Atman and its adjectives

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

.... Its indescribable. It is real enough in our plane of Maya but only when you compare it to Brahman is it unreal.

Dear Amala, from a doctrinal POV, Renu has given an excellent account. Nothing can be said to improve on it.

In my own personal journey, I found Advaitam to be completely confusing. But, when I found Ramanuja Dharshanam I found some consistency.

Vedas contain three types of statements, (i) bheda shruti, (ii) abheda shruti, and (iii) ghataka shruti. The challenge is to find consonance among the these three categories of statements.

A broader truth than all of this is to do with the only reality we all can have vouch for. In this realm, liberty, egality, and fraternity are more real and important than any other cock and bull story.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste.

mAtA AmRtAnandamayI has explained how to understand the full import of advaita in this link:
Shankara's definition of Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, Reality and Illusion @ Amritapuri.org

 

[nachi naga]

I love this thread,thanks all love you all ie me !

nachi naga.

 

[Nara]

....mAtA AmRtAnandamayI has explained how to understand the full import of advaita

If this link provides a way to understand the full import of advaita, it is doing a rather poor job of it. Let me explain.

The link starts with a quotation from Sri Shankaracharya, namely,

brahma satyam jagan mithya
jivo brahmaiva napara
​

Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else
​

and then, says that it is going to address the main criticism, namely, (I am paraphrasing) that when we perceive the reality of the world all around us how can it be an illusion.

The page starts with several examples:

• early humans thought earth was flat with a huge dome like roof, but in reality it is not so
• sun seems to be moving around, but in reality it is not so
• reflection in a mirror is not real
• watching a movie evokes emotions, but what we see is not real
• a rope gets misunderstood as snake

All these examples only show that the reality of earth and sky, earth and moon, person and reflection, movie image, and rope, were wrongly understood. We can only say the primitives did not understood correctly, we cannot say earth and sky are illusion. We cannot even say the thoughts of the primitives are unreal, only that they are wrong. Reality is not denied by any of these examples at all.

Next, the page talks about dream state and waking state, and claims dream is an illusion which goes away when one awakens. This also falls flat. The dream is real, it was a real dream. When you awaken you can say it felt like real plane ride, or whatever, but you cannot deny the fact you did have a dream. Having had a dream is real, that was not an illusion. Once again, the perception was wrong, what you perceive is real, but the perception is wrong.

The rest of the page is built on top of this quick sand.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear all,

"Dvaitam,Vishisthadvaitam and Advaitam are images superimposed on the Screen of Brahman as long as the Projector of Maya is on."

 

[nachi naga]

Once again, the perception was wrong, what you perceive is real, but the perception is wrong.

The rest of the page is built on top of this quick sand.

Is it possible?that the perception of the perceptions that you have,are perceptibly correct from your perception? and incorrect from Brahman point of view?

Regarding the page,how sand becomes quick,slow? or the page can be compared to it?in my perception is a perception now.Thank you dear Nara,for providing comic relief from time to time for me,really enjoy your posts,from your agnostic point of view,reminds me of the comedian Bill Maher show,that is available in DVD's here.

Dream is a dream.Only from memory,when you analyse a dream,it is real or illusionary or whatever psycho babble.There is no time space limitation,but when we start limiting the space or time,it degenerates to theory NOT an experiance.imo.

Ammachi Vandanam Namaha.

nachi naga.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

All these examples only show that the reality of earth and sky, earth and moon, person and reflection, movie image, and rope, were wrongly understood. We can only say the primitives did not understood correctly, we cannot say earth and sky are illusion. We cannot even say the thoughts of the primitives are unreal, only that they are wrong. Reality is not denied by any of these examples at all.

So, what is reality and how do we understand it? With our mind, intellect or is there anything beyond these to understand it?

01. The 'reality' of the earth being flat with the sky as the dome is true even today, to any onlooker on the surface, but only up to the point of his vision. The mind extrapolates on this vision, and from the intellectual knowledge of science, correlates it and understands the deeper reality about it.

