1 Sep 2009 06:32
1 Sep 2009 06:50
Mithya and Maya
Rajeev Kumar who recently joined the list asked > 1. What actually Sankaracharaya meant by Gagat Mithya and Maya ? Advaita Vedanta is not idealistic in the philosophical sense meaning it does not believe "it is all in your head" There is an objective reality out there. But what your senses perceive is not it. This is due to Bhagavans power of delusion which manifests in two forms: veiling the true nature of things, and causing the illusion of reality to unreal things. This avidya (ignorance) in a jivatma causes it to think of the world-appearance to be of multiplicity and its contents (including himself) to have finite beginnings and ends. Jnana or knowledge is the realization that this world-appearence in all its names and forms is mithya (false) and only the one, eternal, imperishable Brahman exists. -- -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...>
1 Sep 2009 07:01
Re: Mithya and Maya
Dear Sri Jaldhar, The word *mithya* doesn't mean "false." It means "transient", not constant, not permanent, not lasting (naSvaram = bound to perish), and not-independent. Jagat is leela. In contrast brahma is satyam. It is not-transient. It is independent, Sudhdham and nityam. This is Sankara's view behind using the word "*mithya*" rather than "* asatyam*" or some other word to mean "false." On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar <at> braincells.com>wrote: > Rajeev Kumar who recently joined the list asked > > 1. What actually Sankaracharaya meant by Gagat Mithya and Maya ? >> > > Advaita Vedanta is not idealistic in the philosophical sense meaning it > does not believe "it is all in your head" There is an objective reality out > there. But what your senses perceive is not it. This is due to Bhagavans > power of delusion which manifests in two forms: veiling the true nature of > things, and causing the illusion of reality to unreal things. This avidya > (ignorance) in a jivatma causes it to think of the world-appearance to be of > multiplicity and its contents (including himself) to have finite beginnings > and ends. Jnana or knowledge is the realization that this world-appearence > in all its names and forms is mithya (false) and only the one, eternal, > imperishable Brahman exists. > >(Continue reading)
1 Sep 2009 07:25
Re: Mithya and Maya
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Sarma KV wrote: > Dear Sri Jaldhar, > > The word *mithya* doesn't mean "false." It means "transient", not constant, > not permanent, not lasting (naSvaram = bound to perish), and > not-independent. Jagat is leela. > In contrast brahma is satyam. It is not-transient. It is independent, > Sudhdham and nityam. > > This is Sankara's view behind using the word "*mithya*" rather than "* > asatyam*" or some other word to mean "false." > This is the problem with translating Sanskrit concepts I suppose. What I specifically mean by false is epistemologically false. Perhaps it is better put as "invalid" rather than "false". -- -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...>
1 Sep 2009 07:29
Re: Mithya and Maya
Thank you, Sri Jaldhar. I rapped myself for trying to 'correct' what you (Jaldhar) wrote. I knew that you meant it right, but I just wanted to dwell for a little longer 'thinking' about the concept. Hence the mail. namO namaH -Sarma On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar <at> braincells.com>wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Sarma KV wrote: > > Dear Sri Jaldhar, >> >> The word *mithya* doesn't mean "false." It means "transient", not >> constant, >> not permanent, not lasting (naSvaram = bound to perish), and >> not-independent. Jagat is leela. >> In contrast brahma is satyam. It is not-transient. It is independent, >> Sudhdham and nityam. >> >> This is Sankara's view behind using the word "*mithya*" rather than "* >> asatyam*" or some other word to mean "false." >> >> > This is the problem with translating Sanskrit concepts I suppose. What I > specifically mean by false is epistemologically false. Perhaps it is better > put as "invalid" rather than "false". > >(Continue reading)
1 Sep 2009 07:34
Re: Mithya and Maya
Dear Shyam, I do not contend that the jagat is, indeed, ephemeral, transient, impermanent etc. I am sure Sri Sankara had meant this too. But I am not sure that the word 'mithya' connotes something like 'anithya' it as a 'meaning'. Can you check it? The word may not mean 'false' in the sense of 'non existing'. But it may mean false in the sense of seeming to be what it is truly not or not being what it seems to the senses, say like a mirage or silveriness in a shell or a rope that 'seems' like a snake. We can aver that the jagat is 'not false' only from the point of view of the perception of the senses, indriyas. Since, now, the gross perception is more widely and insistently accepted than before, and trying to exclude other perceptions as 'false' in turn, we seem to feel 'uncomfortable' in accepting the epithet, 'false'. It should not be so for those who acknowledge possibility of the other perception from which this sense limited perception is indeed 'false'. We need not be apologetic about that 'meaning'. It is like the one that wakes up from sleep choosing to call the dream perception 'false'. *SrIramaNArpaNamastu* Dr. D. Bharadwaj drdbharadwaj <at> gmail.com dr.d.bharadwaj <at> gmail.com(Continue reading)
1 Sep 2009 08:37
Re: Mithya and Maya
Sri Bharadwaj mahOdaya, Many thanks for the elaboration. My own limited knowledge (using the word "naSvaram") was hiding behind the language limitation. My understanding is, "*yat janyam tat naSyam;*" hence all the aspects of the jagat that have a beginning are bound to end. *jagat*as such, being *prakRti* is not *anityam*. *jagat* is *mithya*, but *nityam*. Hence, Mother is praised as "*mithyaa jagat adhisThaana*." namastE -Syam On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Dr D Bharadwaj <dr.d.bharadwaj <at> gmail.com>wrote: > Dear Shyam, > > I do not contend that the jagat is, indeed, ephemeral, transient, > impermanent etc. I am sure Sri Sankara had meant this too. > > But I am not sure that the word 'mithya' connotes something like 'anithya' > it as a 'meaning'. Can you check it? > > The word may not mean 'false' in the sense of 'non existing'. But it may > mean false in the sense of seeming to be what it is truly not or not being > what it seems to the senses, say like a mirage or silveriness in a shell > or > a rope that 'seems' like a snake. > >(Continue reading)
1 Sep 2009 10:16
Re: Mithya and Maya
*jagat* is *mithya*, but *nityam* praNAms Hare Krishna IMHO, we cannot postulate nityatvaM to mithyatva of jagat...nityaM is THAT, one without second (ekaMevAdviteeyaM)...If we say mithya jagat is nityaM then it is as good as saying either there are two parallel nitya-s i.e. parabrahma and mithya jagat OR in THAT secondless nityatvaM of parabrahman 'mitya jagat' also has an eternal existence. (Then on may ask, how can an avyAkruta prakruti has the originates as vyAkruta jagat without any base?? this is a different issue altogether). I dont think shankara anywhere says mithya jagat is nityaM...OTOH, he says this mithya/mAya/prakruti is 'tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachaneeya' by giving the illustration of foam and water. Ofcourse nobody would agree mithya snake (jagat) superimposed on rope (brahman) is nitya...it has an end after the dawn of Atma jnAna. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar
1 Sep 2009 11:16
Re: manyu suktam
praNAms Hare krishna We, here in Bangalore, in our vaidika programmes use this Rigvedeeya manyu sUkta while offering abhishekam & dhoopa to the deity and while doing 'kunda saMskAra & mekhala pooja during rudra hOma & chandi hOma. The last two vAkya-s "saMsrushtaM dhanamubhayaM samAkrutamasmabhyaM varuNashcha manyuH' etc. we recite as one of 'neerAjana' maNtra--s. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar "Narayan K.B.V." <kbvnarayan@...> Sent by: advaita-l-bounces@... 08/29/2009 08:41 PM Please respond to A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l@...> To advaita-l@... cc Subject [Advaita-l] manyu suktam Dear Learned Friends, Can some one please help me to understand the importance & the context where Manyu Suuktam is recited.(Continue reading)
1 Sep 2009 11:37
Re: Mithya and Maya
Bhagavan's powers of, on the one hand, veiling, and on the other hand, revealing, are a matter for sustained reflection ! Some say it is for the protection of truth itself..or perhaps to draw us towards vidya. Part of my own reflections, is that we use maya, mithya, bhrama and avidya as more or less synonymous. Yet mithya has the root mith, which the dictionary gives as to dispute angrily, or to altercate ! And maya has the equally surprising root maa, to measure, limit, give form. Bhrama hovers between 'error, illusion, hallucination, perplexity'; and avidya can mean 'not knowing' in the sense either of being innocent of knowledge, or deliberately denying it ! So despite the tendency to see maya as the enemy of true thought... maybe we should engage in mithya with those who have not seen the truth of things; and view maya as the beautiful sari concealing the beauty of the real form ! :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces <at> lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces <at> lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Sarma KV Sent: 01 September 2009 06:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Mithya and Maya Thank you, Sri Jaldhar. I rapped myself for trying to 'correct' what you (Jaldhar) wrote. I knew(Continue reading)
RSS Feed