Seeking Clarification

[Guest guest]

Dear Sampat-ji,

 

Your 43792.

 

Thanks for taking time to write such a lengthy commentary. It was

refreshing to see you after a long while. Needless to say, your mail

was very informative.

 

Although I can go with you on that brahmaniShta part (with the

observatoin that an aspirant has no means of knowing whether the

teacher is an enlightened one or not), I may have some reservations

on the need for deliberate discrimination on the part of an

enlightened one because enlightenment connotes to me a 'state' where

all anitya has come to rest.

 

I haven't said anything about the world or BMI 'disappearing'. It is

a misunderstanding. What I have maintained is that whatever

is 'seen' by the enlightened one will be his own Self, i.e.

brahman. However, it can't be like the perception of and the

duality perceived by the common man.

 

As anything I have to say further might be a repetition, there is

danger of my detailed dwelling on your message being mistakenly

dubbed 'tautology'. So, I request your kind permission to close the

matter with this.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

If repetition to lay stress is mistaken as tautology, then our

mahAvAkyAs are the worst examples of tautology in vedanta.

 

Tautology seems to help sometimes. I had an off-List exchange of

views with Shri Neelakantanji. It has resulted in a happy

convergence of views. Relevant portions are quoted below.

 

Thanks for your kind patience and forbearance.

 

Best regards to all.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

 

QUOTE

 

 

Neelakantan-ji said:

 

As per advaita, brahman is the only reality and all that is seen in

vyavahAra is an appearance only. There is no disagreement there. But

I do not single out perceiving a jnAni's erstwhile BMI as a special

error. After all, the perception of vyavahAra itself is an error.

 

The jnAni is beyond action, no doubt. That's why I said that they act

out of compassion and quoted the shloka. You can call it Grace. I see

no issue with that. Even if you consider the teachings of jnAnis as

Grace, to my mind, Grace operates through these jnAnis' BMI's. While

discussing things from a vyavahAra, we must obey the laws of

vyavahAra, even if they are mithyA.

 

[MN: Can go with you in all this.]

 

 

Neelakantan-ji continued:

 

The crux of the disagreement in our positions seems to be whether

perception of duality continues for a jnAni or not. As I have said

before, I do not presume to know what a jnAni sees or does not see.

There are scriptural passages to support either view - that he sees

but knows the mithyA status of duality or that there is only brahman

and there is nothing else (no question of any perception). I choose

the former as it better suits the vyavhAra point of view. IMHO, I

cannot choose the latter and continue to talk about it :-)

 

[MN: I can understand your predicament. The scriputre says, as I

quoted Shankara yesterday on BS I.i.4:

 

" Thus since embodiedness is the result of false perception, it is

established that the enlightened man has no embodiedness even while

living. Thus about the knower of Brahman occurs this Vedic

text, " Just as the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off and it lies

in the ant-hill, so does this body lie. Then the Self becomes

disembodied and immortal, becomes the PrAna (i.e. living), Brahman,

the (self-efflugent) Light " ( Br. IV. Iv. 7), as also, " Though

without eyes, he appears as if possessed of eyes, though without

ears, he appears as if possessed of ears; thoiugh without speech, he

appears as if possessed of speech; though without mind, he appears as

though possessed of mind; though without vital force, he appears as

though possessed of vital force. "

 

So, what is the problem in taking the first part of the above

statement as the absolute position and the second part (all the as

if's) as applying to our seeming duality (transactional). Thus, a

jnAni is really beyond agency, action and BMI, but, however, he

appears to behave in a contrary manner in our duality. What we,

therefore, have is only a false appearance. That is the thing I

called projection or adhyAsa. In effect, we are not seeing the jnAni

at all. But that things are so and we see something is GRACE.

 

Kindly tell me if you can buy this.

 

 

Neelakantanji replied:

 

Thank you for your reply. You have maintained that the appearance of

jnAni in vyavahAra is false. I don't see the need to qualify this

separately. I have already said that all vyavahAra is only an

appearance (not to me yet, of course!). This naturally includes

jnAnis. So there is really nothing to buy into :-)

 

The appearance and behaviour of jnAnis in vyavahAra is special in one

way. It is special because of the very fact of their continued

presence when thay have no identification with their bodies. Their

mere presence is of course a blessing and if they teach, it is surely

out of compassion for us.

 

The difficulty is (staying within vyavahAra) - how do we know jnAnis

from others? Even if it is only appearance, how do we recognize

jnAnis (from a practical wish) to learn from them? I suppose the

answer is, when the disciple is ready that guru will appear. But the

question remains. Only continued sAdhana with shraddhA can help us

here.

 

[MN: I can go with that. ]

 

 

UNQUOTE

 

______________________________

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

> Statements such as like yours belong to the logic

> of TAUTOLOGY. No one can find fault with the logic of tautology and

> it fails to provide any clues to how we should refine our life.

>

> I have come to the conclusion that we don't gain by continuing this

> conversation on this subject matter.

[Guest guest]

PranAms Shri Sampath-ji

 

A gem of a post! - may salutations to you.

 

Its wonderful to hear from you after a long break - I am hopeful that this list is blessed with more such gems of wisdom from you in the near future.

 

Hari OM

Shyam

--- On Mon, 2/23/09, paramahamsavivekananda <paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

paramahamsavivekananda <paramahamsavivekananda Re: Seeking Clarificationadvaitin Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 1:15 PM

 

 

 

 

So, as I believe, realization doesn't mean disappearance of the worldfrom ones view or anything like that. I even find the descriptionslike "whole world appearing like brahman" etc., much metaphorical andmisleading because, we are led to think from such statements that ajnAni does not see the world as made up of material, but he sees it asmade up of brahman. Such a thinking is flawed because brahman cannotbe perceived through senses. Senses themselves are a part of world.So, the Senses perceive the world as it is, just as Krishna says thatthe "guNas act in themselves", while purusha attributes such actionfalsely to himself. In a jnAni or jIvan mukta, such false attributionis absent. It means, he does not confuse the actions of Senses andMind with those of Atman. To be more technical, he does not *mutually*superimpose the qualities of Self and Not-Self. This in no way meansthat a jnAni does not act.

He acts, but he knows who is really acting!Ever yours in the Lord,Sampath ~!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

9

New Members

 

5

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sampat,

It was nice to see your post after such a long time. Your presentation

is excellent and very well reasoned. Hoping to see more of such posts

from you.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

I do need to clarify the distinction between " your tautological

statements in the list " and the fundamental Truths conveyed through

the Mahavakyas. The Mahavakyas are considered the axioms by which

the entire system of Advaita VedAnta is based. Numerous efforts have

been made by the sages and saints of the Upanishads over the

centuries to address and dissolve all logical problems that arose in

Advaita Vedanta.

 

For members who are not familiar with, the four most important

mahAvAkyas (one from each veda) are:

 

" ayamAtmA brahma " (muNDaka)

" tattvamasi " (chAndogya)

" aham brahmAsmi " (bRhadAraNyaka)

" prajnAnam brahma " (aitareya)

 

For explanations and translations, please read message # 16247

advaitin/messages/16247

 

Similar to how the science of mathematics depends on the axioms to

establish logical consistency, Advaita Vedanta depends on the above

four Mahvakyas to dissolve all logical inconsistencies.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> If repetition to lay stress is mistaken as tautology, then our

> mahAvAkyAs are the worst examples of tautology in vedanta.

>

[Guest guest]

SrI Nair-ji,

 

praNAmaH !

 

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you with a small note to define my

understanding of vivEka.

 

You wrote:

 

 

I may have some reservations on the need for deliberate discrimination

on the part of an enlightened one because enlightenment connotes to me

a 'state' where all anitya has come to rest.

[/uNQUOTE]

 

My understanding of vivEka is that it is not a " deliberate

discrimination " . It is just discrimination, that's all. It is natural

to jnAni just like Perception is to everyone. Although the onlooker

may think the other person is deliberately perceiving, fact is that

Perception is natural to our being. Similarly, I feel vivEka is

natural to the " state " that you have mentioned where all anitya has

come to rest.

 

Further, I feel vivEka is the realization of separateness from body

and mind. It is a fullness of being. It is not a deliberate mental

act, because for Mind to discriminate between two things, both of them

should exist before it in the same plane of reality like say, the Good

and the Evil. But this is not the case with the Atman and the World.

So, vivEka is not really an action of Mind and one cannot deliberately

discriminate. When one realizes that he is Atman, all kartRitva and

bhOktRitva disappear, even if continues to identify himself with the

upAdhis to work for the cause of elevating others.

 

## I hereby also thank SrI Sastri ji and SrI Shyam ji for their kind

words of encouragement. Thank you for your love.

 

Ever yours in the Lord,

 

Sampath ~

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

[Guest guest]

For jnAni (not *a* jnAni), he is Brahman (Forgive the masculine). There is nothing aside from him. Then, where is scope for any

ignorance or ignorant one to exist apart from him?

 

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, there is no ajnAna or ajnAni whatsoever for the jnAni...shankara makes it clear that there is no avidyA whatsoever to anyone after the dawn of knowledge of absolute non-duality ..again in 4-1-3 sUtra bhAshya shankara answers if you are an Ishwara / brahman you realize that there is no avidyA for ANY ONE'...One should think here why shankara telling avidyA is not there for any one!! if it is an individual jnAna of the particular jeeva, he would have said, see after realization there is no ajnAna for you but there are still some jeeva-s who are suffering from ajnAna & you can teach them accordingly..is it not?? I think I've asked this question in this list itself somany times earlier...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

Namaskarams.

>

> Yes, there is no ajnAna or ajnAni whatsoever for the jnAni...shankara

> makes it clear that there is no avidyA whatsoever to anyone after

the dawn

> of knowledge of absolute non-duality ..again in 4-1-3 sUtra bhAshya

> shankara answers if you are an Ishwara / brahman you realize that

there is

> no avidyA for ANY ONE'...One should think here why shankara telling

avidyA

> is not there for any one!! if it is an individual jnAna of the

particular

> jeeva, he would have said, see after realization there is no ajnAna

for you

> but there are still some jeeva-s who are suffering from ajnAna & you can

> teach them accordingly..is it not?? I think I've asked this question in

> this list itself somany times earlier...

>

 

Jai: Let me answer this again for you. What Shankara says is that

paramArthadrtya (for the standpoint of absolute reality) there is no

ajnAna for anyone. jnAni is one who has understood this reality. So

there is no ajnAna for anyone is the truth. But the ajnAnis don't know

this. That is why Sankara and Bhagavan Krishna have asked the jnAnis

to teach the ajnAnis. Bhagavan Krishna even advises jnAnis not to

disturb ajnAnis, who are not ready for the teaching. You can refer the

BG Chapter 3 further clarification.

 

I think you are not understanding what is mithyA. If you understand

the mithyAtva (falsity) of mithyA (false/illusory objects) correctly

you won't be insisting that mithyA should vanish for satyam to be

understood.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jai

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.Jaishankar-ji, Sri.Shyam-ji and all other who are following

this thread:

 

praNAm

 

advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote:

>

> I think you are not understanding what is mithyA. If you understand

> the mithyAtva (falsity) of mithyA (false/illusory objects)

correctly

> you won't be insisting that mithyA should vanish for satyam to be

> understood.

>

 

Jaishankar-ji, you have raised a good point. Correct understanding

of mithya is very much needed for the occasion. When we identify the

correct meaning of ¡§mithya¡¨ as given by great stalwarts of the

school, we can deterministically nail down the dispute surrounding

the notion of jIvan-mukta. This mail of mine is to set the record

straight and draws everybody¡¦s attention to correct position of

Advaita School. Quite often I have been labeled as ¡§outsider¡¨ trying

to divide school-1 and school-2 with respect to ongoing discussion

about jIvan-mukta. My plea is that my intension is not to do so, but

just to bring forth the correct position on mithyattva from

classical Advaita perspective.

 

I know many of you may not agree with this write-up of mine, but

never the less it is what is being said in classical work of Advaita-

siddhi. This text which I am sure many of you accept as a text

defending Advaita doctrine from opponent. Therefore I have taken

liberty in quoting this text extensively. This mail is little longer

and I apologize for not making it short.

 

 

So here it goes;

 

Advaita-siddhi of Sri.Madusudana Sarswati has enumerated 5 different

definition for ¡§mithya¡¨. Out of these five definitions, second and

third are very important and relevant with respect to current issue

of whether jnAni still sees this world as mithya or does not see at

all. I request users to carefully go thru these points. For more

information go to Sri.Anand Hudli¡¦s website on Advaita-siddhi

http://www.advaitasiddhi.org

 

The second definition of ¡§mithya¡¨ is from PrakAshAtman and it says :

 

¡§pratipannopAdhau traikAlikanishhedhapratiyogitvaM vA

mithyAtvam.h¡¨. Meaning, ¡§mithyatva¡¨ is which is the counter-positive

of an absolute negation with respect to three times (past, present &

future in the very substratum where the thing is perceived.

Sri.Anand has *explicitly* stated what exactly this mithyattva using

an example.

 

Please see http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/part10

 

/* Quote

 

The mithyAtva of the world is akin to the illusion of the snake over

a rope or silver in nacre. Upon realizing that the snake is

illusory, one exclaims " The snake is unreal. The snake was never

there to begin with, it is not there now, and it will never be there

in the future! " This is the mithyAtva (unreality) of the world that

is being talked about.

 

/*End quote

 

So, it is very clear that mithya is not something akin to mirage-

water illusion, where illusion persists even after the knowledge

dawns, as Shyam-ji, Sadanada-ji and others propound. The example

given for this second definition is clearly of snake-rope type. When

one gets the knowledge of rope, snake ¡§appearance¡¨ is negated or

sublated. It is only the substratum remains. There is no perception

of snake anymore. So also, when a jnAni get the correct knowledge,

the appearance of this world is negated/sublated and there is no

further appearance of pramancha for jnAni to know it is mithya.

Clearly, this position of acharya Prakashatman and Madhusudan

endorses Baskar-ji and Nair-ji position. This is the point I was

talking about jnAni never perceives ajnAni and this world. When I

said this, Sri.Shyam-ji labeled me as not knowing correct Advaita

position. Now you can see how ¡§wrongly¡¨ I know classical position of

Advaita ļ

 

Now, let¡¦s consider third definition in Advaita-siddhi :

 

GYAnanivartyatvaM vA mithyAtvam

 

Meaning, ¡§mithyattva¡¨ is the property of being sublated by knowledge.

