Guest guest Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 PraNams to all. Looking back, there seems to be some confusion of cause-effect relation in the title itself. Real is Suppose to be the cause and unreal is the effect - as the scriptures declares - aatmana akaashaH sambhuta, etc. The reverse process comes into picture due to maayaa - that which makes real unreal and unreal as real. Now the path has become the so-called real to so-called unreal. Hence maayaa is defined as aghaThita gaThanaa paTiiyasii maayaa - that which makes impossible possible. From the point of real - there is no unreal for it to be caused. It is just understanding that whatever is seen is mithyaa - as Shankara puts it in short as dRistyaatvaat. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > The knowledge of the Atman is indeed the bridge to Immortality. > This knowledge of/about the unfailing Consciousness is therefore the > bridge that helps us pass from the relative to the absolute. > praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji > Hare Krishna > I've an additional doubt here (not entirely relevant to the context of > on-going discussion). > Kindly clarify whether knowledge of the Atman (in absolute sense) is > merely a 'road' to the 'destination' i.e. immortality?? Is these two > (knowledge of Atman and immortality (amrutatva) are separate niche like > bridge & destination?? Kindly clarify whether there is any time gap > between absolute jnAna & attainment of immortality. > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Namaste Bhaskar ji, Here are some references that could help find answers to the above questions: 1. Msg.No. 46150 from Dennis ji The following with the Acharya's commentary: 2. Bhagavadgita verse: 5.16 3. Mundakopanishad 2.2.8 4. Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10 5. Brahmasutra 1.4.4 and 4.1.2 Regards, subbu Dear Sada ji, Pranams, Reg. your post (msg.no. 46155), kindly note that the title of my original post (msg.no. 46120) is in the context of the Brahmasutra Commentary quoted therein. The matter discussed there is: // This objection, we reply, is without force (because as a matter of fact we do see real effects to result from unreal causes), // Regards, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 --- On Fri, 8/7/09, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote: Reg. your post (msg.no. 46155), kindly note that the title of my original post (msg.no. 46120) is in the context of the Brahmasutra Commentary quoted therein. The matter discussed there is: // This objection, we reply, is without force (because as a matter of fact we do see real effects to result from unreal causes), // Subbuji PraNAms I agree with what you wrote - I am only pointing the fallacy in the very subject line itself. I agree with what Dennisji wrote. The bridge itself is part of maaya too. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Pranams. I agree and would like to add a small perspective here. A corollary of a placebo effect for atmajnana is may be somewhat unnecessary/incorrect, to explain the position of the Vedas as being both mithyA as well as a source of Knowledge. With a placebo - the malady is real. The resolution of the malady is also real. The pill however is not real - i.e. false. Here the malady of samsara is mithya. The resolution of the malady which is moksha is also mithya. And the tat tvam asi upadesha is also mithya. All three are in one plane. There is neither a false therapy for a true illness nor a true therapy for a false illness. Really speaking, nothing unreal can cause the real. The relationship between the real and the unreal has been well laid out by Lord Krishna in his timeless equation - nasato vidyate bhava nabhava vidyate satah. Shankara himself at the very beginning of his adhyasa bhashya uses the term tamahprakashatvat viruddhasvabhavayoho to describe the relationship between the unreal and the real - and rightfully points out that they are of opposing polarity. The basic question is this. The individual jiva with a i-notion is unreal. He is given the Vedic upadesha. This liberating knowledge releases him from the cycle of birth and death i.e. the unreal, and establishes him in Brahman i.e. the real - asato ma sat gamaya, mrtyor ma amrtam gamaya... Is that liberating knowledge, or its source, real or unreal? If unreal how can it liberate? There is a crucial subtlety involved here. The liberation itself is not real. Because the bondage itself is not real. Because the one bound is not real. Again - this " not real " should also be very carefully understood as mithya otherwise - what we will be left with is shunya. So is the jiva real or unreal? Well from the standpoint of its Reality it is very much real as the jivatman. Is the Veda real or unreal? Well it is Real as Brahman, being the very breath of Brahman. Is Ishwara who faithfully transmits the Vedas at every kalpa Real? Well of course He is very much Real as Ishana, as the sarvajnaha sarvasakshiman, Purusha. There is no " real " bondage here that pertains to any " real " entity - and there is no " real " liberation either - only a " real " entity will need a " real " liberation. So in this spirit if we look at the sentence from the section Respected Subbu-ji kindly referneced " These effects themselves, we reply, are unreal indeed; but not so the consciousness which the dreaming person has of them. " it becomes clear what the intended significance is. Here is a example - " In a mithya dream the mithya person falls into a mithya pool and becomes mithya wet and because of mithya shivering wakes up - thereby sublating the entire prapancha of person, pool, getting wet, etc into one unitary consciousness of the I the waker who sustained that entire mithya creation. " Now the continuity of consciousness, at once immanent, that enabled the getting wet, and, yet