PDA

View Full Version : Reality



Ram
27 March 2006, 05:32 AM
I dont want to derail the other thread, so here goes:



And since you are so keen to use the words “real” and “unreal” it would certainly be a good idea for you to explain exactly what you mean by these terms.





Advaita's definitions regarding reality:
Real: One which has not been sublated.( defined in a neagtive sense actually)
Vishsitadvaitin's definition will look like:
Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality or having verifiable existence.
The problems regarding a negative defintion is that there is no frame of reference to know what is sublated or not, and not a particularly useful definition in a practical context.


I would think that the idea of different levels of reality are very reasonable. But I certainly disagree with the advatin idea of snake-rope type of reality.

My idea would be roughly like this:

All perception in the world have to be relative. For example, a blind man, a myope and a keen sighted individuals dont percieve the same thing. They might look at the same mango, but see different objects in their brain. The object was the same, but they saw it differently.

Secondly, mammals such as bat have a different sense perception than humans, which enable them to move at night. (infra red vision). So, the concept of relative perception is not exactly wrong. These are cases of relative truth, where the object itself is real, viz the mango. One might not see it ( because he is blind), one might see a blurred image( myopic) while one might see a clear mango there. Again, the mango seen under a microscope reveals more details than viewed with the naked eye. All these are examples of different types of perception where one does not sublate the other. In all these cases, the mango is real, but the problem of perception is with the viewer or his instrument.

In another example, the sky appears blue. Does it have an intrinsic blue color?


The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the air molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

Thus there is really no blue color in the sky, and is only an optical phenomenon ( rather an illusion). Similarly, the sky appears black when viewed from the moon, because it has no atmsophere to scatter light.
Another example would be a mirage in the desert. These are examples where the false percpetion is sublated in the absence of the cause that produces the illusion. Can we classify the "blue sky" as unreal? What is that to be called as unreal - is it the "blueness"?

Proper definitions of real and unreal can be very tricky

Let us take the case of real and complex numbers.
Square-root of -1, also known as i, is called an unreal number because its value does not lie in the domain of real numbers, -inf to +inf.

An ordinary Euclidean space has the axes x,y and z,. This is considered to be the real space from our perspective, and forms the substate of the universe we percieve? Gnerally, time is taken to be a dimension, so we have a xyzt plane.

So what about astral beings? Do they live in this space? Are they real or unreal or sometimes real and sometimes unreal? By astral beings, I am referring to the spirits and ghosts that humans encounter occasionally.

This is my own theory:

The astral beings have a greater degree of freedom ( dimension essentially means a degree of freedom) than human beings, and live in a n-dimensional space, where n>4. Let us assume that astrals usually reside in the complex plane uvw where each axes is mutually perpendicular to the xyzt space.

Thus, we have two completely different spaces - xyzt and a high dimesnional space xyzuvwt, in which astral beings and devatas reside. Brahmanda, as we will see from the puranas has 7 worlds, my own view is , this is the xyzuvwt space, the 7 dimensional space. All these worlds are subject to Kala, the time, and hence the t there.

So when do human beings encounter devas and spirits? When these beings move on the real space that intersects our perception, in time and space co-ordinates in xyz.

From our perspective, the plane uvw is the complex space and can be described as unreal. But it can still be described by a mathematical model perfectly. Seen from the uvw space alone, a being will find xyz space as unreal.

So by this concept, the terms real and unreal are just relative.

Like this there are countless Brahmandas in the cosmic realm, each with its 7D space, and remaining mutually unreal to each other.

Bhagwan, is way beyond these descriptions of finite dimensions,and time. Does he see all these Brahmandas as real? Or lives in his own separate infinite dimensioned space? That should decide the million dollar question on what is real and what is not. If the Lord "sees" something as real, it is absolutely real. If the Lord does not, it is just relatively real.

If you get to Vaikunta, you should know the answer. Vaikunta in my view is an infinite dimensioned space( plus many things we cant imagine) outside the realm of these counless 7 dimensioned Brahmandas.

Ram
27 March 2006, 06:01 AM
In the above model, we can define real and unreal as follows:

If the viewer is in the xyzt space, and the object is in the xyzt space, the object is real with respect to the viewer.

If the viewer is in the xyzt space, and the object is in the xyut space, the object is both real and unreal with respect to the viewer.(sometimes encountered in advaita)

If the viewer is in the xyzt space, and the object is in the uvwt space, the object is unreal with respect to the viewer.

Note: Space is used only with the idea of "degree of freedom" and not as such because the 5th dimension is unimaginable to us anyway.

What is the degree of freedom of Isvara in advaita?
What is the degree of freedom of Niguna Brahma in advaita?

That should be the definitions for absolutely reality....all above defintions are relative.

satay
27 March 2006, 09:48 AM
I think that relatively to us who are not in Turiya this world is "real". Do we not experience the smell of a rose? Do we not feel the pain if a part of the body is hurt? The smell of a rose is 'real' and the pain of a broken leg is 'real' to 'me' in this space.

satay

Gill Harley
28 March 2006, 04:34 AM
Hello, I'm new to this discussion board. My name is Gill, I'm in my fifties and I live in the UK.

