Simultaneous creation

November 21, 2006

Namaste,

On the subject of drishti-srishti-vada, as raised by Shri Subbu,

Michael wrote (subject 'clarification', message #34034 of 19 Nov):

"The implication of what you write here is that there was no world

prior to there being consciousness of it, that there was no world

prior to the arrival of the organic. In other words that what the

best scientific minds have shown, namely that the arrival of human

consciousness is the end product of a long chain of evolution, is

just not true. You can't be serious."

The whole point of the drishti-shristi-vada is that it questions our

habitual assumption of a world which has been created in the course

of time. In fact, this assumption is a logical confusion.

Logically, what we call 'time' is part of our conception of a

space-time world: a world made up of objects that are moved and

changed in space, in the course of passing time. As the world is

created, time as its part is created along with it. 'Time' is here

thought created in the course of time. Our thinking is accordingly

confused, because it plainly contradicts itself. It says that time

is created in the course of its own passing. It is here

surreptitiously assumed that 'time' exists prior to its own

existence, in a world of which this 'time' is just a part.

The only way out of this muddle is to ask more carefully what's

meant by the words 'time' and 'prior'. In fact, each of these words

is used in two, quite different ways, which need to be

distinguished.

One way occurs in connection with the space-time world, where

objects and events can co-exist in space-time structures. Here, time

is an additional co-ordinate, which must be used along with the

co-ordinates of space, in order to account for change and movement.

In a world of moving objects and of changing happenings, the time

coordinate enables us to specify just where an object or event is

located and how it relates to other objects or events, in the

space-time structure of the world.

When we speak of time like this, as an additional co-ordinate of

space-time structure, this so-called 'time' is just a part of

structured space. What we now call 'space-time' is still conceived

as a kind of space, elaborated by an additional dimension of

co-ordinated structure. What's here called time is still treated as

a mere dimension, of co-ordinated measurement in structured space

where different things can co-exist.

In this reduction of time to space, we miss a further meaning that

is more essentially conveyed by the word 'time'. In that meaning,

time is a succession of passing states that never co-exist. Thus

conceived, time has no structure in itself. Where space has

co-existing points enabling structures to be formed, time has only

passing moments, each of which is found experienced in the singular,

as just one state of passing time.

When the word 'time' is used in that second sense, we are no longer

speaking of a structured world made up of various different things.

Instead, we speak of an evolving process, through which the world

appears. In this process, passing time has no structure in itself.

Time itself has only process, found displaying always just one

single state at each present moment.

When 'time' is taken in its first sense, as a co-ordinate dimension

of space-time structure, we get what Shri Subbu [in message #34026,

18 Nov] called "srishti-drishti-vAda (creation prior to cognition)",

because we here assume that the knowing or the cognition is an

instrumental action done by a created observer in a differentiated

world.

By contrast, when 'time' is taken in its second sense, as a

procession of replacing states, we get what Shri Subbu called "the

drishti-srishti-vAda, in which any object, be it the entire world,

must be deemed to arise co-terminously with the cognition pertaining

to it -- drishti-sama-samayA srishti". Here, creation is what Ramana

Maharshi called 'yugapat srishti'. It is an instantaneous creation

that takes place at each moment of experience, with some passing

appearance of an object created simultaneously with the entire world

of which the object is understood to be a part.

In that simultaneous creation, some perceived or thought or felt

object arises implicitly together with a perceiving or thinking or

feeling act of knowing it as part of a larger world. Thus, an

apparently known object and its containing world are jointly created

and destroyed, in each passing moment that appears and disappears in

time.

Corresponding to these two senses of the word 'time', there are two

senses of the word 'prior'. In the first sense, where time is

conceived as part of world, 'priority' is merely temporal. Here,

prior means 'earlier in changing time'. It is this temporal sense of

priority that Michael uses, in his objection to Shri Subbu's account

of drishti-srishti-vada.

But in the context of drishti-srishti-vada, where cognition is taken

to be 'prior' to creation, the sense of the word 'prior' is not

temporal. Instead, it is logical. In the temporal sense of the word

'prior', Michael is of course quite right to object to a statement

which says that 'there was no world prior to there being

consciousness of it'. But this statement does not correctly describe

the drishti-srishti-vada position. To describe that position

correctly, 'there was' must be changed to 'there is' and 'prior'

should be clarified by changing it to 'logically prior'. So the

statement should be that 'there *is* no world *logically* prior to

there being consciousness of it'.

