[Advaita-l] dRk, dRShya, etc
rkabhi at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 01:09:40 CDT 2006
On 8/20/06, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > When viewed as the Atma, nAmarUpa is also sat. That is the purport of
> > Shankara Bhashya on Chandogya I quoted.
> Can you explain this a bit further? If you could explain this in the
> context of Swami Dayananda's article, that would be very useful. Even
> otherwise, I would request an elaboration.
> This contradicts the Shankara Bhashya I quoted.
> Are you saying that the statement "what is, is Atman" wrong, or are
> you saying that "Atman exists" is equally accurate? The Atman is often
> referred to as "pure awareness" or "pure consciousness". Is
> "awareness" an entity?
Actually, I feel saying that the Atman exists is more accurate. If we say
that what exists is Atman, immediately implies all nAmarUpa is arbitrarily
mithya (again, this confusion *may* be due to faults in the English language
more than any genuine reason :). Anyway, this is because, as per "sarvaM cha
nAmarUpadi sadAtmanaiva satyaM", all names and froms are *real* (not
different from Atman) when viewed as the Atman. But they are *unreal*
(mithya) only when viewed as different from the Atman. The example given in
the Chandogya Upanishad of the mud alone being real (mR^ittikaiva satyaM)
and all names and forms as born of speech (vAchArambhaNam) when seen from
this light gives the necessary explanation. In real experience, is it even
possible to see a pot independent of mud? No. It is "possible" only when a
reflection of the pot is seen in the mirror or we imagine it. Thus, namarUpa
(i.e., jagat) being called mithya applies only when namarUpa is seen as
different from the Atman (this happens due to avidya).
satyena dhAryate pR^ithvi satyena tapate raviH|
satyena vAti vAyushca sarvaM satye pratishThitam||
calA lakShmIshcalAH prANAshcalaM jIvita yauvanaM|
calAcale ca saMsAre dharma eko hi nishcalaH||
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list