regarding sada and bsb

Regarding Sada and BSBNamaste Sadanandaji,

You just gave an excellent discussion regardingBrahmasutras Bhashyas (II,2,28) that helped torelieve some of the distress I was feeling thatperhaps Shankara was asserting some kind ofreality to the objective world independent ofour consciousness of it (i.e. realism as opposedto idealism, in Western terminology).

It seems to me that you are saying that Shankarawas only saying that the world is not absolutelyunreal like a barren woman's child. It has somedegree of reality in that it is an illusion inconsciousness (which is more real than a barrenwoman's child since at least we see it).

However, when we superpose name and form(nama and rupa) on the illusion and take theobject to be something existing independent ofconsciousness, as we normally do, then weare indeed making an error. Nothing exists'outside' of Consciousness or Brahman (as wenormally think of material objects). So in thissense, Advaita is quite idealistic (in the senseof Western philosophy).

As far as Mahayana Buddhism is concerned,Shankara must have been arguing against themistaken notion that often arises that 'emptiness'is utterly unreal like a barren woman's child.This is false. Other Buddhists say that it certainlyexists as an illusion in consciousness.

Both Shankara and many Buddhists use the dreamanalogy, which is one of my favorite analogies.I know that you don't care much for Buddhism,but you might be interested to have these pointsbriefly drawn to your attention, for overall'cultural' knowledge.

If I am wrong on anything, please correct me.

One last point. We all agree that in these rigorousand logical discussions, it is essential that we defineour terms as precisely as possible.

So could you please give a precise and rigorousdefinition of 'Gaagaabuubu'?

Just kidding! :-)

Thanks again

Hari Om!Benjamin

Quote MultiQuote Add As Video Report

Featured Article:

15 Most Amazing Predictions for Kali Yuga from the Bhagavata Purana

In the last canto of the Bhagavata Purana there is a list of predictions and prophecies about the dark times for the present age of Kali Yuga. The following 15 predictions, written 5,000 years ago by sage Vedavyasa, are amazing because they appear so accurate. Despite the negative tone of these prophecies, there is still one bright spot for all of us, which is mentioned at the end.Read full article...

> As far as Mahayana Buddhism is concerned,> Shankara must have been arguing against the> mistaken notion that often arises that 'emptiness'> is utterly unreal like a barren woman's child.

http://www.indiadivine.org/news/articles-on-hinduism/15-most-amazing-predictions-for-kali-yuga-from-r711



http://www.indiadivine.org/content/index.php?app=core&module=reports&rcom=post&tid=1056164&pid=5242181&page=

http://www.indiadivine.org/content/index.php?app=videos&module=post&section=submit&do=add_quote&pid=5242181&tid=1056164&quickform=1

http://www.indiadivine.org/content/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=4&t=1056164&qpid=5242181



> This is false. Other Buddhists say that it certainly> exists as an illusion in consciousness.>

Before people write in saying that 'emptiness' doesNOT exist as an illusion in consciousness, pleasebe advised that 'it' was a poor choice of words.I did not mean emptiness so much as 'the world'or 'the object'. This was clear from the context.Emptiness is the realization that the object is nomore than consciousness, and in this sense itis 'empty' of material reality or substance.

But please don't reply to this. This list doesn'twant to discuss Buddhism. I was only askingSada whether Shankara was giving some kindof reality to the material world, as many sayhe does. I believe that Sadanandaji successfullyanswered this, and I believe that I understoodhim correctly.

ONLY if I did not understand him correctly onthat precise point should anyone reply to thisthread. This is about Shankara.


> You just gave an excellent discussion regarding> Brahmasutras Bhashyas (II,2,28) that helped to> relieve some of the distress I was feeling that> perhaps Shankara was asserting some kind of> reality to the objective world independent of> our consciousness of it (i.e. realism as opposed> to idealism, in Western terminology).

I am glad you separated Sada and BSB.

Just to emphasize again it is not Shankara's opinion - Baadaraayanasuutra says directly by using double negative that it is not non-realsince it is experienced. If you follow suutra literature, they try tominimize every letter if it can be possible. Here Baadaraayana usesdouble negative - not nonreal - he could have eliminated the double





negative and said 'baavaH upalabdeH'-real since it is experienced. Butdeliberately he used double negative since the intension is not toestablish the reality but to dismiss non-reality.

