[Advaita-l] A perspective -20

[Anbu sivam2]

Perhaps my earlier posting on Sivaanandhalahari dealing with this subject in
three parts may be of help.  Please read:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2009-November/044792.html

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2009-November/044793.html

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2009-November/044794.html

Mithya and Vyavahaarika Sattha are one and the same.  They both denote
anything that is bound by the triad - Space, Time and Causality.  Mithya is
God's creation. Even though the human mind can know its emptiness it cannot
negate mithya.  The emptiness lies in the impermanence, its being lost in
time.

Prathibaasika sattha on the contrary is the creation of the human mind and
it can be negated by the very same human mind.  This too is equally empty.

Paramaarthika sattha is beyond the reach of the human mind and it is
unnegateable.  Yet the intellect can infer that this is the only Reality
that is FULL.  Advaitha teaches us that giving up the intellect enables one
to become one with this Reality.

Anbu

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Kuntimaddi Sadananda <
ksadananda108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The world is real or unreal?
>
> In response to questions raised by Shree Michael in adviatin list about the
> reality of the world, there was an extensive discussion by many including
> Shree Subbuji.  In relation to that, I am presenting two of the five
> definitions of falsity that Shree Madhusudana presents defending previous
> aachaaryas’ positions. Shankara in his adhyaasa bhaaShya uses the world
> mithyaa for the world- In his commentary of ManDukya kaarika, he makes a
> statement – I see it therefore it is false – dRisyatvaat while the dvaitic
> position is I see it therefore it is real – dRisyatvaat, where pratyaksha
> pramaaNa or direct perception is given importance for reality. In his
> commentary on Shankara bhaaShya, Padmapaada defines the mithyaa as –
> anirvacaniiyam, unexplainable, in the sense that we cannot say it exists
> and
> we cannot say it does not exits. This forms the first definition of falsity
> that dvaitins in NyaayamRita criticize using Navya Nyaaya arguments. Some
> of
> the arguments of Michael are not different from Purvapakshi presented in
> the
> text and these have been treated exhaustively by our aachaaryaas. Shree
> Anand Hudli has presented some of it in the past.
>
>
>
> The question is what is this world? Advaita answer is it is neither real
> nor
> unreal or it is mithyaa. Purvapakshi presents - What is mithyaa? In
> countering the definition given, the argument is that what is not sat or
> real, it should be asat, unreal; and what is not asat, unreal, it should be
> sat. It should be one or the other and you cannot have both real and unreal
> in the same locus – That is the essence of the argument of puurvapakshi
> saying that mutually opposing qualities of sat and asat locussed on one
> contribute to self-contradiction, and therefore logically not
> acceptable.  Madhusudana
> says NO. There is no contradiction here. The contradiction comes only if
> one
> considers them as mutually exclusive. But if one defines the real and
> unreal
> correctly then there is no contradiction. This as I see forms the essence
> of
> discussion between Michael and Subbu. These are definitions:
>
> 1. Real is that which is not negated in three periods of time. And by this
> definition Brahman alone is real and nothing else. Brahman cannot be seen –
> agotram -says the scripture. Hence whatever I perceive cannot come under
> Real.
>
> 2. Unreal is that where there is never a time and place to have a locus for
> its existence. This should be actually called tuccham instead of asat –
> unfortunately the scriptures use the asat for this also. This cannot be
> perceived too –since there is no locus of its existence as in
> vandhyaaputraH.
>
>
>
> 3. Now there is a third category which does not fall under 1 and 2 – that
> is
> the world – I see it therefore it is not UNREAL(This is also B.sutra 2-28
> ).
> But it undergoes continuous modification. Therefore it is not trikaala
> abhaaditam, that is it does not fulfill the definition 1 or reality. Hence
> it is not REAL. Hence it is neither real nor unreal. Hence it is
> anirvachaniiyam says Pancapaadika, which Madhusudana justifies as valid
> definition for the world where there is no contradiction that dvaitins
> point
> out. Since if it is not 1, it can be 2 or 3 and if it is not 3, it can be 1
> or 2 and if it is not 1 and 2 then it can be 3. It is not unreal since it
> is
> experienced and it is not real since it can be sublated. Hence it is only
> transactionally real like our good old ring and bangle – vaacaarambhanam
> vikaaro naamadheyam – there are there – naamkevaaste – but what is there is
> really gold. Similarly what is there when I see the world is Brahman only
> in
> varieties of names and forms – That is what is involve in tat tvam asi
> statement too. aitadaatmyam idam sarvam tat satyam – sa aatma – tat tvam
> asi
> – swetaketu. The essence of the whole universe (idam sarvam) is nothing but
> the very existence principle – that you are. The discussion automatically
> leads to the second definition of mithyaa that Madhusudana presents.
>
>
>
> 2. This definition comes from Shree Prakaashaatma Yati  who is also known
> as
> VivaraNaacharya, who in further explaining Shankara adhyaasa bhaaShya
> justifies the mithyaa aspect of the world using the scriptural statement –
> neha naanaasti kinchana – there is nothing what so ever here. Here being
> used in terms world of perceptual presence now – that is as I am perceiving
> the world right now  – the declaration is there is nothing what so ever
> real
> here since what is real is Brahman which cannot be perceived. Since non
> existence thing cannot be perceived, therefore on the basis of the
> scriptural statement whatever is perceived is mithyaa only since it is
> neither real nor unreal. The definition for mithyaa is: pratipanna upaadhou
> traikaalikanishedhapratiyogitvam vaa mithyaatvam’ – in  essence where three
> I am seeing now is not really there and what is there really I cannot see.
> I
> am seeing pot there but pot is really not there – what is there is only
> clay
> and not pot. Hence pot is mithyaa. I am seeing the world in front of me,
> there where I am seeing the world, it is not there since in this case what
> is there is only Brahman that I cannot see. Hence the second definition is
> off shoot of the first but comes with scriptural justification for the
> mithyaa besides the vaachaarambhanam statement quoted above.
>
>
>
> Hence real or unreal question should be really real, unreal or mithyaa. And
> the world itself is mithyaa – this applies equally to waking world as well
> as the dream world. In that sense there is not much difference. Hence
> Shankara says in aatma bodha:
>
> Sakaale satyavat bhaati, prabodhe satyasat bhavet – it appears to be real
> in
> its time but when one is awaken its unreality is recognized. Here the term
> is satyavat – meaning it APPEARS  to be real. The similar statement
> Shankara
> makes in DakshiNamurthi first sloka – vishvam darpaNa dRisyamaana nagarii
> tulyam nijaatargatam –exhaustive analysis has been provided for these
> slokas
> by Shree Subbuji and is stored in the file section of advaitin list.
>
>
>
> Hari Om!
>
> Sadananda
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>