02. The sun moving around the earth is another similar type of perceptional/limited reality.

03. You say there is reality in the reflection in a mirror? Virtual reality perhaps, although the term is an oxymoron? Please explain this sort of reality.

04. If watching a movie is watching reality, then reading a work of fiction would also fall in this category. At least in a movie the characters and locales look the same to every witness, whereas in a novel, those physical realities are perceived differently by the readers. To give an example, the image of Harry Potter as it was drawn on the cover of the first book is so very different from the Potter of the screen. If reality can thus be different for different people, how it be called reality?

05. If the rope appearing as snake can be classfied as part of reality then surely the dreams also would belong to this category. If dreams are reality, why is so much weird without rhyme or reason in most cases? Is there any such 'weird reality' in the physical world to compare our dreams and understand it as reality? Does science say that dreams are reality?

Therefore, there is no illusion at all in this world, everything is reality to someone or other? Then what is the meaning of illusion?

We shall discuss it further after you provide answers to the above questions.

 

[renuka]

Dear all,

The more I read about Advaitam and Vishisthadvaitam...I have come to realize that more time is spent on arguement and counterarguement without actually realizing the underlying unifying factor(Verily Brahman Itself)

Vadam and Prativadam does not really matter to the Supreme One.

As I had mentioned in an old thread...

Knowing the Supreme One is like writing an Exam.
1)having multiple choice questions
2)there is more than one and answer at times
3)there is no right or no wrong answers
4)we ourselves are both Guru and Sishiya
5)we mark the paper ourselves.

 

[RVR]

I earnestly feel that the differences in the philosophies of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva was at the highest intellectual level.

For a lay man like me, whenever I read each philosophy on a stand alone basis, I am getting convinced about each philosophy.

It only reminds me of a famous song of Kannadasan which won him national award,

நதிகள் பிறக்குமிடம் பலவாகும்
எல்லா நதிகளும் கலப்பது கடலாகும்

Rivers are born at different places
But all rivers mingle with the same Sea.

Kannadasan is always explains complex things in a very simple way which even a layman like me can understand.

Let us follow the principle of `Unity in Diversity'

All the best

 

[tbs]

hi folks,
according to sankara ...aatma tatvam is anirvachaniyam...its unexplainable..like neti neti..so there is no adjectives to atman...
atman is neither masculine nor feminine..so its neutral....so there
is no question of adjectives to atman...if we talk visitadvaitha/dvaitha/
dvaithadvaitha/suddhadvaita vadas are added to gender with adjectives....if every adjectives has quality....but atman is nirgunan
jiva is saguna......my 2 cents....

regards
tbs

 

[Dr.S.Ramanathan]

Atman and its adjectives;


There have been many interesting contributions from the readers, Particulalrly Sri Saideo, Dr. Renuka ,Ms.Amala, Prof. Nara, Mr, Nachinaga and others,in this thread. I am personally benefited by many of them.