> It seems to me that you are saying that Shankara> was only saying that the world is not absolutely> unreal like a barren woman's child.

That is absolutely correct. In Advaita Siddhi, Madusuudhana Saraswatidiscusses different definitions of falsity to counter the criticismagainst Advaita particularly from Dvaitins.

> It has some> degree of reality in that it is an illusion in> consciousness (which is more real than a barren> woman's child since at least we see it).

Illusion is unfortunately a wrong translation of the word 'maaya' - Itis not like non-existent like barren woman' child - that part is true.The analogy is exactly like the ring and the gold. Do you call ring asillusion? Hence we have what is called subjective objectification(praatibhaasika), objective objectification (vyaavahaarika) andabsolutely real(paaramaarthika). The first one is 'I see it, thereforeit is' and the second one is 'It is, therefore I see it' - third is 'ISEE nothing else'. Example for the first one -I see a snake, thereforeit is a snake; For the second; I see a rope, therefore it is rope andThe third one is self-consciousness 'I SEE I AM'. Although I have to bethere to see a snake or a rope, the vision of a snake on a rope isdifferent from the vision of rope as a rope - is it not? The first oneis subjective objectification and the second one is objectiveobjectification (and third one - I am just using out of desperation-objective subjectification!). The first one is more at a local level andsecond one at a global level and third one is at absolute level. Thecommonly understood illusion is may fall more close to the first one.

The point is maaya is as real as the ring and bangle or a bracelet aslong as the vision is only on the names, forms, attributes, utilities(kriya), etc. From the vision of Brahman, it is formless in spite offorms , nameless in spite of names, utility-less or kriyaasuunyam inspite of kriya - essentially - non-duality in spite of duality. That iswhy the philosophy is non-dual rather than monism. The plurality becomesthe glory of that reality - pasyamme yogamaisvaram - look at my glorysays Krishna.

>

> However, when we superpose name and form> (nama and rupa) on the illusion and take the> object to be something existing independent of> consciousness, as we normally do, then we> are indeed making an error. Nothing exists> 'outside' of Consciousness or Brahman (as we> normally think of material objects). So in this> sense, Advaita is quite idealistic (in the sense> of Western philosophy).

I do not call it as idealistic in the sense of absence of objects outthere - there is 'no out there' is from the absolute sense. Bydefinition no-thing or nothing can exist outside Brahman. But theinternal differences can be seen for those who want to see. Seen isdifferent from the seer and the Seen is as real as the seer of the seen.But taking the differences that are seen as real is the delusion. Onehas to separate here the illusion versus delusion. I am using the wordillusion due to lack of any better word - illusion is not a problem byitself but delusion is. A jiivan mukta is the one who can see theillusion - that is objective subjectification but has no more subjectiveobjectification - or notional mind or subjective mind.

I am not qualified to comment on the idealism of Western philosophy.

The rest of the comments on Buddhism, I am not qualified too. But onlystate that what is understood by all Vedantic scholars - it isunanimously taken not by Shankara alone that suunya vaada is pure'emptiness' and not what you have understood. They vehemently criticizethe 'kshanika - vij~naanam' or flickering consciousness aspect of theBuddhism in all their puurvapaksha-s. I have not studied Buddhism perse although Shree Nanda has sent me some books to read. UnfortunatelyI do not have that motivation to read those books. Hence these commentsare only for passing and not intended for any discussion either.

> As far as Mahayana Buddhism is concerned,> Shankara must have been arguing against the> mistaken notion

> So could you please give a precise and rigorous> definition of 'Gaagaabuubu'?> Just kidding! :-)

Yes - precise and rigorous definition of 'gaagaabuubu' is, it is thatobject which cannot be precisely and rigorously defined.

Hari OM!Sadananda

>> Thanks again>> Hari Om!> Benjamin>>

=====What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your giftto Him - Swami Chinmayananda.


Illusion is unfortunately a wrong translation of the word 'maaya' - Itis not like non-existent like barren woman' child - that part is true.The analogy is exactly like the ring and the gold. Do you call ring asillusion?

> praNAm prabhuji> Hare Krishna

> The passage cited above could give us the impression that the primevalBeing or Atman (in the above analogy it is gold) actually modified &transformed itself (ring with nAma-rUpa) into the universe. But this sortof self-transformation is repugnant to the upanishadic purports I believe.How can we reconcile this prabhuji?? kindly clarify.> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!