When the word 'prior' is thus used in its logical sense, it simply

means that whenever we consider a changing world, we inherently

imply a consciousness of this same world, including the arrival of

organic life and of human consciousness as the end product of a long

chain of evolution.

In this way, consciousness must logically come first, before any

conception of a world where consciousness is supposed to be absent

before it arrives in the form of organic bodies with sense organs

and minds that we perceive as similar to ours. Such a supposition is

a self-contradictory and somewhat parochial confusion, logically, no

matter what may be said on the authority of any 'best scientific

minds'.

By considering that logical priority of consciousness, Advaita comes

to the ajati-vada conclusion: that there is in truth no birth of any

changing time, and thus no true creation of a world at all.

At every moment of all time, what's created and destroyed shows

nothing other than its logically prior consciousness. From just that

consciousness, what's created rises up into appearance. And this

appearance is immediately destroyed, as it is taken back into that

underlying consciousness.

Just that same consciousness is present always, through all

appearances that come and go. It's that which knows all their

comings and their goings. It is their one reality, shown by each one

of them. It is expressed in each appearance; and it is quietly

revealed, as unmanifest and unexpressed, in each disappearance of

what has appeared.

So that which seems created is no more, nor any less, than that

which always is and which always stays unchanged. All creation is

appearance only. So also all destruction that appears. In reality

itself, there is no creation and no change. Its very being is a

knowing in identity, of self that is identical with what it knows.

There is thus a progression of three vadas: srishti-drishti,

(creation prior to seeing), drishti-srishti (seeing prior to

creation) and ajati (no birth of creation at all). The first gives

temporal priority, to a created world of structured space that's

seen to change in course of time. The second is concerned with a

logical priority, of consciousness that is implied in the seeing of

creation at each passing moment in the process of time's change. And

the third investigates an ultimate priority, of knowing in identity

where only unborn truth is found.

These three vadas are not so much arguments as stages of progressive

questioning, in search of truth where arguments have so thoroughly

ruled themselves out that they aren't needed any more.

Ananda

November 21, 2006

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> On the subject of drishti-srishti-vada, as raised by Shri Subbu,

> Michael wrote (subject 'clarification', message #34034 of 19 Nov):

>

> "The implication of what you write here is that there was no world

> prior to there being consciousness of it, that there was no world

> prior to the arrival of the organic. In other words that what the

> best scientific minds have shown, namely that the arrival of human

> consciousness is the end product of a long chain of evolution, is

> just not true. You can't be serious."

>

> The whole point of the drishti-shristi-vada is that it questions

our

> habitual assumption of a world which has been created in the course

> of time. In fact, this assumption is a logical confusion.

>

> Logically, what we call 'time' is part of our conception of a

> space-time world: a world made up of objects that are moved and

> changed in space, in the course of passing time. As the world is

> created, time as its part is created along with it. 'Time' is here

> thought created in the course of time. Our thinking is accordingly

> confused, because it plainly contradicts itself. It says that time

> is created in the course of its own passing. It is here

> surreptitiously assumed that 'time' exists prior to its own

> existence, in a world of which this 'time' is just a part.

>

> The only way out of this muddle is to ask more carefully what's

> meant by the words 'time' and 'prior'. In fact, each of these words

> is used in two, quite different ways, which need to be

> distinguished.

>

> One way occurs in connection with the space-time world, where

> objects and events can co-exist in space-time structures. Here,

time

> is an additional co-ordinate, which must be used along with the

> co-ordinates of space, in order to account for change and movement.

> In a world of moving objects and of changing happenings, the time

> coordinate enables us to specify just where an object or event is

> located and how it relates to other objects or events, in the

> space-time structure of the world.

>

> When we speak of time like this, as an additional co-ordinate of

> space-time structure, this so-called 'time' is just a part of

> structured space. What we now call 'space-time' is still conceived

> as a kind of space, elaborated by an additional dimension of

> co-ordinated structure. What's here called time is still treated as

> a mere dimension, of co-ordinated measurement in structured space

> where different things can co-exist.

>

> In this reduction of time to space, we miss a further meaning that

> is more essentially conveyed by the word 'time'. In that meaning,

> time is a succession of passing states that never co-exist. Thus

> conceived, time has no structure in itself. Where space has

> co-existing points enabling structures to be formed, time has only

> passing moments, each of which is found experienced in the

singular,

> as just one state of passing time.

>

> When the word 'time' is used in that second sense, we are no longer

> speaking of a structured world made up of various different things.

> Instead, we speak of an evolving process, through which the world

> appears. In this process, passing time has no structure in itself.

> Time itself has only process, found displaying always just one

> single state at each present moment.

>

> When 'time' is taken in its first sense, as a co-ordinate dimension

> of space-time structure, we get what Shri Subbu [in message #34026,

> 18 Nov] called "srishti-drishti-vAda (creation prior to

cognition)",

> because we here assume that the knowing or the cognition is an

> instrumental action done by a created observer in a differentiated

> world.

>

> By contrast, when 'time' is taken in its second sense, as a

> procession of replacing states, we get what Shri Subbu called "the

> drishti-srishti-vAda, in which any object, be it the entire world,

> must be deemed to arise co-terminously with the cognition

pertaining

> to it -- drishti-sama-samayA srishti". Here, creation is what

Ramana

> Maharshi called 'yugapat srishti'. It is an instantaneous creation

> that takes place at each moment of experience, with some passing

> appearance of an object created simultaneously with the entire

world

> of which the object is understood to be a part.

>

> In that simultaneous creation, some perceived or thought or felt

> object arises implicitly together with a perceiving or thinking or

> feeling act of knowing it as part of a larger world. Thus, an

> apparently known object and its containing world are jointly

created

> and destroyed, in each passing moment that appears and disappears

in

> time.

>

> Corresponding to these two senses of the word 'time', there are two

> senses of the word 'prior'. In the first sense, where time is

> conceived as part of world, 'priority' is merely temporal. Here,

> prior means 'earlier in changing time'. It is this temporal sense

of

> priority that Michael uses, in his objection to Shri Subbu's

account

> of drishti-srishti-vada.

>

> But in the context of drishti-srishti-vada, where cognition is

taken

> to be 'prior' to creation, the sense of the word 'prior' is not

> temporal. Instead, it is logical. In the temporal sense of the word

> 'prior', Michael is of course quite right to object to a statement

> which says that 'there was no world prior to there being

> consciousness of it'. But this statement does not correctly

describe

> the drishti-srishti-vada position. To describe that position

> correctly, 'there was' must be changed to 'there is' and 'prior'

> should be clarified by changing it to 'logically prior'. So the

> statement should be that 'there *is* no world *logically* prior to

> there being consciousness of it'.

>

> When the word 'prior' is thus used in its logical sense, it simply

> means that whenever we consider a changing world, we inherently

> imply a consciousness of this same world, including the arrival of

> organic life and of human consciousness as the end product of a

long

> chain of evolution.

>

> In this way, consciousness must logically come first, before any

> conception of a world where consciousness is supposed to be absent

> before it arrives in the form of organic bodies with sense organs

> and minds that we perceive as similar to ours. Such a supposition

is

> a self-contradictory and somewhat parochial confusion, logically,

no

> matter what may be said on the authority of any 'best scientific

> minds'.

>

> By considering that logical priority of consciousness, Advaita

comes

> to the ajati-vada conclusion: that there is in truth no birth of

any

> changing time, and thus no true creation of a world at all.

>

> At every moment of all time, what's created and destroyed shows

> nothing other than its logically prior consciousness. From just

that

> consciousness, what's created rises up into appearance. And this

> appearance is immediately destroyed, as it is taken back into that

> underlying consciousness.

>

> Just that same consciousness is present always, through all

> appearances that come and go. It's that which knows all their

> comings and their goings. It is their one reality, shown by each

one

> of them. It is expressed in each appearance; and it is quietly

> revealed, as unmanifest and unexpressed, in each disappearance of

> what has appeared.

>

> So that which seems created is no more, nor any less, than that

> which always is and which always stays unchanged. All creation is

> appearance only. So also all destruction that appears. In reality

> itself, there is no creation and no change. Its very being is a

> knowing in identity, of self that is identical with what it knows.

