastamalakiya for

which there is said to be the Acharya's own commentary:

 

12. 'As he whose eye is covered with a cloud thinks in his delusion

that the sun is clouded and has lost its light, so that soul which

seems bound to him whose mind's eye is blind,--that Soul, essentially

eternal perception, am I.'

 

The above example makes it amply clear that the veiling object need

not be (a) luminous and (b) of the same dimensions as the veiled

object. So, avidya need not be ananta like Atman.

 

Again you ask:

 

Secondly, who has witnessed inert matter veiling Self-luminous

Consciousness ? The witness also should be consciousness to witness

the veiling

happening. Are there two consciousnesses, one to witness the other

being veiled

by inert matter?

Is the above statement a verifiable fact since the author has

written it as a fact? If it cannot be verified it becomes a dogma or

speculation and in

Vedanta and Sri Sankara's tradition dogmas and unverifiable

statements do not

find place as can be seen from the Great Acharya's commentaries.

 

With respectful regards,

Sreenivasa murthy.

 

Reply:

It is accepted in Vedanta that Avidya is anaadi. So, no one need to

witness the Self being veiled. The Adhyasa bhashya itself

says, 'mithyaajnaana nimittaH, naisargikoyam lokavyavahaaraH'.

 

The Acharya in His commentary to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.17

says:

 

vastusvarUpa-AvaraNaatmikaa hi saa, pravartaka-bIjatvam tu

pratipadyate. andhatvamiva gartaadi-patana-pravritti-hetuH.

 

(It (Avidya) merely conceals the true nature of Reality; it might,

however, be said to be the seed for initiating action, just as

blindness is the cause of one's falling into a pit, etc.)

 

Further, the Sutra bhashya II.i.12.36 gives:

na cha avidyaa kevalaa vaishamyasya kaaranam, ekarUpatvaat.

raagaadiklesha-vaasanaakshipta-karmaapekshayaa vaishamyakarii syaat.

 

(Nor is ignorance by itself a source of inequality, it being

homogeneous. However, it can be the creator of inequality because

of the tendencies acquired as a result of previous action motivated

by love, hatred etc.)

 

The Vivekachudamani 115 says:

113. Avriti or the veiling power is the power of Tamas, which makes

Brahman appear other than what It is. It is this that causes man's

repeated transmigrations, and starts the action of the projecting

power (Vikshepa).

 

The Acharya says in the Advaitapancharatnam:

 

Rajjvajnaanaat bhaati rajjau yathaa ahiH

svaatmaajnaanaat aatmano jivabhaavaH

(Due to the ignorance of the rope, there appears the serpent in a

rope. Likewise, due to the ignorance pertaining to the Self, there

appears the jivahood for atman.)

 

There are references to this veiling or primordial avidya in the

Aanumaanika-adhikaranam bhashya. The Gaudapada karika 16 says:

Anaadi maayayaa suptah ….

 

The Acharya's bhashya for this is: yah ayam samsaarii jivaH, sa

ubhayalakshanena tattva-apratibodharUpeNa bIjAtmanA,

anyathaagrahaNalakshaNena cha anaadi-kaala-pravrittena

maayaalakshaNena svapnena….

(This samsari jiva, owing to two kinds of ignorance persisting from

beginningless time, called maaya : (a) the basic ignorance of not

knowing his true self and (b) the apprehending of what is not the

truth …)

 

Sri Sureshwaracharya says in the Taittiriya Vaartika 7:

Erroneous cognition arises on account of the ignorance of Brahman

which is always of the nature of the Self which is devoid of

duality.

 

Finally,

That one finds oneself to be ignorant and is in need of the teaching

of the Truth itself is enough proof of the veiling by Avidya. There

lies the verification. That the above stated matter is not dogma but

is the teaching of the Acharya Himself and the Advaita Acharyas who

have followed His footsteps is indisputable.

 

Thank you Sir, and pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

>"subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v >

 

> >H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

 

>The sentence in the Sri Vidyaranya's introduction , " by the whole

>of that inert matter the self-luminous Consciousness is veiled"

>appears to be

>wrongly conceived by the author. How can the inert matter veil the

>self-lumilous

>consciousness? Self-luminous Consciousness which is none other than

>Brahman is

>ananta , Then inert matter also should be ananta to cover Brahman

>which is also

>ananta. This is absurd because there cannot be two anantas. Probably

>the word

>"Veiling" may have a different meaning .

>Secondly, who has witnessed inert matter veiling Self-luminous

>Consciousness ? The witness also should be consciousness to witness

>the veiling

>happening. Are there two consciousnesses, one to witness the other

>being veiled

>by inert matter?

>Is the above statement a verifiable fact since the author has

>written it as a fact? If it cannot be verified it becomes a dogma or

>speculation and in

>Vedanta and Sri Sankara's tradition dogmas and unverifiable

>statements do not

>find place as can be seen from the Great Acharya's commentaries.

>

>With respectful regards,

>Sreenivasa murthy.

 

Shree Subbu has provided an exhaustive response to a valid question by

Sreenivasa murthy.

 

Here is my 2c.

 

If we understand that Brahman is the all-pervading consciousness then the

whole discussion has no relevance. It is ekam eva advitiiyam, one without a

second.

 

Since I am seeing something other than Brahman while the scripture says

there is nothing other than Brahman, an explanation is required to account

for why I see something different from what it is. This is the essence of

adhyaasa that Bhagavad pAda Shankara presents beautifully in his adhyAsa

bhAShya. If I see a rope where there is snake, then obviously I do not know

that there is a rope where I am seeing the snake. Hence, ignorance of the

rope is the basic problem for my seeing something other than what it.

 

Scripture says there is only non-dual Brahman, but I see duality, with I,

the conscious entity, seeing an inert non-conscious entity 'out there'. I

would not see the inert entity if I can 'see' Brahman; and the problem is

solved. The scriptures have done their job.

 

Why I am seeing something other than Brahman - obviously, I do not know that

there is really 'no inert' entity 'out there'. What is there is only

undifferentiable consciousness that I am. Given this as our current

situation, we use arthApatti pramANa to deduce that

1. I am ignorant of Brahman (which also means I am ignorant that I am that

all pervading conscious Brahman)

2. And my mind because of ignorance of the fact projects something other

than conscious entity 'out there'.

 

Hence, we can attribute the cause as ignorance and ignorance born power of

projection of the mind supported by the consciousness itself. This is all

'intellectual deduction' based on the current situation that we find

ourselves in. There is no 'really' ignorance out there covering Brahman for

me 'to see’ the non-existent inert entities 'out there'. Nothing can cover

Brahman. I am able to see 'the apparent ignorance' that appears to cover

Brahman and apparently providing a 'cause' for projecting an inert entity

'out there' by my 'inert' mind supported by conscious entity - is all part

of the same adhyAsa or error of superimposition or more formally we can call

it as 'mAya'.

 

Brahman cannot be covered by anything much less by ignorance. Since I am

seeing something other than Brahman, the explanation is the inert entity

'ignorance', 'as though' covering Brahman since I am seeing not Brahman out

there but unconscious inert entity, the world of objects.

 

Hence, the expiations are from the point of Jiiva who thinks or understands

that he is different from Brahman.

 

Shree Vidyaranya's statements are obviously addressed to Jiivas who are

seeing something other than Brahman out there. Hence, they are only

explanations to account non-Brahman ‘out there’. Let us try to see the

Brahman ‘out there’, then all these 'ignorance' and its apparent causations

all are vanished in the mind of the perceiver; nay even the notion of the

mind separate from me the conscious entity itself dissolves into myself that

I am. .