>









> > The passage cited above could give us the impression that the> primeval> Being or Atman (in the above analogy it is gold) actually modified &> transformed itself (ring with nAma-rUpa) into the universe. But this> sort> of self-transformation is repugnant to the upanishadic purports I> believe.> How can we reconcile this prabhuji?? kindly clarify.> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!> > bhaskar

Basker it is from Upanishad only - Ch. Up gives three examples toillustrate the apparent transformation - yathaa somya ekena loha maNinaasarvam lohamayam vij~naaata syaat vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam,lohamityeva satyam -Similarly other two examples. The transformation ofgold into ring is only apparent since gold remains as gold while theappearace of ring, bangle which are different from each other and fromgold exist. That is naama and ruupa. Gold is immutable yet it is theglory of gold to be capable of existing in ring form or bangle form orbracelet form etc. They are not non-existent since their existence issupported by gold. But they are not real in the sense they are onlytemporal and fall in the catergory of vyaavahaarika satyam - satyasyasatyam is gold which is immutable. The same way Brahman and the world.Hence emphasis is given to upaadaana kaarana of jagat as Brahman toemphasize precisely these points.

Hari OM!Sadananda



Basker it is from Upanishad only - Ch. Up gives three examples toillustrate the apparent transformation - yathaa somya ekena loha maNinaasarvam lohamayam vij~naaata syaat vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam,lohamityeva satyam -Similarly other two examples. The transformation ofgold into ring is only apparent since gold remains as gold while the





appearace of ring, bangle which are different from each other and fromgold exist. That is naama and ruupa. Gold is immutable yet it is theglory of gold to be capable of existing in ring form or bangle form orbracelet form etc. They are not non-existent since their existence issupported by gold. But they are not real in the sense they are onlytemporal and fall in the catergory of vyaavahaarika satyam - satyasyasatyam is gold which is immutable. The same way Brahman and the world.Hence emphasis is given to upaadaana kaarana of jagat as Brahman toemphasize precisely these points.

> praNAm prabhuji> Hare krishna> Thanks for the clarification prabhuji. From the above it is clear thatfrom the empirical point of view mAyA is the causal potentiality of theworld, projected by avidyA or superimposition. It is but a special aspectof brahman which evolves itself into the world. But brahman in its true &real nature is above all modification. then shall we conclude that asregards to different accounts of creation ( as I mentioned in my earliermail under the different thread) in upanishads is just adhyArOpita?? is myunderstanding correct prabhuji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar


> From the above it is clear> that> from the empirical point of view mAyA is the causal potentiality of> the> world, projected by avidyA or superimposition.

Bhaskar - we need to be clear here - avidya is jadam and by itselfcannot project any thing. When we say ignorance is the cause forprojection of a snake - it does not mean ignorance has the capacity toproject. Only chaitanya swaruupa can project. But ignorance becomes asubsidiary cause but it is neither material or intelligent cause forprojection of plurality. Hence maaya is considered as parameshawarashakti - and shakti lies with chaitanya swaruupa. Since it isparameswara shakti - you can call it as liila vibhuuti too.

>It is but a special





> aspect> of brahman which evolves itself into the world. But brahman in its> true &> real nature is above all modification.

Again one has to be careful. Brahma is one without a second henceinfinite. Infiniteness cannot have any attributes either. If you say itis a special aspect, it may be considered as special qualification.

The fundamental problem is since jiiva has a notion that there is aworld out there as "he is seeing the world of plurality", we need tobring all other paraphernalia to explain that which is not real- henceIswara also comes into the explanation and you can now say that it ishis special qualification to be able to project the whole universe byhis powers.

>then shall we conclude that as> regards to different accounts of creation ( as I mentioned in my> earlier> mail under the different thread) in upanishads is just adhyArOpita??> is my> understanding correct prabhuji.

Yes. Creation is there as long as one is seeing or experiencing one, andhence the suutra that is being discussed says that since you areexperiencing it is not unreal. It is not unreal only because the realitysupports it - like gold supporting a ring.

Hari OM!Sadananda







I deeply appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to clarifythese most essential points of Advaita. I will simply make a fewcomments to verify that I have understood these subtle issues. Atleast, I think you will agree that we are squarely within the realmof Advaita and are not digressing on 'out-of-scope' topics. Reallythis whole issue is CRUCIAL to Advaita and also very subtle...

