[Advaita-l] An instance of Advaita wrongly comprehended
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 17 12:07:00 CDT 2012
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.
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.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list