 

Here also, this definition is very explicit in saying mithya is

something which will be sublated by knowledge. Note that it is not

something still exist even after knowledge as held by some in their

doctrine ¡§non-duality in spite of duality¡¨. Please see

http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/part17 for more details on this

definition. Sri.Anand is talking about the classical position of

Advaita where cognition after dawn of knowledge is of

type ¡§nirvikalpaka cognition¡¨. This nirvikalpaka cognition is where

only Brahman is presented. Let me quote Anand again;

 

/Quote

 

The naiyAyikas say that in a nirvikalpaka cognition, it is not

possible to identify the visheShya, the visheShaNa, and the

saMsarga, even though they may be present. This is where the

advaitins part company with the naiyAyikas. The advaitins hold that

in a nirvikalpaka-GYAna, only Existence (Brahman) is presented.

There is no visheShya, no visheShaNa, no saMsarga.

 

Finally now, we can be satisified that the definition of mithyAtva

as " GYAnanivartyatvaM vA mithyAtvam.h " applies to ordinary

illusions as well as the world-on-Brahman illusion. When an ordinary

illusion such as a snake-on-rope is negated in an ordinary fashion,

the cognition which negates the illusion is the savikalpaka

type, " this is a rope. " When the world-illusion is negated by Brahma-

GYAna, this GYAna is of the nirvikalpaka type.

 

/* End Quote

 

As seen in above quote, third definition of mithyattvam is also at

odds with School-1¡¦s position. Shyam-ji¡¦s and Sada-ji¡¦s position of

jnAni continues to perceive this mithya world even after dawn of

knowledge, will render such jnAni¡¦s view as savikalpaka type. This

is not acceptable to Madusudana and his commentator. (Sada-ji,

please note that I am not criticizing you from Dvaita perspective,

but just showing what Advaita-siddhi has to offer on your stand.

Please do not accuse me saying I am Dvaitin. It is easy for one to

blame poor Dvaitin like me and it is altogether another thing to

confront the giant like Madusudana)

 

Apart from these two definitions from A-siddhi text, there is also

another point Madusudana brings forth (in response to objection from

his opponent). In my opinion this point of Madusudana is very

relevant with our current topic. I had written this in this forum in

the past, however let me reproduce it again for the sake of

relevance.

 

According to advaita definition of three tire classification of

reality - sat is that which is uncontradicted in all locus. Mithya

is that which is contradicted in some locus. Asat is unperceived in

all locus.

 

Now, the opponent who raises the question, from where does

the " contradiction " of mithya occur?

From Sat, NOTHING else is, so there is nothing to " contradict " .

From mithya, its " real " from within this vyavahAra. So, from where

does this contradiction?

 

To address this question, some old scholars of Advaita holds the

view that such negation happens from pAramArhika. This is what

coined as the term ¡§ pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaH ¡§.

 

The opponent of madusudhana counters this position on the grounds of

anyOnyAshrya involved. One can not reach to pAramArtha unless one

negates this vyavahArika world. On the other hand, one can not

negate this world while in vyavahAra as defined by

pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaH.

 

To refute above objection, MadhusUdhana takes an *explicit*

position. He argues that negation of mithyatvam happens on its very

essence or what is called `svarUpENaiva niShEdha'. According to this

position, negation of mithyatvam is negation of ¡§suchness of

negated ¡§or negation on the very svarUpa of negated.

 

Please read Advaitasiddhi:

 

nApi dwitIyaH : - abhAdhyatvarUpa pAramArthikatvasya bhAdhyatvarupa

mithyAtvaniruNyatvEna, anyOnyAShrayat | pAramArthikatva-syApi

svarUpeNa niSEdhE, prathamapaxOkthadOshapthi: athaH: tasyApi

pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaE anavastA iti chEt ¡V

 

myvam ¡V svarUpENaiva trikAlikaniShEdhasya, prapanchE sukthi rUpyAdau

cha angikArAth |

 

The implication of this is that a jnAni is negating the very svarUpa

of this jagat. It is not that he still perceives and knows it is

mithya. Mithyattva of this jagat is in the very negation (by jnAni)

of the very essence of this world. It is not as if jnAni ¡§knows¡¨ it

is mithya. Please appreciate the difference here. Madusudana

elsewhere in Advaita-siddhi argues this very point:

 

prapaJNchanishhedha-adhikaraNIbhUta-brahma abhinnatva nnishhedhasya

tAtvikatve api na-advaitahAnikaratvam.h |

 

The above stand is in response to objector¡¦s contention that if

negation is from pAramArtha (jnAni¡¦s point) there would be advaita-

hAni, for there would be two reals ¡V brahman and negation. To

counter this objection, Madusudhana says the very negation of mithya

is IDENTICAL to Brahman (brahma abhinnatvAnnishhedhasya).

 

What it means here is that, ajnAni while in this vyavahAra it is

real for him. As soon as he gain the self knowledge, the instance of

his gaining knowledge ¡¥aham brahmasmi¡¦ and the instance of negation

of this world as mithya is at the SINGLE point of time. There is no

temporal delay between these two instance. This is what Madusudana

meant by ¡§brahma-abhinnatva-nishhedha¡¨.

 

If we can put in an equation: Negation of mithya = Brahman

 

This position clearly refutes the view being held by school-1 about

jnAni (who is nothing but Brahman) that while He knows ¡¥aham

brahmasmi¡¦ he is also ¡§seeing¡¨ this world and knows it as mithya.

According to these people, the equation now would be REALITY = jnAni

+ perception of world + his jnAna about mithyattva of such perceived

world.

 

 

In closing remark, let me state that we need to understand the

correct meaning of ¡§mithya¡¨ before we embark on addressing the

sticky issue on jnAni-ajnAni. I feel, those who propound jnAni can

still perceive the duality but with correct understanding, have

missed the ¡§official¡¨ stand on the doctrine of mithya altogether. No

offense intended in saying so.

 

Any comments are welcome.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Shree Srinivas - PraNAms

 

First, we appreciate you sincere efforts to set the record straight and trying

to inform us what is the correct understanding of mityaatma of the world from

the advaitic perspective. Advaita Siddhi is classic work of Shree Madhusuudana

and analysis of the five definitions of mithyaa is an involved topic. I will be

going over that in time in my knowledge series but for the time being I would

not like to comment on your understanding of the definitions without studying

the text in more detail. That is not acceptance or rejection of your

understanding but I hope to come to that in time. Currently the topic is more

related to the negation of mithyaa itself in the realization of Brahman -or

negation of the reality that is assigned to the world in the realization of

Brahman. Thanks for your explanation of it.

 

The teaching is the very recognition that the world is mithyaa and that

understanding comes only with the recognition of the sat underlying it.

Otherwise the world is taken as real. Hence advaitic knowledge involves all the

three aspects. Without sat part of Brahman there is no mithyaa also. The

teaching involves -

 

Brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa, jivobrahmaiva naaparaH - all are interrelated.

 

The recognition of Brahma satyam involves simultaneous recognition of jagat

mithyaa - not otherwise- otherwise jagat is taken as satyam. Jaishankarji is

pointing out that mithyaa is sat and asat vilakshaNa and that has to be

understood clearly without going into detailed dialectic arguments in the

Advaita Siddhi. As you are aware of, Advaita Siddhi was written in response to

dvaitin's dialectic arguments and not that mithyaa aspect was not analyzed by

earlier aachaaryas. Shankara has used both analogies - snake/rope analogy and

mirage water analogies to drive how errors in perception occurs - taking both

jiiva sRishTi and Iswra sRitshTi into consideration. Silver/nacer percetion also

falls into the later type since one can see the silveyness even after nagating

reality to the silver that was seen. Anyway I will be disucussing these aspects

and your percespective will be used in my understanding and analysis. Keep the

mind open when the discussion of the

topic comes.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Thu, 2/26/09, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

.. This mail of mine is to set the record

straight and draws everybody¡¦s attention to correct position of

Advaita School. Quite often I have been labeled as ¡§outsider¡¨ trying

to divide school-1 and school-2 with respect to ongoing discussion

about jIvan-mukta. My plea is that my intension is not to do so, but

just to bring forth the correct position on mithyattva from

classical Advaita perspective.