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

_______________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Thanks to all for responding. I still have some doubts.

Please see some inline responses. Please respond if you find time.

regards,

Om Namah Sivaya

 

advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" >

> Since I am seeing something other than Brahman while the scripture

says

> there is nothing other than Brahman, an explanation is required to

account

> for why I see something different from what it is. This is the

essence of

> adhyaasa that Bhagavad pAda Shankara presents beautifully in his

adhyAsa

> bhAShya.

 

Brahman cannot be seen with eyes since Brahman is not made up of

matter. So why do we need theory of Adhyasa ? That which belongs to

a different realm - different plane of existence, purely spiritual

cannot be materially conceived or seen. That which is spiritual is

said to be subtler than space. Brahman is not like a solid rock on

which a building has been constructed so I don't see anything wrong

with seeing a mountain where there is a mountain. It is our limited

vision or gross vision because that which is perceived by the 5

senses can only be material - even for a jnani. So if scriptures say

that "All this is verily Brahman", it does not in anyway deny the

existence of material world - it just means that there is something

subtler than whatever you perceive and that is the subtratum of

everything. Without consciousness, I cannot even perceive the world,

right ?

 

 

 

>

> Why I am seeing something other than Brahman - obviously, I do not

know that

> there is really 'no inert' entity 'out there'. What is there is

only

> undifferentiable consciousness that I am. Given this as our

current

> situation, we use arthApatti pramANa to deduce that

 

Nobody has ever seen Brahman - it can only be experienced. So your

statement that I am seeing something other than Brahman does not

carry much weight. I don't see any issue with seeing a jagat

different from me. Again, why we need Adhyasa theory here ? Why do

we deny Prakruti - Prakruti is Bhagavan. Even Swami Dayananda says

that. If you say that I don't deny Prakruti but consider it to be

Brahman, then it violates the very theory of Adhyasa. How can you

say Prakruti is Brahman and at the same time say that Prakruti is a

superimposition on Brahman. Brahman is not material, so nothing can

be imposed on Brahman.

 

 

> 1. I am ignorant of Brahman (which also means I am ignorant that I

am that

> all pervading conscious Brahman)

> 2. And my mind because of ignorance of the fact projects

something other

> than conscious entity 'out there'.

[Guest guest]

Shree Vidyaranya's statements are obviously addressed to Jiivas who are

seeing something other than Brahman out there. Hence, they are only

explanations to account non-Brahman 'out there'.

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, all this intellectual jugglery happens only in vyavahAra where

notional jIva sees *something* out of him...Ofcourse shankara himself wrote

his prasthAna trayI commentary for jIva in vyavahAra and not for the

jnAni...In absolute reality no sAdhaka, nor sAdhana & even no concept of

mOksha since brahman is yEkaM yEva advitIyaM...says gaudapAdAchArya.

 

So, it is quite obvious that none of the advaita Acharya-s say that avidyA

exists in absolute reality by showing its colours. The queries pertaining

to avidyA & its role in brahma jignAsa etc. etc. are subjects for

discussion in transactional reality only. If we say avidyA does not have

AcchAdana or AvaraNa shakti to cover the chaitanya it is an argument

against the propagators of the objective reality of avidyA thinking it as a

positive entity and ofcourse this argument & these different descriptions

of avidyA are also in the realm of vyavahAra only. As we all know, the

clinical understanding of the concept of avidyA and its *removal* are

indispensable requirement while doing brahma jignAsa from *shankara's

advaita perspective...because shankara himself says absence of avidyA

itself the very state of moksha. So, in my humble opionion it is certainly

matters how one understands this concept of avidyA in the process of brahma

jignAsa.

 

If avidyA or mithyAjnAna what has been postulated here has the potency of

AvaraNa or AcchAdana & vikshEpa shakti then that would imply that it is a

positive entity that which has the parallel reality to REALITY..this

conclusion, in turn forced us to think about the impracticality of mOksha

and also it hampers the absolute non dual nature of parabrahman. In short

it is against shankara siddhAnta to assert that avidyA has the AvaraNa &

vikshEpa shakti since Shankara himself says in gItA bhAshya that avidyA is

of three types, namely lack of knowledge (agrahaNa), doubtful knowledge

(saMshaya) and wrong knowledge (viparIta jnAna). But according to this

thread, there is a hint that avidyA is an objective positive entity which

has its own powers!!!. Whereas, avidyA is, according to shankara, is quite

subjective, a mere mental concept only. Since this avidyA is subjective

notional concept, there is every possibility to eradicate this ignorance

through correct knowledge (jnAna). The theory what has been floating here

about the concept of avidyA & its play in vyAvahAra are not adequate & not

according to *shankara siddhAnta* & moreover it can´t help us to comprehend

the absolute non dual nature of parabrahman.

 

Finally, it is not appropriate to claim that any definition of avidyA would

fit-in in the name of vyAvahAra just because the absolute reality is

beyond the reach of mind & words. As we all know, with the help of these

descriptions (vichAra) only we have to finally transcend the vyAvahAric

reality & march towards the ultimate. If the guide book what we have in

our hand itself is wrong, how can we expect it to be the source material

for guiding us to the destination!!??

 

My parama guruji, H.H. Sri Sri Satchidaanandendra saraswati has spent more

than six decades in studying shankara siddhAnta & explained these concepts

in a crystal clear clarity by meticulously holding & quoting shankara's

prasthAna trayI bhAshya. I humbly request members to study his works to

know the correct position of shankara.

 

Kindly pardon me if I hurt anybody's sentiments.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Shree mahadevaadvaita - My PraNAms.

 

--- mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote:

 

>

> Brahman cannot be seen with eyes since Brahman is not made up of

> matter. So why do we need theory of Adhyasa ? That which belongs to

> a different realm - different plane of existence, purely spiritual

> cannot be materially conceived or seen. That which is spiritual is

> said to be subtler than space.

 

It is not that Brahman is made up or not made up of matter. There is no

absolute matter for any thing to be made up. Infinite cannot be 'made

up of' since the very concept of 'made up of' makes the infinite a

finite entity. There are no different realms to start with either. The

scripture gives an example for illustration - just like ring, bangle and

necklace are nothing but gold. Although we use for understanding that

ring, bangle etc are made up of gold, there is no ring, bangle or

necklace other than gold to be 'made up of'. Ring, bangle and necklace

are only names for forms of gold. Gold can boast that it is not even

the 'material cause' for ring, bangle and necklace. It has not

transformed into these forms. We for our transactions differentiate the

three different forms, ring, bangle and necklace 'as though' distinct

from each other and utilize each form for different use. This process

of differentiation and utility is nothing to do with Gold.

In the same way, Brahman alone is there. It is of the nature of

'existence-consciousness-bliss'. Hence, there is nothing other than

consciousness 'out there', 'in-there' and 'everywhere'. Even the

seer-seen duality is not there since it is nothing but pure

consciousness. That is what scripture says and that is the pramANa.

Now since I am seeing some inert matter there where there is no inert

matter to start with, that is adhyaasa. Just as I am seeing live snake

out there where there is an inert rope, which is adhyaasa. Hence,

adhyAsa is an explanation for seeing any duality. Obviously, in any

seeing there is a 'seer' and 'seen' and seer is the conscious entity and

seen is the inert entity. However, both are supported by the existent

consciousness as 'substantive' since there is nothing other than

Brahman.