> Just to emphasize again it is not Shankara's opinion - Baadaraayana> suutra says directly by using double negative that it is not> non-real since it is experienced. If you follow suutra literature,> they try to minimize every letter if it can be possible. Here> Baadaraayana uses double negative - not nonreal - he could have> eliminated the double negative and said 'baavaH upalabdeH'-real> since it is experienced. But deliberately he used double negative> since the intension is not to establish the reality but to dismiss> non-reality.

This is quite interesting. Yes, the sutras do try to minimize everyword, so a double negative is meaningful. In ordinary algebra

-1 x -1 = +1,

and we can just use the +1, but here in this discussion, each minussign cannot be neglected. Interesting.

> Illusion is unfortunately a wrong translation of the word 'maaya' -> It is not like non-existent like barren woman' child - that part is> true. The analogy is exactly like the ring and the gold. Do you> call ring as illusion? Hence we have what is called subjective> objectification (praatibhaasika), objective objectification> (vyaavahaarika) and absolutely real (paaramaarthika). The first one> is 'I see it, therefore it is' and the second one is 'It is,> therefore I see it' - third is 'I SEE nothing else'. Example for>the > first one -I see a snake, therefore it is a snake; For the>second; I > see a rope, therefore it is rope and The third one is> self-consciousness 'I SEE I AM'. Although I have to be there to see> a snake or a rope, the vision of a snake on a rope is different>from > the vision of rope as a rope - is it not? The first one is> subjective objectification and the second one is objective> objectification (and third one - I am just using out of desperation-> objective subjectification!). The first one is more at a local>level > and second one at a global level and third one is at>absolute level. > The commonly understood illusion is may fall more>close to the first > one.

I think this is why the words 'Subjective Idealism' have causedproblems. To many it seems just like the mind superposing the snakeon the rope, i.e. total illusion, something that is utterly imaginary,Let us forget about the words 'Subjective Idealism', since they onlyconfuse this audience.

However, one Western word we cannot forget about is 'matter'. Afterall, you are a physicist, so you must deal with this concept. It wasinteresting to me that Professor Krishnamurthy, a few days ago, couldthink that matter was conscious. To me, this is a totalcontradiction of the very definition of 'matter', and it shows howfar apart we can be in our definitions of simple words.

This discussion may seem boring or repetitive to you, but it iscrucial if you wish to persuade the 'common sense' man of the truthof Advaita. And I cannot believe that this common sense man is onlyWestern. The Indian common sense man must also think this way (i.e.in terms of material objects outside of consciousness, even if heuses different terminology). It is the normal way to see the world.It is also Dvaita and Samkhya, if I am not mistaken.

May I respectfully request that you read the following two paragraphsvery carefully, as it is the essence of the discussion, as far as Iam concerned.

Yes, I do want to verify once and for all that Advaita denies'matter' or 'material objects'. I will define 'matter' once again.When I look at an apple (in my ordinary 'dualistic' state ofconsciousness), it seems that there is a 'lump of mass' OUTSIDE of myconsciousness which is the 'real' apple. It seems that light bouncesoff of this apple and strikes my eyeballs, producing an *image* ofthe apple that is *within* my consciousness (i.e. a perception of around red shape). The lump of mass 'out there' and the perception inmy consciousness seem to be *two different things*. This is how theworld seems to many, many people, not just Westerners. It is 'commonsense'.

However, Advaita says something different, if I am not mistaken. Itsays that there is ONLY the red perception or image in consciousness.This perception is like the ROPE; it is the reality in consciousness.The SNAKE occurs when we *superpose* the following idea upon theperception, that is, when we think: 'This image in my consciousnessis only an image of the lump of mass out there [outside ofconsciousness] which is the *real* apple.'

This is how I understand Advaita. The reality (rope) is theperception within consciousness. The illusion (snake) is the idea ofthe mind which *projects* the perception to an (imaginary) world ofmaterial objects *outside* of consciousness. This 'projection'consists of saying that the 'reality' is the material object 'outthere' which produced the red image or perception in myconsciousness. Note that this illusory matter is NOT considered tobe consciousness, since it is taken to be 'outside' of consciousness.