transcendent, of the " realized " wakerhood cannot be denied. I did get wet and yet I, who alone was the only thing Real across the three states of time with respect to that dream, never got wet, while at the same time, pervading every molecule of water in that dream pool all along! In the words of the Brhd Up na tatra veshantaa pushkarinyasvantayo bhavanti athah veshantaan pushkaraneestavanti srjate...there are no pools tanks or rivers there, but he creates the pools, the thanks and the rivers...What would be incongruent would be this - a unreal dream person getting unreally wet in an unreal dream pool and then transforming into a totally separate waker as a consequence of that dream " dip " in which case he would not have any continuity of knowing to relay that sequence...this I humbly submit is the crux of the argument here that Shankara advances - that - if a mithya jiva immerses himself in the mithya pool of Vedanta shravana, he mithya attains a mithya mukti - all along it is the Self alone that is the teacher, the Self alone that is the taught, and of course verily the Self alone that is the teaching too -i.e. Veda!! - own up to this Self and bodly declare - that I, the Self alone, AM verily the Veda " - vedais cha sarvair aham eva vedyo.... " ! Elsewhere too in the sutrabhashya and in many other places Shankara reaffirms the same emphatically and elaborately. As an example take BSB 4.1.4 - topic 2, as well as Br.Up 5.1.1 (...for such dualistic differences as scripture, disciple and discipline terminate with the knowledge of unity). I humbly submit that perhaps Michael-ji is pointing us in this direction?? Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: Dennis Waite <dwaite RE: The Unreal Can Cause the Real advaitin Friday, August 7, 2009, 5:20 AM Dear Michael, Isn't this analogous to asking 'how can the dreamer wake up?'? 'vyAvahArika speak' is for the sake of convenience only, while we are in the midst of the delusion. In reality, there *is* no individual just as, from the vantage point of the waker, there is no dreamer. So there is no question of transcendence - the seeker already *is* the real, non-dual brahman. There is no bridge because there is no need of a bridge - there are not two places. Best wishes, Dennis Recent Activity 3 New MembersVisit 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. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > > > Pranams. > I agree and would like to add a small perspective here. > > A corollary of a placebo effect for atmajnana is may be somewhat unnecessary/incorrect, to explain the position of the Vedas as being both mithyA as well as a source of Knowledge. > > With a placebo - the malady is real. The resolution of the malady is also real. The pill however is not real - i.e. false. Here the malady of samsara is mithya. The resolution of the malady which is moksha is also mithya. And the tat tvam asi upadesha is also mithya. All three are in one plane. There is neither a false therapy for a true illness nor a true therapy for a false illness. > > Really speaking, nothing unreal can cause the real. The relationship between the real and the unreal has been well laid out by Lord Krishna in his timeless equation - nasato vidyate bhava nabhava vidyate satah. Shankara himself at the very beginning of his adhyasa bhashya uses the term tamahprakashatvat viruddhasvabhavayoho to describe the relationship between the unreal and the real - and rightfully points out that they are of opposing polarity. Dear Shyam ji, Pranams. I think the above perception has resulted from a viewpoint that is slightly different from what Shankara is dealing with. His aim is to show to the objector that there are cases encountered by us in our vyavahara where a cause despite being in the prAtibhAsika plane is seen, on certain occasions, to produce effects that are not invalidated in the vyavaharika plane. Thus Shankara is showing a list of cases where the cause is agreeably in the mithyA plane but the effect that it has produced is, again, agreeably, in the waking plane, continuing to be valid. Take for example the example he cites: // Scripture also (in the passage, 'If a man who is engaged in some sacrifice undertaken for some special wish sees in his dream a woman, he is to infer therefrom success in his work') (Chandogya Up. 5.2.9) declares that by the unreal phantom of a dream a real result such as prosperity may be obtained.// Here, the dream-seeing the dream-woman are all mithyA as everyone would agree. But the Ch.Up. says that the 'result' of such a seeing of a woman (by someone who is seriously engaged in a prolonged sacrifice, a long vrata, or a yaga lasting several days) in his dream during that lengthy period, would get success in his work (in other words, his original desire with which he undertook that sacrifice will get fulfilled). (In Tamil it would be called 'shubha shakunam'). Now, this 'success' pertains to the waking only, quite understandably. Thus, the Chandogya Up. links a cause (of seeing a woman in a dream) pertaining to a plane of a lower degree of reality with/to a result accruing in a plane of a relatively higher degree of reality. It would not be proper here for someone who has a fairly good knowledge of Vedanta to say: The 'success' in the waking is also mithyA from the PaaramArthika plane. In this sense I think the placebo analogy is not unrelated. Here, the subject (patient) taking the pill believes, in other words, erroneously thinks, that it is medicine. This erroneous thinking is the plane of a lower order of reality. Yet, the result of getting cured is there for all to see, remaining un-invalidated. This 'result' plane, even though in the waking itself, is comparatively of a higher degree of reality, being not contradicted. The earlier plane is of course of a lower degree of reality, for the person who administered