 

Actually there is no realms either - the pAramArthika satyam is the

satyasya satyam - the absolute truth. In order to understand this

clearly only Mandukya presents the analysis of dream world where we see

matter as though it is real but we know it is not. Turiiyam is not some

state but is there in all states as the very substantive.

 

 

>Brahman is not like a solid rock on

> which a building has been constructed so I don't see anything wrong

> with seeing a mountain where there is a mountain.

 

Not true either. There is no solid rock just as there is no solid rock

in the dream world for me to create a building in my dream. If you

examine further - Upanishad provides a sequence in the 'apparent'

creation - from Brahman - space and all the way to earth. Just as our

waking mind divides in to two -'as though' it is a solid rock as well as

the one who can get hit by that rock, both in my dream as if they are

real- it is the same way that Brahman appears as both seer of the rock,

a conscious entity and the rock the inert entity. Both are nothing but

Brahman. Therefore, every part of the sold rock is nothing but Brahman.

However, are there any solid rocks in Brahman - Absolutely not it is one

homogenous mass of consciousness. Hence seeing sold rock out there,

where is only Brhamna is only a bhrama and not pramaa or it is adhyaasa

or error of seeing something other than what it is.

 

 

>It is our limited

> vision or gross vision because that which is perceived by the 5

> senses can only be material - even for a jnani.

 

In the very vision, there is a duality established by the mind. Please

understand there is difference between the limitations of the equipments

vs. 'our limitations'. The duality is seen through the senses and the

mind. Equipements are limited that does not make us limited. If we take

ourselves as the equipments, then there is an error and that is

adhyaasa. However, taking that duality as reality is the delusion of

the mind. That mind need to be reeducated that what I see as dual is

not real, but only it appears to be so due to adhyaasa. If that is

clearly understood, even though I may see duality due to limitations of

the equipments, 'I do not see the duality' in the sense I understand

that it is not real but only apparent. Then I am jnaani. The paper

tiger does not frighten me any more once I know it is only an apparent

tiger and not real one. If I see distorted images due to concavity or

convexity of the mirror, I am not carried away from what I see due to

properties of the equipments and consider myslef as distorted. I

clearly understand where the problem is and therefore will not be

affected by my visions. Hence no more samsaara due to the vision

through limited equiments. My eyes see that earth is flat and there is

sunrise and sunset. From Shastra pramAna I gather that earth is round

and there is no sunraise or sunset. I can still operate with the world

with clear understanding of the world.

 

 

So if scriptures say

> that "All this is verily Brahman", it does not in anyway deny the

> existence of material world -

 

It does. It says there is nothing other than Brahman and by definition

Brahman that is infiniteness and of the nature of consciousness is all

there is. Hence reality to the matter 'seen' is denied from the point

of truth.

 

 

>it just means that there is something

> subtler than whatever you perceive and that is the subtratum of

> everything. Without consciousness, I cannot even perceive the world,

> right ?

 

Substratum means what - it is like gold as substratum of ring, bangle

and necklace. There is nothing other than gold there. Ring, bangle and

necklace are only names for forms. There are no 'rings, bangles or

necklaces' out there other than gold. Hence what is there is only

Brahman with names and forms. Absolute realm is not something different

- it is has to be there in all realms. PAramArthika satyam is only we

call it but it is the only truth that is there. VyAvahArika satyam comes

into operation only we are operating with adjunct upAdhis (senses and

mind) in which apparent duality appears. Appearance is not the problem

- that is the nature of the mind and senses. However, misunderstanding

the appearances as real is ignorance. That is the problem. That is

adhyaasa.

 

There is no world separate from I the consciousness. Please study the

notes on Mandukya. Because of these questions only I went into

elaborate discussion as introduction before I take the mantra portion.

Unless these concepts are clear, it is difficulty to appreciate the

beauty of the Upanishad's teaching.

 

>

> Nobody has ever seen Brahman - it can only be experienced.

 

No. It is not true. Then scripture become useless. In fact everybody

is 'seeing' only Brahman but mistaking it as something other than

Brahman. One cannot experience it without seeing it. It is not the

lack of experience but lack of correct understanding that what I

experience all the time is nothing but Brahman and Brahman alone. Here

the experiencer, the experienced, and the experiencing all are Brahman -

"Brahmaarpanam brahma haviH ....".

 

 

So your

> statement that I am seeing something other than Brahman does not

> carry much weight.

 

I am glad that it does not carry any weight but the one who is carrying

and the weight that we cannot carry are all nothing but Brahman only.

When I said I am seeing something other than Braham, what I meant to say

is I am actually 'seeing' Brahman but taking it as something other than

Brahman. That is adhyaasa.

 

 

>I don't see any issue with seeing a jagat

> different from me. Again, why we need Adhyasa theory here ? Why do

> we deny Prakruti - Prakruti is Bhagavan.

 

We all see the jagat something different from us just as we all see the

dream jagat something different from us. That does not make dream jagat

any real, just because I am seeing it. Similarly in the waking world

too.

 

We are not denying prakRiti - PrakRiti is mAya. mAyantu prakRitim

vidyAt says Upanishad. Know prakRiti is mAya.

 

Now when you say PrakRiti is BhagavAn - obviously you are implying that

Bhagavan is some inert entity. If prakRiti is BhagavAn and if BhagavAn

is a conscious entity, and since there is nothing other than BhagavAn,

what we are denying is not the apparent duality not the reality that

everything is Brahman or BhagavAn.

 

 

>Even Swami Dayananda says

> that. If you say that I don't deny Prakruti but consider it to be

> Brahman, then it violates the very theory of Adhyasa. How can you

> say Prakruti is Brahman and at the same time say that Prakruti is a

> superimposition on Brahman. Brahman is not material, so nothing can

> be imposed on Brahman.

 

What swamiji is communicating is what the scripture says. There is

misunderstanding of the teaching. If PrakRiti is understood as Brahman

- if this understanding is factual or fully assimulated as the truth not

just as a thought - then the problem is already solved. However, if I

do not transact with the world with the understanding that it is nothing

but Brahman then there is confusion in my understanding. The adhyaasa is

an error exists only for those who do not appreciate the fact that

PrakRiti is Brahman but take it as some inert entity to deal with. If

you can understand Scriptural statement that everything is nothing but

Brahman then there is no more adhyaasa - I am seeing 'out there' what it

is rather than something other than what it is.

 

Bottom line is - if you can accept that prakRiti is BhagavAn and

BhagavAn is all pervading, since he is omnipresent, then there cannot be

anything other than BhagavAn. If I see something other than bhagavaan

then there is adhyaasa or error - I am trying to superimpose something

other than bhagavaan on bhagavaan. That is the essence of adhyAsa.

 

If you have clear understanding that everything or prakRiti is nothing

but BhagavAn and operate only with that understanding, then your vision

is clear. Please see that as the very truth of the nature and reflect

in all your trasactions this very truth. Then kaama, kRodha, lobha etc

are all gone since we are dealing with BhagavAn, who is omnipresent and

omnicient.

 

Let us just surrender to that Lord who is everything that we touch, feel

and trasact with - There is no more me this little ego who thinks he is

separte from that Lord. In that very surrenderence, recognize that

every thing is nothing but BhagavAn only.

 

'yo mAm pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati' - who sees Me every

where and everything in Me, he cannot be away from Me and I am not away

from him - says the Lord.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Shree Bhaskar - My PraNAms.

 

 

>bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com

 

>

>So, it is quite obvious that none of the advaita Acharya-s say that avidyA

>exists in absolute reality by showing its colours. The queries pertaining

>to avidyA & its role in brahma jignAsa etc. etc. are subjects for

>discussion in transactional reality only.

