Tag Archives: pot and clay

World disappearing and mithyā

Posted on by
13

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 →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 4)

Posted on by

*** 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 →

Creation means manifestation

Posted on by

The words, ’cause’ and ‘effect’ are only from a point of view. You say that this is the effect and that is the cause. In fact, the effect itself is the cause, being non-separate from the cause. Then again, which is cause and which is effect? When the pot is broken, it becomes clay. That means clay came from pot! This concept of cause and effect is purely a point of view. Our understanding that the cause came first and the effect came later is only a point of view. From the standpoint of Brahman, there is nothing that comes later, because Brahman itself is the effect. If at all the concept of ’cause’ and ‘effect’ is talked about, it is from the standpoint of the unmanifest and manifest conditions.

The unmanifest becomes manifest – that is called creation. Creation itself is not a proper word for us, because the word ‘creation’ is relevant only when something did not exist before, and later came into being. But it is not like that. That which is in an unmanifest, undifferentiated form, comes to be differentiated. One is in a subtle form, the other in a gross form. In a differentiated form it is called creation. In an undifferentiated form it is called dissolution. This creation is cyclic. The creation becomes unmanifest because it was manifest before. Unless it was manifest before, it cannot become unmanifest. We cannot talk about any sequence here.

 Mundakopanishad (Two Volumes), Swami Dayananda, Arsha Vidya Center Research.
ISBN: 8190363638.
Review Link