Ravi msr at COMCO.COM
Tue Feb 15 18:44:19 CST 2000

namaste Anand and others

I am raising this objection due to my lack of understanding. I
apologize for that. I hope you will be able to clarify my doubt.

The silver-nacre example leads to prove that the world is real. I
am able to appreciate the point of view of nyayika-s (post
8).  In that example, both silver and nacre are real by
themselves. The problem is of mis-perception or
mis-conception.  Post 8 says that this example should not be
extended to world-brahman. Even if it has to be argued at each
entity level in the world, ultimately, one will have wrong
relation formed between two relata-s (A and B). Like A is silver
and B nacre, or A snake and B rope. This argument will end up
proving only world is indeed real. Of course, one can cleverly
define mithyatva, but does that solve the fundamental
problem? Can you explain? It is like saying world is mithya
according to my definition of mithyatva.

I have a more fundamental question. Is world mithya is a matter
of faith or logic. If is purely a rational thing, I donot think
nyayika-s or dvaitins are so intellectually challenged not to
appreciate it.

I do believe that world is not what we think it is. Everything is
permeated with God. It is God alone. Of course this is faith. I
understand/justify my misperception of the world like this.

Take a solid steel plate. At the level of our eye resolution and
our scale it is a solid chunk. We make structures out of it. But
if I become a being of the size of say electron, then to me it
will be 80% or more empty space. As every atom but for the
concentrated nucleus is just an empty space. May be if I look at
it as a field, it may be a type of energy field. So depending on
the scale and level of resolution, I see different things. Like
wise, an ignorant being like Ravi sees the world at level where
every thing is solid and real and Ravi does not see it as
brahman. OTOH a jnAni like Ramana sees it as brahman only. Again
it is ravi's perception or understanding of Ramana's perception.

What is mithya here? At every level, what one sees is
real. Except at the level of jnani, were he resolves the whole
stuff and sees it as brahman.

Depending on what we assume, we can prove or disprove
something. Having undergone tortorous proofs in functional
analysis and differential geometry, I will safely say, one can
easily make a circular argument. That is assume something, and
after hunder steps prove the same thing in disguise.

I am sorry if I have offended the sentiments of some. At this
level, I see that  brahma satyam and jagan mithya as an element
of faith.


bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives :
Help     : Email to listmaster at
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list