 

For some reason, my mail picks up only some mails and not others. I

have to come to hotmail in order to see some of the mails I am missing in

account. Bhaskarji your mails to adviataL and now of course VadAvaLi

(since I withdrew my membership and stopped posting there since I refused to

respond to dvaitins jalpa) do not reach me - just a side note.

 

avidya and moxa are relevant for a sAdhana and sAdhaka. I do agree that

BhAva ruupa avidya concept came into prominence later to Shankara. But I am

not sure how I much importance one should give to this, since we are more

concerned about vidya than avidya.

 

Technically I do agree that which is beginning less but ends cannot be of

the nature of Bhava ruupa.

 

AvaraNa shakti and vixepa shakti - without getting into any exhaustive

details - in my understanding avidya does not have any shakties since it is

abhAva ruupa. It cannot be locus of shaktIs.

 

I do not see the rope as rope. 'ignorance' is covering the rope- knowledge

is only an explanation of the fact that I am unable to see the truth as

truth. I do not see Brahman which is nirguNa, since senses can only gather

guNas and I see objects with guNas; therefore conclude that because of

limitation of the intellect that there is an object out there, rather

Brahman out there (please see my discussion on the attributive knowledge).

The judgment call is made by an ignorant intellect, supported by

consciousness, based on the knowledge of the sense input. avidya with

AvaraNa and vixepa, are only explanations for the fact that I am seeing

something other than a rope or something other than Brahman.

 

The explanations are logical enough to proceed in my SAdhana. Why I am

ignorant to start with or why did I become ignorant- then one has to resort

that ignorance is Anaadi and no further explanation can be given other than

anirvachaniiyam. Here we are taking scripture as pramANa that sarvam

kalvidam brahma or neha nAnAsti kinchana (everything is Brahman and there is

nothing other than Brahman), since we are seeing something other than

Brahman and we see ourselves limited etc, adhyaasa is brought in along with

ignorance with AvaraNa and vixepa shaktIs - to provide inquisitive minds a

logic to understand the existing affairs in order to proceed further in

sAdhana, in trying to realize the truth expounded in the scriptures.

 

Beyond that I am not sure any further knowledge about avidya is required in

order to help in sAdhana.

 

Anyway this is what I feel. Open to corrections.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

_______________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Shree mahadevaadvaita - My PraNAms.

 

 

Namaste,

 

Just this one objection raised by the member is replied herein:

The objection: Brahman is not material, so nothing can be imposed on

Brahman.

 

The reply: The Acharya, in the Adhyasa bhashya, raises a very similar

question and answers it. The portion is quoted hereunder:

 

The objection: But how is it possible that on the interior Self

which itself is not an object there should be superimposed objects

and their attributes? For everyone superimposes an object only on

such other objects as are placed before him (i.e. in contact with his

sense-organs), and you have said before that the interior Self which

is entirely disconnected from the idea of the Thou (the Non-Ego) is

never an object.

 

The Reply: It, the Self, is not, we reply, non-object in the

absolute sense. For it is the object of the notion of the Ego, and

the interior Self is well known to exist on account of its immediate

(intuitive) presentation. Nor is it an exceptionless rule that

objects can be superimposed only on such other objects as are before

us, i.e. in contact with our sense-organs; for non-discerning men

superimpose on the ether, which is not the object of sensuous

perception, dark-blue colour. Hence it follows that the assumption of

the Non-Self being superimposed on the interior Self is not

unreasonable.

(unquote)

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Mahadevaji,

Hari Om. Pranams.

 

Sharing my 2 cents because I too had those exact questions sometime

ago. It is likely that this is too preliminary for you. In that case

please ignore.

 

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita

wrote:

 

> How can you say Prakruti is Brahman and at the same time say that

Prakruti is a superimposition on Brahman.

 

Ans:- Let's take snake-rope example. Say you are seeing a snake in

the dark. I had seen it in daytime and touched it also. I know that

it is in fact a rope. So when you tell me "There is a snake out

there" I tell you "No, THAT SNAKE IS ROPE."(Jagat is Brahman) This

is how snake is rope, but since you are seeing snake, it is

superimposition also. You can now apply this to Jagat-Brahman.

 

("Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahman" Mahavakya is proved by "baadh". By

"negating snake", the oneness between snake and rope is established.)

 

> Brahman cannot be seen with eyes since Brahman is not made up of

> matter. So why do we need theory of Adhyasa ? >

 

Ans:- Even after telling you that "Snake is Rope", you are not

believing me. You are still scared. So I come down to your level and

first describe the snake fully to you. Then I say "See, how the tail

doesn't move". "See, how the head doesn't moveSee, how the body

doesn't move" Now slowly slowly you start entertaining the idea that

it may not be a snake. Then when you are convinced and have faith in

me, you are ready to touch it. Once you touch it you know for

yourself that it is in fact a rope. Likewise, Masters in their

compassion first come down to our level to channel and guide our

thoughts and then slowly take us up to their level.

 

Another example is if we want to remove dirt, we have to spray

cleaning liquid on top of it. Then we take wet cloth and get rid of

dirt and cleaning liquid both. Without spraying cleaning liquid,

dirt cannot come off, that is why we need theory of Adhyasa.

 

Jai Gajanan. Jai Shri Ram.

 

Love and Regards,

Padma

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri MahadevAdvaita:

 

You have raised several interesting questions along with keeping your

doubts fully intact. Why do we need the theory of Adhyasa is a very

good question and you question along with your doubts validate its

necessity! The question of Adhyasa exists at the vyavaharika level

where we still possess erroneous notions about the Truth! The

presence of doubts signifies that we have not yet attained

the "absolute wisdom," and consequently, we seek the help of Adhyasa

theory to clear our doubts. Every question on a `wrong notion' is

answered through the creation of another notion which we can't be

sure whether it is free from errors. This path of enquiry will stop

when we free our self from all notions that do include the theory of

Adhyasa. In other words theory of Adhyasa is a necessary evil to get

rid of all evils including itself.

 

The list had a month long discussion on "Whence Adhyasa" and a

compiled pdf version is available at the advaitin.net homepage at the

following link:

http://www.advaitin.net/WhenceAdhyasa.pdf

 

Sri Chittaranjan Naik , a member of this list has written a 10 part

series on "A realist view of Advaita" and it is available at Dennis

Waite's homepage at the following link:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/discourses.htm

 

I recommend you to read the above to clear some of your doubts.

There is no guarantee that your doubts will be completely cleared. I

have observed in this list during the past 8 years that "determined

intellects" have always found ways to sustain their doubts in spite

of honest efforts made by others. The purpose of all these

discussions is to cultivate `faith and conviction" on our scriptures

and the wisdom expressed by the sages of the Upanishads.

 

Sometimes we do get awakened from the middle of a dream with the

appearance of the roaring lion in the middle of a thick and dark

forest! This illusive roaring lion became necessary for us to

recognize what we experienced was nothing but a dream! When we are

awakened, we do discard the unreality of the dream along with the

lion! The adhyasa theory serves as the `roaring lion" to help us to

recognize and discard all erroneous notions about the Truth. It is

inevitable for us to discard the adhyasa theory as well when we get

fully established with the Truth!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Namaste, Thanks to all for responding. I still have some doubts.

> Please see some inline responses. Please respond if you find time.