Now, according to my philosophy (subjective idealism), this is NOTwhat I believe. It is only how the world SEEMS to me when I am in my'common sense' frame of mind, which is also what you callVyavaharika. In reality, there is only consciousness (e.g. only theperception), and there is NO MATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.The latter is a pure fantasy or superposition of the mind (adhyasa)upon the perceptions.

The denial of the material world is essential to Advaita, because itis seen as unconscious (i.e. outside of consciousness). This wouldmean that something exists which is not Brahman, who is Consicousnessby definition. Do you see now why it is essential to 'kill' theconcept of matter. It is directly contradictory to the essence ofthe Vedas. And as a physicist, you should address this notion ofmatter, as it is essential to the 'scientific' view of the world(although perhaps a very few 'advanced' physicists have moved beyondthis).

I'll stop here. How does this sound to you?

Thank you and Hari Om!Benjamin


Couldn't resist butting in here since I find all this sort of stuff asinteresting as you do and I wanted to check that my understanding is correctbefore seeing Sada's response (it's called putting my neck on the line, Ithink)!I think that your problem arises through trying to understand what Advaitais saying in terms of your understanding of Western ideas such as those ofBerkeley. I think that your concern of whether Advaita denies the existenceof matter is a non-issue. Advaita does not really differentiate between theso-called object and our perception of it. In reality (paramarthika) bothare effectively snakes being imposed on ropes, as it were.





<<Yes, I do want to verify once and for all that Advaita denies 'matter' or'material objects'. I will define 'matter' once again. When I look at anapple (in my ordinary 'dualistic' state of consciousness), it seems thatthere is a 'lump of mass' OUTSIDE of my consciousness which is the 'real'apple.>>There is nothing outside of Consciousness for Advaita, because everything ISConsciousness.<<It seems that light bounces off of this apple and strikes my eyeballs,producing an *image* of the apple that is *within* my consciousness (i.e. aperception of a round red shape). The lump of mass 'out there' and theperception in my consciousness seem to be *two different things*. This ishow the world seems to many, many people, not just Westerners. It is'common sense'.>>

It may be common sense but then the truth is often counter-intuitive!Advaita tells us there are not 'two things' under any circumstance.<<However, Advaita says something different, if I am not mistaken. It saysthat there is ONLY the red perception or image in consciousness. Thisperception is like the ROPE; it is the reality in consciousness. The SNAKEoccurs when we *superpose* the following idea upon the perception, that is,when we think: 'This image in my consciousness is only an image of the lumpof mass out there [outside of consciousness] which is the *real* apple.'>>The red perception is a red snake superimposed upon the rope ofConsciousness. The apple object is an apple-snake superimposed upon the ropeof Consciousness. In truth there is neither red perception nor apple object;there is only Consciousness.<<This is how I understand Advaita. The reality (rope) is the perceptionwithin consciousness. The illusion (snake) is the idea of the mind which*projects* the perception to an (imaginary) world of material objects*outside* of consciousness. This 'projection' consists of saying that the'reality' is the material object 'out there' which produced the red image orperception in my consciousness. Note that this illusory matter is NOTconsidered to be consciousness, since it is taken to be 'outside' ofconsciousness.>>There can be nothing 'outside' of Consciousness.<<Now, according to my philosophy (subjective idealism), this is NOT what Ibelieve. It is only how the world SEEMS to me when I am in my 'commonsense' frame of mind, which is also what you call Vyavaharika. In reality,there is only consciousness (e.g. only the perception), and there is NOMATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The latter is a pure fantasy orsuperposition of the mind (adhyasa) upon the perceptions.>>Yes, but this does not mean that there is no world, just that this world,too, is nothing but Consciousness and any other concept, perception orwhatever that thinks otherwise is simply another superimposed snake.

Best wishes (awaiting correction with trepidation),

Dennis Quote MultiQuote Add As Video Report

> Couldn't resist butting in here........> but this does not mean that there is no world, just that this world,> too, is nothing but Consciousness and any other concept, perceptionor> whatever that thinks otherwise is simply another superimposed snake.>> Best wishes (awaiting correction with trepidation),>

ji, Your 'butting in' came at the right time. I think the lastthree lines of your mail form the exact punchline that Benjaminjiseems to miss in his presentation of advaita.

praNAms to all advaitinsprofvk


> However, one Western word we cannot forget about is 'matter'. After> all, you are a physicist, so you must deal with this concept. It was> interesting to me that Professor Krishnamurthy, a few days ago, could> think that matter was conscious. To me, this is a total> contradiction of the very definition of 'matter', and it shows how> far apart we can be in our definitions of simple words.

-here is where scripture becomes a pramaaNa and not thecommonsense as pramaaNa.

The first mahavaakya says: praj~naanam brahma - By defining Brahman onewithout a second and defining as consciousness, we are left with noalternative than to say that consciousness is the infiniteness and thatis Brahman.

Second these statements are confirmed again by saying that 'Existence'









alone was there before creation - that is sat and that is Brahman andthat Brahman is of the nature of consciousness by saying it saw- tadaikshataa - since inert things cannot see.

Third it defines Brahman as the material cause too - by giving examplesof the ornaments out of gold or mud pots out of mud or iron tools out ofiron - all are in Ch. Up.

This is further confirmed in Ti. Up saying that the Brahman is thematerial cause for the universe - yatova imaani bhuutaani jaayante ...>From which the whole world came, by which it is sustained and into whichit goes back - that is Brahman.

This is restated in different words in other places - from aatma onlyspace came .. etc.

'Everything that is seen is Brahman'- and since that Brahman is of thenature of consciousness is already established it becomes imperative tothink there cannot be 'anything' other than consciousness.

But given the scriptural statement and given also the common senseexperience that does not seem to agree with the scriptural statement,one has to question the validity of each since they seem to becontradictory.

Since scripture cannot be wrong, one has to reexamine ones experienceand that is where the correct epistemological understanding of theknowledge of the experience comes in.

Vedanta paribhaasha (VP)correctly states that what is seen is inconsciousness and the seer I (notion that I am seeing this) is also inconsciousness, since I am conscious of both. Seeing is immediate anddirect - and hence it is called aparoksha j~naanam. The VP concludesthat immediacy comes from the fact that both (seer and seen) are inconsciousness - It is as though consciousness splits into two - seerconsciousness and seen consciousness. It is easier to contemplate onseer than seen since seens keep changing(seen is nothing but the worldout there. Hence from that point commonsense experience has to beanalyzed and understood using scripture as basis for analysis.

There is nothing wrong with commonsense experience but experience is notknowledge - knowledge comes from the analysis of experience - just likesun raise and sun set which is common experience and knowledge is sunneither raises nor sets.

> This discussion may seem boring or repetitive to you, but it is

> crucial if you wish to persuade the 'common sense' man of the truth> of Advaita. And I cannot believe that this common sense man is only> Western.

The discussion is interesting and if you promise me to correct myEnglish version of the notes that I am preparing I will send it to youbefore I post it- this is the one I started writing in response to ourfriend Dwaitin JNm.

I will read the rest of the paragraphs perhaps tomorrow night since Ihave to attend a workshop outside NRL and will not be back to NRL tillmonday.

Hari OM!Sadananda

> May I respectfully request that you read the following two paragraphs> very carefully, as it is the essence of the discussion, as far as I> am concerned.>



May be this post came already - since I did not see it I am postingagain- getting old I guess!Sadananda

> From the above it is clear> that> from the empirical point of view mAyA is the causal potentiality of> the> world, projected by avidyA or superimposition.

Bhaskar - we need to be clear here - avidya is jadam and by itself





cannot project any thing. When we say ignorance is the cause forprojection of a snake - it does not mean ignorance has the capacity toproject. Only chaitanya swaruupa can project. But ignorance becomes asubsidiary cause but it is neither material or intelligent cause forprojection of plurality. Hence maaya is considered as parameshawarashakti - and shakti lies with chaitanya swaruupa. Since it isparameswara shakti - you can call it as liila vibhuuti too.

>It is but a special> aspect> of brahman which evolves itself into the world. But brahman in its> true &> real nature is above all modification.


The fundamental problem is since jiiva has a notion that there is aworld out there as



- we need to be clear here - avidya is jadam and by itselfcannot project any thing. When we say ignorance is the cause forprojection of a snake - it does not mean ignorance has the capacity toproject. Only chaitanya swaruupa can project. But ignorance becomes asubsidiary cause but it is neither material or intelligent cause forprojection of plurality. Hence maaya is considered as parameshawarashakti - and shakti lies with chaitanya swaruupa. Since it isparameswara shakti - you can call it as liila vibhuuti too.

> praNAm prabhuji, Hare Krishna, I am bit confused here. If you say mAyAis a potential positive entity then we will have to accept the concept of





mulAvidyA. Whereas mAyA as I said in the other thread (Thread name: Weaponof mass destruction (Request)) that there is only one ultimate reality &i.e. brahman He himself regarded as many through avidyA, just as a magicianon account of his mAyA is looked upon to be many. Prabhuji, I thinkshankara uses both words *mAyA* & *avidyA* in different context. *mAyA* hedescribes as avidyAkrita/avidyAtmika and it is imagined thing of avidyA.Both these words (avidyA & mAyA) are not synonyms. Hence, root cause of thecreation from the empirical point of view, cannot be directly attributed to*avidyA* since srushti is causal potentiality of mAyA which in turnavidyAkrita.


> No prabhuji, for this shruti itself gives us the further clarity inchandOgya upanishad by saying all this universe has it alone (paramArthatattva) as its essence, that alone is real. *Pure Being* along whichcreated the universe is strictly real, & that alone is the genuine Atman.By implication the universe is comparatively unreal. We can find thesimilar verses in Sri GaudapadAchAryA's mAndUkya kArika also there isneither creation nor dissolution, there is no mind born, since there is noobject born etc. etc.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar


:> However, one Western word we cannot forget about is 'matter'. After> all, you are a physicist, so you must deal with this concept. It was> interesting to me that Professor Krishnamurthy, a few days ago, could> think that matter was conscious. To me, this is a total> contradiction of the very definition of 'matter', and it shows how> far apart we can be in our definitions of simple words.

Just continuing the topic of discussion, the problem with the physicistis he excludes himself in the analysis of 'idam' or this - what you callmatter (by the by I am a mater-Engineer (materials scientist) ratherthan physicist. But Vedanta says you can not exclude the subject inanalyzing the object. The reason is the object does not say 'I am there'- or the existence of the object cannot be independently establishedwithout the subject present - since it is matter and not conscious





entity. Hence any analysis that excludes all the three factors -experience, experienced and experiencing or knower, known and knowing -will be incomplete at best. For transactional purposes (vyavahaarika)it is O.K. but if the physicists try to analyze the system withouttaking complete data then it can lead to erroneous conclusion. Sinceanalysis of subject tend towards subjective analysis we need toestablish a proper accepted method of objective enquiry of the subject-and that is precisely where scriptures provide working hypotheses toproceed for valid enquiry. As one goes in to finer analysis of the idam- you reach a level that observer in the very observation interfereswith the observed and even the so-called physicist's analysis of theobjective world becomes limited.

> This discussion may seem boring or repetitive to you, but it is> crucial if you wish to persuade the 'common sense' man of the truth> of Advaita. And I cannot believe that this common sense man is only> Western. The Indian common sense man must also think this way (i.e.> in terms of material objects outside of consciousness, even if he> uses different terminology). It is the normal way to see the world.> It is also Dvaita and Samkhya, if I am not mistaken.>> May I respectfully request that you read the following two paragraphs> very carefully, as it is the essence of the discussion, as far as I> am concerned.>> Yes, I do want to verify once and for all that Advaita denies> 'matter' or 'material objects'. I will define 'matter' once again.> When I look at an apple (in my ordinary 'dualistic' state of> consciousness), it seems that there is a 'lump of mass' OUTSIDE of my> consciousness which is the 'real' apple. It seems that light bounces> off of this apple and strikes my eyeballs, producing an *image* of> the apple that is *within* my consciousness (i.e. a perception of a> round red shape). The lump of mass 'out there' and the perception in> my consciousness seem to be *two different things*. This is how the> world seems to many, many people, not just Westerners. It is 'common> sense'.

Benjamin you need to be very careful here in terms of what Advaitareally says. It does not really deny matter - it accounts for thematter. The problem is in your very questioning, you have alreadyvalidated the apple, light, seer of the apple as different from the seenapple etc. you are analyzing the observation by an observer of theobserved. The very fact there is analysis involved, you have taken forgranted that there is something to analyze different from the analyst.That means you are already in the vyavahaara level. There is no problem

in the analysis provided one uses the appropriate analysis to analyzethe system. What advaita Vedanta says is that there is no objectsindependent of the consciousness - since one can separate the objectsbut not the analyst, he becomes more fundamental than the objects thatare analyzed. What is involved is not dismissal of the matter butunderstanding that matter is nothing but thought in the mind and thoughtin the mind is nothing but consciousness that pervades both seer thoughtand seen thought - that is where correct epistemological analysis isrequired.

