mithyA

[Guest guest]

namaskAraH,

 

The advaitins often say that the world is mithyA. This is a term that

causes much confusion. Often one comes across people who talk about

the " unreality of

the world " or about " illusion " without having given much thought to

what the term mithyA indicates.

 

So here is my understanding for what its worth. I am sharing this

because this understanding came to me during one of those rare moments

of insight, and filled me with exhilaration for just a short while :-)

 

When it is said that the world is mithyA, it does not mean that the

world does not exist at all (like a hare's horns or a sterile woman's

son) or that it is entirely a product of one's imagination. Rather,

mithyA refers to that which is true within a given frame of reference.

In that sense it is *arbitrary*, not " really real " . This is opposed to

satya, which is truth beyond any frames of reference.

 

Here is a simple (perhaps simplistic) example to illustrate this:

 

Suppose I were to take 6 men to the banks of the river Ganga. I point

to the river and ask each of the men, " whats this? "

 

Their responses are as follows:

A: That's a fluid

B: That's water

C: That's a chemical made up of two elements - hydrogen & oxygen

D: That's a river

E: That's the Ganga

F: That's a goddess - Mother Ganga

 

Which of the above is correct? Actually all of them are correct, but

only within their own frames of reference, and each frame is

*arbitrary*. What is relevant for one person is not relevant for the

other. It is in this sense that world of objects is mithyA, which is

somewhat misleadingly translated as " illusory " .

 

And yet, inspite of the seeming differences, there is a fact common to

all the statements - all the men perceived *something*, they only

called it by different names. That *something* is the substratum which

is pure being - brahman.

 

Now, is brahman the fluid? Yes

Is brahman the water? Yes

Is brahman the river? Yes

 

The fluid, the water and the river are *relative realities* (mithyA).

They are real within their respective frames of reference. At the same

time, they are also the absolute reality (satya), as they are brahman.

 

So is the world of objects real?

 

All objects are brahman and hence real, but a given name-form is

mithyA as it is true only within a frame of reference.

 

The above example, if understood clearly, would be a counter to those

who mistakenly criticize advaita for being " world denying " or for

encouraging a " negative attitude towards life " ..

 

Another interesting point emerges from the above example: while there

can be no mithyA without satya, there can be no satya without mithyA

either (in the sense that satya is perceived only through the lens of

mithyA). For " pure " satya alone, one has to resort to ajAtivAda, in

which there is no saMsAra, no mokSha, and certainly no mailing list!!

 

Yet another point from the same example: the world of objects does not

disappear into nothingness on enlightenment. If that were the case,

jiivanmukti would not be possible, as living requires interaction with

the external world. With his senses, the jnAnI perceives objects like

anybody else. But he recognizes that when the mind rushes to attach

name & form to that which is perceived, it does so only within a frame

of reference. And as all frames of reference are arbitrary, the jnAnI

does not cling to any. In that sense, the jnAnI sees brahman alone.

This " non-clingingness " is the essence of manonAsha (destruction of

the mind) & vAsanAkShaya (elimination of attachments & aversions)

 

But this does not prevent him from using any frame of reference. On

the contrary, while we the unenlightened are constrained to use only

this or that frame (due to our vAsanA-s), the jnAnI is utterly free to

choose whatever frame he pleases. By being established in brahman, he

can ride the waves of mAyA with utter abandon! That is why jiivanmukti

is described as " freedom " , " bliss " etc

 

Hence one finds that some jnAnI-s stay in solitude, while others are

very active in the world. It is their absolute freedom!

 

Comments and brickbats welcome

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Ramesh,

 

On

the contrary, while we the unenlightened are

constrained to use only

this or that frame (due to our vAsanA-s), the jnAnI is

utterly free to

choose whatever frame he pleases. By being established

in brahman

 

Haha! No brickbats, only a comment...

You, yourself listed the ways in which the Ganges

could be percieved. Therefore, you are seeing it from

multiple perspectives, frameworks, which you attribute

to one enlightented. So...aren't you enlightened?

Weren't you utterly free to choose whatever frame you

pleased? Don't you have choice and ability to see

anything/any situation from whatever framework you

please? You did it in your example!