> regards,

>

> Again, why we need Adhyasa theory here ? Why do

> we deny Prakruti - Prakruti is Bhagavan. Even Swami Dayananda says

> that. If you say that I don't deny Prakruti but consider it to be

> Brahman, then it violates the very theory of Adhyasa.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri MahadevAdvaita:

 

You have raised several interesting questions along with keeping your

doubts fully intact. Why do we need the theory of Adhyasa is a very

good question and you question along with your doubts validate its

necessity! The question of Adhyasa exists at the vyavaharika level

where we still possess erroneous notions about the Truth! The

presence of doubts signifies that we have not yet attained

the "absolute wisdom," and consequently, we seek the help of Adhyasa

theory to clear our doubts. Every question on a `wrong notion' is

answered through the creation of another notion which we can't be

sure whether it is free from errors. This path of enquiry will stop

when we free our self from all notions that do include the theory of

Adhyasa. In other words theory of Adhyasa is a necessary evil to get

rid of all evils including itself.

 

The list had a month long discussion on "Whence Adhyasa" and a

compiled pdf version is available at the advaitin.net homepage at the

following link:

http://www.advaitin.net/WhenceAdhyasa.pdf

 

Sri Chittaranjan Naik , a member of this list has written a 10 part

series on "A realist view of Advaita" and it is available at Dennis

Waite's homepage at the following link:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/discourses.htm

 

I recommend you to read the above to clear some of your doubts.

There is no guarantee that your doubts will be completely cleared. I

have observed in this list during the past 8 years that "determined

intellects" have always found ways to sustain their doubts in spite

of honest efforts made by others. The purpose of all these

discussions is to cultivate `faith and conviction" on our scriptures

and the wisdom expressed by the sages of the Upanishads.

 

Sometimes we do get awakened from the middle of a dream with the

appearance of the roaring lion in the middle of a thick and dark

forest! This illusive roaring lion became necessary for us to

recognize what we experienced was nothing but a dream! When we are

awakened, we do discard the unreality of the dream along with the

lion! The adhyasa theory serves as the `roaring lion" to help us to

recognize and discard all erroneous notions about the Truth. It is

inevitable for us to discard the adhyasa theory as well when we get

fully established with the Truth!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Namaste, Thanks to all for responding. I still have some doubts.

> Please see some inline responses. Please respond if you find time.

> regards,

>

> Again, why we need Adhyasa theory here ? Why do

> we deny Prakruti - Prakruti is Bhagavan. Even Swami Dayananda says

> that. If you say that I don't deny Prakruti but consider it to be

> Brahman, then it violates the very theory of Adhyasa.

[Guest guest]

Namasta Subbu-ji

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nor is it an exceptionless rule that

objects can be superimposed only on such other objects as are before

us, i.e. in contact with our sense-organs; for non-discerning men

superimpose on the ether, which is not the object of sensuous

perception, dark-blue colour. Hence it follows that the assumption of

the Non-Self being superimposed on the interior Self is not

unreasonable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

This example needs to be modified to match current scientific

knowledge as we can now explain the blue color of the sky

scientifically, without requiring the concept that the blue color of

the sky is a superimposition of dark blue color on ether.

 

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light

moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass

straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is

affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is

absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then

radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the

sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light

reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead,

the sky looks blue.

 

Please refer to the following urls.

 

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/bluesky.html

 

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

namaskaram

but hershji...

pardon me for my (mis ?) understanding...

when we talk about the superimposition,

is there an object " sky" there at all?

is it not mere space and that space there looks "blue" ?

even with modified modern explanation, does not the example stands good??

pranam

 

hersh_b <hershbhasin > wrote:

Namasta Subbu-ji

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nor is it an exceptionless rule that

objects can be superimposed only on such other objects as are before

us, i.e. in contact with our sense-organs; for non-discerning men

superimpose on the ether, which is not the object of sensuous

perception, dark-blue colour. Hence it follows that the assumption of

the Non-Self being superimposed on the interior Self is not

unreasonable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

This example needs to be modified to match current scientific

knowledge as we can now explain the blue color of the sky

scientifically, without requiring the concept that the blue color of

the sky is a superimposition of dark blue color on ether.

 

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light

moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass

straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is

affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is

absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then

radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the

sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light

reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead,

the sky looks blue.

 

Please refer to the following urls.

 

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/bluesky.html

 

Regards

Hersh

 

 

 

 

 

India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new Click here

Catch all the FIFA World Cup 2006 action on India Click here

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin wrote:

>

> Namasta Subbu-ji

>

>>

> This example needs to be modified to match current scientific

> knowledge as we can now explain the blue color of the sky

> scientifically, without requiring the concept that the blue color

of

> the sky is a superimposition of dark blue color on ether.

>

> The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light

> moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass

> straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is

> affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light

is

> absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then

> radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the

> sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue

light

> reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead,

> the sky looks blue.

>

> Please refer to the following urls.

>

> http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

> http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/bluesky.html

>

>

> Regards

> Hersh

>

Namaste Hersh ji

 

Thanks for that clarification. Actually, i was a little hesitant to

post that piece with that meaning of 'dark blue'. That was found in

Thibaut's translation. The actual wording of the Commentary of

Shankara is: 'apratyakShe api hi AkAshe bAlAH tala-malinataadi

adhyasyanti'. The authoritative commentaries have this to say on this

sentence:

 

The Bhamati: baalaaH = those who do not enquire into things, depend

upon what others show or say, sometimes positing the black colour of

the earth's shadow, sometimes the white colour of the sun's light and

describe the akasha as of the colour of the leaf of the blue-lotus or

the pure white of a flock of swans. Even here, there is the

superimposition of something seen earlier on what is being seen now.

Further, they superimpose concavity (talam) in the form of an

inverted massive sapphire frying pan (kadaai).

 

The Ratnaprabha gloss also says more or less on the same lines as the

above. The Nyayanirnaya of Anandagiri adds to the above description,

the 'smoky' attribute as a superimposition by the dull-witted.

 

The translation of Swami Gambhirananda says: ..for boys superimpose

the ideas of surface (i.e.concavity) and dirt on space (i.e.sky)that

is not an object of sense-perception.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

>"hersh_b" <hershbhasin >

 

>

>This example needs to be modified to match current scientific

>knowledge as we can now explain the blue color of the sky

>scientifically, without requiring the concept that the blue color of

>the sky is a superimposition of dark blue color on ether.

 

Hershaji, PraNAms.

 

The current explanation not withstanding, Bhagavatpaada Shankara of 7-8th

Century uses the sky example for adhyAsa or error of superimposition. The

example is still valid as the sky still looks blue during day time, for

whatever the scientific reason, while it is not intrinsically blue.

adhyaasa arises in the superimposition of properties or attributes that do

not belong to the substantive that one sees. The sense of blueness

superimposed on the sky as its property provides most subtle example for

adhyaasa. It still apears to be blue even after knowing that sky is not

really blue.

 

The fact of the matter is 'visibility of the sky' is only due to the

objects in the sky - including those that contribute to its apparent

blueness.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

_______________

FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ram mohan Ji

>when we talk about the superimposition,is there an object " sky"

there at all?

>is it not mere space and that space there looks "blue" ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The argument was that an all pervasive substance (ether) exists and

we superimpose the mental construct of "dark-blue" color onto it (

quote.."for non-discerning men superimpose on the ether, which is not

the object of sensuous perception, dark-blue color".). In other words

ether exists and the dark blue color of sky does not really exist. It

is a illusion. We see something that is not really there. According

to you even the sky does not exist but somehow we see only blue space.

