Shri Prasanth Neti Ji writes in his comment on a post at FB-SAV:
Prasanth Neti: When bhAShya (i.e., Shankara’s Commentary) teaches “just like snake is a projection / appearance on rope, world is a projection / appearance in brahman”, the only intention of that teaching is to negate all [or any sort of] existence to snake and world.
It is unfortunate that Post-Sankara Vedantins teach or talk about projection / appearance as a positive phenomenon.
The sole purpose of teaching that ‘snake is only a projection’ is to negate any sort of existence to snake. But it is not at all intended to understand or talk about in the lines of “existence to appearance”!!
shAstra is apavAda-pradhAna (i.e., Vedanta is mainly based on “negation.”) Snake/World is a projection means, it does not exist. Period.
The implied negation is the heart of such teaching and there is no intention either to vouch for ‘appearance as a positively occurring phenomenon’ or to ‘vouch for existence of an appearance’.
Therefore, phrases such as ‘world, body, mind are not independently real but exist only as appearance’ is a misunderstanding of Vedānta – do not use the word existence along with appearance.
‘World, body and mind do not exist but brahman alone exists’ is the only intention when bhAShya teaches, ‘World is a Projection.”
Dear Ramesam,
We cannot deny the ‘appearance’ of the world. All of us, without exception, experience it. Shruti tells us that ‘sarvam khalvidam brahmA’ – all this (appearance) is Brahman. Brahman exists. It seems that there is a certain inevitable logic at play here!
What are we to understand regarding the meaning of ‘mithyA’ or ‘vaitathya’?
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
The point made by you did come up in the discussions at the SAV Group. I shall copy below some of the replies which, I think, are relevant. (My judgment could be wrong!). Perhaps, it will be salutary for one to take a look at those discussions and also to join and contribute to enlarge their scope.
Dennis: “We cannot deny the ‘appearance’ of the world. All of us, without exception, experience it.”
Responses:
R 1. All of them are of course important within vyavaharika. Let that be so. There is no downplaying of any of that.
They exist with equal validity even within dream (to the extent dream lasts).
But subject matter of Vedānta is not about finding place to them and talking in a politically correct way finding place to them.
Please Sir, in Vedantic enquiry the subject matter is only determining true nature of Ātman and nothing else. And the qualified seeker to Vedānta is one who is as described in Muṇḍaka upanishad 1.2.12 and therefore who can ask the teacher as Nachiketa asked in Kaṭha upanishad 1.2.14.
In Iśāvāsya introduction bhagavan bhashyakara says:
सर्वासामुपनिषदामात्मयाथात्म्यनिरूपणेनैवोपक्षयात् , गीतानां मोक्षधर्माणां चैवम्परत्वात्।
Translation: All the Upanisads exhaust themselves simply by determining the true nature of the Self, and the Gita and the scriptures dealing with moksa (the emancipation of the soul) have only this end in view.
Muṇḍaka upanishad 1.2.12:
परीक्ष्य लोकान् कर्मचितान् ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायान्नास्त्यकृतः कृतेन।
तद्विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत् समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम्॥
1.2.12: Let a Brāhmaṇa (an aspirant), after he has examined the worlds gained by karma, acquire freedom from all desires, reflecting that nothing that is eternal can be gained by karma. Let him, in order to obtain the knowledge of the Eternal, take sacrificial fuel (samit) in his hands and approach that preceptor alone who is well versed in the Vedas and is established in Brahman.
Kaṭha upanishad 1.2.14:
अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात्।
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद॥
1.2.14: That which thou seest as other than virtue and vice, as other than cause and effect, as other than the past and future – tell me that.
R 2. Please ask yourself one question here.
To whom does the snake/world appear? Who is that “seer” of the world?
The honest answer has got to be: “To a finite ‘seer-me’ who is as real as the world and is, in fact, a part of the world!”
The ‘seer’ is as fictitious as the world and is not outside the world holding a flag in order to place an unequivocal reliance on his (her/its) statement. Can we go by the word of a thief swearing evidence for another thief?
***
Dennis: “Shruti tells us that ‘sarvam khalvidam brahmA’ – all this (appearance) is Brahman. Brahman exists. It seems that there is a certain inevitable logic at play here!”
Response:
The shruti quote, ‘sarvam khalvidam brahmA,’ from 3.14.1, chAn is incomplete. Neither the sentence nor the mantra stops or ends there. Hence, this mantra has become the most misunderstood mantra! It actually says:
सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत । अथ खलु क्रतुमयः पुरुषो यथाक्रतुरस्मिंल्लोके पुरुषो भवति तथेतः प्रेत्य भवति स क्रतुं कुर्वीत ॥
Meaning: All this indeed is Brahman, as it originates, becomes absorbed and lives in It; one should meditate upon It calmly. Now, really, the Man consists of Volition; according as his Volition is in this world, so does he become on departing from here; hence, he should exercise Volition.(Trans: Dr. G N Jha).
Shankara, in his bhAShya, says while introducing the mantra: “[H]ither to the Upanishad has dealt with the meditation of Brahman through its images or representatives, and now it proceeds to deal with the meditation of Brahman Itself, as equipped with qualities and powers.”
That really sums up the actual “thrust” of the mantra.
Shankara himself explains at 1.3.1, BSB that “As for the use of “all” and “brahman” in apposition in the text, “All this is (but) brahman” (3.14.1, chAndogya), it is meant for the elimination of the universe,and not for proving heterogeneity (in brahman).”
Therefore, all objects (percepts) are only ‘unreal’ projections and not brahman.
***
Dennis: “What are we to understand regarding the meaning of ‘mithyA’ or ‘vaitathya’?”
The Monier-Williams Dictionary gives the meaning of both the words to be “falsely.” I don’t think there is any need to look for some nonexisting speculative meaning to those words, as Smt.Manjushree Hegde also asserts.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
Thank you – I know you have invited me to join this group before but I often have difficulty finding the time to take part in discussions on this site without joining any others.
I can see that there is ample scope here for expanding this discussion to ‘world disappearing’ proportions but I will try to resist the temptation!
I am not persuaded from my initial comments by any of the responses. I would argue that the “subject matter of Vedānta is not about finding place to them” is quite wrong. All of our experience; all of our perceptions and conceptions; all of these discussions are within vyavahāra. None of us has any pāramārthika experience. The entire teaching of Advaita is about explaining the scriptures and answering doubts about what is said. The ‘end point’ is certainly the understanding that all is Brahman and ‘I am That’ but Advaita is about how we get to that understanding – in vyavahāra.
One of your discussants says that “The ‘seer’ is as fictitious as the world and is not outside the world holding a flag in order to place an unequivocal reliance on his (her/its) statement. Can we go by the word of a thief swearing evidence for another thief?”
Sounds good but is not the one saying this also ‘in the world’? Is not shruti itself ‘in the world’? Is not the ‘we’ who either do or do not ‘go by the word of a thief’ also ‘in the world’?
Unfortunately, Monier-Williams cannot always be relied upon to give translations that partake of the teaching of Advaita. It is certainly true that the word ‘mithyā’ is primarily a post-Śaṅkara concept but I think this is one of the (few) post-Śaṅkara additions that has actually proven invaluable.
Best wishes,
Dennis