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramesh-ji,

 

 

 

Very nice definition - thank you! I will add it to the weekly definitions

folder and the definitions section of my website if that is ok with you. The

only point I would quibble with is your assertion that there can be no satya

without mithyA. From the pAramArthika standpoint there is ONLY satyam. The

satyam-mithyA concept per se is only meaningful from the vyAvahArika

standpoint.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Ramesh Krishnamurthy

04 November 2007 15:34

advaitin

mithyA

 

 

 

namaskAraH,

 

The advaitins often say that the world is mithyA. This is a term that

causes much confusion. Often one comes across people who talk about

the " unreality of

the world " or about " illusion " without having given much thought to

what the term mithyA indicates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramesh-ji.

 

Your message 37853.

 

Indeed a new perspective. Well thought of and presented.

 

However, I am afraid you have to look for a more accurate word

than " arbitrary " which has a randomness going with it, because, in

your example of river Ganges, the six guys are looking at six

different 'specifics' of Ganges.

 

Traditionally, mithyA is described as that which is conditioned by

space-time, has nAma-rUpa and undergoes change. It is there today,

it is not there tomorrow; hence, mithyA's hallmark is anityata.

 

Sw. Dayananda Saraswati usually articulates mithyA from the nAma-rUpa

angle by shredding a flower into its different parts. Each part has

a different name and shape and is not the flower. Ultimately holding

aloft the last part, i.e. the flower-stem, he asks : " Where is the

flower? " .

 

Another point I would like you to scrutinize is your

statement: " While there can be no mithyA without satya, there can be

no satya without mithyA either (in the sense that satya is perceived

only through the lens of mithyA). "

 

I would rather that " There can be no mithyA without satya, not vice

versa. Satya is never perceived. At best it is inferred. That

inference is again in the realm of the mithyA. Only satya knows

satya " .

 

The flower is Brahman. But, Brahman is not the nAma-rUpa appearing

as flower. That is why we stop short of reversing the equation by

saying " Brahman is the flower " . Thus, the Universe is Brahman, but

Brahman is not the appearance that is called the Universe just like

the rope is not the appearance of snake on it.

 

About the last part of your post, I have stopped conjecturing what

the world of objects would be like for a jnAni. It is better that we

leave the question till we attain 'jnAnihood'. Shri Sreenivasa

Sastri-ji recently pointed out that there can't me more than one

jnAni. He is right. Shri Atmachaitanya-ji had once given us a very

elaborate exposition on the Oneness of JnAni. There is, therefore,

no use trying to figure out jnAnihood from the vyAvahArika.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

Shri

> Sreenivasa

> Sastri-ji recently pointed out that there can't me

> more than one

> jnAni. He is right. Shri Atmachaitanya-ji had once

> given us a very

> elaborate exposition on the Oneness of JnAni.

 

Nariji - PraNAms

 

If I may say so -

 

From paaramaarthika point - statement that 'there is

only one jnaani' itself has no relavence. From

Jnaani's point 'I am a jnaani' is also irrelavent.

Jyaani means he is the one who has jnaanam - but this

jnaanam is such that it is not that he has jnaanam -

He is jnaanam - it is his swaruupa laxana. There is

nothing other than him since he is Brahman.

 

From vyavahaara point there can be more than one

jnaani - as you can see there are many bhagavaans

around here.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramesh:

 

What an 'enlightening ' post. i luved reading every word of it as

much as you enjoyed writing it. Thanks.

 

you write:

 

( The above example, if understood clearly, would be a counter to

those who mistakenly criticize advaita for being " world denying " or

for encouraging a " negative attitude towards life " ..)

 

only , the neo advaitins ( or arm chair advaitins will be 'world

denying) for a realized jnani or a genuine advaitin 'all is brahman'

even the so called world and its objects . why so ?

 

pl read what shri shri atmananda ji says :

 

" The sage has both worldly and spiritual activities. To him both are

recreations each in relation to the other (on an equal footing). "

 

furthermore , shri atmananda says

 

' " If you can see the entire world – including your own body – as

only drishya or the `see-able', you are free; and you have

accomplished what has to be accom- plished. For the ignorant

man `ignorance of consciousness' covers up the object. But, for the

Sage, `Knowledge' covers it up. "

 

and then Rameshji , you write :

 

(Hence one finds that some jnAnI-s stay in solitude, while others are

very active in the world. It is their absolute freedom!)

 

But what about jnanis who stay in the world and be active and still

free because they know that libersation and bondage are only states

of mind ?