>

> There is thus a progression of three vadas: srishti-drishti,

> (creation prior to seeing), drishti-srishti (seeing prior to

> creation) and ajati (no birth of creation at all). The first gives

> temporal priority, to a created world of structured space that's

> seen to change in course of time. The second is concerned with a

> logical priority, of consciousness that is implied in the seeing of

> creation at each passing moment in the process of time's change.

And

> the third investigates an ultimate priority, of knowing in identity

> where only unborn truth is found.

>

> These three vadas are not so much arguments as stages of

progressive

> questioning, in search of truth where arguments have so thoroughly

> ruled themselves out that they aren't needed any more.

>

> Ananda

>

November 21, 2006

May i please be allowed to add an important excerpt from Sri Ramana

bhagwanb's talks on the subject of Drishti Shristi vada ?

*Ajata vada* or the theory of non-causality. This is an

ancient Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of

the world never happened at all. It is a complete denial

of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana

endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's (Man

who is Self-realised) experience that nothing ever

comes into existence or ceases to be because the

Self alone exists as the sole unchanging reality. It is a

corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and effect,

essential components of all creation theories, exist only in the

minds of ajnanis (ignorant) and that the experience of the Self

reveals their non-existence.

This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only

of the creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking

from his own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that

the world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting matter and

energy, but as an uncaused appearance in the Self. He enlarged on

this by saying that because the real nature or substratum of this

appearance is identical with the beingness of the Self, it

necessarily partakes of its reality. That is to say, the world is not

real to the jnani simply because it appears, but only because the

real nature of the appearance is inseparable from the Self.

The ajnani on the other hand, is totally unaware of the

unitary nature and source of the world and, as a

consequence, his mind constructs an illusory world of

separate interacting objects by persistently

misinterpreting the sense-impressions it receives. Sri

Ramana pointed out that this view of the world has no

more reality than a dream since it superimposes a

creation of the mind on the reality of the Self. He

summarised the difference between the jnani's and the ajnani's

standpoint by saying that the world is unreal if it

is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete

objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in

the Self.

*Drishti-srishti vada*. If his questioners found the idea

of ajata or non-causality impossible to assimilate, he

would teach them that the world comes into existence simultaneously

with the appearance of the `I' –thought

and that it ceases to exist when the `I' –thought is absent.

This theory is known as drishti-srishti, or simultaneous creation,

and it says, in effect, that the world which

appears to an ajnani is a product of the mind that

perceives it, and that in the absence of that mind it

ceases to exist. The theory is true in so far as the mind

does create an imaginary world for itself, but from the standpoint of

the Self, an imaginary `I' creating an

imaginary world is no creation at all, and so the doctrine of ajata

is not subverted. Although Sri Ramana

sometimes said that drishti-srishti was not the ultimate

truth about creation he encouraged his followers to

accept it as a working hypothesis. He justified this

approach by saying that if one can consistently regard

the world as an unreal creation of the mind then it loses

its attraction and it becomes easier to maintain an undistracted

awareness of the `I'-thought.

*Srishti-drishti vada (gradual creation).* This is the common-sense

view which holds that the world is an

objective reality governed by laws of cause and effect

which can be traced back to a single act of creation. It

includes virtually all western ideas on the subject from

`big bang' theory to the biblical account in Genesis. Sri Ramana

invoked theories of this nature when he was

talking to questioners who were unwilling to accept the implications

of the ajata and drishti-srishti theories.

Even then, he would usually point out that such theories

should not be taken too seriously as they were only promulgated to

satisfy intellectual curiosity.

Literally, drishti-srishti means that the world only exists when

it is perceived whereas srishti-drishti means that the world

existed prior to anyone's perception of it. Although the former

theory sounds perverse, Sri Ramana insisted that serious

seekers should be satisfied with it, partly because it is a close

approximation to the truth and partly because it is the most

beneficial attitude to adopt if one is seriously interested in

realising the Self.]

( FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SRI RAMANA -edited by David Goodman)

Sri Ramanarpanamastu!

(there is a veruy intersting discussion on this subject in the

archives initiated by Shankararaman-ji and please read our long

standing member Chittaranjan's Naik's views on this ! PL READ MSGS

#28526 AND ITS THREAD! )

SRI RAMANARPANAMASTU !