 

I know many of you may not agree with this write-up of mine, but

never the less it is what is being said in classical work of Advaita-

siddhi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Srinivas

 

Thanks for quoting Advaita Siddhi. In fact when I wrote mithyAtva of

mithyA, I was thinking of advaita siddhi.

 

Now you have arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion of what I was

trying to point out with the same quotes. So let me clarify.

>

> Advaita-siddhi of Sri.Madusudana Sarswati has enumerated 5 different

> definition for ¡§mithya¡¨. Out of these five definitions, second and

> third are very important and relevant with respect to current issue

> of whether jnAni still sees this world as mithya or does not see at

> all. I request users to carefully go thru these points. For more

> information go to Sri.Anand Hudli¡¦s website on Advaita-siddhi

> http://www.advaitasiddhi.org

>

> The second definition of ¡§mithya¡¨ is from PrakAshAtman and it says :

>

> ¡§pratipannopAdhau traikAlikanishhedhapratiyogitvaM vA

> mithyAtvam.h¡¨. Meaning, ¡§mithyatva¡¨ is which is the counter-positive

> of an absolute negation with respect to three times (past, present &

> future in the very substratum where the thing is perceived.

> Sri.Anand has *explicitly* stated what exactly this mithyattva using

> an example.

>

> Please see http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/part10

>

> /* Quote

>

> The mithyAtva of the world is akin to the illusion of the snake over

> a rope or silver in nacre. Upon realizing that the snake is

> illusory, one exclaims " The snake is unreal. The snake was never

> there to begin with, it is not there now, and it will never be there

> in the future! " This is the mithyAtva (unreality) of the world that

> is being talked about.

>

> /*End quote

>

> So, it is very clear that mithya is not something akin to mirage-

> water illusion, where illusion persists even after the knowledge

> dawns, as Shyam-ji, Sadanada-ji and others propound. The example

> given for this second definition is clearly of snake-rope type. When

> one gets the knowledge of rope, snake ¡§appearance¡¨ is negated or

> sublated. It is only the substratum remains. There is no perception

> of snake anymore. So also, when a jnAni get the correct knowledge,

> the appearance of this world is negated/sublated and there is no

> further appearance of pramancha for jnAni to know it is mithya.

> Clearly, this position of acharya Prakashatman and Madhusudan

> endorses Baskar-ji and Nair-ji position. This is the point I was

> talking about jnAni never perceives ajnAni and this world. When I

> said this, Sri.Shyam-ji labeled me as not knowing correct Advaita

> position. Now you can see how ¡§wrongly¡¨ I know classical position

> of Advaita ļ

 

Jai: I think you cannot base your conclusion by extending/stretching

an example too much. Now let us see whether the 2nd definition of

mithyA applies to Clay-Pot, Mirage Water etc. To start with 'Clay was'

- 'Pot was not'. Then 'Pot is' and 'Clay is'. Then 'Pot is not' but

still 'Clay is'. But when we say 'Pot is' where is the Potness? We

cannot say Clay has Potness because there is no intrinsic Potness in

Clay. In our understanding of Clay there is no Potness. We understand

Clay and Clayness independent of Potness. But there is no Clay-Pot

without it being Clay. The weight of Pot is Clay alone. In fact the

'isness' of Pot is Clay's 'isness'. So there is no Pot in reality even

when we see a Pot. That is why the Chandogya Upanishad says 'mrittikA

eva satyam'. Pot is just a vikAra - Modification and all vikAra are

mithyA as they have no existence of their own. So we can say that in

all periods of time there is only Clay and no Pot and the definition

stands.

 

>

> Now, let¡¦s consider third definition in Advaita-siddhi :

>

> GYAnanivartyatvaM vA mithyAtvam

>

> Meaning, ¡§mithyattva¡¨ is the property of being sublated by knowledge.

>

> Here also, this definition is very explicit in saying mithya is

> something which will be sublated by knowledge. Note that it is not

> something still exist even after knowledge as held by some in their

> doctrine ¡§non-duality in spite of duality¡¨. Please see

> http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/part17 for more details on this

> definition. Sri.Anand is talking about the classical position of

> Advaita where cognition after dawn of knowledge is of

> type ¡§nirvikalpaka cognition¡¨. This nirvikalpaka cognition is where

> only Brahman is presented. Let me quote Anand again;

>

> /Quote

>

> The naiyAyikas say that in a nirvikalpaka cognition, it is not

> possible to identify the visheShya, the visheShaNa, and the

> saMsarga, even though they may be present. This is where the

> advaitins part company with the naiyAyikas. The advaitins hold that

> in a nirvikalpaka-GYAna, only Existence (Brahman) is presented.

> There is no visheShya, no visheShaNa, no saMsarga.

>

Jai: That is true. In fact in every cognition the 'isness' alone is

the reality. Every cognition resolves into the vastu which is

Nirvikalpa and a jnAni is the one who recognises brahman in every

cognition as the 'is'. When we say 'Pot is', 'Clay is', 'Gold is' etc.

the 'is' is the unchanging reality and 'Pot' etc are vikAra - mithyA.

That is why the Kena Upanishad says 'pratibodha viditam matam..' - It

is known in every cognition..

 

> Finally now, we can be satisified that the definition of mithyAtva

> as " GYAnanivartyatvaM vA mithyAtvam.h " applies to ordinary

> illusions as well as the world-on-Brahman illusion. When an ordinary

> illusion such as a snake-on-rope is negated in an ordinary fashion,

> the cognition which negates the illusion is the savikalpaka

> type, " this is a rope. " When the world-illusion is negated by Brahma-

> GYAna, this GYAna is of the nirvikalpaka type.

>

> /* End Quote

>

> As seen in above quote, third definition of mithyattvam is also at

> odds with School-1¡¦s position. Shyam-ji¡¦s and Sada-ji¡¦s position of

> jnAni continues to perceive this mithya world even after dawn of

> knowledge, will render such jnAni¡¦s view as savikalpaka type. This

> is not acceptable to Madusudana and his commentator. (Sada-ji,

> please note that I am not criticizing you from Dvaita perspective,

> but just showing what Advaita-siddhi has to offer on your stand.

> Please do not accuse me saying I am Dvaitin. It is easy for one to

> blame poor Dvaitin like me and it is altogether another thing to

> confront the giant like Madusudana)

 

Jai: Your conclusion is not correct. As I pointed out above, for a

jnAni every cognition only points to the Nirvikalpaka vastu as the

reality. So all vikalpAs are sublated by the knowledge that they are

all mithyA. So mithyA as jnAnanivartya sublates the very reality of a

vastu and not necessarily the cognition of the vastu. This is very

beautifully explained in one of the Tirumandirams of TirumUlar. For a

change let me quote some Tamil.