Ms. Amala has raised a pertinent question that, if Atma is Brahman and is Nirguna, how can it have adjectives? Dr. Renuka supports her fully. Even while mentioning Brahman, we mention Saguna Brahman ( with good properties) and Nirguna Brahman (with no properties). If we have to appreciate something totally unattached, we have to know what is attachment and how to get detached from them. If we talk about high philosophy to a common man , who understands nothing beyond his daily routine, it will all go beyond his head, he would show no interest in what is being talked about.. That is why Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Geeta, starts talking to Arjuna from Karma yoga and then raises him to the higher levels of philosophy. The idol worship in Hinduism started with this basis and slowly developed when an enlightened man need no longer go to a temple and start meditating on Brahman from where he is.
Similarly, in Sahasranama,the word Atma, either alone or with different adjectives appears 24 times to reinstate the Pragatitatwas and again on the 25th and 26th time as Ekatman and Atmayoni to explain the nonduality and selfgeneration without a second, as the 25th and 26th Tatwas.
It is interesting to observe that the different adjectives are so chosen and arranged from the first sloka to the 106th, as to explain first that the Atman or soul is different from life or body, through different levels of statements like,”Atman is free from all bondages, beyond the three gunas,omnipresent etc” to a final statement that there is only one Atma and that there is no material cause other than himself for the universe.. This is how He elevates a man in Geeta and in Vishnusahasranama from a man of Action to the Yoga of liberation by renunciation and that is the beauty of both these scriptures, making Bhagwad Geeta ( of which Vishnusahasranamam is a part ), as one of the Prastanatrayas by Adisankara. We can see here the Dwaitam and Vasishtadwaitam intertwined in some of the Namas until it finally culminates in Adwaitam,”Ekatman”.Thus, there is no quarrel between the three schools of thought but only an elevation gradually in the level of understanding Self or Brahman.
In Vivekachoodamani, Adisankara beautifully explains this in three slokas, 237 to 240 and the adjectives again are not really adjectives but merely an explanatory word. He says that only great sages see this Truth in which there are no distinctions between the Knower, the Knowledge and the Known. I may rather hesitatingly dare to say that he has gone even beyond the three Mahavakyas when he declared PRAGNAM BRAHMA.- THIS AWARENESS IS REALITY.,the Aitereya Upanishad.
Vedanta introduces a maze (or mace ?) of words to describe this. Upanishads explain it in a comparatively comprehendable form, by a set of terminologies evolved by these rushies. .Consciousness functioning through an individual entity is called the Microcosm (Vyashti) and that functioning through the whole cosmos is called the Macrocosm (Samashti). (Swami Chinmayananda in Viveka cho odamani)

Microcosm Macrocosm

1.A gross body functioning is called The Supreme consciousness functioning
Vishnu and because it expresses itself through the aggregate of all the gross bodies
In the waking condition, is called JAGRAT. Is called VIRAT. This is the cosmic form (Swami Chinmayananda calls this Viswam) of JAGRAT.
The Supreme consciousness functioning The Supreme consciousness functioning
through the individual subtle body is known through the aggregate of all subtle bodies
As Taijasa. It expresses itself in the dream is called Hiranyagarbha, the Creator,
Condition and is called Swapna. Swapna State.

3.The Supreme self functioning through the The same Atman functioning through
Causal body, the Vasanas, the nonapprehension the aggregate of all causal bodies ( the
Of Reality, the Avidya is called Prajna. It is nonapprehension of Reality), the Maya
Called Sushupti. Is called Iswara, in Sushupti.

This distinction by Swami Chinmayananda may help in understanding things a little better, Swapna is real as long as one is dreaming and remains in that state and becomes unreal only when he wakes up. The famous rope and snake theory is as much real today and is not meant only for the illiterate or uninitiated. When we walk on the road on a dark night without a torch .and see a ropelike object across, our mind immediately gets alerted
and slows down our walk until we are reassured.


Dr. Renuka has mentioned about Astronauts crossing the gravity fields can not be codsidered to have attained Moksha, if we say that Atman which had crossed the gravity field may have attained Moksha. Astronauts are not free floating and are very much under partial control under gravity and hence can not be compared. I think that is where Viswamitra failed in his attempt to send Trisanku to Swarga. He had apparently mastered the technique of crossing the gravity field of earth but did not know how to enter the gravity field of the other planet or whatever it is , called Swarga, and the result is Trisanku is circling the earth till date!

Prof Nara mentions that the only Reality is the famous Liberty, Egalite and Fraternity of the French Revolution. They are framed in three words and not in one. Truth can be only one, with an answer, yes or no. In modern parlance, it is like the binary system of today’s computers,0 or 1.The greys of the words Liberte, egalite and fraternity, all culminate in one word,--DEMOCRACY.

A drop of water must loose its individuality if it wants to form part of a large ocean .In Science, there is a unified approach now .Instead of a downward curve of Divide and Conquer, there is now an unified upward curve of Unite and Realize.
We have to shed off Malam to become Amalam-Amala.
Finally ,as Sri Saideo has mentioned in his eloquent posting, EKAM SAT, as the Rig Veda says. The Reality is One. I can only add “ Loko Bahuda Vadanti “ People talk differently.( about the same thing).

Respects and Regards,
Ramanathan.

 

[Dr.S.Ramanathan]

ATMAN AND ITS ADJECTIVES​

NOTE : Please disregard the earlier post with the same subject and matter. There was a bit of a problem in the copying of the table within the post.

There have been many interesting contributions from the readers, Particulalrly Sri Saideo, Dr. Renuka ,Ms.Amala, Prof. Nara, Mr, Nachinaga and others,in this thread. I am personally benefited by many of them.

Ms. Amala has raised a pertinent question that, if Atma is Brahman and is Nirguna, how can it have adjectives? Dr. Renuka supports her fully. Even while mentioning Brahman, we mention Saguna Brahman ( with good properties) and Nirguna Brahman (with no properties). If we have to appreciate something totally unattached, we have to know what is attachment and how to get detached from them. If we talk about high philosophy to a common man , who understands nothing beyond his daily routine, it will all go beyond his head, he would show no interest in what is being talked about.. That is why Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Geeta, starts talking to Arjuna from Karma yoga and then raises him to the higher levels of philosophy. The idol worship in Hinduism started with this basis and slowly developed when an enlightened man need no longer go to a temple and start meditating on Brahman from where he is.
Similarly, in Sahasranama,the word Atma, either alone or with different adjectives appears 24 times to reinstate the Pragatitatwas and again on the 25th and 26th time as Ekatman and Atmayoni to explain the nonduality and selfgeneration without a second, as the 25th and 26th Tatwas.
It is interesting to observe that the different adjectives are so chosen and arranged from the first sloka to the 106th, as to explain first that the Atman or soul is different from life or body, through different levels of statements like,”Atman is free from all bondages, beyond the three gunas,omnipresent etc” to a final statement that there is only one Atma and that there is no material cause other than himself for the universe.. This is how He elevates a man in Geeta and in Vishnusahasranama from a man of Action to the Yoga of liberation by renunciation and that is the beauty of both these scriptures, making Bhagwad Geeta ( of which Vishnusahasranamam is a part ), as one of the Prastanatrayas by Adisankara. We can see here the Dwaitam and Vasishtadwaitam intertwined in some of the Namas until it finally culminates in Adwaitam,”Ekatman”.Thus, there is no quarrel between the three schools of thought but only an elevation gradually in the level of understanding Self or Brahman.
In Vivekachoodamani, Adisankara beautifully explains this in three slokas, 237 to 240 and the adjectives again are not really adjectives but merely an explanatory word. He says that only great sages see this Truth in which there are no distinctions between the Knower, the Knowledge and the Known. I may rather hesitatingly dare to say that he has gone even beyond the three Mahavakyas when he declared PRAGNAM BRAHMA.- THIS AWARENESS IS REALITY.,the Aitereya Upanishad.
Vedanta introduces a maze (or mace ?) of words to describe this. Upanishads explain it in a comparatively comprehendable form, by a set of terminologies evolved by these rushies. .Consciousness functioning through an individual entity is called the Microcosm (Vyashti) and that functioning through the whole cosmos is called the Macrocosm (Samashti). (Swami Chinmayananda in Viveka cho odamani)

Microcosm​

Macrocosm​

1.A gross body functioning is called Vishnu and because it expresses itself In the waking condition, is called JAGRAT (Swami Chinmayananda calls this Viswam)
The Supreme consciousness functioning through the aggregate of all the gross bodies Is called VIRAT. This is the cosmic form of JAGRAT.
The Supreme consciousness functioning through the individual subtle body is known As Taijasa. It expresses itself in the dream Condition and is called Swapna
The Supreme consciousness functioning
through the aggregate of all subtle bodies is called Hiranyagarbha, the Creator, Swapna State.
.The Supreme self functioning through the Causal body, the Vasanas, the nonapprehension Of Reality, the Avidya is called Prajna. It is Called Sushupti.
The same Atman functioning through the aggregate of all causal bodies ( the nonapprehension of Reality), the Maya Is called Iswara, in Sushupti.