Your discussion about 'reality' reminded me of the following poem:


American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based it on a fable which was told in India many years ago.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind


The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he; “
‘Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

satay
28 March 2006, 09:47 AM
Hello, I'm new to this discussion board. My name is Gill, I'm in my fifties and I live in the UK.



namaste Gill and Welcome to the forums!

Thanks for the poem...I liked it.

Can't wait to see more of your posts here...:)

satay
ps: by the way, my best friend's name is Gill (he spells it as Gil) and so therefore, you have an instant connection here. :)

Ram
28 March 2006, 02:02 PM
Namaste Satay, the idea that I presented here on reality is not strictly my own. There is something called a Klein's bottle that occurs in Topology, which is similar to the Mobius strip. My idea was actually further generalization of the Klein's bottle, in which three dimensions are closed in four dimensions, the fourth one being imaginary. You can mathematically prove that such a "bottle" has seven dimensions. When I observed this, it immediately struck to me that Brahmanda( the world of Brahma or the cosmic universe which includes the visible universe) could be tied with the extended Klein's bottle, with seven dimensions. What these dimensions are, could just be wild speculation in the absence of aparoxa.

My guess: The x,y,z axes, and the four imaginary axes of past,present,future, and eternity. A lot of miracles and supernatual phenomena can be explained with this approach, including the ability to become invisible, the ability to escape from a closed box etc, though it would be a lengthy essay in itself. Read about Minkowski's space and Lorentz transformations to see how you can visualize them, for example time as dimension etc. Crazy, eh? :)

You can see that the advaitic idea of simultaneous reality and unreality is not illogical when viewed from this perspective.

beevee
28 March 2006, 03:09 PM
As far as the Adwaitin logic of real and unreal, it would seem to me that monism is nothing but Buddhism rehashed in which the world and everything else is relegated to the void or illusion. That is why it can be referred to as the philosophy of illusion. Thus for the strict Advaitin or Buddhism there is no reality or reality to reality. It is all false. Thus from their point of view even an argument must necessarity be false or illusiory

Gill Harley
29 March 2006, 02:21 AM
Thanks for your welcome!

Ram, I find your theory very interesting. Part of the tragedy of the West, now that it has thrown the baby out with the bath water by abandoning all belief in spirituality along with religion, is the new prevailing WYSIWYG perception of the universe. If Western science can't prove something, it must mean that it doesn't exist - or so goes the Western "rationalist" view. It doesn't seem to occur to them to them they're using the wrong measuring instruments and also coming at it in the wrong way. So when Western science fails to be find a way to explain something, they just arrogantly pooh-hoo it as so much hogwash. They don't realise that one day, probably soon, these theories will be discarded, just like a child discards its toys when it becomes an adult.

Already, the theory of gravity is being questioned, and in order to make it work, scientists have had to come up with dark matter and dark energy. When you ask them about this dark matter and dark energy - for instance, you might ask: where is it? what does it look like? - they inform you that you cannot actually see it or feel it or smell it or hear it or taste it, but that it is eternal and all-pervading throughout the whole universe - now who does that remind us of! I find it quite amusing that in order to make their theories work, Western scientists have had to reinvent God!:)

sarabhanga
29 March 2006, 03:19 AM
Namaste Beevee,

Your understanding of Advaita is false.


Ajativada (the original formulation of Advaitavada) considers that there is no diversity which is eternal (or unborn).

The Aja Brahman creates even the Gods; and so, only the Aja Brahman can be regarded as truly eternal.

Ajati-vada (the science of “the Unborn”) is concerned only with eternity and immortality.

Ajativada does not “negate” the world ~ only it understands that all that is created (divided or separated) can NOT be regarded as uncreated, undivided, one and only, or eternal.

Ajativada considers that the ultimate Truth is Aja or eternal.

Bauddha, however, considers that there is NOTHING which is eternal, and that the only “truth” is momentary and constantly changing from one instantaneous moment to the next.

Some things are true for all of eternity, while other things are only true under particular circumstances and for a limited time. And so there are necessarily two kinds of truth.

This logic is ancient, and certainly NOT “borrowed” or “rehashed” from Buddhism !

“Reality” or “unreality” depends on your perspective; but mortality and immortality are set in stone.

Advaita claims that all that is born (and thus once did not exist) and all that dies (and thus returns to non-existence) is by definition NOT ETERNAL. And all that is unborn and immortal is by definition ETERNAL.

Sudarshan
29 March 2006, 10:40 AM
You can see that the advaitic idea of simultaneous reality and unreality is not illogical when viewed from this perspective.

But I doubt if advaitins will agree with you.

Your theory is not based on higher percpetions( as represented by higher degrees of freedom) sublating lower perception, but rather augmenting them. That is not valid for advaitins.

atanu
13 April 2006, 02:08 PM
Namaskar Ram Ji,


In the above model, we can define real and unreal as follows:

If the viewer is in the xyzt space, and the object is in the xyzt space, the object is real with respect to the viewer.

If the viewer is in the xyzt space, and the object is in the xyut space, the object is both real and unreal with respect to the viewer.(sometimes encountered in advaita)

If the viewer is in the xyzt space, and the object is in the uvwt space, the object is unreal with respect to the viewer.

Note: Space is used only with the idea of "degree of freedom" and not as such because the 5th dimension is unimaginable to us anyway..

