The real meaning of the word Mithya in Advaita VedAnta

[sanathan]

Why not answer some basic questions first, if all facts must have a valid "why" ?

a) Why does a certain wavelength of sun-light appear as blue and not red ?
b) Why men have two feet and not ten ?
c) Why women only give births to children and not men ?

etc.
etc.

Please don't answer ... think on your own as I don't want to discuss anything with you.

OM

In fact, every thing has an answer , otherwise..we are no more rationalists..don't you know all of the above have specific answers?
Everything in the world has a specific meaning and purpose of its own..

Why do you feel angry when I ask questions.

I just raised the concern on the explanation of mithya ..why and how does it occured if there is/was only ONE pure conciousness..it is as simple as that.

[kallol]

The answers are already there.

Mithya is our universe and is a product of the limited senses & mind we have. Real is elusive most but only known to few.

Mithya is the temporary & apparent form of the real. Real is the base, substratum, the permanent and all pervading.

Mithya is correlated to Maya and Real to Brahman.

[devotee]

In fact, every thing has an answer , otherwise..we are no more rationalists..don't you know all of the above have specific answers?
Everything in the world has a specific meaning and purpose of its own..

Sorry, didn't see your answer as I didn't expect one from you.

There is no "final" answer to any "why". You can only answer intermediate "why"s. However, I can see that you are unable to see as I do.

OM

[mile83]

I like the analogy he uses with that cosmic play where everyone gets a life-script? Is that a Neo-Advaita idea?? I seriously don't know.

[devotee]

I like the analogy he uses with that cosmic play where everyone gets a life-script? Is that a Neo-Advaita idea?? I seriously don't know.

I would say, "NO". It is a poetic way of saying the Truth ... that is all.

OM

[brahman]

In fact, every thing has an answer , otherwise..we are no more rationalists..don't you know all of the above have specific answers?
Everything in the world has a specific meaning and purpose of its own..

Why do you feel angry when I ask questions.

I just raised the concern on the explanation of mithya ..why and how does it occured if there is/was only ONE pure conciousness..it is as simple as that..instead of trying to answer it in logical way or with the help of sruthi, you are trying to play emotional game. chill out! the way you are discussing is not suitable to your position.

Dear sanathan,


Totally endorse the sentiments expressed on this regard.

Then you wrote: everyTHING has an answer .

Again would like to stand up for this but with a minor clarification that the Absolute is not a THING as we think!!! In fact the truth is ineffable.

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

Then,
if the truth is ineffable, why should we discuss these contrarily issues under the banner of Advaita is another questions of ever ending paradox.

Brahma Vidya is Sarva Vidya Parthishta as Mundaka Upanishad expounds it, vaguely reads �the science of the Absolute is the science of all sciences.

How can the science of all sciences be a like 80�s weather forecast of the All India Radio, it predicts very early in the morning �today it might or might not rain, today it might or might not storm beware� Beware of what? The puzzle!!!

One holding mithya trapeze, another with dream trapeze in hand, how long do we dodge and play trapeze on ropes like this? Leaving one trapeze and holding on to the other when tired of another or to show a miracle!!!

Ultimately the blame goes to principal preachers like Sankara, etc. Every kind teacher of perennial wisdom was aiming largely at people�s peace of mind, solidarity and social fulfillment remains largely forgotten or unheard of.

Isn�t it hard time we start to speak in terms METHODOLOGICAL parlance putting this layman exegetics in the melting pot consciousness? Love

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Excuse my late arrival on this topic... What little value I may add is more of specificity then of broad-base ideas, yet me thinks its germane to the conversation at large.


mithyā is derived (contracted) from the term mithūyā́ . We know that mithyā is the wife of a-dharma.


This mithyā is defined ( which is different then what it means) as:

• invertedly , contrarily , incorrectly , wrongly , improperly
• falsely , deceitfully , untruly
• not in reality , only apparently

Now, the application of the word to thinking and philosophy makes the meaning arise , and becomes the core for this overall conversation our esteemed HDF posters are debating and reviewing at large. For me, I will keep to the sidelines and see how this all unfolds.

Yet that said, within the purview of kaśmir śaivism we see the universe as the expansion ( non-difference) of śiva ( so say the āgama-s). The point is this... if this universe is ~unreal~ then it suggests that śiva also must have this same classification, and this does not meet the knowlege offerings that are within the śāstra-s.

praṇām

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan,

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Excuse my late arrival on this topic... What little value I may add is more of specificity then of broad-base ideas, yet me thinks its germane to the conversation at large.


mithyā is derived (contracted) from the term mithūyā́ . We know that mithyā is the wife of a-dharma.


This mithyā is defined ( which is different then what it means) as:

• invertedly , contrarily , incorrectly , wrongly , improperly
• falsely , deceitfully , untruly
• not in reality , only apparently

Now, the application of the word to thinking and philosophy makes the meaning arise , and becomes the core for this overall conversation our esteemed HDF posters are debating and reviewing at large. For me, I will keep to the sidelines and see how this all unfolds.