This distinction by Swami Chinmayananda may help in understanding things a little better, Swapna is real as long as one is dreaming and remains in that state and becomes unreal only when he wakes up. The famous rope and snake theory is as much real today and is not meant only for the illiterate or uninitiated. When we walk on the road on a dark night without a torch .and see a ropelike object across, our mind immediately gets alerted
and slows down our walk until we are reassured.


Dr. Renuka has mentioned about Astronauts crossing the gravity fields can not be codsidered to have attained Moksha, if we say that Atman which had crossed the gravity field may have attained Moksha. Astronauts are not free floating and are very much under partial control under gravity and hence can not be compared. I think that is where Viswamitra failed in his attempt to send Trisanku to Swarga. He had apparently mastered the technique of crossing the gravity field of earth but did not know how to enter the gravity field of the other planet or whatever it is , called Swarga, and the result is Trisanku is circling the earth till date!

Prof Nara mentions that the only Reality is the famous Liberty, Egalite and Fraternity of the French Revolution. They are framed in three words and not in one. Truth can be only one, with an answer, yes or no. In modern parlance, it is like the binary system of today’s computers,0 or 1.The greys of the words Liberte, egalite and fraternity, all culminate in one word,--DEMOCRACY.

A drop of water must loose its individuality if it wants to form part of a large ocean .In Science, there is a unified approach now .Instead of a downward curve of Divide and Conquer, there is now an unified upward curve of Unite and Realize.
We have to shed off Malam to become Amalam-Amala.
Finally ,as Sri Saideo has mentioned in his eloquent posting, EKAM SAT, as the Rig Veda says. The Reality is One. I can only add “ Loko Bahuda Vadanti “ People talk differently.( about the same thing).

Respects and Regards,
Ramanathan.

 

[Dr.S.Ramanathan]

ATMAN AND ITS ADJECTIVES​

NOTE : Please disregard the earlier post with the same subject and matter. There was a bit of a problem in the copying of the table within the post.

There have been many interesting contributions from the readers, Particulalrly Sri Saideo, Dr. Renuka ,Ms.Amala, Prof. Nara, Mr, Nachinaga and others,in this thread. I am personally benefited by many of them.

Ms. Amala has raised a pertinent question that, if Atma is Brahman and is Nirguna, how can it have adjectives? Dr. Renuka supports her fully. Even while mentioning Brahman, we mention Saguna Brahman ( with good properties) and Nirguna Brahman (with no properties). If we have to appreciate something totally unattached, we have to know what is attachment and how to get detached from them. If we talk about high philosophy to a common man , who understands nothing beyond his daily routine, it will all go beyond his head, he would show no interest in what is being talked about.. That is why Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Geeta, starts talking to Arjuna from Karma yoga and then raises him to the higher levels of philosophy. The idol worship in Hinduism started with this basis and slowly developed when an enlightened man need no longer go to a temple and start meditating on Brahman from where he is.
Similarly, in Sahasranama,the word Atma, either alone or with different adjectives appears 24 times to reinstate the Pragatitatwas and again on the 25th and 26th time as Ekatman and Atmayoni to explain the nonduality and selfgeneration without a second, as the 25th and 26th Tatwas.
It is interesting to observe that the different adjectives are so chosen and arranged from the first sloka to the 106th, as to explain first that the Atman or soul is different from life or body, through different levels of statements like,”Atman is free from all bondages, beyond the three gunas,omnipresent etc” to a final statement that there is only one Atma and that there is no material cause other than himself for the universe.. This is how He elevates a man in Geeta and in Vishnusahasranama from a man of Action to the Yoga of liberation by renunciation and that is the beauty of both these scriptures, making Bhagwad Geeta ( of which Vishnusahasranamam is a part ), as one of the Prastanatrayas by Adisankara. We can see here the Dwaitam and Vasishtadwaitam intertwined in some of the Namas until it finally culminates in Adwaitam,”Ekatman”.Thus, there is no quarrel between the three schools of thought but only an elevation gradually in the level of understanding Self or Brahman.
In Vivekachoodamani, Adisankara beautifully explains this in three slokas, 237 to 240 and the adjectives again are not really adjectives but merely an explanatory word. He says that only great sages see this Truth in which there are no distinctions between the Knower, the Knowledge and the Known. I may rather hesitatingly dare to say that he has gone even beyond the three Mahavakyas when he declared PRAGNAM BRAHMA.- THIS AWARENESS IS REALITY.,the Aitereya Upanishad.
Vedanta introduces a maze (or mace ?) of words to describe this. Upanishads explain it in a comparatively comprehendable form, by a set of terminologies evolved by these rushies. .Consciousness functioning through an individual entity is called the Microcosm (Vyashti) and that functioning through the whole cosmos is called the Macrocosm (Samashti). (Swami Chinmayananda in Viveka cho odamani)