Ram Ji, who is the viewer, what is space and what is object? Does space and object exist apart from the viewer (seer in our language)?


Ram Ji, the logicians have not had the grace of studying the upanishads. They all work with concepts of jagrat state alone.

EXISTENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY reality. Consciousness plus waking we call waking. Consciousness plus sleep we call sleep. Consciousness plus dream we call dream. Consciousness is the screen on which all the pictures come and go. The screen is real, the pictures are shadows on it.

The ajata school of Advaita says, ‘Nothing exists except the one reality. There is no birth or death, no projection or drawing in, no sadhaka (aspirant), no mumukshu (one who desires to be liberated), no mukta (one who is liberated), no bondage, no liberation. The One Unity alone exists forever.’ To those who find it difficult to grasp this truth and ask, ‘How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?’ the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, ‘All that you see depends on the seer. Apart from the seer there is no seen.’ This is called drishti-srishti vada, or the argument that one first creates out of his mind and then sees what his mind itself has created.

To those who cannot grasp even this and who further argue, ‘The dream experience is so short, while the world always exists. The dream experience was limited to me. But the world is felt and seen not only by me but by so many and we cannot call such a world nonexistent,’ the argument called srishti-drishti vada is addressed and they are told, ‘God first created such and such a thing out of such and such an element and then something else and so forth.’ That alone will satisfy them. Their minds are not otherwise satisfied and they ask themselves, ‘How can all geography, all maps, all sciences, stars, planets and the rules governing or relating to them, and all knowledge be totally untrue?’ To such it is best to say, ‘Yes. God created all this and so you see it.’ All these are only to suit the capacity of the hearers. The absolute can only be one.

There is first the white light, so to call it, of the Self, which transcends both light and darkness. In it no object can be seen. There is neither seer nor seen. Then there is also total darkness (avidya) in which no objects are seen. But from the Self proceeds a reflected light, the light of pure mind (manas), and it is this light which gives room for the existence of all the film of the world, which is seen neither in total light nor in total darkness, but only in the subdued or reflected light. From the point of view of Jnana (Knowledge) or the Reality, the pain seen in the world is certainly a dream, as is the world, of which any particular pain like hunger is an infinitesimal part. In the dream also you yourself feel hunger.


The seen is simply not there in absence of the seer and when one begins questioning where this seer is, no material being is found.


MIND IS A WONDERFUL FORCE INHERENT IN the Self. That which rises in this body as ‘I’ is the mind. When the subtle mind emerges through the brain and the senses, the gross names and forms are cognized. When it remains in the Heart, names and forms disappear.... If the mind remains in the Heart, the ‘I’ or the ego which is the source of all thoughts will go, and the Self, the Real, Eternal ‘I’ alone will shine. Where there is not the slightest trace of the ego, there is the Self.




What is the degree of freedom of Isvara in advaita?
What is the degree of freedom of Niguna Brahma in advaita?

That should be the definitions for absolutely reality....all above defintions are relative.



Brahman is known as avimukta. And Iswara is not different from Self.

atanu
13 April 2006, 02:19 PM
*********As far as the Adwaitin logic of real and unreal, it would seem to me that monism is nothing but Buddhism rehashed in which the world and everything else is relegated to the void or illusion. That is why it can be referred to as the philosophy of illusion. Thus for the strict Advaitin or Buddhism there is no reality or reality to reality. It is all false. Thus from their point of view even an argument must necessarity be false or illusiory********************

Namaskar

It is not at all correct to say that advaitins of the Shankara school deny the existence of the world, or that they call it unreal. On the other hand, it is more real to them than to others. Their world will always exist whereas the world of the other schools will have origin, growth and decay, and as such cannot be real. They only say that the world as ‘world’ is not real, but that the world as Brahman is real. All is Brahman, nothing exists but Brahman, and the world as Brahman is real. The Self is the one Reality that always exists, and it is by the light of the Self that all other things are seen. We forget it and concentrate on the appearance. The light in the hall burns both when persons are present and when they are absent, both when persons are enacting something, as in a theatre, and when nothing is being enacted. It is the light which enables us to see the hall, the persons and the acting. We are so engrossed with the objects or appearances revealed by the light, that we pay no attention to the light. In the waking or dream state in which things appear, and in the sleep state in which we see nothing, there is always the light of Consciousness or Self, like the hall lamp which is always burning. The thing to do is to concentrate on the seer and not on the seen, not on the objects, but on the Light which reveals them.
Questions about the reality of the world, and about the existence of pain or evil in the world, will all cease when you enquire ‘Who feels the pain'?.
Without a seer the world and the evils thereof alleged do not exist. The world is of the form of the five categories of sense objects, and nothing else. These five kinds of objects are sensed by the five senses. As all are perceived by the mind through these five senses, the world is nothing but the mind. Is there a world apart from the mind?
Though the world and consciousness emerge and disappear together, the world shines or is perceived only through the consciousness. That source wherein both these arise and disappear, and which itself neither appears nor disappears, is the perfect Reality.

And at shivoadvaita all isms are ONE only, what to talk of Baudha and Advaita.

atanu
13 April 2006, 02:29 PM
Namaskar,

Obviously Sudarshan Ji's concept of reality as per Advaita is only a concept. Rather just the reverse of what Sudarshan ji implies is taught by Advaita. It is the truth -- the Brahman which is apparently sublated by the objectfying senses and not the other way around.

EXISTENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY reality. Yourself is the reality. Before bringing in xyzt and objects one must question and verify one's own reality.

ramkish42
13 April 2006, 03:19 PM
I think that relatively to us who are not in Turiya this world is "real". Do we not experience the smell of a rose? Do we not feel the pain if a part of the body is hurt? The smell of a rose is 'real' and the pain of a broken leg is 'real' to 'me' in this space.

satay
Thanks to Sathy.

I will present a logic presented by scholars as early as 1200 AD regarding mithya unreal.

If I say "Object A is real, world is unreal", it raises one more question whether is phrase is A or fits in the definition of A. If it does not then this phrase fits in the word world thus becomes unreal. Thus goes this phrase is unreal, hence corrolary becomes correct. Object A is unreal and world is real.

In such instances, I would like to add, World is real and there is nothing unrealistic about it.

World changes for ever, hence called Maya - Maya can also mean wonderful. We know we name many Indian women as Maya, not in the meaning of unreal but in the meaning of Wonderful.

Just a point to ponder

atanu
13 April 2006, 03:57 PM
Namaskar Ram Ji,

*********All perception in the world have to be relative.**********

Sense perceptions are relative. Each perciever has his own universe.


********So by this concept, the terms real and unreal are just relative.*********

What do you mean exactly? The terms are realtive or the real itself is relative? The real by definition cannot be relative.
Although, one's concept of the reality is certainly relative, the reality is devoid of concepts --- it is the father of Aham, from whom concepts have sphurana.

Turiya is the ever unchanging one reality.


Regards

Singhi Kaya
13 April 2006, 04:02 PM
A little study of buddhist meditation of mindfulness does clear up reality best.

In shrt (my belief):-

All is real. Matter or counciousness. Agamas say that matter and conciousness are one and same brahma .

This keybord I'm typing on is real, the breath I'm taking in.

What is unreal? Ans: How we percieve this reality.
We don't see through eyes but our mind. And our mind is the seat of many pre conception, past karmas, preferences and ideas. Reality is real, but mind distorts it. Mind is maya - not the physical world! When the mind is silent and we see the world as it is - we see God(an aspect of God, for God is not just viswa).

Only I don't believe that one can make mind silent like that - eg practicing mindfulness. As we will soon discover that the silence is actually a stlighly higer ground in mind itself. The path is through mind (yoga) and not by-passing the mind as some buddhist mindfullness seems to teach. Of course I could be wrong in understanding here.

2 pence.

atanu
13 April 2006, 04:09 PM
A little study of buddhist meditation of mindfulness does clear up reality best.

------Only I don't believe that one can make mind silent like that - eg practicing mindfulness. As we will soon discover that the silence is actually a stlighly higer ground in mind itself. The path is through mind (yoga) and not by-passing the mind as some buddhist mindfullness seems to teach. Of course I could be wrong in understanding here.

2 pence.


What is mind? Where is the mind?

Is the mind not silent during deep sleep?

Singhi Kaya
13 April 2006, 04:21 PM
Mind dies in deep sleep - so do we, for we are situated in the mind.

Thinking another way - mind is unreal, it is the maya.

Even if mind dies in deep sleep - the real body does keep working.


--- buttom line we need to try to be silent and follow what's divine and good in us. Philosophizing is a mental exercise too. Though some claim it leads to passing beyond mind too - but I personally feel there are other more effective ways.

atanu
13 April 2006, 09:31 PM
Mind dies in deep sleep - so do we, for we are situated in the mind.

Thinking another way - mind is unreal, it is the maya.

Even if mind dies in deep sleep - the real body does keep working.


--- buttom line we need to try to be silent and follow what's divine and good in us. Philosophizing is a mental exercise too. Though some claim it leads to passing beyond mind too - but I personally feel there are other more effective ways.

Namaskar Singhi Mashai

You have chosen an imaginative name. What does it exactly mean? Though from my perspective I understand it as one having a body of Simha --- Durga's vahan.

Though age is not a factor, still for a 27 year old, you are spiritually advanced. Scriptures, philosophies, arguments are all sattwik hooks. You know one has to some how give to mind something to do. Else, it becomes the demon -- Raktabija (millions of thoughts giving birth to millions more) or Bhandasur (the Ego), whom Durga alone can vanquish.


Now coming to the question of mind. You have said: mind dies in sleep. No, it does not. It just got tired and went to sleep in the lap of the Lord, its Father-Mother. It will come up again and again -- daily morning, and will begin its childish pranks. Even thousand years of Nirvikalpa samadhi does not kill the mind. Only attaining the highest state of Vishnu obliterates it.


Mind is nothing but the Ego -- the I sense falsely thinking the body to be the I. This wrong "i" daily awakes with you in the morning and then proclaims the second and third persons and the world etc.


Knowing that body is non-intelligent is simple. It has no capacity to say: let me live when the death comes. It does not remain in deep sleep though "I" definitely exists.

Knowing the non-existence of mind is a bit more difficult however. The uphill task is that only -- to understand that mind is only a consort of Lord Pragnya and it exists for Lord Pragnya. United with Lord, it is Brahman only. Seperated, it becomes the Ahamkara and the world.