 

marattai maraittatu mAmada yAnai

marattil maraintatu mAmada yAnai

parattai maraittatu pArmutal bhUtam

parattil maraintatu pArmutal bhUtam

 

The great mad Elephant covered the wood

The great mad Elephant vanished into the wood

The world and the beings covered the ultimate (reality)

The world and the beings vanished into the ultimate (reality)

 

There is even a colloquial saying in Tamil 'kallaikanda nAyaikkAnum

nAyaikkanda kallaikkAnum'- If you see the stone there is no dog and if

you see the dog there is no stone.

 

>

>

> According to advaita definition of three tire classification of

> reality - sat is that which is uncontradicted in all locus. Mithya

> is that which is contradicted in some locus. Asat is unperceived in

> all locus.

>

> Now, the opponent who raises the question, from where does

> the " contradiction " of mithya occur?

> From Sat, NOTHING else is, so there is nothing to " contradict " .

> From mithya, its " real " from within this vyavahAra. So, from where

> does this contradiction?

>

> To address this question, some old scholars of Advaita holds the

> view that such negation happens from pAramArhika. This is what

> coined as the term ¡§ pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaH ¡§.

>

> The opponent of madusudhana counters this position on the grounds of

> anyOnyAshrya involved. One can not reach to pAramArtha unless one

> negates this vyavahArika world. On the other hand, one can not

> negate this world while in vyavahAra as defined by

> pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaH.

>

> To refute above objection, MadhusUdhana takes an *explicit*

> position. He argues that negation of mithyatvam happens on its very

> essence or what is called `svarUpENaiva niShEdha'. According to this

> position, negation of mithyatvam is negation of ¡§suchness of

> negated ¡§or negation on the very svarUpa of negated.

 

 

Jai: Yes. The very existence of Pot as a seperate object is negated as

it is only Clay (In fact it is only Brahman)

 

>

> Please read Advaitasiddhi:

>

> nApi dwitIyaH : - abhAdhyatvarUpa pAramArthikatvasya bhAdhyatvarupa

> mithyAtvaniruNyatvEna, anyOnyAShrayat | pAramArthikatva-syApi

> svarUpeNa niSEdhE, prathamapaxOkthadOshapthi: athaH: tasyApi

> pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaE anavastA iti chEt ¡V

>

> myvam ¡V svarUpENaiva trikAlikaniShEdhasya, prapanchE sukthi rUpyAdau

> cha angikArAth |

>

> The implication of this is that a jnAni is negating the very svarUpa

> of this jagat. It is not that he still perceives and knows it is

> mithya. Mithyattva of this jagat is in the very negation (by jnAni)

> of the very essence of this world. It is not as if jnAni ¡§knows¡¨ it

> is mithya. Please appreciate the difference here.

 

Jai: As noted above you don't have to break the Elephant statue to

know that it's very essence is wood. For a jnAni the negation of the

world is the negation of the very essence of the world as brahman

alone 'is'. In the negation also the 'isness' of the negation is

brahman but the negation is mithya.

 

Madusudana

> elsewhere in Advaita-siddhi argues this very point:

>

> prapaJNchanishhedha-adhikaraNIbhUta-brahma abhinnatva nnishhedhasya

> tAtvikatve api na-advaitahAnikaratvam.h |

>

> The above stand is in response to objector¡¦s contention that if

> negation is from pAramArtha (jnAni¡¦s point) there would be advaita-

> hAni, for there would be two reals ¡V brahman and negation. To

> counter this objection, Madusudhana says the very negation of mithya

> is IDENTICAL to Brahman (brahma abhinnatvAnnishhedhasya).

 

Jai: Yes. If the very isness of the everything is brahman, the isness

of negation also is brahman.

 

>

> What it means here is that, ajnAni while in this vyavahAra it is

> real for him. As soon as he gain the self knowledge, the instance of

> his gaining knowledge ¡¥aham brahmasmi¡¦ and the instance of negation

> of this world as mithya is at the SINGLE point of time. There is no

> temporal delay between these two instance. This is what Madusudana

> meant by ¡§brahma-abhinnatva-nishhedha¡¨.

>

> If we can put in an equation: Negation of mithya = Brahman

>

> This position clearly refutes the view being held by school-1 about

> jnAni (who is nothing but Brahman) that while He knows ¡¥aham

> brahmasmi¡¦ he is also ¡§seeing¡¨ this world and knows it as mithya.

> According to these people, the equation now would be REALITY = jnAni

> + perception of world + his jnAna about mithyattva of such perceived

> world.

 

Jai: You have got the equation all wrong. Reality = brahman. All

others are mithyA. And even if you add Reality with mithyA it still

remains Reality alone as mithyA does not have any independent

existence. You cannot add up objects of different orders of reality

and claim there are many objects. In that case you can add your dream

money with real money and become a millionaire.

>

>

> In closing remark, let me state that we need to understand the

> correct meaning of ¡§mithya¡¨ before we embark on addressing the

> sticky issue on jnAni-ajnAni.

 

Jai: I agree. If people can understand that mithyA does not really

exist even while you are perceiving it, then why should it bother them

whether jnAni sees the duality or not? In fact everybody should be

happy about the fact that jnAnis are around to teach us and remove our

mithyA bondage, knowing fully well that the act of teaching also is

mithyA.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

****

So, it is very clear that mithya is not something akin to mirage-water illusion, where illusion persists even after the knowledge dawns, as Shyam-ji, Sadanada-ji and others propound. ...There is no perception of snake anymore. So also, when a jnAni get the correct knowledge, the appearance of this world is negated/sublated and there is no further appearance of pramancha for jnAni to know it is mithya. ...This is the point I was talking about jnAni never perceives ajnAni and this world. When I said this, Sri.Shyam-ji labeled me as not knowing correct Advaita position. Now you can see how ¡§wrongly¡¨ I know classical position of Advaita ƒº*****Srinivasji Pranams.

The mirage-water, clay-pot, etc as examples are not something that has been propounded by either me or Sada-ji but are very much presented directly by the Shruti and the Shankarabhasyhas to help us understand the subjectmatter. Please note that while mithyA can be discussed in many aspects, it primarily always remains mithyA alone - which is sat-asat-vilakshanam - it is perceived hence is, it gets sublated in the wake of knowledge, hence is not. Now different imageries, different examples can be taken recourse to explain different aspects of the fact that is is not sat, or is not asat, or it is other than sat and asat, etc etc to those who have difficulty understanding mithyA, to explain to them what is mithyA, because the subject matter is subtle. That does not mean one can stretch an individual example beyond the limits of what it is intended to convey. The sutrabhashyas do talk

about the phenomenon of ropesnake but in the very same breath talk about the doublemoon as well. In the latter case, if the eyes are aligned in a particular way one has a vision of two-moons. Even after gaining correct knowledge that there indeed is only one moon, if the eyes are again made to align in that particular way, there will again be an appearance of two moons - only thing is now there is a complete conviction in the understanding that in reality the moon only is one and that there never was a second moon.

Who says a jnAni perceives someone as being a ajnani? - in His vision there is only Atman - everything/everyone is Brahman - it is upto the mithya jivA who being unaware of his own Self, declares to the Guru, his notional ignorance and notional bondage, at which point the jnAni notionally helps him with a notional teaching to achieve a notional freedom. There is no duality here!

 

If you need to understand mithyA the voluminous bhashyas written by Bhagwan Shankara are more than adequate Srinivas-ji - at least this is my humble opinion - they do represent classical advaita in every sense of the term.

