[Advaita-l] mithyA

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

Respected Sadananda-ji,

Thanks for your response.

The post I sent was in the context of a discussion with someone on the
issue of the reality of the world. To keep things simple, I avoided
any discussion of the "subjective" side (seer, Atman, etc).

Regarding the statement "there can be no satya without mithyA", let me
clarify. I meant it in the sense that all *talk* about satya can be
only within the  mithyA realm. There would have been no *conception*
of satya in the absence of mithyA, as all philosophizing is in the
mithyA jagat. Even the Sruti is in the mithyA jagat.

The notion of independence is dependent on the notion of dependence!

dhanyavAdaH
Ramesh


On 04/11/2007, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > 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.