Tag Archives: mithya

Upadesa SAhasrI (Part 3)

Posted on by
3

Part 2

Chapter 2 Negation
2.1 to 2.4                                                                                                                        Sruti (Br Up 2.3.6) says: Not this, not this. Self is the left over after negation of everything, i.e., objects of experience. As they are mithyA and changing, they are negated to realize the unchanging remainder. This remainder, the negator cannot be negated. It is the Self and is of the nature of consciousness. It is the true nature of the negator. Self cannot be negated because it is based on pramAna (evidence). Self is the ultimate subject and is the reality. It has an independent existence. Objects are non-Self and are mithyA.

Continue reading →

World disappearing and mithyā

Posted on by

Not a lot of discussion on the site recently. I thought maybe the time was ripe for a little controversy again. Recently I queried ChatGPT for Shankara references on this topic. I also encountered just a few days ago, a devastatingly logical argument against this idea, but I will save that for a later post. Here is the (single post) AI contribution. Of course, you may argue, AI is presenting its position so as to support my own view – a recognized problem with AI at present). Perhaps, then, Ramesam or Venkat could tackle AI with essentially the same query to elicit a response in keeping with their belief? That would be interesting!

Q: Where does Shankara define what he means by the word मिथ्या and what does he say?

A (ChatGPT): Adi Shankaracharya, the great Advaita Vedanta philosopher, defines the concept of mithyā in several of his works, particularly in his commentaries on key Vedantic texts. The term “mithyā” generally refers to the idea of falsity or illusoriness. It’s crucial in Advaita Vedanta because it relates to the nature of the phenomenal world and how it is perceived in relation to the ultimate reality, Brahman.

One of the most explicit definitions of mithyā is found in Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutra (Brahmasutra Bhashya) in the section known as the Adhyasa Bhashya. Here, he describes mithyā as something that is neither completely real (like Brahman) nor completely unreal (like the horns of a hare), but rather something that appears real under certain conditions but is revealed as unreal upon closer examination or when true knowledge is attained.

Continue reading →

Duality is mithyA

Posted on by

 Up Sah 19.20 to 19.22 have been inter-alia discussed here. It requires fine tuning. Hence this post.                                                                                                                    Upadesha SahAsri 19.20 discusses the status of duality. It has neither birth nor absence of birth. Both have contradictions as explained below. Thus, duality is neither existent nor non-existent. It is neither real nor unreal. In VedAntic terminology, it is mithyA.
1 Suppose there is birth of duality, i.e., there is a cause of its birth. It may be an existent cause or a non-existent cause. A non-existent cause is a non-starter and cannot give rise to an effect. An existent cause can be either (a) non-duality or (b) duality.
(a) The cause cannot be non-duality, because the nature of non-duality is changelessness.
(b) If there is birth of duality A from duality B, then there is a question of birth of duality B and so on. It leads to infinite regress which is logically unacceptable.

Continue reading →

Use of the word ‘mithyā (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 1 ***

The key conclusion made in the discussion below was that, according to AI search: “I have not seen a single place in the prasthāna-traya bhāṣyas where Śaṅkara uses mithyā to label the world or jagat in that ontological sense.”

Q: Vani Vilas will be fine. Your suggested presentation sounds good!

A (ChatGPT5): Excellent—I’ll proceed using the Vani Vilas (1910) Sanskrit editions, and I’ll present three strong, verifiable examples where Śaṅkara himself uses a mithyā- compound in the clear metaphysical sense you described. For each example, I’ll provide:

  • A scan of the original page from the Vani Vilas PDFs with the term highlighted, complete with the file identifier and precise page number.
  • The exact Devanāgarī text (including the mithyā- compound and ± one line of context), transcribed verbatim.
  • My own literal, word-for-word English translation and a brief explanation of how the context conveys the “illusory but Brahman-dependent” sense.
  • Full bibliographic citation: volume number (per Works of Śaṅkara 1910), PDF or DJVU page number, and Internet Archive identifier.
Continue reading →

Use of the word ‘mithyā’ in traditional Advaita

Posted on by

Back in 2013, I posted a short essay on the topic of ‘Origin and Meaning of the word mithyA‘. In this, I stated that the word only occurs in one instance in Prasthāna Traya and Shankara’s commentaries, namely in the Muktika Upaniṣad. This statement has recently been challenged, so I undertook to investigate further. I enlisted the assistance of ChatGPT, since I was interested to see whether the latest version (5) was an improvement upon the earlier version. It is – very much so! Here is the ‘conversation’, posted in two parts.

Q: Can you locate any explicit use of the term ‘mithyā’ in prasthāna traya or Śaṅkara bhāṣya?

A (ChatGPT5): Short answer: Not obviously — at least not often.

Continue reading →

Using AI for Advaita (Conclusion)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 3 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

Q: <<<

**Source: *Talks on 108 Selected Verses of Vivekacūḍāmaṇi* (Verse 19)**

**Exact Quote (from published transcript):**

> *”Avidyā is not a substance. It is adhyāsa—superimposition. Like darkness in a room is only absence of light, ignorance is absence of knowledge (jñānābhāva). It is anirvacanīya—you can’t say it exists or doesn’t exist.”*

**Verification:**

– Available in *Vivekacūḍāmaṇi: 108 Selected Verses* (Arsha Vidya, 2012), **p. 32**.

>>> 

Page 32 of First edition of that book is commentary on Verse 6. Verse 19 is commented on from p. 41 – 43. It is about viveka and vairāgya – no mention of avidyā.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Part 3)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

Advaita refers to the unchanging reality by the Sanskrit term paramārtha and to the constantly changing appearance by vyavahāra. Within this phenomenal realm, separate individuals and objects are recognized and a creator-god, Īśvara, uses the power of māyā to obscure the truth and project the apparent world. It thus affirms that our experience does not tally with its non-dual claims. It acknowledges an appearance of duality, which is at odds with the reality. It also states that we can never directly know the reality. Accordingly, its effective teaching strategy is to successively negate the appearance. That which ‘remains’ and cannot be negated must be the reality. Once the reality is thus effectively (but not literally) known, then it is also realized that the appearance, too, is that same reality.

This process inevitably takes time, from the vantage point of the seeker who is still mired at the level of appearance. The ignorance that prevents the immediate apprehension of reality is effectively in the mind and it is at the level of the mind that this ignorance must be removed. Knowledge must be introduced in such a way that the mind can accept it, using reason and experience. Just as a student is unable to appreciate the subtleties of quantum physics without having the preliminary grounding in mathematics and science, so the seeker is unable to assimilate the ‘bottom-line’ truth of Advaita since it is so contrary to his everyday experience.

Continue reading →

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 1 ***

There are also two significant dangers regarding the Neo-Advaita ‘movement’. Firstly, there is the clear possibility of charlatans who, having read a little or heard the fundamental elements of ‘descriptions’ of reality, can devise a few ‘routines’ of their own and then advertise themselves on the circuit. Providing that they are good speakers/actors, it is certainly possible to make a living from deceiving ‘seekers’ in such a way, without ever giving away their true lack of knowledge or the fact that they are no nearer any ‘realization’ than their disciples.

Secondly, seekers themselves may be deluded into a belief that some specious realization has been obtained when, in fact, all that has happened is that they have come to terms with some psychological problem that had been making life difficult. The ending of such suffering could well be seen as a ‘liberation’. Of course, such a thing would not be at all bad – it simply would have nothing to do with enlightenment. Indeed, such people might well go on to become teachers in their own right, not charlatans in the true sense of the word, since they genuinely believe that ‘realization’ has taken place.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 26

Posted on by

Part 25

Part 27

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha

6-7 Mundaka Upanishad

6-7-1 Mundaka 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 The Upanishad reminds the seekers about the divine origin of the Upanishads and their transmission through the lineage of teachers thereby ensuring purity. Brahmaji is the creator and protector of the world. He has imparted the knowledge of Brahman to his eldest son Atharv who in turn has passed it on to Angir. Satyavaha (of the line of Bhardvaja) and Angiras are the subsequent receivers of knowledge and so on from higher ones to lower ones.

Continue reading →

Being: the bottom line (Conclusion)

Posted on by

(Read Part 1)

Another misleading claim is that “there’s no one bound and therefore no liberation from bondage.” This sounds very clever and obvious and is very likely to be accepted without question by the listener, adding still more to the ammunition against the traditional Advaitin position. But everything should be questioned! Advaita is a supremely logical and scientific philosophy if followed correctly and glib statements such as the above must be looked at carefully. (And it is acknowledged that ‘glib’ here is a ‘loaded epithet’!) Traditional Advaita does not, in fact, claim that there can be liberation from bondage. In fact, it is stated openly that there is not actually anyone bound. What is said is that there can be the realisation that there is no one who is bound – and that is liberation.

Continue reading →