[Advaita-l] Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 20

sunil bhattacharjya skbhattacharjya at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 12:13:09 CDT 2008


With due respect I beg to differ. Brahman is Sat and that is Sattva.
Brahman is Sat, Chit, Ananda. Sattva alone removes Avidya and releases
one from the clutches of Avidya. Sattva makes one realise the truth
that there is no binding and that there is no difference between the
Atma and Paramatma.

Mithya is not physical non-existence. With Sattva alone one sees the
unity between Mithya and Sat. The separateness vanishes.

A Samadarshi sees Brahman everywhere and realises that any perceived
separateness is not correct. The perception of separateness is Mithya.


Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Krishnamurthy Ramakrishna
<puttakrishna at verizon.net> wrote:
> Sri Sunil Kumar,
> Your understanding of Mithya appears to need some reinforcement.
> First of all Brahman is beyond satva also. Satva also binds jiva
> To the samsara - sukha sangEna badhnAti jnyAnasangEna cha anagha (gIta
> 14-6).
> Now coming to Mithya, vEdAnta defines three orders of reality
> 1) sat or Real - exists always without change; It existed yesterday,
> it exists today, and it exists tomorrow (trikAlEpi tiShTati iti sat)-
> Examples are the clay in the pot, gold in the ornament etc. (If the pot is
> broken or the ornament is melted, clay or gold is unaffected); The ultimate
> reality is Brahman. Brahma satyam
> 2) Asat or unreal - Non-existent; it did not exist yesterday, it does not
> exist today, it will not exist tomorrow - examples given are the son of a
> barren woman, the horns of the tortoise, a square circle etc.
> 3) Mithya  - Not separate from Sat (adhiShTana ananyat); Mithya derives
> existence from Sat, like the pot derives its existence from clay, the
> ornament derives its existence from gold etc. The pot or the ornament cannot
> be dismissed as non-existent. Mithya does not have the freedom of making Sat
> non-existent. Mithya is sat, Sat is not Mithya. Jagat mithyam.
> Now coming to your statement - "A Samadarshi sees Brahman
> everywhere. Any separate existence of anything in the world appears as
> Mithya." - Yes, a samadarshi sees the Mithya (for others) also as Sat; But
> there is no other separate existence apart from Brahman, so the latter part
> of your statement is incorrect from a discussion point, and Asat from the
> vEdantic point - "nAsatO vidyatE bhAvO nAbhAvO vidhyatE satah (2-16)".
> Regards,
> Krishnamurthy Ramakrishna.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of sunil
> bhattacharjya
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:45 PM
> To: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 20
> Namaste,
> Adi Sankaracharya did use the word Mithya and he did explain its
> meaning to his disciples. But in today's times when one says Mithya it
> is imperative that it must be explained by compulsorily by adding its
> explanation. One can really realise that the world is Mithya only when
> one has overcome the Rajas and Tamas, which is the cause of the
> Avidya. When one overcomes the Rajas and Tamas one sees Brahman
> everywhere and  a world separate from Brahman does not exist.  Lord
> Krishna said "Sarvatra samadarshinaam". A Samadarshi sees Brahman
> everywhere. Any separate existence of anything in the world appears as
> Mithya.
> Regards,
> Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list