[Advaita-l] What is the meaning of illusion (according toadvaita, obviously)?

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 30 06:21:05 CST 2008

Vishayji PraNAms

From my understand - 

Brahman word comes from Brihad dhaatu - meaning big. Big is an adjective that qualifies a now. But our sages have discovered noun also qualifies the adjective.
When I say Big mosquito you have a vision of what that bigness involves in relation to normal size mosquito.
When I say big mountain, the bigness of the mountain is in relation to its norm - the standard size mountain.
Thus how big an object is qualified by the object's norm. 
Infinite is unqualified bigness since any qualification is objectification. Hence the adjective itself is made into now in coining the word Brahman - it is unqualifiedly big - meaning it is infiniteness.
In math we have many infinities - as pi is infinite series, but yet its value is bounded. So is parallel lines meeting at infinity.
Brahman is unqualifiedly big involves absolute bigness. Hence it cannot exclude anything. Hence scripture says ekam eva advitiiyam - and Shankara explains the three words ekam, eva and advitiiyam - as negation of all divisions - sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedas, while Ramanuja subscribes to swagata bhedaas as Brahman has in him/it multitude of jiivas and jagat as his attributes. Hence his philosophy is called vishiShTa advaita. 

I am not sure about your questions about Godliness etc. Brahman is actually a neuter word. But in referring to Iswara we normally use HE and his shakti, maayaa as She - personification in the form of Lakshmii Naaraayana where Naaraayana carries her in his chest or ardhanaariiswara where half of Shiva is paarvati - or material and intelligent causes in creation.

Hari Om!

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, Vishy <vishy1962 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Vishy <vishy1962 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is the meaning of illusion (according toadvaita, obviously)?
To: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 12:10 AM

Dear Sadanandaji
Thnak you so much for such a clear explanations.
After reading " Ashtawakra Geetha" (AG) felt that " I" vitually exploded and there is nothing more. Still whenever the small remains of that "I" surface I again and again go thru AG. 
It such a great scripture and simpleone , but wonder why it is not being read/ discussed widely as others!!
Sir, One more small /(maybe) stupid question .... hope you would respond to this too...
God/ Brahman....   
Is this word a Noun or Verb or Adjective ??? (sure you understood what I am trying to ask!)
God Personified.... Noun (However Great Noun be)
Godliness....  Adjective (the real quality that is to be attained by seekers)
Being aware/ conscious..... Verb (ofcourse always in present tense..always true)  
I dont mean God in dwaitic sense here, which is surely a 'noun'. in such a situation the counter also exist , say it is devil/ satan as the westerrn religions say. I mean the pure awareness which is aware of  these two nouns to be 'Brahman'.... Right, Sir???
Pranams again
(Identity to this comples of Body+Mind+Intelect) 

--- On Mon, 29/12/08, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is the meaning of illusion (according toadvaita, obviously)?
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, vishy1962 at yahoo.com
Date: Monday, 29 December, 2008, 7:15 PM

Vishyji - PraNAms

--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Vishy <vishy1962 at yahoo.com> wrote:

That is to say, that He is all,  the creator and the creation (the subject and
object as well as the activity of creation too.... Right??

KS: Yes - From the point of absolute truth - That is what Brahman means -
infinite and undifferentiated since there are no parts. If one sees then what is
seen is mithyaa only. 

Thats what I mean by " Universal Consciouness"...agree? The one which
is beginningless, endless, without form or attributes.....  You , me, everything
including the earth , the sun and all the stars are just temprary forms within,
thats is all inclusive.

KS - that should be the correct understanding - if Brahman means what the
scripture says - existence-consciousness-limitless - That knowledge comes from
Scriptures not by logic or by perception. 

In this way, Is it not wrong to personify " God" and say he is the
creator , when the creator and cration is one and same withour any
'second'. Is it not the core of Advaita??

KS - It is not wrong -  The discussion goes from dvaita to advaita - The
philosophy is called advaita not monism - it is negation of the duality since
duality is what we experience, the moment I get up from bed until I go to deep
sleep state. All the suffering is due to dvaita. Hence Vedanta uses - adhyaaropa
apavaada - Personified  God is required for yoga - Karma yoga is required for
purification of the mind - For karma cannot become a yoga unless there is
Iswraarpita buddhi and prasaada buddhi - that requires personified God. Bhakti
and upaasana require God separate from oneself - Until the mind is mature enough
- The scripture itself advises to drop those to go to the next step - tad eva
brahma tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate - that alone is Brahman not this that
you are worshiping - that teaching comes or appreciated only when the mind is
pure or becomes pure by karma, bhakti and jnaana yoga. 

If so, there is nothing to know, nothing to desire, nothing to achieve, nothing
to gain or loose, nothing to do or not to do , but just to witness everything
!!! ( As Ashtawakra says to Janaka and Janaka realises)

KS: One has to be careful - It becomes a reckless teaching if one does not
understand from what reference the statements are valid - or to whom it is made.
If you are in the same mental state as Janaka you would have also realized by
reading that statement. From Brahman point there is nothing other than Brahman
which is sat-chit-ananda. As long as I consider myself as jiiva- then all the
duality sinks in - jiiva-jagat-Iswara differences exist. That they are all one
only from the point of substantive. As Ramana said - if you think you have a
body then Iswara has the body that is separate from you. 

If you can be witnessing consciousness all the time - my hearty congratulations
to you. Remember witnessing consciousness involves something to witness -
saakshyam for saakshii - There is inherent duality in being saakshii.
Realization is to recognize that saakshyam is not separate from saakshii too.
Then only your last statements have a meaning. Until then it is understanding
that one has to attain. By repeating 'who am I? Who am I? nothing will
happen. If I do not know what is gravitational force and by repeating What is
gravitational force? as japa I will still remain as ignorant of what that is -
only way to find out is to go and learn what it is. Hence who am I? is an
inquiry to find out - How am I going to find out who am I - That is the reason
why Vedanta vichaara is required and Scriptures say it is easy to say that
everything is Brahman - but to assimilate that knowledge or internalize that
knowledge one has to do shravanam, mananam and
 nidhidhyaasanam - there is no other short cut for that. One's vaasanaas
will propel you back to duality and samsaara unless one has to go methodically
first by purifying the mind and slowly shift one's attention to assimilate
the teaching. Otherwise people will say I have experienced or realized who am I
on that day - It is not experience but understanding who that I am is. I do not
understand one day and become ignorant the next day - Understanding has to sink
in - Even Bhagavan Ramana's teaching has to be correctly understood. 

Hari Om!

       Download prohibited? No problem. CHAT from any browser, without download.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list