mithyAjagadadhiShTAnA

[Shrinivas Gadkari]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:26:51 -0400, Subrahmanian, Sundararaman V [IT]
<sundararaman.v.subrahmanian at CITIGROUP.COM> wrote:

>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.
>
>
>

Namaste Subrahmanianji,

This is an important issue to discuss. What is real and
what is illusory ?

Snake was illusion but the rope was real.
Name and form are snake (illusion).
In this case which is the rope ?
Simply saying Brahman is the rope is OK, but can we say
a bit more that just this.

I am copying a part of my post on the advaitin list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/message/13585
------------------------------------------------------------
Begin copy

Consider the tattvas as explained in the Shaiva darshana and
their relation with terms from Vedanta:

Paramashiva: The absolute truth.
This is the sat-chit-ananda state of Being.

For unknown reasons, the Being is the sat-chit-ananda state
slips into a state where it becomes aware of ananda as if
separate from itself. At this stage the pramashiva tattva
splits into two: sat-cit-ananda splits into sat-chit and ananda

sat-cit, which is the witness, sakshi of vedanta, is termed
Shiva tattva in Shaiva darshana.

ananda, is termed Shakti tattva in Shaiva darshana.

Now shakti is not homogenous but has subtle shades in it.
It is the curiosity of the Being to discern between these
subtle shades in shakti (ananda) that causes an amplification
of these shades within shakti and finally the universe
mainifests.

end copy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is where I think the trika/shaiva school is clearer than
Advaita. Not that Advaita is not saying this, but trika/shaiva is
more explicit.

Best regards
Shrinivas