elmec elmec at GIASBG01.VSNL.NET.IN
Wed Feb 16 13:25:37 CST 2000

Sri Gurubhyo Namaha

I have not read  Bhashyaas of great Achaaryaas to quote here to solve
your problem. But I would like to put forth in simple sentences what
little I have understood about Mithyaawaada. Scholars, please excuse my

'Sat' is something which always exists and which never disapperas from
our knowledge. It does not undergo any change at any time. 'Asat' is
something which never had any existence before and which can never
appear before us at any time ( like the son of a barren woman or the
horn of a rabbit.)  But 'Mithya' is something which appears and
disappears and which does not have an independent existence - ie, which
can not exist outside our knowledge. And it undergoes many changes at
different stages of its existence. ( Infact Mithya can be clubbed with
Asat only as its appearence is just magical and does not have true
existence even during its appearence - from a jnaani's point of view .
"Swapne dhrishtam sakalam hi mrisha , jaagriti cha smara tatwat iti" )

The three avasthaas of Jaagrit, swapna and sushupthi are in everybody's
experience. The world and this body which we refer to as "I" which we
perceive in the jaagrit state through our indriyaas, manas and budhdhi
disappear in the swapna and sushupthi states. The world and me which we
see in the swapna state which we perceive through our mind disappear in
the other two states and during the sushupthi state we perceive nothing
at all as both the indriyaas and the mind do not exist . Yet, when we
wake up we are aware of the fact that "we did not perceive anything"
during sushupthi state. And in all the three states we say that it was
"I" who was present and it was "my" jaagrit, my swapna and my deep
sleep, inspite of the fact that all three states were totally different
from one another. This goes to prove that there is a saakshi "I" which
has witnessed all the three changing states standing as an ousider
without itself undergoing any change. Our body was different when we
were little babies, it changed when we became youth and it once again
changes when we become old, yet through all these stages of life we
recognise it as "I" which remains as a constant companion. This "I" sees
our body change, our mind change, our thoughts and decisions change .
The 'seer' can not become the 'seen' is a nyaaya which we all agree. "
Ghata dhrishtah ghataath bhinnah ", ie, one who sees a pot is different
from the pot. Hence when I can see this body, this mind, this
antahkarana everything,  I have to be different from all of them. This
is the true "I" which we must realise.

There is also one more nyaaya that that which can not exist without the
other has to be the swaroopa of the other. Like, a pot can not exist
without the mud and hence the pot is but the swaroopa of the mud. There
is no 'vasthu' called pot without the mud. The word "pot" is only a
vyaavahaaric truth but the mud is the paaramaarthik truth.Similarly the
jewel can not exist without the gold and hence the jewel is but a
swaroopa of the gold. Once again  this world can not exist without my
knowledge and hence the world is but the swaroopa of my knowledge. It is
my knowledge which shows my world to me. This knowledge is what we call
the Jnaana, the ' chit ' the paaramaarthik truth without which the world
, the vyaavahaaric truth ceases to exist. The whole world is but a
superimposition upon this substratum of knowledge, the Brahman. Since
this knowledge  is fundamental  in all jeevaas, we say that all jeevas
are but manifestation of the same Brahman. And since all jeevas are
within the purview of my knowledge, I can say that all jeevas are my own

Kindly excuse, if my thoughts are immature and childish.

Hari Om,
Latha Vidyaranya

Ravi wrote:

> 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.
> Ravi
> --
> 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.

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