[Advaita-l] Real, unreal and mithyaa

[Sujal Upadhyay]

Thank you Nitin ji and Sadananada ji

I guess it is better to use hindi / Sanskrit word for differentiating
between mithyA and asatya. Since asat does not have any existence, hence
there is no need to discuss it. I think it is for this purpose that unreal
should be  taken as mithyA w.r.t. context, but that is not a correct
translation.

The question comes to my mind, if this world is not a creation i.e. NirguNa
not becoming saguNA and then creating via mAyA, then how is this world
created. Hence niguNa has to be transformed into saguNa. How can nirguNA
get associated with mAyA?

The answer is - explanation is given on adhikARa bheda. So creation,
Brahman becoming this world, etc, are given and later on they are negated.
This is found in shruti and Gita and Bhagavatam. It is called adhyAropa
apavAda (BG 13.12-13 Shankara Bhashya)
.

So first the natural question is satisfied by saying this world is created,
as one lives in duality, that too in deha-bhAva hence
an explanation is given
for creation as in pancIkaraNa prakriyA. Later on when consciousness is
lifted to a higher level, that assumption is negated.

When a shruti teaches us taking an e.g. of Indra, experiencing 5 sheaths
and finally atman, we think of an evolution, progressing from gross to
subtle. But here too if we observe carefully, it is leaving of 5 sheaths
i.e. detachment from 5 sheaths one-by-one. Hence what you are doing is
rising above, diving deep, becoming aware of subtle sheaths, but what is
actually happening is you are detaching 5 sheaths as you become aware. If
you stay obsessed  with any of 5 sheaths or 3 bodies (sthuLa, sukshma,
kAraNa), then you cannot progress ahead.

Top-down: negation, detachment, dis-association
Bottom-up: arise, ascend, merge, etc

If we say that think only of Ishvara and live only for him, here too, one
is filled with sattva guNa. But then, has he not renounced tamas and rajas
:)

The first step is actually doing doSa darshan and become sAdhana-sampana (4
qualities). Then the word mithyA should be introduced.

Real is two - Relative reality and absolute reality.

This world we experience is relative reality. How? because it's existence
depends upon our consciousness in waking state. For the one who is
sleeping, this world does not exists. Hence it is relative reality.
Consciousness alone matters :)

Only Brahman is absolute reality. How?

When I say: I see this world, I dream, I was sleeping, 'I' am sick, 'I' am
body, 'I' ... There is always 'I', the first person, hence there is 'You' -
second person and 'He' - third person. The existence of 'I' - first person
is Self evident. Without this 'I' there is no second person too. Hence the
common this is 'I'. Ask - Who am 'I' or search 'I'. even abhAva or
non-existence can be known e.g. you are told that there is a temple in next
lane, but upon reaching the next lane, you come to know that there is no
temple. Here too, who is the knower of 'non-existence of temple' (advaita
accepts all 6 pramANa-s - anaupalabhi.

If I say, I am Jiva and then go on to say, I am Brahman, I sound egoist.
But there is an a priori - that I am Jiva. Lets say, I is Brahman in stead
of 'I am Brahman'. This makes things easy. Now to remove a priori, ask, -
Is I jiva?. In fact it is due to wrong identification we say 'I am Jiva' -
this itself is ego. It is not ego ti say what you are 'Brahman'. But we do
not know 'Brahman', hence the search begins to find this 'I' - the first
person, always accompanying, ever present and the statement ' I am That' is
realized. 'AM' is important. It makes this statement non-dual. After
knowing the true 'I', the laxyarth of this statement 'I am That (Brahman)'
or simply 'I am Brahman' is realized as direct experience. This is a
meditative journey.

As said by Sadananda ji, everything that is within mAyA is mithyA. Due to
us being trapped in mAyA, we are wearing coloured glasses having 3 shades,
hence we perceive this world accordingly, remove glasses, reality is
experienced 'As it is'.

Aum

OM

Sujal Upadhyay

"To disconnect from the self and to become Aware of anything else is
nothing but unhappiness" - Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi

He who has faith has all
He who lacks faith, lacks all
It is the faith int he name of lord that works wonders
FAITH IS LIFE, DOUBT IS DEATH - Sri Ramakrishna


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Nithin Sridhar <sridhar.nithin at gmail.com>wrote:

> Sadananda ji,
>
> I agree with you. I would just like to point out that, in the English
> discussions on Advaita, the usage of the word "Unreal" is usually not
> applied for the "Non-existing objects like son of a barren women" i.e. not
> applied for Asat nor for Tucham. Instead rightly or wrongly, it is applied
> for "Mithya" itself. Hence, there is so much confusion.
>
> -Nithin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:52 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > PraNAms
> >
> > Perceptual world is not real or unreal. Hence it is called mithyaa which
> > is sat asat vilakshanam.
> >
> > Real is clearly defined - that which does not undergo any modification -
> > Only infinite cannot undergo any modification, by definition. Brahman is
> > infiniteness itself. Brahman cannot undergo modification. Hence He cannot
> > be the cause for creation since creation involves a modification.
> >
> > If there is a creation, then the cause cannot but be Brahman since there
> > is nothing else other than Brahman. But by above statement Brahman cannot
> > be the cause for anything. Hence only way to account the creation since
> it
> > appears to be real for the perceiver is by adhyaasa that Shree Subbuji
> > mentioned. It is appears to be there but really not there since what is
> > there is only Brahman which cannot be perceived.
> >
> > Hence whatever is perceived and we think is real is not really real since
> > it is only apparently real.
> >
> > Unreal cannot even appear for perception - For unreal there is no locus
> > for existence and therefore for experience it has to exist Hence unreal
> is
> > like vandyaputraH
> >
> > The world is experienced - therefore it is neither real not unreal -
> hence
> > it is called mithyaa.
> >
> > In fact Shankara says anything that is seen or perceived is mithyaa -
> > dRshyatvaat.
> >
> > For these it is not logic but Vedanta is pramAna. Logic relays on
> > Pratyaksha pramANa for validation. That which is beyond the pratyaksha
> > pramANa cannot be established by logic. It is useless to argue using
> logic
> > on these aspects.
> >
> > Hari Om!
> > Sadananda
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > On Tue, 12/10/13, Sujal Upadhyay <sujal.u at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal
> >  To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> >  Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013, 7:38 AM
> >
> >  Dear Nitin bhai,
> >
> >  I think unreal does not mean mithyA. Or say what is the
> >  english word for
> >  asatya?
> >
> >  Satya = Real / truth
> >  asatya = ?
> >  mithyA (in between) = ? - that which is transient
> >  experience.
> >
> >  My English is poor
> >
> >  Also what is the difference between anitya and mithyA?
> >
> >  According to my understanding, anitya means that which is
> >  non-self and is
> >  perishable. So if I destroy a cloth, it's irreversible end
> >  product is ash,
> >  which is visible.
> >
> >  While in snake-rope analogy, when snake disappears, it does
> >  not leave any
> >  trace, like it's curved path, etc.
> >
> >  Adi Shankara in Tatva Bodh defines both anitya and mithya
> >  separately.
> >
> >  In Jnana Drishti, the world is negated and not destroyed.
> >  that is nirvikalp
> >  samadhi. Then there is another word, satvam khalu-idam
> >  brahma. 'Idam' :)
> >
> >  Sri Ramana Maharshi says, when you look at shadow, then sun
> >  is not visible,
> >  when you look at sun, you cannot see shadow. Similarly, when
> >  you clearly
> >  experience this world, you do not experience Brahman. when
> >  you clearly
> >  experience Brahman which world is not visible.
> >
> >  Body is Jnani is Jnana itself (consciousness). It is not
> >  physical body, but
> >  the substratum of entire universe is his body (i.e.
> >  Brahman).
> >
> >  Aum
> >
> >
> >  OM
> >
> >  Sujal Upadhyay
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>