 

Physicists have tried to prove the existence of ether but failed.

Experiments by Michelson-Morley to detect the "ether-wind" failed

(http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html). The only

possible conclusion from this series of very difficult experiments

was that the whole concept of an all-pervading ether was wrong from

the start.

 

However Maxwell and later Einstein have introduced the concept of

electromagnetic fields. If we replace ether with the all pervasive

electro magnetic field, we find a happy match of western science with

our Sankhya philosophy of Prana and Akasha. As Vivakananda has

explained in his complete works (Raj -yoga, Sankhya and Prana

lectures), matter is energy in motion and we are all "whirlpools" of

energy in motion. He has said that if we take a piece of thread and

whirl it at very high speed, it can cut through matter. Hence it can

be shown that matter in energy in motion. In other words matter and

energy are interchangeable. His letter with Tesla showed that he had

expected Tesla to work out a mathematical formula relating matter &

energy, which he could not and was later formulated by Einstein. Now

Prana is force. All forces like electricity, magnetism etc are

derivations of prana. So matter is just Prana in motion. Now

Einstein's thought seems to match very closely Vivakananda's thought.

I quote from his book called "Evolution of Physics". In the chapter

on Field and Relativity, he says:

 

"There is no sense in regarding matter and field (i.e.

electromagnetic field) as two qualities different from each other. ..

What impresses our senses as matter is really concentration of energy

into a comparatively small space. We can regard matter as regions of

space where the field is extremely strong"

 

The "regions space where the field is extremely strong" is

the "whirlpools" of energy of Vivakananda.

 

My point in this discussion being that all pervasive ether can be

replaced by all pervasive electromagnetic field and the first part of

the example (that there is an all pervasive substance) can be taken

as correct.

 

Now we come to the bone of contention. Is the blue color of sky an

illusion, a mental concept or does it have real, material existence.

Is it an mental idea or can it be seen as I see a rock and does it

have mass as does a rock. An object like a rock is "real" because it

has mass and I can see it. If I can see blue color and prove that

blue color has "mass" then blue color is not an idea, an illusion but

a "real" thing.

 

In Classical physics, matter and energy were separate. Matter had

weight and energy was weightless. Consequently there we two

conservation laws. One for matter and one for energy. Modern physics

makes no such distinction. Energy has mass and mass represents

energy. The famous equation e=mc2 gives the relation.

 

The sun bombards earth with white light. Now I know that light is an

electromagnetic wave. An electro magnetic wave creates a "field". So

there is an "all-prevasive" field of electricity & magnetism. Blue

light is part of the white light. I can actually "see" blue light.

All I have to do is take a prism and put it in the path of the white

light of sun. I can then clearly see blue in the VIBGYOR spectrum.

 

I know that light has energy. Each color of light has a different

frequency. The higher the frequency, the higher the energy contained.

Red light as lower frequency than blue light. Hence red light has

lower energy than blue light. Now if blue light has energy, it has

mass ( as shown by e=mc2).

 

Hence I have shown that I can "see" blue light and that blue light

has "mass", just like a rock. Thus the color blue is not a figment of

my imagination but "really" exists. I do not superimpose blue color

on the electromagnetic space all around me but that "blue" is really

out there, is a part of the electromagnetic space outside of me,

which I "see" as any other "real" object. Why do I see blue and not

any other color is explained by the fact that blue is absorbed more

by the gases in the sky, due to blue color having higher energy level

and by the "scattering" effect. If my eyes/senses were like the

prism, I would see each band of light separately as a VIBGYOR

spectrum. My eyes can only see colors from violet to red. I cannot

for example see ultra violet rays. But that does not mean they do not

exist. With the right equipment I can verify that they do indeed

exist.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Note from the List Moderator: Please do not include the previous author's entire message while sending your replies. Be brief as it is shown below. This note is meant for all new and veteran members who frequently commit this inadvertant violation. Thanks in advance for your cooperation and understanding.

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

 

 

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin wrote:

>

> Namaste Ram mohan Ji

> >when we talk about the superimposition,is there an object " sky"

> there at all?

 

 

Namaste,

 

Einstein wasn't the first to introduce the theory of relativity,

which actually as you are aware is flawed; For the speed of light

isn't constant and can be speeded up or slowed down. Boskovic did

much work on this as well, a couple of hundred years ago.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskovic

 

I think in Hindu Myth the person who penetrated matter completely

was probably Hiranyakasipu and that may have been a couple of

million years ago.

 

Tesla also stated that:

 

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it

can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has

properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own

making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter

filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space

becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon

nothing. I, for one, refuse to to such a view., [22]

Wikipedia on Tesla.

 

So his differences with Einstein were obviously philosophical as

well.

 

Of course it depends on what one means by 'Space'. For space isn't

empty it is prana and akasha. Which is energy and

therefore 'creation'. Tesla seems to be inferring that space is

Prakriti and he may be right at that level.

 

In essence taking his very Vedantic statement above, he seems to be

at the understanding of Saguna at least.ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

I am not deleting what shri Hershji has said as this is very important and any one who reads this need to read what shri Hershji has written fully. So moderators if they feel like posting it may kindly permit to post it full..

namaskaram to all,

Why i loved VEDANTA - initially - because I could see the way it relates science with spirituality.

And here, thanks to shri Hershji, we could refresh and know a little more of physics and in relation to something we discuss - spirituality. It is wonderful and thanks once again shri Hershji.

Now, i wonder if any one has a dispute with what shri Hershji has written..

I do not think any one will say that there is no blue colour, no rock etc....not any one is going to dispute the theories of electro magnetic field or e=m c sq.

what i understood or misunderstood is

sky is not an object like rock, but space.

when we look up, we feel there is something there which is blue in colour..

but in real terms there is nothing there. for a person on ground, even ten thousand feet above is blue sky ( on a couldless day ), for one who is flying at forty thousand feet high still all around him, where his sight ends, the blue or sometimes sky of different colour is visible.

the knowledge of rock is not a real thing, but it is, may be clay, combination of different minerals etc...which when u further study and come to know are atoms, particles, etc....

like that even sky though we feel there is something like sky, but it is only space and while all the theory of light and blue is o.k., there is nothing in there to hold the blue colour to stick to....

hence the statement of super imposition and delusion.

when i heard that " our knowledge is only up to one more question" for the first time, then only i started realising how limited we are....

and when i started understanding VEDANTA, then i could see the possibilities..

the limitlessness of the consciousness.....

the process of uncovering the cover of ignorance......which include the understanding of the physical, physiological, biological, .....all these orders...

by the way, development in science, quantum physics has no fight with Vedanta theoreis....that is what i have heard from several of the Guru's as

the study of "I" is such a beauty...yes when one starts going deeper and deeper into this, one enjoy the journey.....though it may be a long journey.

I am sure towards that movement, this great SATSANG is contributing a lot..

waiting for further corrections in my understandings

namaskaram once again to all

 

hersh_b <hershbhasin > wrote:

Namaste Ram mohan Ji

>when we talk about the superimposition,is there an object " sky"

there at all?

>is it not mere space and that space there looks "blue" ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The argument was that an all pervasive substance (ether) exists and

we superimpose the mental construct of "dark-blue" color onto it (

quote.."for non-discerning men superimpose on the ether, which is not

the object of sensuous perception, dark-blue color".). In other words

ether exists and the dark blue color of sky does not really exist. It

is a illusion. We see something that is not really there. According

to you even the sky does not exist but somehow we see only blue space.