Om

ramkish42
14 April 2006, 12:21 PM
I am still trying to understand your posting as it neither direclty questioning nor directly commenting.

You idea of relative perception is shown false by Advaitins as early as 5 AD. I do not think I should repeat it here for it will go for pages

If you still try to relate, I want to say, I perceive Atanu as Atanu, there is nothing relative about it. If you still try to relate it with absence of Atanu related with presence of Atanu, then this goes with perpetual interception. I can explain this if this is what you want to hear

I never said real is relative. I was just countering idea of Unreal

Singhi Kaya
14 April 2006, 01:26 PM
Namaskar Singhi Mashai

You have chosen an imaginative name. What does it exactly mean? Though from my perspective I understand it as one having a body of Simha --- Durga's vahan.

Though age is not a factor, still for a 27 year old, you are spiritually advanced. Scriptures, philosophies, arguments are all sattwik hooks. You know one has to some how give to mind something to do. Else, it becomes the demon -- Raktabija (millions of thoughts giving birth to millions more) or Bhandasur (the Ego), whom Durga alone can vanquish.
Dhonnobad!
About my name your understanding is correct. There is some interpretation to it. But in a nut shell, to do bring down durga, own has to develop the character of a lion. The supreme mother doesn't ride on peace loving lambs:). There are some very inspiring hynms on Singhi-Charitra (Lion hearted character) in the Vedas. My name reminds me of my spiritual ambition.

About the rest of your post, I must think more or else I may post something ******.

Regards
Singhi

atanu
16 April 2006, 05:39 AM
I am still trying to understand your posting as it neither direclty questioning nor directly commenting.

-----
I never said real is relative. I was just countering idea of Unreal


And I am trying to understand whether this post is for me? If it is, then it is in reply to which post of mine? And in which post I had interacted with Shri ramkish42 Ji?

Ram
03 May 2006, 05:12 AM
Namaste Atanuji,




Ram Ji, who is the viewer, what is space and what is object? Does space and object exist apart from the viewer (seer in our language)?


viewer is the Atma, whether jIvAtma(embodied or liberated) or paramAtma

space is an abstract concept, it refers merely to the degrees of freedom a viewer has.

object is a number of points(samples) in the space defined above.




Ram Ji, the logicians have not had the grace of studying the upanishads. They all work with concepts of jagrat state alone.


That is all we have. If you claim to be working with the concepts of Turiya, shouldn't you have experienced it yourself? The above concepts are not based on Jagrat alone, as you can see, which should be roughly limited to a 3D world.

Jagrat, as percieved by an ordinary man is the 3D space.(consisting of the 5 gross elements)

Svapna, incorporates higher dimensions, and in my opinion seven - corresponding to the seven worlds of Brahmanda.( This is called the realm of mind in vedanta, and consists of the 5 subtle elements)

Prajna incorporates a disjoint set of all the infinite Brahmandas, giving rise an infinite degree of freedom. ( this is called by the term Mahat in vedanta)

I dont want to define Turiya this way, however, as it is beyond prakrtic definitions.

Ram
03 May 2006, 05:28 AM
Namaskar Ram Ji,

*********All perception in the world have to be relative.**********

Sense perceptions are relative. Each perciever has his own universe.


Righto, but how does another man's perception falsify mine? The advaitin is so sure that the world is completely unreal.





********So by this concept, the terms real and unreal are just relative.*********

What do you mean exactly? The terms are realtive or the real itself is relative? The real by definition cannot be relative.
Although, one's concept of the reality is certainly relative, the reality is devoid of concepts --- it is the father of Aham, from whom concepts have sphurana.

Turiya is the ever unchanging one reality.


As you say, the term pratibhasika satya is correct, and we can verify in the world.

Vyavaharika Satya is also correct, as it can be verified, from various jnanins having having higher perception than us. For eg, it is well known that Yogis can see atoms, they can see spirits, they can percieve divinity etc, thus overriding my perception. But does a Yogi say that my knowledge of the world is false? By no means. Every reality is superceded by a higher reality that augment each other. If you dig deeper into atoms, you will find electron and protons, and such things. What do you get when you go inside? And inside? Brahman lies at the deepest level(being the material cause), and since the entire world has been built on this substate, it is all absolutely real. Calling the world unreal amounts to saying that Brahman is unreal, if you accept Brahman to be the material cause.


Knowledge of Brahman leads to knowledge of whatever there is to be known, and never leads to the knowledge that what I see now is false. Knowledge of Brahman leads to omniscience, which should naturally include all knowledge of mUla prakriti.

atanu
09 May 2006, 03:54 AM
Namaskar,


Righto, but how does another man's perception falsify mine? The advaitin is so sure that the world is completely unreal.

A blind man who sees pillars in place of an elephant must agree to a man who sees the full elephant. Similarly, one having only experience of lower state must agree to abheda scrripture and act accordingly to gain the higher experience.

A simple shivo advaitam description for Turiya is sufficient for me, though, I can cite many more abheda vakyas. Interpreting what advaitam here means or interoplating another thing above Self are mere mental jugglery. There is nothing above the Self and Turiya is the Self, which has been described as advaitam -- whatever that may mean.