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> On the subject of drishti-srishti-vada, as raised by Shri Subbu,

> Michael wrote (subject 'clarification', message #34034 of 19 Nov):

>

> "

November 21, 2006

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste,

Namaste Anandaji,

An excellent article, that I forwarded to my group advaitajnana--thank

you. Now how I arrived at Ajati Vada was very simple, although it did

involve some belief.

I knew that the Sages and Muktas had indicated that the whole

of 'creation' disappears on realisation and dropping of the body.

I also knew that Nirguna Brahman cannot be qualified. Therefore any

qualification can only be an attribute, even if it is only 'appearance'.

It therefore follows that 'nothing ever happened', not even the

appearance.

This is very hard to accept for Philosophers and Bhaktas, who need

something to exist in 'some way' to justify their existence. It is only

possible even because we are all the undivided unqualified Nirguna

Brahman. So there are the three levels of Ramana, somebody created it-a

God or Isvara, it arises as we perceive it--a kind of attribute of

Saguna and finally the ultimate truth--Ajativada-nothing happened at

all even appearance.--Nir Guna..............Tony.

November 30, 2006

Dear Tony-ji and Ananda-ji

Pranams.

Muktas are parabhaktas.

Bhaktas do not need to know "something" exists in

"some way" -the everexistent nevernonexistent ever

exists, beyond time.

The world or creation does not disappear upon

realization, one's sense of separation from the world

does disappear. A jnani does feel thirsty, that thirst

does get quenched by water. There is thus a srshti

that is "given" and this is ishwara srshti. Ajativada

does not become a untruth by accepting this fact.

You may liken this to a dream thirst being quenched by

dream water.But one must be careful not to overextend

that analogy.

If your dream friend is drowning in your dream, you do

not when awake try to help him stay afloat in the

dream sea. Why does Shri Gaudapada-ji write his

karikas then? Who is he trying to help? And the ink

and papyrus he uses to write it on - are they

nonexistent as well? Only a fool would want to help an

illusion.

The fact is mithya is not an illusion. It is something

that needs to be understood.

Ajativada means there is no creation in the sense of

anything that was created.It is based on the principle

of sat and asat.Sat is that which is true in all three

tenses - past present and future - that which is true

and is beyond time is only the atman, and hence it is

anantam. It is Parabrahman.

Sat cannot give rise to asat. And there cannot be any

part of sat in asat. There cannot be any part of asat

in sat either. Thus sat and asat are mutually

exclusive.

Srshti that we contend with everyday over is described

as being created only to initiates in spiritual study,

as a cause-effect model is what the intellect is

comfortable with. From this standpoint alone Krishna

in the 7th chapter talks about aparaprakrti and the

elements and mahat etc. (In the very same chapter He

Himself quickly clarifies, that other than this is His

Supreme Self, Paraprarti, which is satchitananda which

is eternal and beyond creation.)

Asking a raw student to think out of such a

cause-effect construct is too much - and so in

kindness Shruti describes "He enters and so forth"

Gaudapada in his karikas very systematically and

logically guides a more advanced student into

progressing in his thought process towards realizing

that Brahman is never a karanam in the strictest

sense, not even a vivarta upadana karanam, because

there is no effect per se, separate from the cause.

This is ajativada.

Brahman is ever satyam jnanam anantam and Maya is ever

Maya - indescribable. From Brahman's standpoint it

does not exist, from jivas standpoint its existence is

inferred by its manifestation.

"Nothing happened" does not mean we need to be in

denial of "what is". If "what is" is understood to be

brahman and nothing else and that is nonseparate from

me the witnesser/perceiver, and any distinctions are

also brahman alone, then ajativada is understood.

None of this has anything to do with parabhakti.

There is no question of parabhakti being any kind of

compromise on the truth.

Parabhakti is invariably concomitant with jnana.

Because the ultimate nondual substratum is nirguna

brahman or parabrahman.

Humble pranams

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

--- Tony OClery <aoclery > wrote:

> advaitin, Ananda Wood

> <awood wrote:

> >

> > Namaste,

>

> Namaste Anandaji,

>

> An excellent article, that I forwarded to my group

> advaitajnana--thank

> you. Now how I arrived at Ajati Vada was very

> simple, although it did

> involve some belief.

> I knew that the Sages and Muktas had indicated that

> the whole

> of 'creation' disappears on realisation and dropping

> of the body.

