[Advaita-l] 'asat' also means 'mithyA'

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 10 06:37:23 CDT 2013

Rajaram - PraNAms - I think most of your questions were answered before and
there is not much point, from my point, to continue the discussion. 
I will just point out that
Sreeman LallalitaalaalitaaH has pointed out to me that I have not answered your
question for the cause for maayaa. I noted that karma is the cause - but karma
itself is due to muula avidya since it involves a notion of doer-ship. 
Ramanuja has criticized the anyonya aashraya for avidya and jiiva since jiiva
is born due to avidya and jiiva is the locus for avidya. We resort to Brahman
as the locus for avidya even though Brahman cannot be the locus for anything,
since it is ekam eva advitiiyam. The apparent logical contradiction you noted
in terms of infinite regress is only apparent and not real since ontological
status of muula avidya and thus maayaa and Brahman are different. In essence,
Brahman can be locus without really being locus. Krishna emphasizes this contradiction
in the statement - mastaani sarva bhuutani and then again - na ca mastaani
bhuutani - There is no contradiction as both are correct one from vyaavahaarika
and the other from paaramaarthika. 
coming to the ring. - Ring has apparent existence and the apparent existence is
taken as real existence by the ajnaani. There is no ringly material to support
ring. Hence, loham iti eva satyam - says upanishad. The apparent existence is
apparently experienced - hence the experience you site is also mithyaa only.
atyantaabhaava is only statement from the paaramaarthika reference not from
vyaavahaarika reference where all this teaching rests. Confusion arises only
when one shifts the reference with one leg there and one leg here and ask
question. The advaita philosophy involves brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa and
jiivo brahaivanaaparaH - the mithyaatva darShanam of the jagat is very
important step in the knowledge of aham brahmaasmi - and mithyaa is neither sat
and nor asat. We cannot say ring really exists nor we can say ring does not
exist since it is experienced. This is true for all objects in the world - or
to the whole world itself. Atyantaabhaava is from paaramaarthika dRiShTi and
not from the vyaavahaarika dRiShTi - and from paaramaarthika- no words can be
said - na vaak gacchati na manaH.
Hari Om!

> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>RV:  Does the object ring - not its substratum - have non-existence or
>temporary existence? It has absolute non-existence (atyantAbhAvA) because
>what was not there and will not be there cannot be not there as it will
>imply change to changeless Brahman to create the object ring.    

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list