[Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 29 23:22:11 CDT 2013
You said -
what is never experienced is asat - and therefore your example as it is
real is neither sat nor asat - hence mithyaa.
But I can ask one important question. Where is the example taking place? It
is in waking or dream state only. Because in Sushupti sleep there are no
object like a table. If I am seeing a table and other people are seeing it
is my waking state or my dream state only. If I and other people are seeing
it in my dream we think in the dream it is real. But after the dream is
ended I will wake up and I will say the table in the dream is false.
In that same dream I see a four tusk elephant and one person with eight
arms I will wake up and say it is false. In that same dream if I imagine a
hare's horns I will wake up and say it is false.
Your argument -
If I see a table in waking it is experienced but if I imagine a hare's
horns it is not experienced.
What is the difference between objective reality table and hare's horns?
The table is experienced but the hare's horns is imagined. Hare's horns
cannot be experienced. The table is Mithya. It is not Sat not Asat. But
hare's horns is Asat. This is your argument.
But kindly see Gaudapada saying -
स्वप्नवृत्तावपि त्वन्तचेतसा कल्पितं त्वसत् ।
बहिश्चेतोगृहीतं सद् दृष्टं वैतथ्यमेतयोः ॥ GK VP 9
'Even in a dream what is imagined by the mind is unreal while anything
experienced by the mind outside is real. But both these are seen to be
When I wake up I know both IMAGINED and EXPERIENCED are unreal. They are
equally unreal. I cannot say EXPERIENCED object table in dream is less
false than IMAGINED object hare's horns .
जाग्रद्वृत्तावपि त्वन्तचेतसा कल्पितं त्वसत् ।
बहिश्चेतोगृहीतं सद्युक्तं वैतथ्यमेतयोः ॥ GK VP 10
'Even in the waking state what is imagined by the mind is unreal while
anything experienced by the mind outside is real. But both these are seen
to be unreal.'
When I am in a dream both IMAGINED and EXPERIENCED objects of waking are
not there. They are equally unreal. I cannot say EXPERIENCED object in
waking is more real than IMAGINED object.
Gaudapada also said - स्वप्नजागरितस्थाने ह्येकमाहुर्मनीषिणः । The wise
people say Dream and Waking state are One.
Final Conclusion is IMAGINED object in dream = EXPERIENCED object in dream
= IMAGINED object in waking = EXPERIENCED object in dream = FALSE = Asat.
Example - IMAGINED hare's horns in dream = EXPERIENCED table in dream =
IMAGINED hare's horns in waking = EXPERIENCED table in waking = FALSE =
WHY? Because IMAGINED and EXPERIENCED objects are produced by the MIND. The
imagined object is in the mind. But the experienced object is not outside
but in the mind only. Mind is the internal organ. Not Atma. Mind is
unreal. From unreal Mind we get unreal objects only.
Tell me where is the Not Sat Not Asat Not both Sat and Asat thing? A Mithya
thing is not there anywhere.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:01 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Venkatesh - PraNAms
> have provided very good example. It illustrates the fact that what you see
> concluded looking at the same object depends on the degree of
> understanding or
> vision of the seer or pramaata. By that very example what you have
> it the reality of the object depends on something other than the object
> - hence it is relative to the observer who is observing and concluding
> based on
> his prior knowledge or back ground. Therefore whatever conclusions about
> object one perceives is not absolute but only relatively real from the
> point of
> the observer. This much we conclude from you analysis. Every explanation is
> correct from the point of that observer but not necessarily complete from
> point of other observer. Hence all these conclusion of observed entity
> called -
> table is valid only within that particular reference but not necessarily
> from absolute reference. You may call all this really as relatively real
> not absolutely real - For that relatively real based on the observer is
> what advaita
> Vedanta calls it as mithyaa since is real only from a relative frame of
> reference. This is the definition of mithyaa - that which is experienced
> by an
> experiencer but is not absolutely real. What is absolutely real is sat and
> is never experienced is asat - and therefore your example as it is
> real is neither sat nor asat - hence mithyaa. Why call it as mithyaa - you
> all it with whatever name you want to call it - Vedanta does not care but
> fact to be recognized is that it is not absolutely real and only relatively
> What is
> absolute is that independent of the system? The truth is it is that which
> cannot be observed by anybody since it does not fall in the category of
> mithyaa. Infinite cannot be observed since it is infinite - that is
> The subject I cannot be observed since it is subject and not an object for
> observation. Vedanta says these two are the same - and that is the essence
> the teaching tat tvam asi.
