[Advaita-l] Does Brahman's svaprakAshatvam make it mithyA?

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Kayan,    Your sentence "Suppose I have accepted that the Atman alone is real" shows the level of your understanding of Vedantic Truths. Are you different from Atman? Is this what you have understood? 
   Please study all the quotations together with Sri Shankara's commentary in totality with an open mind and in depth . Please study them from the standpoint of the totality of LIFE.Please do not be in a hurry to reply back. Then the understanding will dawn  that the questions that have been put are absurd and the questioner himself is not be there.
With respectful namaskars,Sreenivasa Murthy


      From: Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 at yahoo.co.in> 
Cc: sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 at yahoo.co.in>
 Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017 8:48 AM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Does Brahman's svaprakAshatvam make it mithyA?
   
Sri Sreenivasa murthyji

I have a question for you. Suppose I have accepted that the Atman alone is real. Practically speaking, what do you think I should do next? Go to Himalayas and take sannyAsa? Or sit at home and keep doing nothing but thinking about the Atman as long as I am awake ( though if I do this I will be on the roads in a few months, as I will not have money to pay rent)? Or roam around the streets and towns randomly like Sri Sadashiva Brahmendra? Or retire into a cave? Can you enlighten me?

Regards
Kalyan

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 4/20/17, sreenivasa murthy via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Does Brahman's svaprakAshatvam make it mithyA?
 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Cc: "sreenivasa murthy" <narayana145 at yahoo.co.in>
 Date: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 12:28 PM
 
 Dear Friends,
  
 ahamEvEdagM  sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-1  AtmaivEdagM 
 sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-2  AtmatO idagM sarvam ||
 Chandogya 7-26-1prapaMcOpaSamaM SAntaM Sivam advaitam 
    caturtham manyantE sa AtmA vijnEyaH ||
 mAMDUkya ; mantra 7AtmA hi nAma svarUpam || Sri Shankara ;
 Brahmasutra 1-1-6
 In the light of the above
 mantras it is an established fact than Atman / one's
 true svarUpa alone is paramArtha. I do not know the
 reasons  why so much of discussions and dissections about
 anAtma are taking place . I am interested  to know the
 reasons for it. Please enlighten me.Thanking you.With
 respectful namaskarams,Sreenivasa Murthy
 
 
 
 
 
       From: Anand Hudli via
 Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
  To: "advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org"
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 
 Cc: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
  Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2017 10:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Does Brahman's
 svaprakAshatvam make it mithyA?
    
 On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Bhaskar YR via
 Advaita-l
 < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 > praNAms Sri Anand prabhuji
 > Hare Krishna
 >
 > MithyAtva is the same as
 sad-asad-vilakShaNatva. So a mithyA vastu,
 example a pot or illusory silver/snake, can
 neither be asat (like a hare's
 horn),
 nor sat (Brahman). You may say mithyA objects can be
 classified as
 vyAvahArika (pot) and
 prAtibhAsika (illusory snake). The statement
 "vimataM
 mithyA, dRshyatvAt"
 indicates there is a vyApya-vyApaka relation between
 dRshyatva and mithyAtva, similar to the
 relation between smoke and fire.
 > Where
 there is smoke there is fire. Anything that is dRshya (can
 be
 known) is also mithyA. pratipannopAdhau
 traikAlikanishhedhapratiyogitvaM vA
 mithyAtvam is one definition of mithyAtva which
 captures the fact that a
 mithyA vastu will
 cease to exist in all three periods of time, once the
 bhrama ends.
 >
 >>  thanks for your kind clarification
 prabhuji.  Hope you won't mind if I
 seek further clarification on what you have
 written.
 >
 >>  I
 am finding it difficult to understand  mithyAtva is the
 same as
 anirvachaneeya (sad-asad
 vilakshaNatva) and at the same time cessation  of
 mithyA vastu in trikAla.  And the term asat 
 which has been clearly
 explained by shankara
 that yadrUpeNa nishchitaM yat tadrUpaM vyabhicharat
 anrutaM, This yadrUpeNa nishchitaM that
 vyabhicharati cannot be an atyanta
 abhAva
 vastu like vandhyA putra or shasha vishANa..Because
 yadrUpeNa
 nishchitaM cannot be attributed 
 to horn and putra and subsequently apply
 the
 vyabhichAra.  Whereas vyabhichAra (changing) can be
 possible in
 nishchita rUpa in  the sequence
 of clay-pot-clay-pitcher-clay-jug-clay etc.
 >
 >> And again when it
 comes to mithyA Vs anirvachaneeya.if we take the
 example of rajju sarpa.  Sarpa is ofcourse
 mithyA it is mere kalpita jneya
 due to the
 absence of yathArtha jnana of rajju.  And in this example
 where
 can we accommodate sad-asad vilakshaNa
 when the rajju is kevala kalpita
 jneya sarpa
 which was / is / will never be there in rajju ?? After
 nishchita jnana of rajju would we say there was
 / is / will be
 anirvachaneeya (or sad-asad
 vilakshaNa) sarpa in rajju?? I don’t think so
 or am I missing something in this
 understanding?? Please clarify.
 
