[Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 30 07:00:17 CDT 2013

Shree Venkatesh – PraNAms

First I must say, you are very eager to question but eager to apply the logic of the arguments I have presented. Once a seeker went to Bhagavan Ramana and started his question; Sir, I have been seeking an answer to my question and have asked many mahaatmaas and no one has answered to my question satisfactorily. Therefore I came to you thinking that I may find the answer from Bhagavan. With that introduction, he started stating his question. Bhagavan stopped him right there and said no need to ask the question, since my answer is also not satisfying to you. The person was surprised since he has not even asked the question. When other disciples asked why Bhagavan said without even listening to the question, Bhagavan replied - This gentleman loves his question so much that he is not going to let the question go, no matter who answers his question. Hence there is no point in answering his question. Nobody can answer the seeker's question unless the listener
 is ready to listen and contemplate on the answer. Please think it over and ponder the
statements made by me and by Shree Subbuji. Here are my responses based on my
The statement is – Anything that is experienced is mithyaa since it is
experienced it is not asat and since every experience is time-bound it is not
real. Mithyaa is sat asat vilakshaNam. Now any experience is from the point of
experiencer who is experiencing – not from the point of bystanders who are not
having the same experience. Hence in every experience there is a subject,
object and the relation between the two – experiencing. Real cannot be experienced
since it is nityam and that which is nityam is anantam and that is Brahman. The
subject itself cannot be experienced since anything experienced is an object of
experience. Vedanta says subject I is not different from Brahman – for that
Vedanta is pramaana. These are statements are logical and has scriptural basis.
Now apply these statements to every experience you have stated in your example-
no matter what that experience is. 
But I can ask one important question. Where is the example taking place? It is
in waking or dream state only. 

The direct answer is the example is taking place in your mind, which is present
in the waking and dream states. Perception of any object is via vRittis that
form in the mind. Without the mind there are no object perceptions. The object
is perceived via the attributive content of the object as seen or measured by
the senses.  This is about external perceptions.  The internal perceptions do not involve senses but recollection of the objects perceived in the past but recollected. Creation of the new objects in the mind can also take place from the known segments either from the memory- that is your strange elephant or creation of new objects outside by assembling things externally – all new creations are just assemblage of available matter from Iswara’s creation only. Train as we know of now was asat few hundred years ago but it was created by assembling using what is already known before. Now train is experienced –therefore it is mithyaa, since it is experienced. It is not like you strange elephant which is your creation in the mind – but this is objective creation since every observer can transact with it. How the definitions of what is sat, asat and mithyaa remain the same and have to be applied
Venkatesh: 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.

Examine your statement carefully. First in deep sleep state there is no mind to
have internal or external perceptions. There are no other people also when
there is no mind to recognize the other people. ManDukya Up. defines clearly
the three states of consciousness. We do not know that other people saw the
table when I am in deep sleep state since there is neither table nor other
people to see – Venkatesh – the reference is the observer for all observations.
Only when I get up I was told by other people that I see now that they saw
table when I was asleep. My mind has to be there to recognize the other people
and their statements and have a faith in the validity of their statements.  This is the knowledge of the past from the point of the one who got up – but there is no knowledge of the presence of the table or the people when I am in the deep sleep state. All objective knowledge (that includes others as well as tables and elephants) come and go with the mind. Apply the definition – whatever that is experienced – which comes and goes – all is mithyaa since it is experienced- dRisyatvaat. Hence even the waking state, dream state and deep sleep states of experiences that come and go are mithyaa – That is the essence of ManDukya and also Goudapaada Kaarika who says – since whole creation is apparent there is no real creation – ajaati vaada  – whatever that appears is mithyaa and infinite Brahman cannot create anything since he is infinite. That is the essence of whole teaching, and the rest
including the elephants with or without and the other people etc. are mithyaa
experienced in waking or dream or in both. It is simple as that.

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.

Apply the definition again: Anything experienced in any state – is mithyaa
since it is experienced. Mithyaa means false – neither real nor unreal. Hence
it includes – external perceptions as well as internal perceptions which are
differentiated for convenience as vyaavahaarika satyam and praatibhaasika
satyam – because of different reason. 
Your argument -
If I see a table in waking it is experienced but if I imagine a hare's
horns it is not experienced.
Sada: No. I have not stated that way. If you imagine that imagination is your experience. You are creating a hare with horns using the hares and horns that you have seen in the waking state. That is jiiva sRiShTi. Hence in your mind you are experiencing. Hence it is mithyaa for you. Please apply the definitions correctly. If you ask others how have not created the hares with horns and therefore have no experience either externally or internally, it is asat from the point of their minds. 
Venkatesh, please note that every experience involves pramaata-prameyam and pramaaNa. When you imagine something, as many who create things that are not there but perceive in their minds as a concept, it is an internal perception and therefore it is object of perception and any object is mithyaa. These are clear definitions. Praatibhaasika and vyaavahaarika are relative definitions within mithyaa to differentiate the internal perceptions vs. external perceptions or to be more precise jiiva sRiShTi and Iswara sRiShTi. 

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.
Sadananda: The last statement tells me that my statments are misinterpreted. Here they are again:  Anything that is imagined, for the one who imagined, it is an experience and that experience is mithyaa since all experiences
are mithyaa by definition. If you have assembled hares with horns in your mind
and thus imagined an animal of that type – it is your creation using parts of
Iswara’s creation. FOR YOU WHO IMAGINED – IT IS MITHYA. For others who have not had such wild imaginations, there are no hares with horns and it is asat. All
these definitions are with reference to a conscious entity who wants to enquire
what is real and what is unreal and what is false. Apply the definitions
correctly the analysis helps the mind to seek what is really real from that
which is apparently real. This is a teaching for a seeker of truth not for
Please understand Goudapaada Kaarika correctly – The translations of the words in terms of real and unreal etc. gets confused without proper teaching. Hence these have to be studied under a sampradaaya teacher. If you are interested in the explanation of the GK – following reference can help http://www.advaitaforum.org/  which provides a link to where talks are stored.  We have exhaustively covered
both the aagama and other prakaranas. 
With this I stop since everything that needs to be said has been said from my side. 

Hari Om!

> From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list