----- But does a Yogi say that my knowledge of the world is false? By no means.


Exactly. A yogi who sees the One reality will never say my knowledge of world is false. He will say Jagat Mithya, Brahman Sat, Brahman Jagat.




Every reality is superceded by a higher reality that augment each other. If you dig deeper into atoms, you will find electron and protons, and such things. What do you get when you go inside? And inside? Brahman lies at the deepest level(being the material cause), and since the entire world has been built on this substate, it is all absolutely real. Calling the world unreal amounts to saying that Brahman is unreal, if you accept Brahman to be the material cause.


Brahman is both the efficient and material cause. But it is his Maya power that with millions of material manifestation, Brahman does not change a bit. That is why Lord says:

The undivided Paramatma (Avibhaktam), appears as if (iva) existing (sthitham) divided (vibhaktam) in the material bodies and Jivatma (bhooteshu).




Knowledge of Brahman leads to knowledge of whatever there is to be known, and never leads to the knowledge that what I see now is false. Knowledge of Brahman leads to omniscience, which should naturally include all knowledge of mUla prakriti.


Dear Ram,

I believe that some put a lot of emphasis on sense perceptions. This way a dog has better knowledge since it has extended hearing and seeing capacity. Such people may not believe that what appears to be blue color under some kind of lighting appears green under a different lighting. Which is the truth? Before jnana or after jnana?


Whereas some others say the one who perceives is the reality. The Pragnya that perceives in me, you and a dog is ONE. EXISTENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY reality. Yourself is the reality. Before bringing in xyzt and objects one must question and verify one's own reality.


And there is a gross misunderstanding. Advaita says: Brahman jagat. So, Advaita can never even suggest jagat to be asat. What it says is that the sense perception of the jagat being composed of millions and millions of discrete object is not correct. It goes very well with Rig Vedic verse: Rudra Visvam, Rudra Visvarupam.

Rig Veda also says: Who knows how the boneless gives rise to the bony? The highest knowledge of ajativada thus says: on the boneless pure intelligence appears multiforms -- ever changing like kaleidoscopic view but the pure intelligence ever remains pure intelligence.

On a personal pratyaksha level also (when stripped from senses) the same can be appreciated. The awareness "I am" has never changed, though everything else attached to "I am" changes every moment. The perceiver of "I am" is neither the body and nor the senses/mind. The perciever of "I am" is neither the body and nor the senses/mind but one indivisible Self alone. To know the Self, one cannot be a second beside the self, since that would create two selves -- an impossiblity.


Regards

tatvam
04 September 2006, 02:00 AM
Namaskar,



A blind man who sees pillars in place of an elephant must agree to a man who sees the full elephant. Similarly, one having only experience of lower state must agree to abheda scrripture and act accordingly to gain the higher experience.



Namaste Atanu,

Here the example you have given is for whether the perception is right or wrong but not for whether the perception is absolutely true or false.
So if a blind man thinks the pillars in place of elephant..he must aware of pillars before..so pillars must be true. Ofcourse his assumtion was wrong..because of his blindness.




A simple shivo advaitam description for Turiya is sufficient for me, though, I can cite many more abheda vakyas. Interpreting what advaitam here means or interoplating another thing above Self are mere mental jugglery. There is nothing above the Self and Turiya is the Self, which has been described as advaitam -- whatever that may mean.


That is the problem with Advaitins..you take oly some descriptions which are suitable fot your theory.
If turiya is the self and there is nothing above this turiya, then what is Avidya? is Avidya a thought ? who is experiencing Avidya?

tell me what is Turiya and what is avidya? which one is real..or both are real?








Exactly. A yogi who sees the One reality will never say my knowledge of world is false. He will say Jagat Mithya, Brahman Sat, Brahman Jagat.



So..that Yogi will say to whom? to himself? how does he know this fact?
could he know that reality without this body which is unreal ?





Brahman is both the efficient and material cause. But it is his Maya power that with millions of material manifestation, Brahman does not change a bit. That is why Lord says:



You said Jagat midhya , again you said it is his maya power..so his maya power is midya.?

tell me one thing..is the world midhya or the viewr's view in which he is viewing this world is maya?



Whereas some others say the one who perceives is the reality. The Pragnya that perceives in me, you and a dog is ONE. EXISTENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY reality. Yourself is the reality. Before bringing in xyzt and objects one must question and verify one's own reality.


I agree..existence or conciousness is the only reality..
does that existence knows itself and knows its exact nature?

Then why that reality came into avidya..lack of knowledge?





Rig Veda also says: Who knows how the boneless gives rise to the bony? The highest knowledge of ajativada thus says: on the boneless pure intelligence appears multiforms -- ever changing like kaleidoscopic view but the pure intelligence ever remains pure intelligence.


on the pure intelligence how the multiforms appeared? and why appeared?
pure intelligence ever remains..I agree..it'ss existence is not the problem..why it is not behaving like that now?

TruthSeeker
04 September 2006, 03:03 AM
Namaste tatvam,

You have much curiosity....are your motives good or to make fun? I cant understand that.

Anyway, here is the deal.

Every religion or belief system requires faith in a certain entity to begin with. Advaita vedanta requires you to trust the words of Adi Shankaracharya, who is believed to have realized Advaita himself. To his followers, his words are enough to understand basic axioms.

1. The world is illusory.
2. Brahman is real.
3. The individual soul and Brahman are one and the same.

A belief common to all advaitins, and the interpretation of scripture rests on this theory. Any further development ofr vedanta starts from these fundamentals, and not all advaitins may have the same beleifs.( except these basic axioms)

Apart from these whether you beleive in Ajata vada, or any of the creation theories or whether you beleive in heavenly planets, which spiritual path you follow etc is not related to proper Advaita and there are widely prevalent beleifs.

The term Advaitam defies description in words, all I can assure you that it is not a void, but the exact opposite of it. It is defined by negation only because there is no earthly parameter that can define moxa.

Regarding Avidya, you can take it as one of unknown origin, one that simply is non existant( hard core advaita that may put you off!), or a divine will, law, sport or whatever. People who ask too many questions regarding Maya or Avidya cannot learn Advaita. For now you can accept that you have something called ignorance that covers your shining self beneath, and try to work it out, as per your beleifs. The very avidya( which you have to admit whichever school you belong to) under whose spell you are now, will prevent any understanding of it - all other theories are conjectures.

tatvam
04 September 2006, 03:19 AM
Namaste tatvam,

You have much curiosity....are your motives good or to make fun? I cant understand that.

Namaste truthseeker,
I am seriously seeking for truth, not making any fun.



Every religion or belief system requires faith in a certain entity to begin with. Advaita vedanta requires you to trust the words of Adi Shankaracharya, who is believed to have realized Advaita himself. To his followers, his words are enough to understand basic axioms.

1. The world is illusory.
2. Brahman is real.
3. The individual soul and Brahman are one and the same.



Can you provide me some scripture statements that prove the above three arguments?




Regarding Avidya, you can take it as one of unknown origin, one that simply is non existant( hard core advaita that may put you off!), or a divine will, law, sport or whatever. People who ask too many questions regarding Maya or Avidya cannot learn Advaita. For now you can accept that you have something called ignorance that covers your shining self beneath, and try to work it out, as per your beleifs. The very avidya( which you have to admit whichever school you belong to) under whose spell you are now, will prevent any understanding of it - all other theories are conjectures.

Ok..but my doubt is Avidya..this word seems opposite to Vidya (knowledge)..and if Brahman is knowledge self..how this avidya came?

ok..if I take this avidya as 'will' of God..so..because of his own will he became many and experiencing this misery..how it is possible?
I can't understand how a knowledge-self could became many by his own will after all his 'will' lead him into misery ?

TruthSeeker
04 September 2006, 04:14 AM
Can you provide me some scripture statements that prove the above three arguments?


Yes, scriptural verses like "sarvam khalvidam brahma" have made it beyond any doubts whatsoever that there is nothing whatsoever beyond Brahman. We dont care for "alternate" interpretations. It is quite allright if you prefer to do so...take comfort in them please.;)

Do you know what even the great Vaishnavite saint Nammalvar has said? I am just quoting a sample, where many great monistic mahAvAkyas can be found. Suggest you to read his hymns in a more unbiased way.( without your usual twisting of meanings)




The Lord is and has become that guy, this guy and the one who is
in between that guy and this guy- that lady, this lady and the one
who is in between that and this lady- those and these people and ones
who are in between them- that and this object and those objects which
are in between them- the one which is a question in our minds; good
things; bad things; past, present and future things; things which
are never permanent and are going to be perished;- (TVM 1.1.4)

Lord has got no attachments; He exists everywhere in its full
entirety. Hence, you do not get attached to any other thing and immerse yourself in ALL kinds of divine works and all sorts of service to the Lord.(TVM 1.2.6)

Equipped with such Great virtues which are not inferior to any other virtue- such all time Greats who possess the duty to create, destroy etc., The One who has become one and all and becomes all by Himself; Who knows the secret and concept of His avataars?- Absolutely none.




I think Nammalvar was perfect monist who taught only the path of Bhakti and surrender, hence his hyms occasionally carry a touch of dualism. Please dont misinterpret him. His philosophy is not dualism by any means, though the way of life suggested by him suggest so. I have considerable liking for his hymns.:rolleyes:





Ok..but my doubt is Avidya..this word seems opposite to Vidya (knowledge)..and if Brahman is knowledge self..how this avidya came?

ok..if I take this avidya as 'will' of God..so..because of his own will he became many and experiencing this misery..how it is possible?
I can't understand how a knowledge-self could became many by his own will after all his 'will' lead him into misery ?