the placebo is quite aware of the 'show'. So, when he views the whole procedure, he has on the one hand a preceding unreal event causing a succeeding real effect. Shankara's purpose is just to show this comparison and let the objector/reader appreciate the phenomenon of an unreal cause effecting a real result. In this discussion He does not extend the case to 'bondage is mithya, teaching is mithya, liberation is mithya' level. If such were the case He would not have taken up the discussion of showing just the mithyAtva of the Veda. He should have concluded by saying: The effect of a person getting liberated is also mithyA. No. He does not say this. So, from this we conclude that His citing several examples, both from the scripture and from daily life, is only to show the unreal-cause and real-effect phenomenon. This portion of the quoted passage confirms this: // Nor can it be maintained that such states of consciousness do not actually arise; for scriptural passages such as, 'He understood what he said' (Kh. Up. VII, 18, 2), declare them to occur, and certain means are enjoined to bring them about, such as the hearing (of the Veda from a teacher) and the recital of the sacred texts. Nor, again, can such consciousness be objected to on the ground either of uselessness or of erroneousness, because, firstly, it is seen to have for its result the cessation of ignorance, and because, secondly, there is no other kind of knowledge by which it could be sublated.// Here Shankara strengthens his thesis with two reasons: 1. the veda, although unreal, succeeds in effecting the cessation of ignorance and 2. This cessation, once effected, is not seen to be invalidated by any other cause. It is in this sense He started the discussion with the agenda/premise: an unreal cause can result in an unsublatable effect. > There is a crucial subtlety involved here. The liberation itself is not real. Because the bondage itself is not real. Because the one bound is not real. Again - this " not real " should also be very carefully understood as mithya otherwise - what we will be left with is shunya. > > So is the jiva real or unreal? Well from the standpoint of its Reality it is very much real as the jivatman. Is the Veda real or unreal? Well it is Real as Brahman, being the very breath of Brahman. Is Ishwara who faithfully transmits the Vedas at every kalpa Real? Well of course He is very much Real as Ishana, as the sarvajnaha sarvasakshiman, Purusha. > > There is no " real " bondage here that pertains to any " real " entity - and there is no " real " liberation either - only a " real " entity will need a " real " liberation. > > So in this spirit if we look at the sentence from the section Respected Subbu-ji kindly referneced " These effects themselves, we reply, are unreal indeed; but not so the consciousness which the dreaming person has of them. " it becomes clear what the intended significance is. The 'nAsato..' verse of the Gita 2.16 and the sutrabhashya opening sentence referring to light and darkness are all certainly valid in a context slightly different. They are all valid in the: 'no bondage, no seeker, no liberation level'. Here Shankara is discoursing in a bandha-moksha vyavahara level. > Here is a example - " In a mithya dream the mithya person falls into a mithya pool and becomes mithya wet and because of mithya shivering wakes up - thereby sublating the entire prapancha of person, pool, getting wet, etc into one unitary consciousness of the I the waker who sustained that entire mithya creation. " > > Now the continuity of consciousness, at once immanent, that enabled the getting wet, and, yet transcendent, of the " realized " wakerhood cannot be denied. I did get wet and yet I, who alone was the only thing Real across the three states of time with respect to that dream, never got wet, while at the same time, pervading every molecule of water in that dream pool all along! In the words of the Brhd Up na tatra veshantaa pushkarinyasvantayo bhavanti athah veshantaan pushkaraneestavanti srjate...there are no pools tanks or rivers there, but he creates the pools, the thanks and the rivers...What would be incongruent would be this - a unreal dream person getting unreally wet in an unreal dream pool and then transforming into a totally separate waker as a consequence of that dream " dip " in which case he would not have any continuity of knowing to relay that sequence...this I humbly submit is the crux of the argument here that Shankara advances - that > - if a mithya jiva immerses himself in the mithya pool of Vedanta shravana, he mithya attains a mithya mukti - all along it is the Self alone that is the teacher, the Self alone that is the taught, and of course verily the Self alone that is the teaching too -i.e. Veda!! > - own up to this Self and bodly declare - that I, the Self alone, AM verily the Veda " - vedais cha sarvair aham eva vedyo.... " ! Yes, this realization/declaration itself is not falsified by any other knowledge. That is the real effect that remains for ever. > Elsewhere too in the sutrabhashya and in many other places Shankara reaffirms the same emphatically and elaborately. > As an example take BSB 4.1.4 - topic 2, as well as Br.Up 5.1.1 (...for such dualistic differences as scripture, disciple and discipline terminate with the knowledge of unity). I humbly submit that perhaps Michael-ji is pointing us in this direction?? > Hari OM > Shri Gurubhyoh namah > Shyam This knowledge of unity is the unfalsifiable result of everything that preceded it having got falsified by this knowledge of unity. In this sense alone an unreal cause can bring about a real effect. I have certainly not contradicted what you have meant, Shyam ji. I have only tried to put in perspective the Sutra-bhashya portion that I originally quoted. Om Tat Sat subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.