[Advaita-l] An instance of Advaita wrongly comprehended

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Sunilji - Mithyaa does not involve confusion. Confusion comes from error which is adhyaasa when mithyaa is taken as satyaa. A jnaani recognizes the world is mithyaa - jagat mithyaa as one of the three dictates of adviata vedanta -while ajnaani assumes that jagat is satyaa. Here it is not confusion but ignorance of the fact.  

Jagat exists as it is as existence is the very basis or foundation or as sloka 5 of ch. 7 that we discussed says - para prakRiti - idam jagat dhaaryate. Jnaani recognizes this fact after Vedanta shravanam while ajnaani operates taking the world as satya and suffers as a consequence of that lack of understanding. 

Hari Om!
Sadananda



--- On Tue, 4/17/12, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Don't you think that the proper English equivalent word for
> "Mithya" will be "Confusion" rather than "False"? At least,
> with the use of the word "Confusion", the people will not
> get confused about the meaning of "Brahma satyam
> jaganmithya". The Jagat does exist and only the way the
> Jnani looks at it is different from the way an ajnani looks
> at it. 
> 
> Regards,
> Sunil KB
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] An instance of Advaita wrongly
> comprehended
>  
> 
> > > 2. If the world of objects is unreal, then how can
> you
> > continue to see it
> > > when you are a jnani? If a jnani transacts in the
> > world, then you can only
> > > say it is only because of residual avidya that
> operates
> > due to prarabda.
> 
> The world is neither real or unreal - that is what is
> referred to as mithyaa. sat asat vilakshNam. If jnaani
> cannot see the world, it is about the time he has get an
> appointment with his opthamologist as something wrong with
> his eyes or with his eye-sight. Jnaana kshakshu is different
> from physical eye and phisological funtions. It requires
> wisdom-eye or viveka to see the oneness that pervades the
> apparent duality. Then only he is a jnaani not when his
> physical eye stops seeing duality. 
> 
> I agree with Subbuji that not understanding advaita properly
> and making comments pervades lot of dvaita and
> vishiShTaadvaita literature, and is also obvious in these
> posts too. Not understanding is not a problem but
> misunderstanding and claiming that is what advaita says is
> bigger problem. It requires lot more unlearning before real
> learning can take place, since one has already concluded and
> therefore not open to learning.
> 
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>