 

On anothyer note ,is it a coincidence that you should

mention 'Ganges' as an example ! , Ganges has been in the news

recently . i would like members to read the following article

 

A Sacred River Endangered by Global Warming. Glacial Source of

Ganges Is Receding. By Emily Wax ... the Ganges among the world's 10

most endangered rivers. ..

 

http://www.www.truthout.org/issues_06/061807EA.shtml - 15k

 

On the description of Ganga , the following verse from Gangashtakam

by sri Adi shankara bhagvadapada comes to mind !

 

Thava vara mahimanam chitha vachama manam,

Harihara vidhi sacra nabhi ganga vidhanthi,

Sruthikulamabhi dathe sangitham they gnantham,

Guna gana suvilapair nethi nethithi sathyam. 6

 

Hey goddess Ganga, even Vishnu, Brahma and Siva.

Are not able to tell your greatness,

Which is beyond description of words,

And the Vedas try to describe your greatness,

Which is very difficult to describe,

By telling, This is not it and that is not it.

 

WELL, CAN WE REALLY DESCRIBE GANGA ? HER MAHIMA AND GLORY IS BEYOND

DESCRIPTION! SHE IS PARA BRAHMAN HERSELF!

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

Sadaji :

 

What a great sense of humor !

 

You write

 

( From vyavahaara point there can be more than one

jnaani - as you can see there are many bhagavaans

around here. )

 

This statement broght a 'smile to my lips ' -LOL ! LOL!

 

One who is a Real bhagwan ( sri ramana maharishi) does not ecven

like when someone refers to him as bhagwan or guru wheras we have so

many Bhagwan Rajneeshes , Satya sai baba around ! lol!

 

sadaji , i am really enjoying your post on 'PRAMANA '.. BTW , i also

read somehwere cannot recollect where what is meant by this

statement

 

" sleep knowingly ''

 

explain pl .

 

 

regards

 

ps you still have not answered my question is not veera saiviam and

kashmir saivism not advaita ? may be not shankara's advaita ? but

abinavaguopta's advaita and Thirumular's advaita ? this is too

funny for words ! lol!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji.

 

Thanks for your observations.

 

Not that I hadn't thought about the availability of so many Bhagwans

in the phenomenal. But, when I really *know* another jnAni, I am a

jnAni myself. How can then there be two? Only an ajnAni can see

more than one jnAni and that is only possible in the vyAvahArika he

operates in. Well, then he is not sure about their jnAnam either.

That is the reason why I stopped worrying about jnAnihood.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

> If I may say so -

>

> From paaramaarthika point - statement that 'there is

> only one jnaani' itself has no relavence. From

> Jnaani's point 'I am a jnaani' is also irrelavent.

> Jyaani means he is the one who has jnaanam - but this

> jnaanam is such that it is not that he has jnaanam -

> He is jnaanam - it is his swaruupa laxana. There is

> nothing other than him since he is Brahman.

>

> From vyavahaara point there can be more than one

> jnaani - as you can see there are many bhagavaans

> around here.

[Guest guest]

On 05/11/2007, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Dear Ramesh-ji,

>

> Very nice definition - thank you! I will add it to the weekly definitions

> folder and the definitions section of my website if that is ok with you. The

> only point I would quibble with is your assertion that there can be no satya

> without mithyA. From the pAramArthika standpoint there is ONLY satyam. The

> satyam-mithyA concept per se is only meaningful from the vyAvahArika

> standpoint.

>

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

I was half-expecting this " quibble " to be raised by you and other

members. What I meant was that any *discussion* about satya can be

only within the mithyA realm. There would have been no *conception*

of satya in the absence of mithyA, as all philosophizing is in the

mithyA jagat. Even the Sruti is in the mithyA jagat.

 

The notion of independence is dependent on the notion of dependence!

 

So I wasn't making an ontological claim about satya being dependent on

mithyA. Rather, I was indicating that all " standpoints " have mithyA

status. The mithyA standpoint that recognizes the mithyatva of all

standpoints is what we call the pAramArthika standpoint.

 

Therein we reach the limits of language & logic.

 

Madathil-ji has raised some interesting issues and I'll respond soon

 

shubha diipAvalii to all members,

a mithyA entity named Ramesh

[Guest guest]

On 05/11/2007, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

>

> However, I am afraid you have to look for a more accurate word

> than " arbitrary " which has a randomness going with it, because, in

> your example of river Ganges, the six guys are looking at six

> different 'specifics' of Ganges.

 

I agree that " arbitrary " has a connotation of randomness, but that is

precisely what I meant.

 

Let me explain it in another way. When the question is raised, " is the

world real " , we first need to understand what is meant by " world " . By

" world " we essentially mean diversity or (to use a more technical

term) duality. When we ask " is the world real " , we are actually

asking, " are the diverse entities of our perception real "

 

To perceive diversity, we need to draw boundaries. To differentiate

between one entity and another, we need to demarcate their boundaries.

 

For diversity to be inherently true, these boundaries have to be

inherently true. In other words, there should be one and only one way

of drawing these boundaries. If a boundary is real, then I would have

to accept it come what may. There should be no choice in the matter

 

But we find that this is not the case. Boundaries are drawn as per the

context, for reasons such as convenience etc. There are no real

boundaries. This is what is illustrated by Swami Dayananda Saraswati

in his famous flower example. There is no real entity called a flower.

Rather, we collect several entities - petals, stamen, stalk, etc and

draw a boundary around them, and call what is contained within this

boundary as " flower " . Hence, as Sadananda-ji would say, the flower has

no svarUpa lakShaNa. Hence, " flower " is an *arbitrary* construct, a

name given to a collection of parts, and therefore it is mithyA.

 

mithyatva implies that all boundaries (and hence distinctions) are

outcomes of classificatory schemes. A scientist may classify animals

as " vertebrates & invertebrates " or as " terrestrial, aquatic &

aerial " . Two species might be within the same category in one

classificatory scheme and in different categories in another scheme.

The classificatory scheme chosen says more about the scientist's

priorities than about the nature of that which is classified. In this

example, the only invariant is the classifier (who is called a

classifier only when he classifies) - the parallels with advaita are

obvious!!

 

Hence, when we say that we perceive diversity, what we are actually

saying is that we are employing a classificatory scheme. A scheme is

chosen based on its utility in a given context, and not because it is

inherently real (in which case there would be no choice of scheme).

Therefore all distinctions are *arbitrary*, not " really real " .

 

I also feel that many advaitins don't use the common vivartavAda

examples to their fullest advantage. The common usage of vivartavAda

is broadly as follows:

 

Both the gold ring & the gold chain have gold only as their

substantative reality. The ring & the chain are only different

nAma-rUpa-s of gold, which remains invariant. This logic is generally

used to explain brahman as the upAdAna-kAraNa or material cause of the

world. Nevertheless this is a causal model, and all causal models,

whether pariNAma or vivarta, are predicated on differentiating between

cause (brahman) & effect (world). In that sense, all causal models are

deficient, as they end in duality and not advaita.

 

But the gold ring & gold chain example can be used more imaginatively.

Suppose I melt a gold chain and make it into a ring. If my

classificatory scheme is based on shape, there has been a change - the

chain has become a ring. If my classification is based on chemical

properties, there has been no change, as the gold has remained gold.

Hence, whether or not we perceive change is dependent on the

classificatory scheme we choose. Therefore, all perceptions of change

(or no change) are arbitrary, being dependent on our frame of

reference.

 

Hence, all causality is mithyA. This is what the chAndogya upaniShat

implies when it says " vAcArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam " . All change

originates in language, i.e. in our classificatory scheme.

 

What does the mithyatva of causality lead to? ajAtivAda.

 

One can explain ajAtivAda without ever taking recourse to causal

models such as pariNAmavAda & vivartavAda.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

--- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa

wrote:

 

 

>

> One who is a Real bhagwan ( sri ramana maharishi)

> does not ecven

> like when someone refers to him as bhagwan or guru

> wheras we have so

> many ...

 

Bhagini Niveditaaji -PraNAms

 

I just made a general statement with no intension of

hurting or criticising any particualr person or guru.

 

 

In fact what I really meant was everybody is bhagavaan

or bhagavatii- and my praNAms to all of them. Only

thing is some know it and some yet to know it - some

act like bhagavans and some act like disciples of

bhagavaans. There are many great souls who play the

roles. As you know,there is a great soul who is born

as innocent fisher girl, yet realized her true nature

because of puurva samskaara. Yogaratova bhogaratova

sangaratova sangavihiinaH.

 

Who cannot evaluate that one is realized and one has

not yet realized. But from our perspective, as

advaitins, let us realize that everyone is bhagavaan,

as Krishna says I am in the heart of everybody - nay

in everything too. That is the unity in diversity,

advaita in dvaita.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramesh-ji.

 

Your post 37866.

 

I really enjoyed reading your brilliant explanation.

 

I had understood what you were trying to say although you used the

word *arbitrary*. My doubt was if that word really conveyed the

meaning you were trying to convey. That doubt remains even after

reading the clarifications provided.

 

Let us consider your following statement:

 

QUOTE

 

Hence, when we say that we perceive diversity, what we are actually

saying is that we are employing a classificatory scheme. A scheme is

chosen based on its utility in a given context, and not because it is

inherently real (in which case there would be no choice of scheme).

Therefore all distinctions are *arbitrary*, not " really real " .

 

UNQUOTE

 

Knowingly or unknowingly, you have here equated *arbitrariness* to

*not being really real*. From the point of view of language, that

doesn't seem acceptable despite your lengthy explanations.

 

That which is 'not really real' is mithyA is the most common and

acceptable definition. There is no doubt about it and all of us have

all along been saying exactly that here.

 

Besides, all classifications are attempts at defining and rendering

specificity, whatever the frames of reference. That is why

boundaries are set. Such attempts, though they are in the realm of

mithyA, are not random or arbitrary (i.e. determined by chance, whim,

or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle). Most of our

classifications are universal, reasonable and based on principles, be

they of botany, chemistry, astronomy or any other disciplines.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

" That which is 'not really real' is mithyA is the most common and

acceptable definition. There is no doubt about it and all of us have

all along been saying exactly that here. "

 

 

i just wish to add that, all that looks real to us in this world if

it cannot release us from Samsara, the cycle of birth and death, they

all together is Mithya.what is the use of a mirage water that cannot

quench your thirst-it is mithya.The only sathyam is the ever existing

consciousness awareness Brahman, rest are all mithya.

 

baskaran

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramesh-ji,

 

 

 

Yes, that clarifies things well - thank you! I particularly like your last

sentence below - that is very well expressed.

 

 

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

I was half-expecting this " quibble " to be raised by you and other

members. What I meant was that any *discussion* about satya can be

only within the mithyA realm. There would have been no *conception*

of satya in the absence of mithyA, as all philosophizing is in the

mithyA jagat. Even the Sruti is in the mithyA jagat.

 

The notion of independence is dependent on the notion of dependence!

 

So I wasn't making an ontological claim about satya being dependent on

mithyA. Rather, I was indicating that all " standpoints " have mithyA

status. The mithyA standpoint that recognizes the mithyatva of all

standpoints is what we call the pAramArthika standpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

All that we think can release us from samsAra, the cycle of birth and

death, is also mithyA. There is nothing Real in this samsAra.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " baskaran42 " <baskaran42 wrote:

>.......

> i just wish to add that, all that looks real to us in this world if

> it cannot release us from Samsara, the cycle of birth and death, they

> all together is Mithya.

[Guest guest]

Sir

I have a query. Pardon my ignorance.

 

You said....

///////

All that we think can release us from samsAra, the cycle of birth and

> death, is also mithyA. There is nothing Real in this samsAra.

////////

 

I now ask...

 

What about the vedas? Are they " mitya " or " sathya " ? Because, if

vedas are mithya, then it can't be a proof for brahman. If vedas are

" sathya " , then this is another sathya apart from brahman, which is not

possible (to have 2 sathyas).

How does advaita address this paradox?

 

On 06/11/2007, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste.

>

> All that we think can release us from samsAra, the cycle of birth and

> death, is also mithyA. There is nothing Real in this samsAra.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " baskaran42 " <baskaran42 wrote:

> The only sathyam is the ever existing

> consciousness awareness Brahman, rest are all mithya.

>

> baskaran

>

" The rest " are

NOTHING BUT BRAHMAN APPRARING

AS " THE REST " .