Microcosm​

Macrocosm​

1.A gross body functioning is called Vishnu and because it expresses itself In the waking condition, is called JAGRAT (Swami Chinmayananda calls this Viswam)
The Supreme consciousness functioning through the aggregate of all the gross bodies Is called VIRAT. This is the cosmic form of JAGRAT.
The Supreme consciousness functioning through the individual subtle body is known As Taijasa. It expresses itself in the dream Condition and is called Swapna
The Supreme consciousness functioning
through the aggregate of all subtle bodies is called Hiranyagarbha, the Creator, Swapna State.
.The Supreme self functioning through the Causal body, the Vasanas, the nonapprehension Of Reality, the Avidya is called Prajna. It is Called Sushupti.
The same Atman functioning through the aggregate of all causal bodies ( the nonapprehension of Reality), the Maya Is called Iswara, in Sushupti.





This distinction by Swami Chinmayananda may help in understanding things a little better, Swapna is real as long as one is dreaming and remains in that state and becomes unreal only when he wakes up. The famous rope and snake theory is as much real today and is not meant only for the illiterate or uninitiated. When we walk on the road on a dark night without a torch .and see a ropelike object across, our mind immediately gets alerted
and slows down our walk until we are reassured.


Dr. Renuka has mentioned about Astronauts crossing the gravity fields can not be codsidered to have attained Moksha, if we say that Atman which had crossed the gravity field may have attained Moksha. Astronauts are not free floating and are very much under partial control under gravity and hence can not be compared. I think that is where Viswamitra failed in his attempt to send Trisanku to Swarga. He had apparently mastered the technique of crossing the gravity field of earth but did not know how to enter the gravity field of the other planet or whatever it is , called Swarga, and the result is Trisanku is circling the earth till date!

Prof Nara mentions that the only Reality is the famous Liberty, Egalite and Fraternity of the French Revolution. They are framed in three words and not in one. Truth can be only one, with an answer, yes or no. In modern parlance, it is like the binary system of today’s computers,0 or 1.The greys of the words Liberte, egalite and fraternity, all culminate in one word,--DEMOCRACY.

A drop of water must loose its individuality if it wants to form part of a large ocean .In Science, there is a unified approach now .Instead of a downward curve of Divide and Conquer, there is now an unified upward curve of Unite and Realize.
We have to shed off Malam to become Amalam-Amala.
Finally ,as Sri Saideo has mentioned in his eloquent posting, EKAM SAT, as the Rig Veda says. The Reality is One. I can only add “ Loko Bahuda Vadanti “ People talk differently.( about the same thing).

Respects and Regards,
Ramanathan.

 

[nachi naga]

I wish to nominate this thread as the best in the forum.Nuggets of wisdom.Thanks to dear Nara,who could because of his stance,was able to churn the amritam,from every beloved members of the forum,as each and every one of us are pearls in a oyster.Thank you all.Love

nachi naga.

 

[Nara]

....Therefore, there is no illusion at all in this world, everything is reality to someone or other? Then what is the meaning of illusion?