> Is it is not the rest of the discussion,
> going around the circle with no goal in mind? Why complicate the problem
> it is so simple?
> Hari Om!
> > From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
> >To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>; A discussion group
> for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> >Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:30 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.
> >A simple example to prove the point. If you see a wooden table in front
> of you in waking state. The illiterate person will simply say it is a
> table. The educated person will say it is teak chair and measure the
> dimensions. The artist will admire the art work on the table. The Chemistry
> Professor will say Wood is a heterogeneous, hygroscopic, cellular and
> anisotropic material. It is composed of cells, and the cell walls are
> composed of micro-fibrils of cellulose (40% – 50%) and hemicellulose (15% –
> 25%) impregnated with lignin (15% – 30%). - Wikipedia.
> >The structural engineer will speak on the structural stability. The thief
> will think how much money he can make if he can steal it. Like this
> different people will think different things. There is NO OBJECTIVE Reality
> of Table. Different people will see different things. Every person will
> imagine his ideas of the table. How can we say the table is real in waking
> state? Every person is imagining something and he is saying it is a table.
> He is calling his IMAGINED object as Table. He is thinking it is the SEEN
> object and it is really there. But IMAGINED = SEEN = Asat.
> >If there is not Objective Reality there is no Mithya thing also. Because
> Mithya is common experience of people in waking. There is only Asat in
> dream and waking state also.
> >WHy bring Mithyatva into this?
> >On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> From: Venkatesh Murthy
> >>>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.
> >>Shree Venkatesh - When one imagines hare with horns - he could do so
> only because he has seen hares and he has seen horns - He is assembling in
> his mind a hare with horns - just as the ghost that people imagine.
> >>Is it asat or mithyaa - it is an acadamic question. From the point of
> one who is experiencing - it is a jiiva sRiShTi only - since no one else
> has seen a hare with horns just has no one else has seen a snake where the
> rope is - as he alone is seeing things. All jiiva sRiShTis we call it as
> praatibhaasika - even though for the one who is seeing thus experiencing
> and having transactions with that he imagines. Hence jiiva sRiShTi is
> praatibhaasika and Iswara sRiShTi is vyaavahaarika since all the subjects
> in that state can see and transact with. Hence in the waking sate, horns
> hare is asat from the point of Iswara sRiShTi since it has not be
> objectively experienced. If is subjectively experienced by the imagnation
> of someone - that FOR HIM is mityaa since he has experienced.
> >>That which has no locus for experience is asat. If you provide a locus
> for experience as you are assembling the hares with horns then for you it
> is mithyaa - for others there is no locus for experience - it is asat.
> These definitions are relative to inquirer - with the hope that he can go
> beyond these definitions to pay attention to that reality which cannot be
> experienced and need not be experienced also since ones own self.
> >>Paying more attention than this is like trying to classify what kind of
> snake that I am seeing while it is really a rope there where I am imagining
> it as snake.
> >>These classifcations are made to differentiate what is sat and what is
> mithyaa and what is asat. Asat is more from the point of Iswra sRiShTi.
> Most important to recognize is all things that are seen and experienced in
> the waking state are mithyaa - so that one can give only that much
> importance to objects of experience and shift the attention to that which
> is etternal and unchanging and of the ananda swaruupam.
> >>These classifications are meant for to recognize that absolute truth
> that is adhiShTaanam for every thing one sees and experiences in the Iswara
> sRiShTi or in Jiiva sriShTi.
> >> Hari Om!
> >>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