It is not satya and mithya,

it is satya appearing as mithya.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vaithikasri:

 

In order to answer your questions, we do need to look carefully the

following assertions:

 

Sathya only exists

Mithya without Sathya doesn't exist

Mithya can only coexist with Sathya

Mithya with the appearance of Sathya is Mithya

The presence of Mithya as Mithya is Sathya

The understanding of Mithya as Sathya is Mithya

The realization of Sathya as Sathya is Sathya

The ignorance of Sathya is Mithya

Wisdom is Sathya and Ignorance is Mithya

Brahman alone is Sathya

Separation of World and the Brahman is Mithya

Integration of World and the Brahman is Sathya

Vedas are Mithya with ignorance

With wisdom, Vedas are the Sathya

With wisdom Vedas are necessarily the Brahman

Vyvaharika is Mithya and Paramarthika is Sathya

All the above assertions are Mithya and that is Sathya!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: The bottom-line is - No words/sentences/languages can ever

explain Sathya and that is Sathya and all our understanding of the

Sathya using words/sentences/languages is Mithya. That, It Is!!

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " ஜயராமன௠"

<vaithikasri wrote:

>

> I now ask...

>

> What about the vedas? Are they " mitya " or " sathya " ? Because, if

> vedas are mithya, then it can't be a proof for brahman. If vedas are

> " sathya " , then this is another sathya apart from brahman, which is not

> possible (to have 2 sathyas).

> How does advaita address this paradox?

>

[Guest guest]

Sadaji :

 

No need to apologize. i knew what you meant . we all have the spark

of 'divine' in us !

 

Yes! Ammachi , the hugging saint , is Devi herself in human form.

Although a woman and that too from the fishermen caste , she ihas

mastered all the tantras and upanishads and vedas etc ... so who

says women and those belonging to low caste cannot chant the vedic

mantras ? I have had Drashan of Mata Amritanandamayi several times

when she visited Washington dc in the last few years and i still

treasure the bear 'hugs' i received from Her !

 

but on another note , we do need to be skeptical of those who claim

theMSELVES TO BE bHAGWAN and dupe innocent people! I don't know if

you are aware of this ! Recently , Satya Sai baba ( of Puttapurthi

fame) told all his devotees that he will display 'Vishwarupa

darshan' to the assembled devotees at a certain time and place !

When devotees thronged to that place on time , there was no 'baba'

and no 'cosmic' darshan or Viraata rupa of bhagwan ! When asked for

an explanation , Baba replied that he could not make it on time to

the place of the assembled devoteees because of 'Traffic ' holdups !

Now , can 'traffic' be a badha to a so called incarnation of God ?

Our krishna bhagwan evebn delayed the 'sunset' in the kurukshetra

war ? All these only go to prove that 'siddhis' are only a by

product of Tapas and is not be mistaken for jnana ! A real jnani

never displays 'siddhis' to prove he is a jnani ! Sri Ramakrishna

strictly condemned that practice!

 

a Disclaimer - i myself used to be a devotee of Satya sai baba , a

few year ago ! He has done tremendous social service in

Andrapradesh - opening hospital for the sick and the disabled .

water projects , schools for yoputh and many charities .... but from

the recent bad press he has been getting , i am now in two minds -

should i worship him as bhagwan or should i just regard him as a

good man endowed with some divine qualities ?

 

anyway - Mithya is only absence of Satya ! we cannot have a satya

sai baba without a mithya sai baba ! Shirdi sai baba is the satya !

 

Hari aum !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa

> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > One who is a Real bhagwan ( sri ramana maharishi)

> > does not ecven

> > like when someone refers to him as bhagwan or guru

> > wheras we have so

> > many ...

>

> Bhagini Niveditaaji -PraNAms

>

> I just made a general statement with no intension of

> hurting or criticising any particualr person or guru.

>

>

> In fact what I really meant was everybody is bhagavaan

> or bhagavatii- and my praNAms to all of them. Only

> thing is some know it and some yet to know it - some

> act like bhagavans and some act like disciples of

> bhagavaans. There are many great souls who play the

> roles. As you know,there is a great soul who is born

> as innocent fisher girl, yet realized her true nature

> because of puurva samskaara. Yogaratova bhogaratova

> sangaratova sangavihiinaH.

>

> Who cannot evaluate that one is realized and one has

> not yet realized. But from our perspective, as

> advaitins, let us realize that everyone is bhagavaan,

> as Krishna says I am in the heart of everybody - nay

> in everything too. That is the unity in diversity,

> advaita in dvaita.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Vaithikasri.

 

There is no paradox.

 

You answered your question when you said: " If vedas are

" sathya " , then this is another sathya apart from brahman, which is not

possible (to have 2 sathyas). "

 

Vedas too are mithyA.

 

I am sure others here can quote scriptural authority for this.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair