A request-mithyaa translated

[Guest guest]

Namaste Balgopal-ji.

 

MithyA translated as illusion is not correct at any level. (I know

the statement doesn't belong to you and that you are only quoting

from another message.)

 

The vedantic classification is mentioned below (as I understand it):

 

Real is the Absolute (Satyam or Brahman or Absolute Knowledge)-

beyond the three periods of time.

 

MithyA (Non-real - to use a harmless translation) is all that are

bound by the three periods of time. They take birth, are sustained

for some time and then perish. They are subject to change and are

impermanent. They are a result of false knowledge. Even a mirage,

which is an illusion, is mithyA because it is experienced when it

lasts.

 

Asat (unreal) - like the horns of a rabbit or the son of a barren

woman, which are total impossibilities per se. But, when they are

entertained or visualized in the mind as thoughts, they are again

mithyA, because they are thoughts.

 

Detailed definitions are available in the archives and at Dennis-ji's

site.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

 

(advaitin , balagopal ramakrishnan

<rbalpal wrote:

> " ...But some words have to be learned since English translation

looses its significance - like mithyaa translated as illusion is not

correct - it is transactional reality but is apparent only at

absolute reference.... "

>

> Can we say this as:

>  

>  it is REAL at one level and UNREAL at another level which happens

to be the REAL LEVEL which covers the first level too? Hope I am

clear in conveying the msg.

[Guest guest]

The definitions of mithyA, provided by members of the group, are

at http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/mithyA.htm

and http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/mithyA2.htm.

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of balagopal

ramakrishnan

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:42 AM

advaitin

Re: Re: A request-mithyaa translated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namasthe,

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Shree Sadanandaji,

 

 

 

 

 

" ...But some words have to be learned since English

translation looses its significance - like mithyaa translated as

illusion is not correct - it is transactional reality but is apparent only at

absolute reference.... "

 

 

Can we say this as:

 

 

 

 

 

it is REAL at one level and UNREAL at another level

which happens to be the REAL LEVEL which covers the first level too? Hope I

am clear in conveying the msg.

 

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

 

Balagopal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get

it now

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 9/10/08, balagopal ramakrishnan <rbalpal wrote:

 

" ...But some words have to be learned since English translation looses its

significance - like mithyaa translated as illusion is not correct - it is

transactional reality but is apparent only at absolute reference... . "

 

Can we say this as:

 

 it is REAL at one level and UNREAL at another level which happens to be the

REAL LEVEL which covers the first level too? Hope I am clear in conveying the

msg.

 

Shree Balagopaji PraNAms

 

The precise definition is provided - mithyaa is sat - aast vilakshaNam. which

is neither real nor unreal. In Adviata Siddhi Madhusuudana saraswati provides 5

definitions of falsity. Mithyaa may be simply considered as false since false is

not truth and false is not non-existant.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda