[Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Venkatesh - PraNAms
 
You
have provided very good example. It illustrates the fact that what you see and
concluded looking at the same object depends on the degree of understanding or
vision of the seer or pramaata. By that very example what you have established
it the reality of the object depends on something other than the object parsec
- hence it is relative to the observer who is observing and concluding based on
his prior knowledge or back ground. Therefore whatever conclusions about the
object one perceives is not absolute but only relatively real from the point of
the observer. This much we conclude from you analysis. Every explanation is
correct from the point of that observer but not necessarily complete from the
point of other observer. Hence all these conclusion of observed entity called -
table is valid only within that particular reference but not necessarily valid
from absolute reference. You may call all this really as relatively real but
not absolutely real - For that relatively real based on the observer is what advaita
Vedanta calls it as mithyaa since is real only from a relative frame of
reference. This is the definition of mithyaa - that which is experienced by an
experiencer but is not absolutely real. What is absolutely real is sat and what
is never experienced is asat - and therefore your example as it is relatively
real is neither sat nor asat - hence mithyaa. Why call it as mithyaa - you can
all it with whatever name you want to call it - Vedanta does not care but the
fact to be recognized is that it is not absolutely real and only relatively
real. 
What is
absolute is that independent of the system? The truth is it is that which
cannot be observed by anybody since it does not fall in the category of
mithyaa. Infinite cannot be observed since it is infinite - that is Brahman.
The subject I cannot be observed since it is subject and not an object for
observation. Vedanta says these two are the same - and that is the essence of
the teaching tat tvam asi. 
Is it is not the rest of the discussion,
going around the circle with no goal in mind? Why complicate the problem when
it is so simple? 

Hari Om!
Sadananda


>________________________________
> From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
>To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
>Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:30 AM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.
>  
>
>
>Namaste
>
>
>A simple example to prove the point. If you see a wooden table in front of you in waking state. The illiterate person will simply say it is a table. The educated person will say it is teak chair and measure the dimensions. The artist will admire the art work on the table. The Chemistry Professor will say Wood is a heterogeneous, hygroscopic, cellular and anisotropic material. It is composed of cells, and the cell walls are composed of micro-fibrils of cellulose (40% – 50%) and hemicellulose (15% – 25%) impregnated with lignin (15% – 30%).  - Wikipedia.
>
>The structural engineer will speak on the structural stability. The thief will think how much money he can make if he can steal it.  Like this different people will think different things. There is NO OBJECTIVE Reality of Table. Different people will see different things. Every person will imagine his ideas of the table. How can we say the table is real in waking state? Every person is imagining something and he is saying it is a table. He is calling his IMAGINED object as Table. He is thinking it is the SEEN object and it is really there. But IMAGINED = SEEN = Asat.
>
>
>If there is not Objective Reality there is no Mithya thing also. Because Mithya is common experience of people in waking. There is only Asat in dream and waking state also.
>
>WHy bring Mithyatva into this?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Venkatesh Murthy
>>
>>>The question I had is exactly this. It was said in this group any thing like a hare's horns is imaginary and it should be Asat. It cannot be seen any where but imagined only. Any thing is experienced objective by all persons like ordinary rabbit without horns is Vyavaharika. It is Mithya. Every person can see a rabbit without horns running here and there. It is Vyavaharika and Mithya.
>>
>>------------
>>Shree Venkatesh - When one imagines hare with horns - he could do so only because he has seen hares and he has seen horns - He is assembling in his mind a hare with horns - just as the ghost that people imagine.
>>
>>Is it asat or mithyaa - it is an acadamic question. >From the point of one who is experiencing - it is a jiiva sRiShTi only - since no one else has seen a hare with horns just has no one else has seen a snake where the rope is - as he alone is seeing things. All jiiva sRiShTis we call it as praatibhaasika - even though for the one who is seeing thus experiencing and having transactions with that he imagines. Hence jiiva sRiShTi is praatibhaasika and Iswara sRiShTi is vyaavahaarika since all the subjects in that state can see and transact with. Hence in the waking sate, horns hare is asat from the point of Iswara sRiShTi since it has not be objectively experienced. If is subjectively experienced by the imagnation of someone - that FOR HIM is mityaa since he  has experienced.
>>
>>That which has no locus for experience is asat. If you provide a locus for experience as you are assembling the hares with horns then for you it is mithyaa - for others there is no locus for experience - it is asat. These definitions are relative to inquirer - with the hope that he can go beyond these definitions to pay attention to that reality which cannot be experienced and need not be experienced also since ones own self.
>>Paying more attention than this is like trying to classify what kind of snake that I am seeing while it is really a rope there where I am imagining it as snake.
>>
>>These classifcations are made to differentiate what is sat and what is mithyaa and what is asat. Asat is more from the point of Iswra sRiShTi. Most important to recognize is all things that are seen and experienced in the waking state are mithyaa - so that one can give only that much importance to objects of experience and shift the attention to that which is etternal and unchanging and of the ananda swaruupam.
>>These classifications are meant for to recognize that absolute truth that is adhiShTaanam for every thing one sees and experiences in the Iswara sRiShTi or in Jiiva sriShTi.
>> 
>> 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
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Regards
>
>-Venkatesh 
>
>