[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Satyasya Satyam..' of the Upanishad explained in the Bhagavatam

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

<<
-- what do you mean 'when an ajnani gains jnana drshti'? Is there an
individual who now possesses a special vision?
-- 'the snake is now 'declared' mithya' - is this an act of voilition? Does
there continue to exist mithya and the one who perceives mithya -- avidya
lesha?
>>

Yes sir. From my perspective there is a positive affirmation to all 3 of
your questions. Details below, please stay with me through this.

I do get your point; it is actually quite simple - either the universe
exists (sat) or doesn't exist (asat). There cannot be anything in between
(law of excluded middle). This is true; and Advaita's clear direct response
is that this universe doesn't exist (asat). Now, if we leave it at that,
then there is no further question / confusion at all. However, if someone
were to ask in response - "hey, but I experience the world! What does
Advaita mean by saying the universe doesn't exist? How can Advaita say the
universe doesn't exist when my experience is real?" - then Advaita's
response is that "the universe that is currently being experienced as real
is actually not real, but only appears as if real and is termed mithya".

So, Michael ji, do you experience the universe? If yes, then the
experienced universe is mithya - which is distinct from both sat and asat.
People in ignorance consider this mithya universe to be real. If you do not
experience the universe, then there is no question about the mithyatva of
the universe. Universe is asat.

Let's then ask this fundamental question - for whom is something mithya?
>From Chaitanya's perspective the universe is asat. But for a common
ignorant's perspective the universe is sat. Only from the perspective of a
tattva-darshi jnani guru is the universe said to be mithya.

Please stay with me here -
A. Chaitanya's perspective = paramarthika perspective - universe is asat
B. Ajnani's perspective = vyavaharika ajnana perspective - universe is sat
C. Jnani's perspective = there are 2 sub-perspectives - C1. and C2.
C1. Jnani's perspective from the jnani's perspective = paramarthika
perspective - universe is asat
C2. Jnani's perspective from the ajnani's perspective = vyavaharika jnana
perspective - universe is mithya

Our (ajnani's) understanding of a jnani as an individual personality who
has gained the knowledge of realization, entails the concept of avidya-lesa
attributed to that jnani as the reason for our observation of that
individualized personality.
In other words, if / when we consider the guru as a distinct entity,
distinct and separate from us, we by this mere distinction bring in the
concept of avidya-lesa and attribute it as the reason for the distinction
between the guru and us.
The concept of mithyatva / avidya-lesa / jivanmukta etc. is merely a
teaching technique for the ignorant who still has some belief in the
reality of the experienced universe of duality. This entire teaching
technique is merely from within our ajnana's perspective only.

Back to the example of the rope-snake,
For the owner of the rope, who is well aware of the presence of the rope in
that place, rope is sat and snake is asat.
For the friend who sees the object for the first time and has perceived it
as a snake, the snake is sat and rope is asat.
For the same friend, when the owner has clarified that it is only a rope,
then after the dawn of rope knowledge, the rope is sat and the previous
experience of the snake is mithya.

Let's take another example - that of the red-colored transparent crystal:
There is a transparent colorless crystal in proximity to a red flower. Due
to the proximity the crystal appears red in color.
For the person who does not realize the nearby red flower and does not know
the true nature of the crystal as transparent, the redness of the crystal
is real.
For the person who realizes the red flower and knows the true nature of the
crystal as transparent, the redness of the crystal is mithtya. The crystal
merely appears red and not really red.

Similarly, only for a tattva-darshi jnani guru, who is seen to engage with
the world, the world is known to be mithya. For the rest of us, it is mere
upadesha vakya / teaching.

So, to answer your 3 questions,
1. Is there an individual who now possesses a special vision? - yes, if we
consider a guru as a distinct individual, then the guru possesses a special
vision (more of a knowledge / understanding) that the experienced universe
is mithya; which we in ignorance take as satya.
2. 'the snake is now 'declared' mithya' - is this an act of voilition? -
yes, after the dawn of knowledge of the object as the rope, my previous
experience of having perceived the object as a snake is now declared by me
as mithya. If and when I back-reference my earlier experience of the snake,
that snake is categorized as mithya. I cannot call it as real, since it was
an error. Similarly, I cannot call it as unreal, since I did experience it.
Hence my only valid expression is as mithya.
3. Does there continue to exist mithya and the one who perceives mithya --
avidya lesha? - yes, as long as we perceive the distinct guru, the
mithyatva of universe continues to exist and the guru too is explained to
possess avidya-lesa, that enables the guru to engage with the plurality of
the universe. This is all our perception and perspective only!

<< An error can appear but never really be there. >>

100% agreed! In your own statement, you implied the 3rd option as well.
Here are the 3 options:
Something can really be there - Sat - Chaitanya
Something can never appear and never really be there - Asat - Hare's horns
Something can appear but never really be there - your statement - Mithya
entity
Mithya is called vyavaharika satya (transactional reality), since prior to
the realization that it is mithya, the entity is erroneously mistaken to be
real. Furthermore, the mithya name-form does have a limited place value in
the day-to-day empirical life.

prostrations,
Vikram


>