 

Pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Thu, 2/26/09, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyam-ji,

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Who says a jnAni perceives someone as being a ajnani? - in His

>vision there is only Atman - everything/everyone is Brahman - it is

>upto the mithya jivA who being unaware of his own Self, declares to

>the Guru, his notional ignorance and notional bondage, at which

>point the jnAni notionally helps him with a notional teaching to

>achieve a notional freedom. There is no duality here!

 

" ..jnAni notionally helps him with a notional teaching .. "

 

This exactly we are saying too. Teachings of jnAni is a " notion " on

the part of ajnAni. This notion is mithya and it is due to ajnAni's

avidya. This is what we have been saying all along that such teachings

have no validity because they are mere notions.

 

" Real jnAni " can not teach from his perspective, and all teachings are

notional and avidya on the part of ajnAni. My problem is, devoid of

any " real teachings " how do one accept the very truth that reality is

non-dual? Non-duality is not immedeately given and if at all it exist

it has to be taught. But real teachings does not exist.

 

This is the crux of the problem.

 

 

This is the crux of the problem.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

> Who says a jnAni perceives someone as being a ajnani? - in His

vision there is only Atman - everything/everyone is Brahman - it is

upto the mithya jivA who being unaware of his own Self, declares to

the Guru, his notional ignorance and notional bondage, at which

point the jnAni notionally helps him with a notional teaching to

achieve a notional freedom. There is no duality here!

 

Whoa! Is this school-1 or school-2 ? I am getting really confused now !

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Dear Raj,

 

This is traditional advaita. You have misunderstood advaita as

disappearance of dvaita and think all others claim that dvaita is real

for jnAni just because jnAni perceives it. No advaitin claims dvaita

is real. All AchAryas have said that mithyA is false / not real even

while being perceived and it never really existed in all three periods

of time at the same location where it is/was perceived. So jnAni's

vyavahAra is mithyA only. jnAni's body, Mind, senses are mithyA only.

jnAni's kartrtva is mithyA only. jnAni's pramAtrtva is mithyA only.

jnAni's individuality is mithyA and he/she knows it very well even

while playing the role of an individual. jnAni's teaching also is

mithyA only as the ajnAni's problem / bondage / ignorance also is mithyA.

 

No body is claiming that jnAni thinks that he is a limited jIva when

functioning in his/her body-mind-sense complex. So with so much

evidence in the sruti, smriti and bhAsya if you keep denying jnAni's

vyavahAra it clearly shows your misunderstanding of mithyA. By

insisting on 'real' disappearance of dvaita you are only making dvaita

more real than what it really is.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

 

> > Who says a jnAni perceives someone as being a ajnani? - in His

> vision there is only Atman - everything/everyone is Brahman - it is

> upto the mithya jivA who being unaware of his own Self, declares to

> the Guru, his notional ignorance and notional bondage, at which

> point the jnAni notionally helps him with a notional teaching to

> achieve a notional freedom. There is no duality here!

>

> Whoa! Is this school-1 or school-2 ? I am getting really confused now !

>

> Regards,

> Raj.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji

I am happy for you if there is a breakthrough in your understanding if you find yourself aligned with those words.

Dear Raj

There is no need to get any more confused.

 

This is the only position that is consistent with tradition and hence alone with yukti as well.

And this is what has always been the one consistent position of everyone that has elaborated the traditional understanding be it Shastri-ji Sada-ji Jaishankar-ji or Subbuji among others.

In fact the same discussion had surfaced over a year ago in Jan 2008 at which point also I had presented my understanding couched in almost identical language

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/02/self-realization-what-is-it.html

 

As an excerpt:

"Now while it is true that self-ignorance is only "as though", andShruti, bhashyas, Guru, etc is also only "as though", moskha also isonly "as though". ... One cannot categorize "self-ignorance" in a as though bin and then put self-knowledge ina "actual" bin."

 

Dear Srinivas-ji

Look at your sentences carefully -

"Teachings of jnAni is a "notion" on the part of ajnAni. This notion is mithya and it is due to ajnAni's avidya."

 

Srinivas-ji do you see where is the mix up? The notion of the ajnani is his ajnanitvam! his self-ignorance alone is his notion - and a very cherished one at that. There is really no one who is a ajnani except the one who thinks himself to be so! If I ask you (or anyone), do you know yourself to be Brahman the very resounding and most ready answer is a "no" - the teaching then, for such an entity, that harbors a conviction of self-ignornace is not a notion, nor is the Guru a notion, nor is the moksha to be attained a notion. The teaching is real, the Guru is real, and there is a very real mokshaphalam that is being sought - because it - the entity's - ignorance is real. Then who knows it - all this - to be notional? Only the Wise. The notionality is in the JnAnis (not the ajnanis) understanding, as a knower of Truth, as a knower of Self or Atman - knowing which alone everything has

become known to Him. Please note that neither the jnAni/Guru nor his teachings are notional projections of a ajnani's ignorance, in which case they would of course assume zero validity! Thankfully such is not the case.

 

Trust this clarifies

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam--- On Fri, 2/27/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Seeking Clarificationadvaitin Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:02 PM

 

 

Dear Dr. Shyamji,Am I apprehending a breakthrough here? Can you kindly elaborate on that word 'notional'? I suspect you have come around to saying the same thing we were saying.Will you agree to calling that jnAni of your scenario a 'notional jnAni' leaving jnAni per se as brahman? Then I have no problem accepting what you say.Best regards.Madathil Nair____________ ____advaitin@ s.com, Shyam <shyam_md@.. .> wrote:> Who says a jnAni perceives someone as being a ajnani? - in His vision there is only Atman - everything/everyone is Brahman - it is upto the mithya jivA who being unaware of his own Self, declares to the Guru, his notional ignorance and notional bondage, at

which point the jnAni notionally helps him with a notional teaching to achieve a notional freedom. There is no duality here!

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

> Dear Srinivas-ji

> Look at your sentences carefully -

> " Teachings of jnAni is a " notion " on the part of ajnAni. This

notion is mithya and it is due to ajnAni's avidya. "

>  

> Srinivas-ji do you see where is the mix up? The notion of the

ajnani is his ajnanitvam! his self-ignorance alone is his notion -

and a very cherished one at that. There is really no one who is a

ajnani except the one who thinks himself to be so! If I ask you (or

anyone), do you know yourself to be Brahman the very resounding and

most ready answer is a " no " - the teaching then, for such an

entity, that harbors a conviction of self-ignornace is not a notion,

nor is the Guru a notion, nor is the moksha to be attained a

notion. The teaching is real, the Guru is real, and there is a very

real mokshaphalam that is being sought - because it - the entity's -

 ignorance is real. Then who knows it - all this - to be

notional? Only the Wise. The notionality is in the JnAnis (not the

ajnanis) understanding, as a knower of Truth, as a knower of Self or

Atman - knowing which alone everything has become known to

Him. Please note that neither the jnAni/Guru nor his teachings are

notional projections of a ajnani's ignorance, in which case they

would of course assume zero validity! Thankfully such is not the case.

 

> Trust this clarifies

___________

 

No, Dr. Shaymji. That confounds more than ever before!

 

You said before there is no duality for a jnAni and implied that the

ajnAni actually declares his notional ignorance and notiional

bondage. Your statement is quoted below:

 

QUOTE

 

Who says a jnAni perceives someone as being a ajnani? - in His vision

there is only Atman - everything/everyone is Brahman - it is upto the

mithya jivA who being unaware of his own Self, declares to the Guru,

his notional ignorance and notional bondage, at which point the jnAni

notionally helps him with a notional teaching to achieve a notional

freedom. There is no duality here!

