mithyAjagadadhiShTAnA

[MSR]

bhAskararAya gives 2 distinct interpretations for this nAma and your
question revolves around the last one. I will be briefly summarize what
I understand.

1) SHE is the basis or support for this illusory universe. mithyaa is
false of illusory, and adhishhTaana is support or basis. In this
context commentator quotes from maaNDukya kArikA, devii bhaagavatam,
vaishhNava bhaagavatam, bR^ihadaaraNayakopaniShad. He also gives the
example of shell (mother of pearl) forming the basis for the illusory
silver. HE also gives two minor variants of this idea. Essentially, SHE
is brahman and SHE is the basis of what we see as universe. And the
universe is illusory.

2) Second one he gives from a tantric view point. Right of the bat he
says tantra holds Universe as real and what is mithyaa is the
differences we see in the universe. He gives an example of clay and
pot. But it is easier for me explain using gold. You can make ear ring,
chain and bangle out gold. All are gold only and in an absolute sense
the differences between bangle, ear-ring and chain is mithyA or false.
By itself bangle, ear-ring and chain are not mithyaa, they do exist.
Not only the differences are mithya, because of that the idea of
supported and supported is also a mithyaa. And he asks people to look
at the work you mention in your mail. He also asks a question, how can
one call the bangle or ear-ring (in the text, a pot) as mithyaa.

I am writing this based on English translation I have in my office (as
I often write while eating my lunch). My sanskrit text is at home, I
will refer to that to verify the consistency.

---

a) IMO the way it is translated, commentator seems to support 2 and
even dismisses the position of those who consider the whole universe as
illusory as absurd.  But you see,  "you are only as good as your
example". His first interpretation squarely contradicts the second. In
the case snake superimposed on a rope or silver superimposed on a
shell, the moment you realize the snake of silver completely cease to
exist and they are illusory. Not so with the gold and bangle, you can
continue enjoying your golden bangle and ear rings even after realizing
they are all gold only.

b) I will not waste my time looking at this tantra reference.
Considering that underlying material is non-dual, but the shapes and
forms arise out that is real is NOT acceptable to advaita-vedanta.  It
is some kind of bheda-abhedha stuff. The correct way to treat this name
is as he has done in interpretation 1. I am not good at these complex
arguments -- you should refer to the series written by Anand on
advaita-siddhi.


---
I will leave the rest of the discussion to others and continue enjoying
my lunch (whether is real or illusory, for a Tamilian curd rice with
mango pickle is devAmritam :-)) )






--- vidya jayaram <vidyajayaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
> Namaste.
>
> Could someone clarify what bhaskararaya says about the nAma
> mithyAjagadadhiShTAnA.There seems to be a reference to a kalpalatika
> of shAmbhavAnanda.Any information on this work ?
>
> Are there any other interpretations of this line.
>
>
>
> Vidya
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access


=====
ambaaL daasan

Ravi

sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI

http://www.ambaa.org/  http://www.advaita-vedanta.org

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com