 MithyA and anirvachanIya mean the same thing,
 sadasadvilakShaNa. Although
 the
 traikAlika-niShedha holds for both the mithyA and asad
 vastu, the
 crucial difference is that a
 mithyA vastu is perceived as existing
 (sattvena pratIyamAna) in some substratum
 (adhiShThAna). In simple terms, a
 rajju-sarpa, despite the realization that it
 never existed at any time, we
 do admit it
 was perceived for some time in the rajju. This does not
 happen
 for an asad vastu. We can never say
 that we saw the hare's horn somewhere
 for some time and then realized it never
 exists. Or, in even simpler terms,
 we have
 to admit a mithyA vastu to *appear* as real for some time in
 some
 place, but an asad vastu will never
 appear as real at any place or during
 any
 time period.
 
 Anand
 
 On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:20
 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 > On
 Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l
 > < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 > > Yes, asat means
 non-existent and this fits the description of the
 hare's
 > horn. By imagination, I
 meant a vRtti which does not have a corresponding
 > object. But asat is not the same as
 mithyA, and the topic of dRshyatva has
 >
 to do with mithyAtva.
 > >
 > > praNAms Sri Anand prabhuji
 > > Hare Krishna
 >
 >
 > > The meaning of both terms
 i.e. mithyA and asat bit complicated &
 > confusing here I reckon.  What is
 asat??  As you know, shankara clarifies
 > in taitereeya about sat and asat,  that
 once determined to be of a certain
 >
 form, what never deviates from the form is the sat and once
 determined to
 > be of a certain form what
 deviates from the form is asat.  IMHO, hare's
 > horn example does not come in this
 category whereas vyaktAvyakta rUpa of
 >
 prakruti is more suited for this definition.  And mithyA is
 that which
 > never exists but cognized
 due to avidyA.  Shankara gives the examples of
 > dviteeya Chandra, snake on the rope etc.
 for the mithyA vastu.  To clarify
 > that
 after the dawn of correct knowledge / cognition, one
 realizes that
 > the mithyA vastu was / is
 / will never be existed.  Please clarify.
 >
 > MithyAtva is the same
 as sad-asad-vilakShaNatva. So a mithyA vastu,
 > example a pot or illusory silver/snake,
 can neither be asat (like a hare's
 >
 horn), nor sat (Brahman). You may say mithyA objects can be
 classified as
 > vyAvahArika (pot) and
 prAtibhAsika (illusory snake). The statement
 "vimataM
 > mithyA, dRshyatvAt"
 indicates there is a vyApya-vyApaka relation between
 > dRshyatva and mithyAtva, similar to the
 relation between smoke and fire.
 > Where
 there is smoke there is fire. Anything that is dRshya (can
 be known)
 > is also mithyA.
 pratipannopAdhau traikAlikanishhedhapratiyogitvaM vA
 > mithyAtvam is one definition of mithyAtva
 which captures the fact that a
 > mithyA
 vastu will cease to exist in all three periods of time, once
 the
 > bhrama ends.
 >
 > Anand
 >
 > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017
 at 8:18 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
 >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:29 PM, V
 Subrahmanian via Advaita-l
 >> < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 >> > Dear Anand ji,
 >> >
 >> >
 Even though the 'vṛtti' definition of the Yoga
 sutra is not admitted by
 >> the
 >> > Vedantin for the reason stated by
 you (vikalpa), I heard from Sri Mani
 >> > Dravid Sastrigal's talks on
 the Advaitasiddhi that Madhusudana Saraswati
 >> > accepts the Yoga Sutra definition
 (perhaps even the Bhāmati accepts) of
 >> > 'vikalpa:
 śabadjñānānupātī vastuśūnyo vikalpaḥ' which is
 a definition of
 >> > sorts for a
 asat vastu such as hare's horn. If such is true, then
 the
 >> > meaning of
 'vikalpa' as per the Yoga sutra within
 'vṛtti' cannot be
 >> >
 imagination, kalpitam, adhyastam, etc. but asadvastu. 
 Could you please
 >> > clarify?
 >> >
 >>
 >> Yes, asat means non-existent and this
 fits the description of the hare's
 >> horn. By imagination, I meant a vRtti
 which does not have a corresponding
 >>
 object. But asat is not the same as mithyA, and the topic of
 dRshyatva has
 >> to do with mithyAtva.
 That is exactly why the definition of dRshyatva has
 >> to rule out things which are asat,
 apart from ruling out Brahman itself, in
 >> order to eliminate the defect of the
 definition being too wide.
 >>
 >> Anand
 >>
 >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM,
 Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
 >> wrote:
 >>
 >>> Nice presentation again by Shri
 Venkatraghavanji. I would like some of
 >>> my notes on this.
 >>>
 >>> A
 well known advaitic statement is "vimataM mithyA
 dRshyatvAt, jaDatvAt
 >>>
 pariChinnatvAt, shuktirUpyavat". In this and the
 following two sections of
 >>> the
 advaitasiddhi, MadhusUdana deals with the topics of
 dRshyatva, jaDatva
 >>> and
 pariChinnatva. The pUrvapakShi lists six definitions for
 dRshyatva and
 >>> proceeds to raise
 objections against each. These six definitions are 1)
 >>> vRttivyApyatva (being pervaded by
 vRtti), 2) phalavyApyatva (being pervaded
 >>> by phala), 3) sAdhAraNa (i.e. both
 1 and 2), 4) kadAcit kathancit
 >>>
 cidviShaytva (at some time in some way being an object of
 consciousness),
 >>> 5) svavyavahAre
 svAtirikta-saMvidantara-apekShAniyati (depending on a
 >>> cognition different from itself
 for its activity), and 6) asvaprakAshatva
 >>> (not being self-illumined).
 >>>
 >>> In
 discussing vRttivyApyatva, we have to be clear about what a
 vRtti is.
 >>> For instance,
 Patanjali's yogasUtra includes valid cognition
 (pramANa),
 >>> viparyaya (erroneous
 cognition), vikalpa (imagination), nidrA and smRti
 >>> (memory) among vRttis. However,
 the laghuchandrikA-kAra has not accepted
 >>> this definition of Patanjali, and
 instead opts for the shruti based
 >>> definition from the brihadAraNyaka
 Upanishad vAkya ending in "hrIrdhIrbhIr
 >>> ityetat sarvaM mana eva"
 (1.5.3), the reason being Patanjali's definition
 >>> includes vikalpa or imagination.
 If vikalpa were to be admitted as a vRtti,
 >>> we would have to accept the vRtti
 produced by a fictitious thing as a
 >>> hare's horn and this in turn
 would make dRshyatva a property of the hare's
 >>> horn. This would mean a hare's
 horn is mithyA too like the observable
 >>> objects in the world. But this is
 against the definition of mithyAtva, for
 >>> example, pratipannopAdhau
 traikAlikanishhedhapratiyogitvaM vA
 >>> mithyAtvam, which rules out
 fictitious objects. Another thing to note here
 >>> is that vRtti must also include
 avidyAvRtti, not just antaHkaraNavRtti. To
 >>> explain, whenever an illusory
 object, such as silver in nacre,  is seen
 >>> or pleasure (sukha), etc are
 experienced, the corresponding vRtti is
 >>> avidyAvRtti, and we do accept the
 illusory object and sukha, etc, as mithyA
 >>> too. Also, by denying dRshyatva to
 objects of avidyAvRtti, there would be
 >>> defect of
 "sAdhanavaikalya" in the above mentioned rule
 "vimataM...", as
 >>>
 chandrikAkAra points out.
 >>>
 >>> More later.
 >>>
 >>>
 Anand
 >>>
 >>
 >>
 >
 _______________________________________________
 Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
 http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
 
 To unsubscribe or change your
 options:
 http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
 
 For assistance, contact:
 listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
 
 
    
 _______________________________________________
 Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
 http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
 
 To unsubscribe or change your
 options:
 http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
 
 For assistance, contact:
 listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org