Subrahmanian, Sundararaman V [IT]
sundararaman.v.subrahmanian at CITIGROUP.COM
Thu Jul 11 16:26:51 CDT 2002
The difference is not due to the choice of the example, but it is in the
definition of mityA.
You have defined mityA as illusory or false. mityA if translated as "that
which is dependent upon a substratum for its existence and which cannot
exist on its own", then the question of snake disappearing and necklace
retaining its shape will not cause conflict. Whether the names and forms
are retained or not, they depend upon a substratum (sat) and do not exist of
their own is a significant fact.
I GUESS, the name refers to the substratum on which the names and forms
which are mityA (ie., dependent), exist.
So far, except Sri Anand Hudli, nobody has really discussed seriously the
question: "What is mityA?". An analysis on those lines is an important
ingredient for any useful discussion on advaita. So far we have only one
source Sri Anand H.
Sri Ravishankar wrote:
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.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list