 

UNQUOTE

 

So, where does the jnAni's 'knowing all this to be notional' comes

from? If you mean to say that jnAni's teachings are notional to

himself (in order to grant them one hundred percent validity!) and

the ajnAnis/their ajnAna are notional to him, then we have a big

problem. You didn't define the word 'notional'. The meaning that is

generally attributed to it is 'imaginary or hypothetical'. So do you

mean to say that jnAni is locus to something imaginary or

hypothetical and he is wasting his imaginary time in working out an

imaginary scenario of imparting imaginary teachings (of one hundred

percent validity!) to imaginary ajnAnis?

 

If yes, isn't that another way of acknowledging that jnAni has no

action and no ajnAnis to be taught because all are just imaginary?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote:

>

> Dear Raj,

>

 

> No body is claiming that jnAni thinks that he is a limited jIva when

> functioning in his/her body-mind-sense complex. So with so much

> evidence in the sruti, smriti and bhAsya if you keep denying jnAni's

> vyavahAra it clearly shows your misunderstanding of mithyA. By

> insisting on 'real' disappearance of dvaita you are only making dvaita

> more real than what it really is.

 

Jaishankarji,

I have no qualms about accepting my misunderstandings. I have a

misunderstanding, just like every ajnAni, that I am an embodied being,

and agent of actions and an experiencer. This misunderstanding is the

root of all vyavahAra.

 

By the way, before debating jnani's vyavahAra, we have to agree

upon what is vyavahAra, right ? I think so-called experts have made

vyavahAra into a huge framework which necessitates the continuation

of that framework even after one's realization. To keep that framework

intact, they have made realization into some sort of a post-dated

cheque which can be encashed only after death.

 

For me, any worldly-transaction involving a giver and a taker, is

vyavahAra - nothing more, nothing less.

Any transaction should have a giver and a taker who are different from

each other, do you agree ? If the giver and taker are the same person,

would you still call it a transaction ?

 

A jnAni is one who has seen the whole world to be his own Self. For

him, even the discourse with other " ajNanis " is just monologue without

the notion of being a giver or taker.

 

But from the ajnAni's point of view, it is vyavahAra, since he sees a

difference between himself and the teacher.

 

That is all to it. You are free to agree or disagree.

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

I am happy to note the voluminous discussions about a jnani's transactions are coming to an end, and I do not wish to prolong them any further.

 

I do wish to pen a few thoughts on the issue of "notionality"in response to dear Nair-ji's questions - what do we mean by notional vs real bondage?

 

There is a nice parable in the Br. Up. Shankara Bhashya that I think illustrates this quite well.

 

A Royal baby prince, heir to a large empire, is accidentally abandoned in a forest. There a bird-hunter discovers him and adopts him and raises him. The prince grows up with the firm conviction that he is indeed the son of a bird-hunter, and grows up to be a young bird-hunter of course.

One day a Sage who knows the real true nature of the prince happens to see him and proceeds to reveal to him the truth about his real nature. Having complete faith in the words of teacher the prince realizes his real entity, obtains release from the forest, and goes to the palace and reclaims the kingdom that was ever his.

 

The prince was always a prince. He never "became" a birdhunter.

He had a notion of being a birdhunter's son.The forest (of samsara) was his "real" home.

His trials and tribulations, that went along with that samsara forest, were "real" to him.

 

To the birdhunter's son the words of the Sage were the only "real" means to know his Real identity. And as long as he harbored the notion of being a birdhunter the Sage and the words both had "real" - not notional - validity as a means of knowledge.

 

The Wise man, neither his revealing words, were conjured by the birdhunter's son, much less his ignorance, - in other words they were not his "notions".

 

From the standpoint of the Sage, he always was seeing a prince alone!

 

Only when the prince introduced himself as a birdhunter's son did he assume the role of a "teacher". From His standpoint, there was no necessity of telling the prince that he is a prince! The words "tat tvam asi" also are relevant only for the birdhunter who is holding on dearly to his notion of being one - not to the Prince which the birdhunter does not know himself to be. But still the Sage teaches because there is someone who wants to learn (his identity).

 

There is no necessity for Him to teach. He knows all along that the ignorant person whom he is teaching is the prince alone, and if his teaching takes effect, the enlightened person with knowledge of his true identity will also be a prince alone!.

 

Trust this clarifies.

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Seeking Clarificationadvaitin Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 3:18 AM

 

 

So, where does the jnAni's 'knowing all this to be notional' comes from? If you mean to say that jnAni's teachings are notional to himself (in order to grant them one hundred percent validity!) and the ajnAnis/their ajnAna are notional to him, then we have a big problem. You didn't define the word 'notional'. The meaning that is generally attributed to it is 'imaginary or hypothetical' . So do you mean to say that jnAni is locus to something imaginary or hypothetical and he is wasting his imaginary time in working out an imaginary scenario of imparting imaginary teachings (of one hundred percent validity!) to imaginary ajnAnis?If yes, isn't that another way of acknowledging that jnAni has no action and no ajnAnis to be taught because all are just imaginary?Best regards.Madathil Nair

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

9

New Members

 

4

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Y! Messenger

All together now

Host a free online

conference on IM.

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Find helpful tips

for Moderators

on the

Groups team blog.

..

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Shyamji.

 

That is another story overstretched.

 

The notion which assumes the form of " reality " in the deluded is ignorance and

anAdi unlike in the story of the bird-hunter, where his not knowing his right

identity of prince had a definite cause and date, i.e. getting lost in the

jungle early in infancy.

 

anAdi ignorance has anAdi teaching as its antidote. The two are inseparable in

one 'system'. However, Advaita declares that the removal of ignorance (dawn of

jnAna) is not a result of the teaching.

 

Thus, a teacher who imparts teaching and the teaching are inalienable parts of

the anAdi ignorance scenario. The teacher spontaneously turns up with the

teaching as a manifestation of Grace in the jungle of anAdi ignorance when

brahmajijnAsa becomes ripe is the only plausible explanation.

 

jnAna which is non-separate and non-different from jnAni and understood of as

not the result of any teaching is ever outside the above scenario in paramArtha.

The jnAni, thus, has no agency in the teaching. The deluded, the teaching and

the teachers - all these are there in vyvahAra understood as notional entities

by non-realized persons like me who have a modicum of advaitic knowledge.

Ignorance and its removal are the botheration of non-realized entities only.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> I am happy to note the voluminous discussions about a jnani's transactions are

coming to an end, and I do not wish to prolong them any further.

>  

> I do wish to pen a few thoughts on the issue of " notionality " in response to

dear Nair-ji's questions - what do we mean by notional vs real bondage?

>  

> There is a nice parable in the Br. Up. Shankara Bhashya that I think

illustrates this quite well.

>  

> A Royal baby prince, heir to a large empire, is accidentally abandoned in a

forest. There a bird-hunter discovers him and adopts him and raises him. The

prince grows up with the firm conviction that he is indeed the son of a

bird-hunter, and grows up to be a young bird-hunter of course.

> One day a Sage who knows the real true nature of the prince happens to see him

and proceeds to reveal to him the truth about his real nature. Having complete

faith in the words of teacher the prince realizes his real entity, obtains

release from the forest, and goes to the palace and reclaims the kingdom that

was ever his.

>  

> The prince was always a prince. He never " became " a birdhunter.

> He had a notion of being a birdhunter's son.The forest (of samsara) was his

" real " home.