 

Physicists have tried to prove the existence of ether but failed.

Experiments by Michelson-Morley to detect the "ether-wind" failed

(http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/michelsonmorley.html). The only

possible conclusion from this series of very difficult experiments

was that the whole concept of an all-pervading ether was wrong from

the start.

 

However Maxwell and later Einstein have introduced the concept of

electromagnetic fields. If we replace ether with the all pervasive

electro magnetic field, we find a happy match of western science with

our Sankhya philosophy of Prana and Akasha. As Vivakananda has

explained in his complete works (Raj -yoga, Sankhya and Prana

lectures), matter is energy in motion and we are all "whirlpools" of

energy in motion. He has said that if we take a piece of thread and

whirl it at very high speed, it can cut through matter. Hence it can

be shown that matter in energy in motion. In other words matter and

energy are interchangeable. His letter with Tesla showed that he had

expected Tesla to work out a mathematical formula relating matter &

energy, which he could not and was later formulated by Einstein. Now

Prana is force. All forces like electricity, magnetism etc are

derivations of prana. So matter is just Prana in motion. Now

Einstein's thought seems to match very closely Vivakananda's thought.

I quote from his book called "Evolution of Physics". In the chapter

on Field and Relativity, he says:

 

"There is no sense in regarding matter and field (i.e.

electromagnetic field) as two qualities different from each other. ..

What impresses our senses as matter is really concentration of energy

into a comparatively small space. We can regard matter as regions of

space where the field is extremely strong"

 

The "regions space where the field is extremely strong" is

the "whirlpools" of energy of Vivakananda.

 

My point in this discussion being that all pervasive ether can be

replaced by all pervasive electromagnetic field and the first part of

the example (that there is an all pervasive substance) can be taken

as correct.

 

Now we come to the bone of contention. Is the blue color of sky an

illusion, a mental concept or does it have real, material existence.

Is it an mental idea or can it be seen as I see a rock and does it

have mass as does a rock. An object like a rock is "real" because it

has mass and I can see it. If I can see blue color and prove that

blue color has "mass" then blue color is not an idea, an illusion but

a "real" thing.

 

In Classical physics, matter and energy were separate. Matter had

weight and energy was weightless. Consequently there we two

conservation laws. One for matter and one for energy. Modern physics

makes no such distinction. Energy has mass and mass represents

energy. The famous equation e=mc2 gives the relation.

 

The sun bombards earth with white light. Now I know that light is an

electromagnetic wave. An electro magnetic wave creates a "field". So

there is an "all-prevasive" field of electricity & magnetism. Blue

light is part of the white light. I can actually "see" blue light.

All I have to do is take a prism and put it in the path of the white

light of sun. I can then clearly see blue in the VIBGYOR spectrum.

 

I know that light has energy. Each color of light has a different

frequency. The higher the frequency, the higher the energy contained.

Red light as lower frequency than blue light. Hence red light has

lower energy than blue light. Now if blue light has energy, it has

mass ( as shown by e=mc2).

 

Hence I have shown that I can "see" blue light and that blue light

has "mass", just like a rock. Thus the color blue is not a figment of

my imagination but "really" exists. I do not superimpose blue color

on the electromagnetic space all around me but that "blue" is really

out there, is a part of the electromagnetic space outside of me,

which I "see" as any other "real" object. Why do I see blue and not

any other color is explained by the fact that blue is absorbed more

by the gases in the sky, due to blue color having higher energy level

and by the "scattering" effect. If my eyes/senses were like the

prism, I would see each band of light separately as a VIBGYOR

spectrum. My eyes can only see colors from violet to red. I cannot

for example see ultra violet rays. But that does not mean they do not

exist. With the right equipment I can verify that they do indeed

exist.

 

Regards

Hersh

 

 

 

 

 

Find out what India is talking about on Answers India.

So, what’s NEW about the NEW Messenger? Find out.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri MahadevAdvaita:

>

> You have raised several interesting questions along with keeping

your

> doubts fully intact. Why do we need the theory of Adhyasa is a very

> good question and you question along with your doubts validate its

> necessity!

 

Dear list members, I am thankful to you all for responding to my

questions. I won't say I am satisfied but it requires introspection,

contemplation and assimilation of life's experiences. I am new to

Vedanta so I won't claim the superiority of any one philosophy over

other nor am I equipped to criticize or judge any philosophy. I am

currently reading Swami Dayananda's (arsha vidya gurukulam) detailed

commentary on Gita and I have some exposure to Dvaita on the vadavali

list. Despite the differences in the 3 schools of Vedanta, I believe

all 3 agree on one of the fundamental messages of Gita - that "I" am

neither a doer nor the enjoyer. Whether "I" is a soul or the soul,

whether world is real or unreal or mithya or absolutely real or

relatively real is more of a intellectual issue rather than a sadhana

issue. Some say Brahman is the antaryamin of Prakruti, others say

Prakruti is the body of Brahman, while others say Prakruti is

Brahman. Some say that world is Brahman, while others say world is a

superimposition of Brahman. (In one lecture, Swami Dayananda said the

creation itself is the creator.) I think these differences will remain

irreonciliable. Do all these issues matter in the understanding of non-

doership and non-enjoyership ? Personally I think it does not but

again others may differ. It is all about purifying the mind to become

fit to receive the knowledge that "I" always existed, "I" will always

exist and "I" neither do anything nor enjoy anything. "I" am always

Ananda.

 

with best regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Sri MahadevAdvaita:

> >

> > You have raised several interesting questions along with keeping

> your

> > doubts fully intact. Why do we need the theory of Adhyasa is a

very

> > good question and you question along with your doubts validate

its

> > necessity!

>

> Dear list members, I am thankful to you all for responding to my

> questions. I won't say I am satisfied but it requires

introspection,

> contemplation and assimilation of life's experiences. I am new to

> Vedanta so I won't claim the superiority of any one philosophy

over

> other nor am I equipped to criticize or judge any philosophy. I am

> currently reading Swami Dayananda's (arsha vidya gurukulam)

detailed

> commentary on Gita and I have some exposure to Dvaita on the

vadavali

> list. Despite the differences in the 3 schools of Vedanta, I

believe

> all 3 agree on one of the fundamental messages of Gita - that "I"

am

> neither a doer nor the enjoyer. Whether "I" is a soul or the soul,

> whether world is real or unreal or mithya or absolutely real or

> relatively real is more of a intellectual issue rather than a

sadhana

> issue. Some say Brahman is the antaryamin of Prakruti, others say

> Prakruti is the body of Brahman, while others say Prakruti is

> Brahman. Some say that world is Brahman, while others say world

is a

> superimposition of Brahman. (In one lecture, Swami Dayananda said

the

> creation itself is the creator.) I think these differences will

remain

> irreonciliable. Do all these issues matter in the understanding of

non-

> doership and non-enjoyership ? Personally I think it does not but

> again others may differ. It is all about purifying the mind to

become

> fit to receive the knowledge that "I" always existed, "I" will

always

> exist and "I" neither do anything nor enjoy anything. "I" am

always

> Ananda.

>

> with best regards,

> Om Namah Shivaya

 

 

Namaste Mahadevji

 

I am glad you have come to this conclusion. You may also enjoy

reading the following webpage on 'Difference and non-difference':

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/74.html

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

namaskaram to all,

 

I am also only a student and this site helps us in initiating an

inquisitiveness in our mind to know more. And there are many who

know a lot more and from whom we can learn something more for us to

study further.

 

However for one who is in quest of knowledge

 

"knowledge" is not indian, british, american or limited to any area.

