Non-reality of the world
sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL
Wed Oct 15 14:00:38 CDT 1997
>Now, I have a question in this regard.
>First, let me illustrate. We see waves. We see all waves to be the same
>as water only. Then we see water from different oceans. We see them as
>water only and not as different oceans. We see oceans and continents and
>we see that as the Earth only. Then we see the earth as one of the nine
>planets. Then we do not see the nine planets but only a solar system. Then
>we see the Sun as one of the stars and the whole as one cosmos. Then we
>do not see the cosmos but we see only one nishchalatvam, the perfect
>quietness, the nirguna brahman, the substratum of all.
>This may not be a good illustration, but I would re-phrase Shri Madhavan's
>question this way: why see the difference and then interpret it as that
>perceived difference is due to ignorance ? If we do not see the difference
>at all, then where is the need for interpretation ?
>In the bhagavad-gita verse quoted above, Krishna seems to see a difference
>and then interprets the difference. My question is, why does a jnani like
>Krishna see a difference ?
Please refer to the my article on the thoughts. The concepts are somewhat
illustrated there. It is not the question of - why see the difference?
objects are seen as soon as the eyes are open and seeing takes place
effortlessly. If the equipments are functioning you cannot but see as
soon as the eyes are open and when the mind is behind the eyes. Obviously
when I see a cow, I cognise the cow and from my memory I recognize it as a
cow. This occurs mechanically without any effort from the individual.
When I turn my head and see a table now, the cow vision is gone table
vision has come and that change is also immediate. Sajaati, vijaati and
swagata bhedhaas belong to prakriti and occurs naturally. The difference
between the sear and the seen and the differences between the seens are the
nature of the prakriti. Based on the knowledge stored in the memory, the
intellect interprets the objects based on their attributes. There is no
problem is that. It becomes a yoga maayaa and hence the lord is known is
maayaadhyakshena prakritiH suuyate sacharaa charam. The world of
plurality is projected under my guidance. That takes place as part of the
Hence the world is not a problem or seeing the world of plurality is not a
problem. As I mentioned, the problem is taking the world of plurality as
real is the problem. There the judgment of the individual comes in. JNaani
does not have a notion that he is the seer, although seeing is being done.
Please read Nisarga datta's I am that - you can see his explanation when
asked who is answering the question when he claims he is not the doer.
PrakRityaivacha karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH|
ya pasyati tadaatmaanam akartharam sa pasyati||
PrakRiti eva sarvaani karmaani kriyamaanani - all actions are done by the
prakriti only - seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling etc. Tat
atmaanam akarartaaram yaH pasyati saH pasyati - that oneself is not a doer
in all these transitions, one who see that, he alone sees the truth.
It is not therefore the question as you put it " if we donot see the
difference at all". Seeing takes places by the prakriti. Prakriti dances
in the presence of the light of consciousness. That is its nature because
of its three gunas. The senses can be withdrawn and one go into meditation
- then one is with oneself, reveling in one self - atmanyeva atmana
tushTaH. This is what is called atma rati.
But if the eyes are open and the body, mind and intellect are functioning,
all the three distinctions, (sajaati, vijaati swagata) are self evident in
the prakriti. JNani knowing that these distinctions are part of maaya,
will not give importance to it. The differences are only superimposition
on the chaitanya. It becomes atma kreeda or paramatma leela. Play of the
atma or play of the Lord or Leela of the Lord etc.
That is the reason, I said thinking is not the problem, body is not the
problem, mind is not the problem, difference seen are not the problem. But
giving the reality to the plurality is the problem, and is due to lack of
vision of the substratum on which the plurality is projected.
Sitting on Lazy-boy chair in a air conditioned room after scrumptious meals
and watching the movie on TV with light and shades dancing on the screen,
is not the problem. But crying for the heroine that is suffering in the
movie who is running away from her captors in hot sun in a wild forest, is
the problem and that problem arises from mear identification with the
character, which is not even real.
Of course, one can turn the TV off and forget it. But is not a fun to
watch a good movie even if it is not real! Don't you think so? Why? The
whole creation is like that. Playing any game is fun including the game of
life. But if we understand and play there is the real fun, otherwise we
In the Chandigya -father Uddalaka starts teaching his son, swetaketu -
sadeva soumya, idamagra asseet, ekameeva adviteeyam,
Only existence, which was one without the second, was there in the
beginning before the creation started. Then he goes on -- he saw, he was
alone, he decided to become many. -- now for what reason - obviously for
fun! Just the same way we go out and rent a video to watch the movie. Then
why cry watching the movie - we forget we are saakshiies but start
identifying with the what is seen which is not even real - but shades of
light projected on the screen.
Mind has that knack, and that is what we are fighting.
>Thus, I would assume a jnani like Krishna sees only non-duality in
>everything. Isn't seeing non-duality in everything better ("better" is
>not the right word here, but I am not sure which word is better.) than
>seeing duality and interpreting it as only a superposition ?
For Krishna it is his Leela Vibhuuti -
>From self point it is atma kreeda -
Now about the play. You can always wind it up if you want to - you can
project and enjoy the tamaasha if you want to. No need to interpret
anything. In the final analysis it is your choice.
If we play there is no problme. If we donot play is also no problem.
Problem is thinking that there is a problem in playing, and that is one
problem. second is idenfying the roles we play as real, forgetting that we
are the actors playing the roles, is the problem. The solution requires
reassessment of our problems and to realize that, in reality, there is no
>I would be grateful for clarification.
>> Hari Om!
>Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah
>atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14
>When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal
>becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
>From Wed Oct 15 16:26:56 1997
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:26:56 -0400
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Subject: Non-reality of the world
Comments: To: Advaita List <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Brahman is the QUESTION but Brahman is REAL and the Question is also
REAL. Any ANSWER to this question is UNREAL because all THOUGHTS are
UNREAL; All explanations to any THOUGHT are again THOUGHTS and UNREAL!
The statements in the Upanishads and Gita do not describe what is REAL?
That is always an open QUESTION. That will always remain as an open
question. Whenever I try to explain REAL, I only elaborate how UNREAL I
am! All my explanations are just my own thoughts or the thoughts of
others! Unfortunately there is no communication channel between the REAL
and UNREAL! There can never be any communication channel between REAL
and UNREAL! When I experience REAL, I become SILENT and TOTAL PEACE and
completely FREE! I will have neither thoughts nor any IDENTITY!
Brahman is THAT IT IS and not THIS IS IT!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list