[Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 29 07:13:13 CDT 2013
Namaste Sri Sadananda Sir
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.
In Gaudapada Karika VP 8 the Bhashya of Adi Sankara has given a Purva
Pakshi argument. He says in a dream we can see a four tusk elephant and
eight armed person. Kindly observe he is saying the four tusk elephant is
not imagined in a dream but seen in a dream. It is actually seen. But in
waking we cannot see a four tusk elephant. We have to only imagine it in
Important point is Gaudapada has said all these objects like four tusk
elephant or normal objects in waking are not different. They are false
Two points are made -
स्वप्नजागरितस्थाने ह्येकमाहुर्मनीषिणः । GK VP 5
The dream state and waking are same.
उभयोरपि वैतथ्यं भेदानां स्थानयोर्यदि ।
क एतान्बुध्यते भेदान्को वै तेषां विकल्पकः ॥ GK VP 11
All objects in both waking and dream are false. We cannot say there is
difference between objects in these two. It is wrong to say there is a
You are saying there is objective reality because a rabbit without horns is
seen by all persons and rabbit with horns may be imagined by one. But in
Eka Jeeva Vada where are other persons? There is only one. What one person
is seeing and what he is imagining are both false. IMAGINED object = SEEN
object = False. End of story.
You are talking three things. First is Sat, then Mithya as objective
reality, and Asat the imaginary thing.
I am talking two things only. Sat and Asat. Mithya is not needed for
explanation in Eka Jeeva Vada.
It is a simpler explanation and easy to understand. If we use Mithya there
is confusion because how can you be sure of objective reality? WHat is
objective reality? IF I see a rabbit without horns and 100 people are
seeing it? If 10000 people have to see it? All people in world have to see
it? There may be some people have not seen rabbit before. They will think
it is some other animal. All people will not come to same conclusion. We
cannot define this strange thing objective reality. This is the conclusion.
We have to stop searching for objective reality and accept it is not there.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:59 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Shree Venkatesh - PraNAms
> am not sure where the problem is. The definitions provided by Goudapaada
> are clear. Perceptibility, utility, experiencability, even transactability
> either in the waking state, dream state and in fact in any particular
> state is
> not the criteria for reality. In the vaitatya prakaraNa he is using dream
> as example to establish the mityaatvam of even the waking state. The
> defintions are:
> Real is that which never undergoes any
> modification; and only that can fit in that category is infiniteness -
> infinite cannot undergo any transformation - infiniteness is Brahman.
> Hence nityatvam is the criterian for satyatvam.
> anything that is perceived, experienced, transacted in any particular
> state is
> mithyaa only since it is perceived, experienced and/or transacted in that
> particular state. Since only finites can be perceived, experinced and/or
> Anything that has no locus for
> existence for one to experience in any state is asat in that state. There
> is no upaadhi for the object for one to experience.
> three types have to be accepted since definitions are precise and based on
> own experience. Even dvaitins and/or vishiShTaadvaitins have to
> gold from the ornaments of gold since is one is adhiShTaanam while the
> other is
> superimposition - hence the degrees of reality of the two are different.
> Brahman being infinite and existent entity cannot but be the adhishTaanam
> for everything that is experienced - this is a logical statement and
> scriptures confirms this as - it itself became many- meaning it itself
> appears as many since it cannot really become many, being infinite.
> If one imagines a ghost in his mind which he can after
> reading some horror books or movies - that imagination can be either in
> the waking state or in the
> dream state, for him who sees and thus experiences it is real and even
> transactionally real since he, in his mind, is dealing with that ghost,
> afraid of that ghost and has increased BP etc . That ghost
> can be appearing in the form of the elephant that you have described. Is
> real no since it is not nithyam and is it unreal not for him since he is
> experincing - hence for him it is mithyaa. For others who have not
> experienced since it is imagination of the dreamer, that is unreal. I see
> no problem here.
> essential point that has to be recognized is - Anything that is
> experienced apparently real
> or imaginary is mithyaa - Shankara just says - dRisyatvaat - in GK
> Anything that is not experienced or experincable is asat. End of the
> story. In
> the future if he experiences since he experiences, for that experiencer
> that is
> mithyaa only - since by definition sat cannot be experienced since it is
> infinite and asat cannot be experienced since it is asat. Any thing
> experienced is mithyaa. Is is vyaavhaarika or praatibhaasika - for the one
> who is transcating with that it is vyaavhaarika and it is not transactable
> for others it is only praatibhaasika from their reference. These are terms
> just to differentiate jiiva sRiShTi and Iswara sRishTi.
> If a
> person sees the strange things whether it is in the dream or in the waking
> state - then it is mithyaa. If the strange things are his creations - we
> it as praatibhaasika - like a snake on the rope. If everybody sees then it
> is more
> objective reality hence we call it vyaavahaarika. These are relative to
> subjective or objective experiences. The same dream object is objective if
> everybody in the dream also sees that object. These are relative
> for that state. The reference state for each perception has to be clear. In
> essence anything experienced apparently real or imaginary is mithyaa only.
> When the definitions are very clear I fail
> to see why there should be any confusion in these.
> Hari Om!
> > From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
> >To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> >Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 12:37 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.
> >In GK VP 8 Adi Sankara has discussed चतुर्दन्तं गजमारूढं अष्टभुजमात्मानं.
> >The Purva Pakshi is saying we can see four tusk elephants and eight arms
> >person in dreams. The answer is this Apurva is Sthani Dharma. The dream
> >objects like four tusk elephants are also false. But in the same teaching
> >Gaudapada has said dream objects and waking objects are unreal only. There
> >is no difference.
> >If a person imagines a rabbit with horns or seeing a four tusk elephant in
> >a dream or he is seeing a table and chair in waking all these objects are
> >equally unreal. All seen and imagined objects in dream and waking are
> >unreal. Why some Advaitis are seeing difference between them?They are
> >saying waking object seen is Mithya. It is not Sat not Asat not both Sat
> >and Asat but Rabbit horns is not same. But they are contradicting with
> >On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:26 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> > Namaste
> >> >
> >> > In waking if I imagine a hare horns in my
> >> > mind I can say it is not real.
> >> >
> >> In every imagination, especially of objects, there is a picture/form of
> >> that object that also comes up in the mind. What form does the
> >> of 'hare's horn' have in the mind? One can imagine/recollect only what
> >> already seen/experienced before. We have seen
> >> horns and not hare's horn. We can distinguish between those horns even
> >> they lie separated from those animals. But what form does the memory
> >> for a hare's horn?
> >> So, in the waking you can at best hear/read or recall to the mind the
> >> idea/concept of 'hare's horn', I mean just the words and no object. And
> >> along with that is there the thinking about the impossibility of it
> >> One can surely have such a thinking in the dream too since we have
> >> read/discussed/thought of the concept of hare's horn in the waking.
> >> On an aside, I would like to know who are shringi and bhringi in
> >> to Shivaloka? Is there any description of this horned entity in the
> >> puranas or other literature?
> >> subrahmanian.v
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
> >To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >For assistance, contact:
> >listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list