Knowledge is universal. That is why it is knowledge.

 

The process of learning only help us to understand the "WHOLE"

better and it may take years and sometimes "births". but it is also

said that once one starts with the study, the study continues and

what one has studied in one birth is not lost....and when ever next

human birth takes place, it will continue ...

 

these points are debatable, but for one who has studied veda and

vedanta, one gets to know these by reasonings..

 

study of Vedanta and understanding really help us in improving our

freedom from complexes....our urge to be judgemental....as we start

realising that the human knowledge is only up to one more question.

 

Often we get into the 'web of words' and that is how we split this

process of study in to three or 4 or any number....forgetting that

all these are part of our understanding process. when some one

insists that Dwaita is the right thing, no one else can change him

until and unless, he gets the knowledge by hearing, understanding,

contemplating , assimilating...that Dwaita is also a step towards

understanding of the ' WHOLE '.

 

In the process of this study, as a student I have found

that 'shravanam' that is hearing Swamiji's talks help a lot because,

in talks, Swamiji explains the words - in very details...some times

with examples...and even those examples open new areas of

information that we possibly would not have known.

( in chennai, Sw Paramarthanandaji also takes classes and his talks

are available in audio)

 

In the vyvaharika stage, every small thing affects most of us and

the study and understanding of VEDANTA really help us a lot and the

study warrants knowing different views and points. else quite often

we get stuck to some view as we do not know why that view may not be

the right.

 

There is no theology in these teachings. It is pure knowledge. If

we have dispute with the statements, we have no choice but to go on

with the study...like a research...as to why we differ, what makes

me differ and what is that which makes the statement

authentic...etc..

 

Towards all these, this SATSANG is a wonderful medium....This has a

sort of library ...as there are postings which deal with many points

discussed by many , with doubts and removal of doubts, the better

knowing members freely give the ref of other web postings to ref and

read...

 

I have no doubt that this is a Blessed site and we should have done

something good that has brought us to this site

 

namaskaram

 

 

In advaitin, "mahadevadvaita" <mahadevadvaita

wrote:

>

>

> I won't say I am satisfied but it requires introspection,

> contemplation and assimilation of life's experiences. I am new to

> Vedanta

 

I am currently reading Swami Dayananda's (arsha vidya gurukulam)

detailed commentary on Gita and I have some exposure to Dvaita on

the vadavali list. Despite the differences in the 3 schools of

Vedanta,

 

In one lecture, Swami Dayananda said the creation itself is the

creator.) I think these differences will remain

irreonciliable.

 

Do all these issues matter in the understanding ...

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

Despite the differences in the 3 schools of Vedanta, I believe

> all 3 agree on one of the fundamental messages of Gita - that "I"

am neither a doer nor the enjoyer. Whether "I" is a soul or the

soul, whether world is real or unreal or mithya or absolutely real or

relatively real is more of a intellectual issue rather than a

sadhana issue.

I think these differences will remain irreonciliable. Do all these

issues matter in the understanding of non-doership and non-

enjoyership ? Personally I think it does not but again others may

differ. It is all about purifying the mind to become fit to receive

the knowledge that "I" always existed, "I" will always

> exist and "I" neither do anything nor enjoy anything. "I" am always

> Ananda.

>

> with best regards,

> Om Namah Shivaya

 

Namaste Sadhakas,

Soul – Non-doer and Non-enjoyer

 

The above conclusion has been arrived at from the Bhagavad gita by

Shri Mahadevadvaita ji.

 

In the Brahmasutra bhashyam (4.1.9.13), the Acharya has said:

Poorvasiddha kartritva bhoktritva viparitam hi trishvapi kaaleshu

akartritva abhoktritva svarupam Brahma aham asmi na itaH pUrvam karta

bhokta va aham aasam, na idaaniim, naapi bhavishyatkaale iti

brahmavit avagacchati.

(Quite contrary to what had been previously regarded as agent and

enjoyer, I am verily that Brahman, which, by nature, is neither agent

nor enjoyer at all in all the three periods of time. Even earlier I

was never an agent or enjoyer, nor am I so at present; nor shall I be

so in future – such is the realization of the knower of Brahman.)

 

We get the question:

Is the soul akarta-abhokta by its very nature or is it a status that

comes to it subsequently. If this realization comes subsequent

to 'knowing' that it is so from some source, say the scriptures, then

it follows: Knowledge can dislodge what is not true knowledge or

ignorance, or false knowledge. Then, since knowledge has brought

about the realization that I am akarta abhokta, then the doership

enjoyership status that I thought I have has to be admitted to be

false knowledge, mithya jnanam. Again, this implies that I never

was, never am and never will be karta-bhokta.

 

What is required for doership/enjoyership to exist? Naturally, the

body-mind complex has to be present for these to exist. Without

these there can't be doership or enjoyership. When it is realized

that the soul is not doer/enjoyer, the conclusion is that the soul

does not have the body-mind complex. The Veda says about Brahman:

apraaNo hyamanaah shubhraH (Mundaka Upanishad 2.1.2) …He is without

prana, manas and is Pure.

 

The Shankara bhashya for this portion is:

The Purusha is called apraanaH because in It the air, the principle

of motion, does not exist ……It is amanaH, without mind,….. even the

mind, consisting of thinking etc., does not exist. By these

expressions it is to be understood that the organs of action, and the

objects of those organs, as also the intellect and the mind, the

senses of perception and their objects are denied. In support of

this there occurs a passage in another Upanishad: It thinks as it

were, It moves as it were (Brihadaranyaka iv.iii.7).

 

(How striking is the Acharya's consistency in commenting! If one has

the Adhyasa bhashya contents in mind, one can appreciate this feature

while reading the above commentary.)

If that is Brahma lakshanam, we see that to be akarta abhokta, the

individual soul should be bereft of body/mind. The conclusion we

draw is the soul is non-different from Brahman. This is what Shankara

said in the above Brahmasutra bhashyam quote.

 

If the akarta-abhokta soul is held to be different from Brahman, what

is the differentiating factor? If kartritva-bhoktritva is negated

from the soul, the soul loses its status of jivatvam. This is what

Shankara said is the true status of the soul, jivo Brahmaiva na

aparaH.(The jiva is none other than Brahman). If there can't be

kartritva/bhoktritva for jiva in reality, it has to be his delusion

that he has them. This is what Shankara said is the adhyasa.

kartritva/bhoktritva presuppose, apart from body/mind, a world that

forms the ground of action and enjoyment, for the world alone

provides the objects to act with and enjoy of. If

kartritva/bhoktritva is adhyasa, then the world also is to be held as

an adhyasa. This is what Shankara said in the whole of the Bhashya

literature in general and the Adhyasa bhashya in particular.

 

If all the other schools come to the conclusion from the Gita that

the soul is in truth akarta/abhokta, they have unwittingly arrived at

the Advaita declaration:

 

Brahma Satyam jagan mithyaa, jivo brahmaiva na aparaH.

 

Again, if the Gita is the basis for this conclusion, the Gita being

Smriti, echoing the purport of the Sruti, it amounts to saying that

the Sruti teaches the above truth. Thus, the other schools that

oppose the Advaitic teaching and Shankara for His Adhyasa Theory as

being against the Sruti teaching, are actually agreeing that the

Sruti is in fact teaching what Shankara taught through the Bhashyam.

 

The above is just a thought stream that flowed upon seeing Shri

Mahadevaadvaita's recent post.

 

With pranams to all,

subbu

 

 

>