Real or unreal

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Subbu-ji and Sada-ji have dealt with the matter thoroughly.

I wish to add a few remarks.

There is only one reality according to advaita. Brahman is the name given to it.

Everything else falls into two categories, mithyA and tuccham. tuccham is what

never appears in any locus at any time. An example is the horn of a rabbit.

mithyA is defined as what appears in a locus but does not exist in all the three

periods of time in the locus in which it appears. This is of two kinds,

vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika. vyAvahArika is what is sublated only by the

knowledge of Brahman. prAtibhAsika is what is sublated by the knowledge of the

substratum in which it appears. These are referred to as two levels of reality

only because they appear real to us until we realize that they have no

existence.

 

In gItA, 2.16 the term asat is used to denote mithyA. This has been brought out

by Subbu-ji.

The shloka means that what is mithyA has no existence (bhAva) at any time. This

is what the second definition of mithyAtva quoted by Sada-ji also says-

mithyAtva consists in the thing being negated in all the three periods of time

in the locus in which it appears.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

> The definition for mithyaa is: pratipanna upaadhou

traikaalikanishedhapratiyogitvam vaa mithyaatvam’ †" in essence where three

I am seeing now is not really there and what is there that is really present, I

cannot see. I am seeing pot there but pot is really not there †" what is there

is only clay and not pot. Hence pot is mithyaa. I am seeing the world in front

of me, there where I am seeing the world, it is not there since in this case

what is there is only Brahman that I cannot see. Hence the second definition is

off-shoot of the first but comes with scriptural justification for the mithyaa

besides the vaachaarambhanam statement quoted above..

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

The shloka means that what is mithyA has no existence (bhAva)

at any time. This is what the second definition of mithyAtva quoted by

Sada-ji also says- mithyAtva consists in the thing being negated in all

the three periods of time in the locus in which it appears.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

While on the subject, in addition to

the above observations, it is also tobe noted the prakriyA bedha

when we are saying world is mithya & does not have the status of trikAla

abAdhita satyatvaM!! From the methodology of 'avasthAtraya' it is

true that the jAgrat prapaNcha (waking world) is equally unreal as dreaming

world (svapna prapancha) since one world cannot exist in another state!!

And as the existence of a particular world is restricted to one particular

state it cannot be said as 'trikAla abAdhita satya'.

But, when we analyse the same world with

the kArya-kAraNa prakriya (cause & effect methodology) we can see shruti-s

speak of brahman both as upAdAna & nimitta kAraNa. When we understand

the real nature of the 'effect' i.e. the universe, we would realize that

there would be absolutely no difference between cause & effect whatsoever

and the socalled 'effect' too, like cause has the equal status of 'trikAla

abAdhita satya'....shankara clarifies this in sUtra bhAshya : Just as brahman

the cause never deviates from existence in all the three periods of time,

so also the effect, the world, never deviates from existence in all the

three periods (srushti, sthithi & laya) (kAryamapi jagathrishu kAleshu

satyaM na vyabhicharati) . And existence is only one..So for this

reason also the effect is non other than the cause!! Because the

effect with qualities like sound, never exists except in its essential

forms as the cause whether now or before the creation. Hence mundaka

shruti says brahman is left, right, top, bottom etc. etc. and clarifies

'brahmaivedaM vishvamidaM varishTaM. And kArikA too confirms this

and says : tattvamAdhyAtmikaM drushtvA tattvaM drushtvA tu bAhyataH...

And all this is said & done just

to drive home the point that brahman is ultimately nirvikAri, nirguNa,

nirvayaya & nirvishesha and brahman is neither a creator, nor the material

cause of the creation, all these special aspects of brahman is fictitiously

created by avidyA and these are all mere play of words and from this the

fact of brahman, that it is impatible remains, uncontradicted. One

may raise the objection here and ask, then what would be the fate of 'creation

theories' (srushti vAkya-s in shruti) in shruti if there is no creation

?? Is it mere waste of words in shruti-s?? For this doubt too

shankara answer in sUtra bhAshya and clarifies shruti which deals

in evolution does not really purport to teach the creation as such since

there is no phala to accrue by this knowledge. It (shruti) rather

aims at teaching the Atman of brahmic nature for its knowledge it known

to yield a good result.

Kindly bear with this aprabuddha's bAlisha

comments on the ongoing discussion.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar