yahoo! mail - kamala_shankar@yahoo.

com
yahoo!my yahoo!mailgroupsyahoo! searchsearch:welcome, kamala_shankar
[sign out, my account]mail home -help

mail| contacts| calendar| notepad options check mailcompose search

mail: search mailsearch the web

thinking marriage? join free!

folders[add - edit]
inbox (1366) draft sent bulk (286)[empty] trash[empty] my folders[hide]
dr. rajamohan writing flder advaita buying and selling dto franchise
guide health and beauty hrd important web a... local represent... mail-1
mail1 offers personal psychology (3) responses science shanthakumar
search shortcuts
my photos my attachments
fresh new jobs
cv required now
ready for
shaadi ?
fresh new jobs
no exp. required
1000s of ppl,
100s of chat rooms
previous | next | back to messages
deletereplyforwardspammove...
printable view this message is not flagged. [ flag message - mark as
unread ]
from:advaita-l-request@lists.advaita-vedanta.org add to address
book
subject:advaita-l digest, vol 55, issue 19
to:advaita-l@lists.advaita-vedanta.org
date:sat, 24 nov 2007 12:00:02 -0600
send advaita-l mailing list submissions to
advaita-l@lists.advaita-vedanta.org

to subscribe or unsubscribe via the world wide web, visit

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
advaita-l-request@lists.advaita-vedanta.org

you can reach the person managing the list at

advaita-l-owner@lists.advaita-vedanta.org

when replying, please edit your subject line so it is more specific

than "re: contents of advaita-l digest..."

today's topics:

1. re: mithya from archives (kuntimaddi sadananda)

2. re: mithya from archives (amuthan)
3. re: mithya from archives (ramesh krishnamurthy)
4. re: mithya from archives (amuthan)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
message: 1
date: fri, 23 nov 2007 21:27:33 -0800 (pst)
from: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@yahoo.com>
subject: re: [advaita-l] mithya from archives
to: a discussion group for advaita vedanta
<advaita-l@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
message-id: <760598.87796.qm@web56009.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

--- ramesh krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@gmail.com> wrote:

> now, if science were to establish such a thing as a

> fundamental
> indivisible particle, would not the absence of
> svarupa lakshana for
> objects be compromised? how important is the absence
> of svarupa
> lakshana for objects in establishing the mithyatva
> of causality and
> hence the truth of advaita?

shree ramesh - pranams

>from my understanding - the swaruupa involves the

essential material cause - as per kaarana - kaarya
samaanaadhikarana. this is example scripture gives in
terms of gold and ornaments, mud and mud objects and
iron and its tools. as per these examples, the naama
and ruupa are part of the mithyaa and existence is the
sat part. that we have adhaara and adheya jnaanam in
the knowledge of ring, bangle etc. the adhyaara is the
satta and aadheya is the anruta (since there is no
substantive for the ring as ringly substance - it is a
padam without a padaartham) and their combination is
the mithyaa due to adhyaasa.

the creation is just naama and ruupa is the scriptural

statement. from science point we have not established
yet what are the fundamental constituent particles
that form the world. the conscious observer seems to
be only permanent in trying to determine the observed
in terms of particles. ultimately the very
observation itself affects the observed and therefore
never one can establish in finality what are the
fundamental particles. therefore as scripture points
out that brahman alone is the substantive that can
never be observed independent of the observer. hence
my understanding is there is no swaruupa laxana for
the world other than brahman which is the emphasis of
sad vidya too. vidya emphasized that is the basis for
even pancheekarana - to show the world which is
kaaryam is nothing kaaranam, brahman, as existence.

science will have to come to that conclusion,

eventually. there is an effort to investigate
consciousness without realizing that any
objectification of consciousness makes it unconscious.
it is amazing how our rishies of the yore could
zero-in on the fundamental concepts that constitute
the world of plurality.

the concept of mityaa is recognized only in advaita;

dvaita and vishishtaadvaita do not subscribe for that.
for them that which is not sat is asat and that which
is not asat is sat - there is nothing in between. they
say shankara brought this mithyaa which is not there
in the scriptures. but the essence of
vaaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - provides the
foundation of mithyaa. hence through sad vidyaa
vedanta also provides a basis for the mithyaa
universe.

hari om!
sadananda

------------------------------

message: 2
date: sat, 24 nov 2007 11:15:54 +0530
from: amuthan <aparyap@gmail.com>
subject: re: [advaita-l] mithya from archives
to: "a discussion group for advaita vedanta"
<advaita-l@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
message-id:
<6497d9b90711232145s323d228bh9c504cfe8be4800d@mail.gmail.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

namo narayanaya!

on 11/23/07, ramesh krishnamurthy <rkmurthy_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> now, if science were to establish such a thing as a fundamental
> indivisible particle, would not the absence of svarupa lakshana for
> objects be compromised? how important is the absence of svarupa
> lakshana for objects in establishing the mithyatva of causality and
> hence the truth of advaita?

though the mithyatva of jagat can be appreciated by reflecting on

sruti-s like 'vacarambhanam vikaro namadheyam mrttiketyeva satyam',
the primary concern of advaita vedanta is not to establish the
mithyatva of the drsya, but rather to establish the satyatva of the
drk. the mithyatva of drshya follows naturally as a consequence of
that; not the other way about. it is also for a similar reason that we
disagree with madhyamikas who assert the mithyatva of both the drk and
the drsya based on exactly the same argument. and it is precisely at
this point that the role of sruti as the _only_ means to atmaj~nana
becomes clear.

just to set things in the proper context, unlike madhyamikas who

maintain that everything is nihsvabhava, we maintain that that the
svabhava of everthing is brahman. the attribution of a particular nama
and rupa as the svabhava of a particular object is mithya and this
happens at a cognitive level which 'precedes' that which we use while
doing scientific enquiry or any other vyavahara. to make my point
clear, science can come into picture only when duality is perceived
and perception of duality cannot happen without adhyasa; once the
fundamental adhyasa of pramatrtva and the consequent adhyasa-s of the
prameya-s are made, all vyavahara-s including scientific enquiry are
possible. since duality is presupposed in all these activities, it is
not reasonable to suppose that establishing the existence of
fundamental indivisible particles or any other substratum as forming
the basis of the world we perceive would contradict the mithyatva of
jagat.

an immediate consequence of the above view is that the conclusions of

vedanta are independent of the conclusions of science. hence as sri
vidyasamkar pointed out, one can endorse modern theories of creation
and causation if they are more helpful in quieting the mind and
turning it back to our own self. let me also reiterate that without
the help of sruti, we can cannot selectively conclude that only the
drsya is nihsvabhava and that the drk has as a svabhava.

vasudevah sarvam,
aparyaptamrtah.

------------------------------

message: 3
date: sat, 24 nov 2007 14:18:47 +0530
from: "ramesh krishnamurthy" <rkmurthy@gmail.com>
subject: re: [advaita-l] mithya from archives
to: "a discussion group for advaita vedanta"
<advaita-l@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
message-id:
<3df698e50711240048v14d47a3cpde78a4a15d288c1e@mail.gmail.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

namaskarah,

thanks sri amuthan for your response, but it only leads to more
questions.

on 24/11/2007, amuthan <aparyap@gmail.com> wrote:

> though the mithyatva of jagat can be appreciated by reflecting on
> sruti-s like 'vacarambhanam vikaro namadheyam mrttiketyeva satyam',
> the primary concern of advaita vedanta is not to establish the
> mithyatva of the drsya, but rather to establish the satyatva of the
> drk. the mithyatva of drshya follows naturally as a consequence of
> that; not the other way about.
it is not clear why the mithyatva of the drshya should follow
naturally as a consequence of the satyatva of the drk. the other way
round seems more obvious to me.

the rest of your mail seems to go on an unrelated track. it does

appear to me that the shunya of the madhyamika-s is very similar, if
not the same, to what we call mithya. beyond that, i am also able to
appreciate the need for a satya for the mithya to be superimposed on.
it is only the non-dualistic nature of this satya that i feel might be
compromised if science can establish the existence of fundamental
particles.

as far as sruti pramana is concerned, we need to be clear first that

the sruti only reveals brahman by removing avidya. if brahman itself
were to be established by the sruti, then brahman won't be satya.
sruti does not create something anew. ultimately, the sruti pramana
must result in mukti, which can only be the realization of the truth
as it is and not the creation of something new.

let us again go back to the definition of satya itself. satya is that

which cannot be contradicted. does this definition require a
non-dualistic satya? if there are fundamental particles that are
indivisible (and hence indestructible), they would not be
contradictable. would non-duality not be compromised then? please note
that the existence of fundamental particles does not contradict the
satyatva of the drk. it only seems to imply that satya is not
advitiya.

note that the samkhyan-s, pata~njala yogin-s and probably the

theravadin-s don't seem to be affected by the above. it is only the
advaitin-s and madhyamika-s with their mithya/shunya constructs who
seem to be affected.

perhaps i am mistaken somewhere but i would very much appreciate a

clear analysis of this matter.

on 24/11/2007, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> the creation is just naama and ruupa is the scriptural
> statement. from science point we have not established
> yet what are the fundamental constituent particles
> that form the world. the conscious observer seems to
> be only permanent in trying to determine the observed
> in terms of particles. ultimately the very
> observation itself affects the observed and therefore
> never one can establish in finality what are the
> fundamental particles.

pl see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/elementary_particle

i am not a physicist, but clearly the search for fundamental particles

is an important aspect of modern physics. your point about
"observation affecting the observed" seems to be related to the
probabilistic nature of any system (quantum indeterminacy). i would be
highly obliged if someone with a good understanding of this point
could explain it in the context of advaita-vedanta. i have a feeling
it might hold the answer to my basic question about whether
fundamental particles affect the mithyatva of objects/causality.
ramesh

------------------------------

message: 4
date: sat, 24 nov 2007 22:18:32 +0530
from: amuthan <aparyap@gmail.com>
subject: re: [advaita-l] mithya from archives
to: "a discussion group for advaita vedanta"
<advaita-l@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
message-id:
<6497d9b90711240848g662dae92o6ee8f4844a47f750@mail.gmail.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

namo narayanaya!

on 11/24/07, ramesh krishnamurthy <rkmurthy_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> it is not clear why the mithyatva of the drshya should follow
> naturally as a consequence of the satyatva of the drk. the other way
> round seems more obvious to me.

let me quote acarya gaudapada here:

'duhkham sarvamanusmrtya kamabhogannivartayet.

ajam sarvamanusmrtya jatam naiva tu pasyati..' (ma.ka. 3.43)

it should be clear from the above that the mithyatva of the drsya in
the strict sense of the term (jatasya-adarsanam) follows from
atmaj~nana (ajatasya smaranam) and not the other way about. an
intellectual understanding that the drsya is mithya since it does not
exist apart from nama-rupa, which is essentially a conceptualization
by the mind, can only help us withdraw the mind from the world; it is
certainly not a direct means to acquire atmaj~nana. nowhere in the
advaita literature will you find drsya-mithyatva-anusandhana as a
means for atmaj~nana. the means is atma-vicara, not anatma-nirasa.
regarding anatma, the emphasis is more on it's nature as anitya and
asukha rather than its being mithya. please see the end of the mail
for reasons as to why this is so.

on 11/24/07, ramesh krishnamurthy <rkmurthy_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> the rest of your mail seems to go on an unrelated track. it does
> appear to me that the shunya of the madhyamika-s is very similar, if
> not the same, to what we call mithya. beyond that, i am also able to
> appreciate the need for a satya for the mithya to be superimposed on.
> it is only the non-dualistic nature of this satya that i feel might
be
> compromised if science can establish the existence of fundamental
> particles.

the reason why i brought in adhyasa is that any talk of unity or

plurality happens only when the mind functions and this fundamental
association of the mind with the self is nothing but adhyasa. in any
scientific enquiry, the existence (i.e. the reality) of the perceived
world is taken for granted. what is done is not an enquiry about the
reality of the world but rather a systematic explanation of observed
phenomena based on a minimal set of hypotheses that are verifiable by
appropriate means. thus science does not prove the reality of the
world; it just makes sensible statements about the world it has
assumed to be true in the first place. even in science questions like
'_what_ is matter? _what_ is energy?' etc. cannot be answered since
they fall outside its domain of validity. even if it is established
within the limits of accuracy achievable by observation and reason
that some substratum (like say a basic set of fundamental particles)
is what the perceived universe is ultimately made of, the existence of
this substratum itself cannot be known until pramatrtvadi gunas are
superimposed on the self. in this sense, the mithyatva of the drsya is
not affected by any scientific theory.

it should be kept in mind that the mithyatva of jagat is not a logical

starting point for understanding advaita. it is not an axiom with
which we start; it is a statement of the nature of the world as
_j~nanis_ perceive it. in other words, it is a truth which will become
manifest of its own accord in one's anubhava if the truth of one's own
self is realized. all that we need to know about jagat prior to
atmavicara is that it is anitya and asukha so that we can withdraw our
attention from it and instead concentrate it on ourself.

let me repeat the basic point: the aim of advaita is just to establish
atmabrahmaikya. the rest (mithyatva of jagat etc.) follow from this.
it is completely irrelevant to the purpose of advaita whether you
consider the world as real or unreal since any such consideration
happens only _after_ superimposing anatma on the atman (in particular,
after accepting the world as real). however an intellectual
appreciation of mithyatva of the drsya is helpful for mano nigraha.

vasudevah sarvam,
aparyaptamrtah.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

to unsubscribe or change your options:

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

for assistance, contact:

listmaster@advaita-vedanta.org

end of advaita-l digest, vol 55, issue 19

*****************************************
deletereplyforwardspammove...
previous | next | back to messages save message text | full headers
check mailcompose search mail: search mailsearch the web

move options
[new folder]
dr. rajamohan
writing flder
advaita
buying and selling
dto
 franchise
guide
health and beauty
hrd
important web a...
local represent...
mail-1
mail1
offers
personal
psychology
responses
science
shanthakumar
forward options
as inline text
as attachment
reply options
reply to sender
reply to everyone
address book shortcuts
add contact
add category
view contacts
view lists
quickbuilder
import contacts
addresses options
addresses help
calendar shortcuts
add event
add task
add birthday
day
week
month
year
event list
reminders
tasks
sharing
calendar options
calendar help
notepad shortcuts
add note
add folder
view notes
notepad options
notepad help
advanced search
advanced search

copyright � 2007 yahoo web services india pvt ltd. all rights reserved.
copyright/ip policy - terms of service - help
notice: we collect personal information on this site. to learn more about how we
use your information, see our privacy policy