Yes Saidevo, this is the problem. In all of these discussions including the link you provided, the word "illusion" is used carelessly. From your post also, the apparent meaning conveyed is that "illusion", is the opposite of reality. In this sense none the examples make sense.

The two examples that come close to illusion as unreal are the reflection in a mirror and dream. Even here, the reality is the person standing in front of the mirror is seeing a "real" image, not an illusion. Similarly, the dream is a "real" dream, like real thoughts. During the dream state it may feel like physical reality, and when the person wakes up he/she realizes it is not a physical reality, only a dream, a real dream. Nobody will deny that dream did not happen (exist) at all.

So, how can these examples help us to understand that jagath is unreal, i.e. does not even exist?

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear all,

For all practical purposes Jagath exist.This is a known fact and we are endowed with our senses to perceive it.Otherwise why do we even need to be equipped with senses at all?
Then why we even need to have Mahapraalaya...if Jagath is merely an illusion?

Why do we need to control our senses if Jagath did not exist at all?
Why go through tapas,dhyanam etc?
Why do we even need to eat if we are merely an illusion?

I am going to repeat myself here.Jagath is Real but it is everchanging,ever evolving ,evermodifying and transient hence "Unreal. "

Our holding on to the everchanging,ever evolving and ever modifying transient Jagath as if it is permenant is due to our false perception and this is the "Illusion"

A dream is real because it happened.Thats no doubt about that.But upon waking it seemed like an illusion because it did not leave any physical or gross evidence in the waking state.
But it left an imprint in our mind... and that is real..(the imprint)

A image in the mirror is not an illusion.Our gross body is reflected in the mirror.

When our body obstructs light a shadow is formed.Is the shadow and illusion too?
No, the light is real, the body is real and the shadow is real too.

A mirage is an illusion...because there was no water but it looked like water owing to our false perception.

Illusion is a state of mind.Its very hard to prove a state of mind.If I can change thought waves into digital images then I think we would understand illusion better.
For now I think its still not scientifically possible...well maybe in the future.

 

[Nara]

Jagath is Real but it is everchanging,ever evolving ,evermodifying and transient hence "Unreal. "

Our holding on to the everchanging,ever evolving and ever modifying transient Jagath as if it is permenant is due to our false perception and this is the "Illusion"

Dear sister Renu, I am not sure in what sense some of these words are used by different participants here.

For me, satyam = immutable; transient and changing = mutable. I am unable to agree that what is transient is unreal.

Then there is "mithya", what is its meaning, is it illusion or unreal?

I invite you and saidevo to clarify the meaning so that all of us can be on the same page in this discussion.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear Nara,

When I wrote "Unreal" I put it in inverted comma because I did not mean it never took place but its not permenant so it appeared "Unreal".

Its like a kind of relatively "Unreal".(i dont know if i am making sense here).

Mithyam literally means Unreal.
Holding on to the relatively "Unreal" is Illusion.

Nara anna,forgive me if I am not making sense here.
This is the best I can offer.

renu

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

Thank you for giving an opportunity for an interesting discussion. What do you think about the points about what is real, unreal and in-between in the following dialogue?

721. ShiShya: Is mAyA real or unreal?
722. Guru: You have asked the most difficult question first. mAyA is neither real nor unreal.
723. S: How can that be?
724. G: It is real because we see the effects of PrakRti existing before us.
725. S: It is also not real because, ...
726. G: Being of the nature of transience, it vanishes in due time.
727. S: If something vanishes after a certain time, is it not taken to be real?
728. G: The word 'real' has to be carefully handled. On one side there is the absolute reality of Brahman.
729. S: Because it is ever there and its presence can never be negated or denied.
730. G: Yes. On the other extreme there is an absolute unreality like, say, a hare's horn, or, the son of a barren woman.