Does advaita Vedanta denies matter - yes/no. It does not deny at thevyavahaara level but only at paaramaarthika level it explains that it isall apparent projection within the consciousness.

> However, Advaita says something different, if I am not mistaken. It> says that there is ONLY the red perception or image in consciousness.

I think I have explained above from my understanding.

> This perception is like the ROPE; it is the reality in consciousness.> The SNAKE occurs when we *superpose* the following idea upon the> perception, that is, when we think: 'This image in my consciousness> is only an image of the lump of mass out there [outside of> consciousness] which is the *real* apple.'

Benjamin - here we need to go into the analysis of errors in perception- in examining the snake vision versus rope vision and validationprocess and what is exactly involved - these have been extensivelytreated by all acharya-s as khyaati vaada-s. Advaita does not deny theexperience but analyses the experiences at three levels - paaramaarthikalevel or absolute level and there is denial of 'every thing' or matterthere, except the one who is denying. At vyaavahaarika level, rope isthere as much as the seer of the rope. And finally at praatibhaasikalevel - even snake is there for the seer of the snake. Each vision getsnegated in steps as we have more valid knowledge. Validation involvesanalysis of the prior perceptions and not denial of those. Snake getsinvalidated with the vision of rope and even rope gets invalidated inthe correct vision of oneself. This is true even for Veda-s too as somedvaitin was questioning - (I did not want to respond to him since hesaid he learned from an advaitin teacher - I don’t know if I have toblame the teacher or the student for his wrong understanding of theadvaita doctrine).

>> This is how I understand Advaita. The reality (rope) is the> perception within consciousness. The illusion (snake) is the idea of> the mind which *projects* the perception to an (imaginary) world of> material objects *outside* of consciousness. This 'projection'> consists of saying that the 'reality' is the material object 'out> there' which produced the red image or perception in my> consciousness. Note that this illusory matter is NOT considered to> be consciousness, since it is taken to be 'outside' of consciousness.>> Now, according to my philosophy (subjective idealism), this is NOT> what I believe. It is only how the world SEEMS to me when I am in my> 'common sense' frame of mind, which is also what you call> Vyavaharika. In reality, there is only consciousness (e.g. only the> perception), and there is NO MATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.> The latter is a pure fantasy or superposition of the mind (adhyasa)> upon the perceptions.

Benjamin what you said is right from the paaramaarthika level and atthat level there is nothing other than consciousness -just as denyingthe sun raise and sun set, yet enjoying the sun raise and sun set thatis not there!

>> The denial of the material world is essential to Advaita, because it> is seen as unconscious (i.e. outside of consciousness). This would> mean that something exists which is not Brahman, who is Consciousness> by definition. Do you see now why it is essential to 'kill' the> concept of matter. It is directly contradictory to the essence of> the Vedas. And as a physicist, you should address this notion of> matter, as it is essential to the 'scientific' view of the world> (although perhaps a very few 'advanced' physicists have moved beyond> this).>

Sorry - it is not denial of the matter but understanding of the matter -Is denial of sun raise and sun set essential for physicists - No he needto understand the sun raise and sun set when there is no sun raise andsun set. Do I have to 'kill' the concept of sun raise and sun set. Iwant to enjoy it - If you have been to some Greek islands (of course atGovt. expense) you can see beautiful sun raise and sun set). It is morefun to enjoy knowing very well there is really nothing to enjoy - whykill the fun! Advaita makes you live your life fully, beautifullyknowing that matter is really not there (only) at absolute level - howdoes that matter? Look at the life of Krishna - he enjoyed every minute

of it particularly he was surrounded by beautiful gopies in Bridaavanand many wives in the dwaraka - yet he is called 'anaadi brahmachaari' -eternal bachelor.

> I'll stop here. How does this sound to you?

I too -sounds beautiful from my perspective.

Hari OM!Sadananda

>> Thank you and Hari Om!

>

=====What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your giftto Him - Swami Chinmayanand

regarding sada and bsb

Documents