[Advaita-l] Discussion on "Knowledge and the means of Knowledge", with reference to VP

sivaramakrishnan muthuswamy muthushiv at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 26 14:06:04 CDT 2008

Thanks for the kind reply to my concerns.  I am trying to understand your words.  But I should admit that I have some...
"If the mind is the creator than why are our creations so much alike?  One 
should see a blue sky, one should see a green sky, another should see no 
sky etc"

Actually the perception of any object varies between the creation.  A goat can never see blue color of the sky as it cannot perceive color, I wonder a terrestrial worm can ever comprehend the sky with its compound eye.  Even among humans it should vary.  Infact most of us know that sky is never blue.  That's why I wanted to highlight the crucial role of mind in the creation.  In other words your statement can be negated on its stand.

"That our experience of pratyaksha is so similiar is proof that "reality" 
is not "in here" but "out there." The mind does not create but it observes 
(and distorts) reality"

The pratyaksha is so tricky with respect to this phenomenal world it cannot be counted too seriously.  You cannot explain the existence of the world logically.  One of the crucial core concept of Advaita.  "Satasat".  One of the easy way advitins used to explain the dream reality where if you are hungry in the dream then you have to eat.  So long you are in dream you are controlled by the rules.... Yogavashista can highlight the existence of multiple realms with us.  Even scientifically we can say that rules vary with the relative observation.  Rules applicable to the macro physics are no more relevant in the quantum level.  Sun neither sets nor arise.  Sun stays as it is.  But in the world the circadian clock of living beings function on the basis of sun raise and sun set.

"> The issue is how the mind first of all come 
> in to existence.  And Advaita says it is"inexplicable".
That's not the inexplicable part.  The mind is a result of ahamkara 
("ego") which is a misunderstanding brought about by maya.  Maya is 

I do agree  I shouldnt have used "inexplicable" word with respect to mind as I clearly know it explains only Maya.  But I wanted to highlight the importance of mind.  Let me put differently.  Maya and Ahamkara are qualities.  The only perceived tool mind and it is the crucial point of advaita.  How can mind be tool when its substratum are qualities.  Other schools which doesnt count the perceived world not as maya but a personality such as a prakruthi or some female energy then it is easy to say that the person is responsible for creating the world and he also gave me the mind to perceive it.  But in advaita, Maya is a concept which really is not existing (ya-ma).  

> In other words 
> there is neither creation nor destruction and Atman alone exists 
> "Non-dual".  However a person may perceive the world real so long he 
> hasn't realized the true nature.

"True.  What trips people up is that the "reality" of the Jnani is not the 
same thing as the "reality" of the ajnani.  Comparing apples and oranges 
is anirvachaniya ("inexplicable") just as how many gallons in a kilometer 
is logically inexplicable"


"What I had hoped to illustrate is the difference between illusion and 
delusion.  Illusion is imagining that which isn't there.   Delusion is 
failing to understand what is there"

In my view, so long we havent comprehend our true nature as atman, and so long we perceive this world as "real" rather than "relative state" we are in a way deluded... 

Siva Muthuswamy

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list