Tag Archives: mithya

Q. 556 Unmanifest

Posted on by
Reply

Q: I am trying to understand what is meant by ‘unmanifest’. Is it:

  1. an upādhi like deep sleep; i.e. a ‘state’ or a ‘subtle object’? Or, if it is not an upādhi, then presumably
  2. it is pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. i.e. it is not a state or subtle object.

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep can be equated with māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep-sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation.

I believe the Gīta says something like… When Brahma-ji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep. If this is the case, then what about before Brahma-ji? This would indicate that there is something other than or standalone from the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahma-ji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

Q.555 State Express

Posted on by
Reply

(A few people might appreciate the joke! Google will give you the answer.)

Q: I am trying to appreciate what is meant by the ‘unmanifest state’. Two ‘explanations’ present themselves:

1. The unmanifest is itself an upādhi like deep sleep. It’s a state or a subtle object

2. The unmanifest is not an upādhi. It’s pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. It is not a state or subtle object

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep is equated with the māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation. Can you please clarify?

2. I believe the Gīta says something like: When Brahmāji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep! If this is the case, then what about before Brahmaji? This would indicate that there is something other than, or standalone from, the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahmaji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 5)

Posted on by
4

*** Read Part 4 ***

Tamas

‘Darkness’ is also used in the sense of the ‘primordial condition’ of the universe prior to creation. In this sense, it is not metaphorical but part of the ancient Hindu cosmology. It appears, for example, in Ṛg Veda 10.129: “In the beginning, there was darkness (tamas) hidden in darkness. All this was one undifferentiated water.” And the stage of pralaya, when the universe returns to unmanifest form, is sometimes described as darkness. A number of Puranic references could be quoted, e.g. the Vishnu Purana (Book 1 Chapter 1): “At the end of the previous kalpa, there was only one vast ocean, enveloped in darkness (tamas). The universe was in total dissolution, and nothing but the incomprehensible God, Vishnu, existed.” The darkness also symbolized the formlessness prior to creation.

This usage as an existent entity is not really the same as the metaphorical usage in which it symbolizes ignorance or ‘absence of knowledge’.

Darkness as Metaphor

In the context of discussions on ignorance, then, darkness is not intended to be considered as a real entity but as a metaphor for ignorance. We can see how this is both useful and potentially misleading. If we think of the common ‘concealing’ usage of the word – e.g. we could not see the stalactite in the cave because it was ‘covered by’ darkness – then we are in trouble. If we simply rephrase this to say that, because there was no light in the cave, we could not see the stalactite, there is no problem.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 4)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Read Part 3 ***

Observations triggered by Ghaṭa bhāṣya

If X is ‘bhāvarūpa’ – really existing, that ought to mean that it exists ‘in all three periods of time’. I would have said that, by that definition, like every other worldly perception or conception, darkness is not real. Every perception or conception is ‘mithyā’, neither ‘real’ (sat), nor ‘unreal’ (asat).

When Śaṅkara talks about ‘pot-absence’, it is obvious that he doesn’t mean that it is a really existing thing, in the way that a chair in the room ‘really exists’. What he means is that, in a discussion in a particular context such as this, we can treat something as ‘effectively existing’ when we both know what we are talking about and there is no confusion.

Suppose that you and I are having an argument about the pot that we believe to be on the table in room X of the museum. Suppose a third person comes in and tells us he has seen this pot on the table in room Y. This being the case, if I go into room X, I could say that I become aware of the absence of the pot. In that sense, it has a sort of meaning to say that the pot-absence exists in room X. But why anyone would want to talk in this way eludes me. I would just say that the pot isn’t in room X so I am prepared to accept the third person’s claim that it is in room Y.

Continue reading →

Q.551 – Illusoriness of the world (again)

Posted on by

Q: Why exactly is the world considered illusory? In what sense is it illusory?

Objects change their form and so the form is unreal. We have ideas about objects but these are unreal being imagination only. The whole subjective world with a person as its center is born of imagination.

I can see that objects including the body-mind appear in this field of awareness and everything functions by itself. But the differentiation still exists. There is awareness and also its contents. So how are they illusory? Is it because they are dependent on awareness?

A: Advaita does not say that the world is illusory. (This is a mistranslation by some modern teachers.) Nor is it ‘imaginary’. The world is mithyā, which means that it derives its existence from Brahman. It is ‘name and form’ of Brahman just as we can say that a chair is name and form of wood.

Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita (Topic-wise) Pt26

Posted on by

Part 25

7 Summary 2(13,15,16,22,46), 4(9,10,15 to 25,35 to 38,41,42), 6(45 to 47), 18 (62 to 66)

7-1: 2(13,15,16,22,46)                                                                                                       Fear of death is common. Death happens when the subtle body leaves the gross body making it insentient. The subtle body has the property to manifest consciousness which the gross body lacks. Sri Krishna says that death is a change of state like a transition from childhood to youth, youth to old age, and from old age to death. After leaving the gross body at the time of death, the subtle body takes up a new gross body according to karmic law.  It is rebirth as an infant. This transmigration of the subtle body is blessed by the all-pervasive Atma. In this sense, it is said that as a man discards worn-out clothes and wears new clothes, Atma discards the old body and takes up a new body. Knowing this cycle, a wise person is not deluded. Life is a flow and changes are inherent, such as hot-cold, pleasure-pain. It is a choiceless situation. As such, a person should endure them and need not unnecessarily suffer from agony and mental disturbance. He can then take up the spiritual path, gain knowledge, and be liberated.

Continue reading →

Q.550 – Alzheimer’s and Self-knowledge

Posted on by

Q: I read your answer to a previous question on this topic but am still not clear. What would be the state of all the knowledge of Advaita that I have acquired? E.g. I know now that I am not the doer and I should surrender the fruits of all my actions. But how can I still know this if I wake up with Alzheimer’s?

A: As I intimated in the answer to Q. 383, you have to differentiate between paramārtha and vyavahāra. In reality, there is only Brahman. There is only the appearance of people and world. They are mithyā. Their real substrate is Brahman.

We appear to have a body-mind and that body-mind is subject to disease, decay and death. This applies equally to the body-mind of the jñānī. The difference between the jñānī and the ajñānī is that the former knows that the body-mind is mithyā, while the latter doesn’t. Just as the body may suffer disease or even lose parts through accident, so the brain also is subject to illness and deterioration. Since the mind is associated with the brain, if the brain suffers loss, the mind will also. The memory may deteriorate or fail completely. This is the case irrespective of whether the jīva had previously gained Self-knowledge.

Continue reading →

Q. 548 – God and germs

Posted on by

Q: It is said that God is everywhere. So God is very much in the human body as well. He is in every cell/atom of a human body. My question is: what is the position /status of God, who is within the body, when  every cell/atom becomes infected? Is infection more powerful than God?

A: God is not ‘in the  human body’. The human body is name and form of Brahman. Similarly, bacteria are name and form of Brahman. There is ONLY Brahman in reality.

At the level of appearance (world etc.), God (Īśvara ) provides an interim explanation of the laws that govern the seeming creation.  One of these laws is that bacteria can infect bodies and affect their working, even to the extent of ‘killing’ them. But God, bodies and bacteria do not exist as separate entities in reality. They are all Brahman.

Continue reading →

Advaita Gurus and Critics – part 8

Posted on by

by Prof. Phillip Charles Lucas

<Read Part 7>

Theme Five: Pre-transcendence, Depersonalization and Level Confusion

A fifth and final theme of the critics is that NTMAs make no allowance for the Advaita distinction between absolute and relative levels of awareness. As a result, these teachers allegedly tend to devalue a life of engaged spiritual practice and the balanced development of physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual dimensions of the self. By placing all their emphasis on the most advanced state of spiritual realization, NTMA teachers and students are seen as being prone to “pre-transcendence,” a premature assumption of ultimate spiritual liberation that leads to de-personalization and disengagement from ordinary life. California-based NTMA teacher John Wheeler articulates this radically depersonalized position:

The real clarity comes from seeing the absence of the person. It is the person that gums up the works and creates all the problems and supposed solutions. Just keep coming back to the fundamentals. Your nature is luminous, ever-present, radiant, perfect, being-awareness. This is fully realized and complete right now…. With the emphasis off of the mind and the [personal] conceptual story, you will be much more present, because there is no filter. There is no person with all of its preferences and partialities trying to negotiate every experience.

Continue reading →

Q.539 Māyā and Brahman

Posted on by

Q: Can Advaitins explain how Māyā can be an attribute of the supposedly attributeless Brahman? Why was the creation needed if Brahman alone existed? What is Ishwara? (Quora)

A (Martin): 1) Māyā is not an attribute of Brahman which, as you say, is attributeless. Māyā is a diffuse, or polyvalent, concept which gives rise to much confusion, particularly by translating it as ‘illusion’ (see below). This concept can be viewed from the psychological, epistemological, and ontological perspectives.

Purely from the standpoint of Ṥaṅkara’s Advaita Vedanta, māyā is tied in with the concept of ‘ignorance’ (avidyā), which is prior to it; that is, avidyā is the necessary condition for māyā. Once ignorance has been annihilated by knowledge, māyā disappears. That means that from the higher (of two) point of view māyā does not exist. This is contrary to most post-Ṥaṅkara authors, with the exception of Sureśvara, who taught that māyā is a positive entity or force. If that were the case, how could a positive entity be removed by knowledge? Swami Satchidanandendra, practically alone in the 20th Cent. has defended the former Ṥaṅkarian position.

Continue reading →