[Advaita-l] mithyA

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

> From: "Ramesh Krishnamurthy" <rkmurthy at gmail.com>



 
> Another interesting point emerges from the above
> example: while there
> can be no mithyA without satya, there can be no
> satya without mithyA
> either (in the sense that satya is perceived only
> through the lens of
> mithyA). For "pure" satya alone, one has to resort
> to ajAtivAda, in
> which there is no saMsAra, no mokSha, and certainly
> no mailing list!!


Shree Ramesh - praNAms . I know you are aware but I
wish to point out few aspects for consideration.

1. It is true mithya cannot exist without satya but
satya can exist without mithya - that is what the
definition of satya is trikaala abhaaditam.  One is
dependent and the other is independent. What you are
saying is no vyavahaara can be done without mithya -
and that is true. Mithya is vyavahaara and sat is
defined as avyavahaaryam but yet puurNatvam is not
state of vyavahaara but understanding that all is in
me and I am in all- sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva
bhuutanica aatmani or from bhakti point - yo maam
pasyati sarvatra, sarvatra mayi pasyati. This vision
is vision of the truth - jnaana kshakshu or wisdom
eye. Also I do not need mithya to see satya either.  I
cannot see satya - it is not something to see but
something to recognize - what is recognized and who
recognizes? It is the recognition of the mind that
mithya is mithya and not satya and that which
underlying that mithya is satya, that I AM - that is
recognition of false as false and underlying that
false is satya or the reality that I AM. 


> 
> Yet another point from the same example: the world
> of objects does not
> disappear into nothingness on enlightenment. If that
> were the case,
> jiivanmukti would not be possible, as living
> requires interaction with
> the external world. With his senses, the jnAnI
> perceives objects like
> anybody else. But he recognizes that when the mind
> rushes to attach
> name & form to that which is perceived, it does so
> only within a frame
> of reference. 

2. Perhaps the statement should be - senses perceive
in His presence - he is akarthaa abhoktaa. Here the
jnaanam is 'aham brahmaasmi' and brahavit brahma eva
bhavati - knower of Brahman becomes Brahman and
Brahman being infinite do not (or cannot do anything -
but things 'as though' appear to happen in Brahman)-
that is what 'leela vibhuuti' imply. - 'look at my
glory Arjuna!'.

And as all frames of reference are
> arbitrary, the jnAnI
> does not cling to any. In that sense, the jnAnI sees
> brahman alone.
> This "non-clingingness" is the essence of manonAsha
> (destruction of
> the mind) & vAsanAkShaya (elimination of attachments
> & aversions)

3. It is like the statement of Krishna- they are all
in me but I am not in them - in my presence prakRiti
does all actions.  

> But this does not prevent him from using any frame
> of reference. On
> the contrary, while we the unenlightened are
> constrained to use only
> this or that frame (due to our vAsanA-s), the jnAnI
> is utterly free to
> choose whatever frame he pleases. By being
> established in brahman, he
> can ride the waves of mAyA with utter abandon! That
> is why jiivanmukti
> is described as "freedom", "bliss" etc
> 
> Hence one finds that some jnAnI-s stay in solitude,
> while others are
> very active in the world. It is their absolute
> freedom!

4. Concept of 'Freedom' - is only in relation to
finite.  Recognition that I am Brahman itself is
freedom from all limitations -  and that is what
absolute freedom, independent of reference frame that
you mentioned.  Since he does not 'do' - anything -
whatever is done by prakRiti (BMI made up of panca
bhuutas) is dictated by 'loka kalyaaNam' - one can say
Iswara himself uses the readily available equipments
for the benefit of the 'relatives' depending on the
'prArabda karma' of the BMI - body-mind - intellect
equipments. Sometimes samaShTi karma dictates how
those equipments are used - when one is ready for that
kind of teacher, such a teacher is provided - say by
the Lord.   


Hari Om!
Sadananda 

> 
> Comments and brickbats welcome