> His trials and tribulations, that went along with that samsara forest, were

" real " to him.

>  

> To the birdhunter's son the words of the Sage were the only " real " means to

know his Real identity. And as long as he harbored the notion of being a

birdhunter the Sage and the words both had " real " - not notional - validity as a

means of knowledge.

>  

> The Wise man, neither his revealing words, were conjured by the birdhunter's

son, much less his ignorance, - in other words they were not his " notions " .

>  

> From the standpoint of the Sage, he always was seeing a prince alone!

>  

> Only when the prince introduced himself as a birdhunter's son did he assume

the role of a " teacher " . From His standpoint, there was no necessity of telling

the prince that he is a prince! The words " tat tvam asi " also are relevant only

for the birdhunter who is holding on dearly to his notion of being one - not to

the Prince which the birdhunter does not know himself to be. But still the Sage

teaches because there is someone who wants to learn (his identity).

>  

> There is no necessity for Him to teach. He knows all along that the ignorant

person whom he is teaching is the prince alone, and if his teaching takes

effect, the enlightened person with knowledge of his true identity will also be

a prince alone!.

>  

> Trust this clarifies.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Jaishankar prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sri JS prabhuji :

Let me answer this again for you. What Shankara says is that

paramArthadrtya (for the standpoint of absolute reality) there is no

ajnAna for anyone. jnAni is one who has understood this reality. So

there is no ajnAna for anyone is the truth.

bhaskar :

thanks for accepting that there is no ajnAna or ajnAni in the view point of the jnAni.

Sri JS prabhuji :

But the ajnAnis don't know this. That is why Sankara and Bhagavan Krishna have asked the jnAnis

to teach the ajnAnis.

bhaskar :

So, you are with me that ajnAna, want of jnAna, need of a teacher (thinking that he is a student) to do the teaching etc. are all on the play ground of ajnAni only whereas in the drushti of the jnAni there is no ajnAni or ajnAna whatsoever..Now you tell me prabhuji, whether this advice of teaching is in the realm of ajnAna or avidyAkruta bedha vyavahAra or a 'real' effort from jnAni?? This cannot be later, as you yourself have admitted that there cannot be a ajnAni or ajnAna from the view point of jnAni :-)) So, 'krishna/shankara's request to jnAni-s to teach jnAna' scenario is also within the frame work of ajnAni, who could still perceive the jnAni-ajnAni bedha is it not??

Sri JS prabhuji :

I think you are not understanding what is mithyA. If you understand

the mithyAtva (falsity) of mithyA (false/illusory objects) correctly

you won't be insisting that mithyA should vanish for satyam to be

understood.

bhaskar :

Prabhuji, you may please be noted here we are not insisting here for the vanishing of really existing mithyA...If mithyA is satya, it cannot be erased even shAtra or shAstra janita jnAna...jnAna could only reveal you the fact there there is no mithya whatsoever and what IS is always satya & satya alone...

BTW, what is your understanding of mithyA...kindly clarify prabhuji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

Namaskarams.

 

>

>

> bhaskar :

>

>

> thanks for accepting that there is no ajnAna or ajnAni in the view point of

> the jnAni.

>

 

Jai: Thanks for accepting that jnAni has a point of view. If jnAni has a point

of view that only proves that jnAni is functioning in the vyavahAra with his/her

body-mind-sense complex.

 

>

> bhaskar :

>

>

> So, you are with me that ajnAna, want of jnAna, need of a teacher

> (thinking that he is a student) to do the teaching etc. are all on the play

> ground of ajnAni only whereas in the drushti of the jnAni there is no

> ajnAni or ajnAna whatsoever..Now you tell me prabhuji, whether this advice

> of teaching is in the realm of ajnAna or avidyAkruta bedha vyavahAra or a

> 'real' effort from jnAni??

 

Jai: I have or for that matter even others in this discussion have never claimed

that jnAni's teaching activity is pAramArthika-satya. The teaching effort and

the teaching and the resultant moksha are all mithyA only.

 

This cannot be later, as you yourself have

> admitted that there cannot be a ajnAni or ajnAna from the view point of

> jnAni :-)) So, 'krishna/shankara's request to jnAni-s to teach jnAna'

> scenario is also within the frame work of ajnAni, who could still perceive

> the jnAni-ajnAni bedha is it not??

 

Jai: Similarly the jnAni also perceives the ajnAni when teaching the ajnAni, as

jnANi is still living, due to prarabdha.

 

I think we all agree that jnAni doesn't vanish after jnAna and all vyavahAra

including bandha-moksha vyavahAra, jnAni's vyavahara etc. are mithyA only. So

the only difference is in your claim that jnAni is a projection of individual

ajnAnis. This claim we cannot accept. We can accept that both jnAni's and

ajnAnis'upAdhis are all projections of Isvara and for ajnAni due to mUlAvidya

there is anyonyAdhyAsa of aham and idam. But for jnAni since there is no avidyA,

the adhyAsa itself is mithyA only. But still the body continues due to prArabdha

and so jnAni is engaged in vyavahAra like an arrow already shot in the air.

>

>

> bhaskar :

>

>

> Prabhuji, you may please be noted here we are not insisting here for the

> vanishing of really existing mithyA...If mithyA is satya, it cannot be

> erased even shAtra or shAstra janita jnAna...jnAna could only reveal you

> the fact there there is no mithya whatsoever and what IS is always satya &

> satya alone...

> BTW, what is your understanding of mithyA...kindly clarify prabhuji.

 

Jai: mithyA is something which can be negated at all three periods of time at

the same location where it is perceived. mithyA is something which has no

existence of its own and that which is non-separate from the substantive

(adhistAna-ananya) where it is perceived. All variations / modifications (names

and forms - vikAra) are all mithyA.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote:

 

> Jai: mithyA is something which can be negated at all three periods of time at

the same location where it is perceived. mithyA is something which has no

existence of its own and that which is non-separate from the substantive

(adhistAna-ananya) where it is perceived. All variations / modifications (names

and forms - vikAra) are all mithyA.

>

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar

 

Namaste Jaishankarji,

 

Thank you for all of your very clear posts, which I

have greatly enjoyed.

 

I have never heard mithyA described as " something which can

be negated at all three periods of time at the same location

where it is perceived, " although of course that makes

perfect sense.

 

I have always heard the corollary statement which is

that brahman is that which cannot be negated in all

three periods of time.

 

Can you expand a bit about mithyA being negated in

three periods of time. I would enjoy hearing some

more words about that.

 

Thank you so much for your time.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Durgaji,

 

Namaste. This definition comes from Advaitasiddhi by MadhusUdhana Saraswati and

is based on the definition given by VivaraNAchArya PrakaSAtman. Please refer to

the messages 43859 and 43861. You can also refer to the Advaitasiddhi page of

Ananda Hudli.

 

with warm regards,

 

Jaishankar

 

> Namaste Jaishankarji,

>

> Can you expand a bit about mithyA being negated in

> three periods of time. I would enjoy hearing some

> more words about that.

 

> Pranams,

> Durga

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote:

>

> Dear Durgaji,

>

> Namaste. This definition comes from Advaitasiddhi by MadhusUdhana Saraswati

and is based on the definition given by VivaraNAchArya PrakaSAtman. Please refer

to the messages 43859 and 43861.

> You can also refer to the Advaitasiddhi page of Ananda Hudli.

 

The complete series of articles (19 parts) are online at:

 

http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/