Avidya cannot be explained for those in avidya. That is it about it.
You can understand that as the Lord's will to become many. You will understand that when Lord's will so, until then you can beleive whatever you want. Yes, he himself became the good and bad things, as even Nammalvar has testified, and hope you will atleast obey his words. If God creates bad things( if you think there are bad things), how can he impose it on others, except himself? Just think about it, or we are heading towards the model of Abrahamic religions. Not vedanta.

tatvam
04 September 2006, 04:34 AM
Yes, scriptural verses like "sarvam khalvidam brahma" have made it beyond any doubts whatsoever that there is nothing whatsoever beyond Brahman. We dont care for "alternate" interpretations. It is quite allright if you prefer to do so...take comfort in them please.;)

Do you know what even the great Vaishnavite saint Nammalvar has said? I am just quoting a sample, where many great monistic mahAvAkyas can be found. Suggest you to read his hymns in a more unbiased way.( without your usual twisting of meanings)




I think Nammalvar was perfect monist who taught only the path of Bhakti and surrender, hence his hyms occasionally carry a touch of dualism. Please dont misinterpret him. His philosophy is not dualism by any means, though the way of life suggested by him suggest so. I have considerable liking for his hymns.:rolleyes:





Avidya cannot be explained for those in avidya. That is it about it.
You can understand that as the Lord's will to become many. You will understand that when Lord's will so, until then you can beleive whatever you want. Yes, he himself became the good and bad things, as even Nammalvar has testified, and hope you will atleast obey his words. If God creates bad things( if you think there are bad things), how can he impose it on others, except himself? Just think about it, or we are heading towards the model of Abrahamic religions. Not vedanta.

What did you understand from Nammalvar's poems ?
"all sorts of service to the Lord"..when will you understand this if you think you youself is equal to GOD.

if Avidya can't be explained for those in avidya..then you also don't understand that , and even Shankarachrya didn't understand that..because all of us in avidya only..then how to get solvation?

let us stop this discussion as you are not able to answer regading Avidya..

TruthSeeker
04 September 2006, 05:13 AM
What did you understand from Nammalvar's poems ?
"all sorts of service to the Lord"..when will you understand this if you think you youself is equal to GOD.


So that is your objection to Advaita? People calling themselves God? I think you are totally missing the point. We are only saying that Lord himself became many, and there is no question of "I being the God", when something is present everywhere. God is just "I am" and not anything specific as you or me, which are just points of desire that will vanish some day.

I dont see any difference from my own monistic guru whose teaching is the goal of life is to be in divine service ~ divine service is what?? What does God want as service? What does he lack? Does he need me to serve him coffee every day? This is just meant to be a human analogy. I see the same thing in Alvar hymns, and no real contradictions. People are encouraged to involve in divine service so that their love towards God may ripen, that does not mean that is end point of the spiritual journey. There is nothing called worship or service ultimately - that means God is lacking in something. The ultimate Godhead cannot be worshipped - it is beyond any such concepts.

Aftering talking so much about purifying oneself by loosing "I" and "mine", and yet you talk of divine service, with "I" serving "He" . Can you really cheat the Lord this way? This talk will vanish when the wisdom dawns. What to do? He himself is desiring to do service to himself. Let us just respect his wishes and move on...;)

Qualified monism has to finally end in monism only, beyond these levels of divine service. No objections to the aim for the goal of divine service, and it will certainly carry you to the very high in the end.:Cool:




if Avidya can't be explained for those in avidya..then you also don't understand that , and even Shankarachrya didn't understand that..because all of us in avidya only..then how to get solvation?

let us stop this discussion as you are not able to answer regading Avidya..

Thank you.:)

atanu
05 September 2006, 05:11 AM
Namaskar Tattwam.

This is what is the assumption of Tattwam.




"all sorts of service to the Lord"..when will you understand this if you think you youself is equal to GOD.






No true Advaitin equates the ego self to shiva Self. All of Tattwam's cynicism stem from this assumption.




Namaste Atanu,

Here the example you have given is for whether the perception is right or wrong but not for whether the perception is absolutely true or false.
So if a blind man thinks the pillars in place of elephant..he must aware of pillars before..so pillars must be true. Ofcourse his assumtion was wrong..because of his blindness.



You need only answer "Who knows about the Pillar?" Tattwam, you assume that the ego self is the reality and the knower etc. Because you have somehow been told to stick to individuality without examining whether the individuality is the eternal truth or not?

Please try to find out the one who knows about the pillar.




That is the problem with Advaitins..you take oly some descriptions which are suitable fot your theory.
If turiya is the self and there is nothing above this turiya, then what is Avidya? is Avidya a thought ? who is experiencing Avidya?

tell me what is Turiya and what is avidya? which one is real..or both are real?


Isn't it a problem with you Tattwam that you will never accept that the Self is shivoadvaitam?

What is your problem?


Regarding Avidya. Avidya is very real to you -- the ego self, which itself is the Avidya and does not exist. The senses percieve this avidya. There is no Avidya in shivoadvaitam.






So..that Yogi will say to whom? to himself? how does he know this fact?
could he know that reality without this body which is unreal ?


Oh, I have to repeat the previous question. Tattwam, who is the knower in Tattwam? Who is Tattwam?

There is only one intelligent principle -- the Atma and it is advaitam (as per Mandukya and several other Abheda vakyas).







I agree..existence or conciousness is the only reality..
does that existence knows itself and knows its exact nature?

Then why that reality came into avidya..lack of knowledge?


Who is saying that reality came into avidya? Is the reality saying so? (I cannot allow Tattwam forcing his own view on reality:Roll: ).

Find the one who is saying "reality has come into avidya".




on the pure intelligence how the multiforms appeared? and why appeared?
pure intelligence ever remains..I agree..it'ss existence is not the problem..why it is not behaving like that now?


It is behaving like that even now. Turiya is the unchanging ever present self on which all pictures come and go.



Om Namah Shivayya