> I also knew that Nirguna Brahman cannot be

> qualified. Therefore any

> qualification can only be an attribute, even if it

> is only 'appearance'.

> It therefore follows that 'nothing ever happened',

> not even the

> appearance.

> This is very hard to accept for Philosophers and

> Bhaktas, who need

> something to exist in 'some way' to justify their

> existence. It is only

> possible even because we are all the undivided

> unqualified Nirguna

> Brahman. So there are the three levels of Ramana,

> somebody created it-a

> God or Isvara, it arises as we perceive it--a kind

> of attribute of

> Saguna and finally the ultimate

> truth--Ajativada-nothing happened at

> all even appearance.--Nir Guna..............Tony.

>

Cheap talk?

Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

http://voice.

December 1, 2006

Namaste Shri Shyam,

You wrote (message #34116, Dec 1):

"If your dream friend is drowning in your dream, you do

not when awake try to help him stay afloat in the

dream sea."

Yes, but in your dream, you either help your drowning friend or you

do not. That choice appears in the illusory context of the dream.

The dreaming mind here makes a choice, as to what the dream body

does. The choice is indeed a part of the dream illusion; but in this

illusory context, it is presented to the dreamer as a choice that's

'to be made' before it happens. And similarly, in this same dream

context, the choice is presented as 'being made' while it happens

and as 'having been made' when remembered later on.

Even if the dreamer understands the dream from a clearer

perspective, by standing back in its witnessing consciousness, the

choice is seen first in anticipation as presented to be made, then

second in the actuality of being made, and third recalled as made

and done. The dream can thus be seen to go on, as just a dream --

which shows no world outside the consciousness from where the dream

is expressed and witnessed.

One whom we call a 'jnyani' or a 'sage' does not awake to any world

outside of consciousness. A sage is awake to consciousness alone,

from where all dreams and conceptions are expressed. That

consciousness alone is found expressed, through all appearances

perceived in any world that may be dreamt or thought about or felt

by each conceiving mind.

The perspective of a sage is thus non-dual. A consciousness that

knows is expressed in all appearances of world. It is the reality

that all appearances express, in any world that is conceived by

anyone. That consciousness which knows is itself the reality that's

known, in each world that anyone conceives. What knows and what is

known are not two different things. It is a blind mistake to think

of them as two. They are in truth identical, in everyone's

experience.

>From that non-dual perspective, people are seen drowning in duality,

where mind thinks of a world outside its thinking self. Each

thinking self is part of world, and thus its thought is partial. It

is part knowing and part ignorant of what it thinks about. Mind's

truth is not quite true. It is a confusing mixture, which couples

truth with falsity. This coupling is called 'mithya'. It confuses

all of the world's appearances, which keep on getting dreamt and

conceived in our minds. To that extent, the world must be misleading

and illusory.

So, when you say that 'mithya is not an illusion', I would elaborate

a little to say that mithya does not have to be seen as only

illusory. It can also be taken in the way that you go on to

describe, as 'something that needs to be understood'. But such an

understanding requires a penetration of the element of falsity that

mithya couples onto its underlying truth. As long as the falsity

remains, so does the need for its penetration by a clearer

understanding.

Most people keep on drowning in their dreamt illusions of a seeming

world, in the sense that their understanding keeps on being

overwhelmed and obscured by the changing waves of this driven world

and its driven personalities. A sage's understanding is so plainly

established in the unchanging depth that it stays always unaffected

by all waves that appear and disappear. It's only at the dreamless

depth that 'nothing ever happened'. And it's from there that help

may come, through the person of a sage who knows all dreams for

their own true reality.

The sage's help is not to keep a disciple floating at the surface,

where changing waves keep up their overwhelming of our drowning

personalities. The help that comes from underneath is rather to

return back down, to where no dreamt-up change affects an

unconditioned happiness of living truth that is at last

uncompromised.

But talking of such 'getting there' must be, of course, quite

paradoxical.

Ananda

December 6, 2006

dear ananda-ji

pranams

thank you for your beautiful reply.

i agree with what you are saying

my point to Tony-ji was that ajativada does not mean the world disappers for a jnani.

your points about mithya are welltaken.

Shyam

Ananda Wood <awood (AT) vsnl (DOT) com>

AdvaitinGroup <advaitin>

Friday, December 1, 2006 5:12:08 AM

Re: Simultaneous creation