731. S: Actually they don't exist at all.
732. G: That is why it is called absolute unreality. The Sanskrit term is “asat”. It is absolute non-existence.
733. S: Then 'sat' means reality?
734. G: In advaita 'sat' means absolute reality, the Sanskrit being “pAramArthika satyaM”.
735. S: What about the reality of the world?
736. G: It comes between 'sat' and 'asat'. It is neither 'sat' nor 'asat'. 'vyAvahArika satyaM' operational reality.
737. S: What about dream reality?
738. G: Dream is real only to the dreamer and during the dream only. It is subjective reality, “prAtibhAsika satyaM”.
739. S: So there are four kinds of reality?
740. G: All that come in between 'sat' and 'asat' are bunched under the term 'mithyA'.

741. S: So 'mithyA' includes both operational reality of the world and the subjective reality of the dream. Is that right?
742. G: Yes, mAyA belongs to the order of reality called 'mithyA'. It is neither 'sat' nor 'asat'.
743. S: The way you have described it implies that the world belongs to the 'mithyA' type of reality.
744. G: Yes. That is why Shankara's famous quote says: “brahma satyaM, jagat mithyA”.
745. S: I have heard it translated as 'Brahman is the reality, the universe is unreal'.
746. G: That translation would be wrong if you mean by 'unreality' the absolute unreality called 'asat'.
747. S: Can you elaborate this further?
748. G: In all cases of 'mithyA', the 'is-ness' is not questionable. But the understanding of 'what it is' is wrong.

Source:
A step by step first exposure to advaita Through a dialogue of 1008 entries
by V.Krishnamurthy
http://www.advaitin.net/advaitadialogue.pdf

Reading the entire book is highly instructive for Advaita sAdhakas.

 

[Nara]

.... What do you think about the points about what is real, unreal and in-between in the following dialogue?

Dear saidevo, I read the quoted dialog carefully. Pardon me, we are putting the cart before the horse. Before we put forward our arguments, let us first define the terminologies, specifically "satyam" and "mityam", and real and illusion.

Here is how I understand these terms:

satyam = immutable, never changing
real = exists
mityam = untrue or unreal
unreal = things that do not exist
illusion = distortion of senses, erroneous understanding

I request you to please give your comments on these terms. Before we can discuss the dialog you cited we have a common understanding of these terms.

Thanks....

 

[Nara]

When I wrote "Unreal" I put it in inverted comma because I did not mean it never took place but its not permenant so it appeared "Unreal".

Dear sister renu, I did notice the quotation marks. So, do we then have three states, (i) satyam/immutable, (ii) asat/non-existent, and (iii) things that are real but changing, like clay becoming a pot?

Given this, then, are we to understand that in "brahman satyam, jagath mityam", jagath is real, but it is not satyam only because it changes?

Cheers, anna

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

Different strokes for different folks. To me the differentiation as given in the dialogue quoted above is clear and convincing. Thanks for your points.

 

[Nara]

....Different strokes for different folks. To me the differentiation as given in the dialogue quoted above is clear and convincing. Thanks for your points.

Oh, come on saidevo, we are just having a conversation.

The dialog you cited says things like continuum of degrading reality between absolute sat and total asat, vyavaharika satyam and other such assertions. From a common perspective these do not make any sense at all. But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?

Saidevo, I understand if you do want to continue this conversation, these are hard to defend assertions....

 

[nachi naga]

re

Oh, come on saidevo, we are just having a conversation.

The dialog you cited says things like continuum of degrading reality between absolute sat and total asat, vyavaharika satyam and other such assertions. From a common perspective these do not make any sense at all. But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?

Saidevo, I understand if you do want to continue this conversation, these are hard to defend assertions....

Nara,

Prof.V.K's pdf is just a gist.I understand your inability to understand,therefore being agnostic,makes perfect sense to me,as to where you come from.One can only take the horse to the pond to drink,but finally the horse has to make up its mind and drink water to quench its thirst.

From your posts,i am making a guess,soon you will seek out for a guru to know about vedanta or the guru will seek you out.All the best.

nachi naga.

 

[amala]

Given this, then, are we to understand that in "brahman satyam, jagath mityam", jagath is real, but it is not satyam only because it changes?

Cheers

If jagat is mithyam and mithyam is unreal/untrue, how is jagat real then?