Yet that said, within the purview of kaśmir śaivism we see the universe as the expansion ( non-difference) of śiva ( so say the āgama-s). The point is this... if this universe is ~unreal~ then it suggests that śiva also must have this same classification, and this does not meet the knowlege offerings that are within the śāstra-s.

praṇām

There can be two distinct views on Advaita :

a) The Self/Brahman/Shiva has become all this.
b) The Self/Brahman/Shiva has apparently become all this.

In a) there is transformation of Self/Brahman/Shiva which if accepted, tend to make original before-creation- Shiva/Self/Brahman Not-Shiva/Not-Self/Not-Brahman after creation. However, it has been refuted without a doubt that Brahman/Shiva/Self remains unchanged. If that is so, we have no option but to take shelter under Vivarta-vaad i.e. the it is all apparent which matches with Shruti.

Now, what of Shiva ? When we are talking from point of view of Kashmir Shaivism, we must see Shiva as Brahman Himself/Itself. If Shiva doesn't change before and after creation, then this whole creation must be MAyic alone. Now, why Kashmir Shaivism sees it as an expansion of Shiva ? In my opinion, in absence of Shiva there can't be any creation at all ... its existence draws its validity only upon presence of Shiva as the source. So, if seen in that way, it is all expansion of Shiva alone. But this expansion, in my humble opinion can be perceived only as apparent. Where would Shiva expand to ? That space has to be Shiva alone.

OM

[brahman]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�




mithyā is derived (contracted) from the term mithūyā́ . We know that mithyā is the wife of a-dharma.


This mithyā is defined ( which is different then what it means) as:

• invertedly , contrarily , incorrectly , wrongly , improperly
• falsely , deceitfully , untruly
• not in reality , only apparently

Now, the application of the word to thinking and philosophy makes the meaning arise ,


Yet that said, within the purview of kaśmir śaivism we see the universe as the expansion ( non-difference) of śiva ( so say the āgama-s). The point is this... if this universe is ~unreal~ then it suggests that śiva also must have this same classification, and this does not meet the knowlege offerings that are within the śāstra-s.

praṇām

Dear Yajvan,

Vedanta sees Brahman as the ultimate reality, the word Brahman literally means �that which is on the constant process of growth� or �that which is all-inclusive� is also significant.

Hence the upadana(the material) of the world remains Brahman itself.

Now we see it in the light of a classical example in Vedanta that is the �pot and the clay�

In the case of clay shapes, clay remains the material forming it.

In order to separate out various shapes and to communicate to others, we formulate names for each shape as pot, cup, vessel, vase etc.

The existence of the clay is irrefutable, we see it, and we experience it, it is not unreal. What unreal in the current situation is the �names and forms� assumed out of the clay material.

This unreality is of an epistemological one. Not ontological.

Ontologically �clay� alone exists, epistemologically �pot� exits.

This stand of Vedanta is known as Sat-karana vada( the theory that cause alone is real).

The causal substance in the case of this apparent world is Brahman, thus Brahman alone has real existence; all that appears as the world is nothing but various apparent names forms superimposed on Brahman.

What mithyā is the �names and forms�, not Brahman is thus made clear.


I guess this meets the ideas offered in the Sastras too.

Vednata uses the terminology Brahman, the terminology of the �principal Upanishads� where KS make use of the word Siva from its agama pramanas.

---------
Note for others: A clear understanding of what cause is and what effect is warranted in order to perceive the idea in full strength for contemplation.
---------
Love

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Namaste,

Rather than start a new thread i thought maybe it would help provide some background the to the word mithya and bring forward some other views for further reflection, as this is just an entry for consideration and to help with mindfulness Satipaṭṭhāna. and supportive practices.

Satipaṭṭhāna is a compound term that has been parsed (and thus translated) in two ways, namely Sati-paṭṭhāna and Sati-upaṭṭhāna. The separate terms can be translated as follows:

• Sati - Pali; Sanskrit smṛti. Smṛti originally meant "to remember," "to recollect," "to bear in mind," as in the Vedic tradition of remembering the sacred texts. The term sati also means "to remember." In the Satipațțhāna-sutta the term sati means to remember the wholesome dhammās, whereby the true nature of phenomena can be seen,^[3] such as the five faculties, the five powers, the seven awakening-factors, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the attainment of insight.^[4]
• Upaṭṭhāna (Sanskrit: upasthāna) - "attendance, waiting on, looking after, service, care, ministering"^{[web 1]}
• Paṭṭhāna - "setting forth, putting forward;" in later Buddhist literature also "origin," "starting point," "cause
• Wikipedia ( not my favourite but can be useful as a starting point for further research, but offers something valid here)
  
  wholesome dhammās~ Wisdom state, prasade unified state of shiva shakti

• I will try to keep this short as possible. sati in pali is remembrance through awareness and same as smṛti in sanskirt , I know it has meaning in the way that Vedic Shastras are complied, but for the sake of this I am only using smṛti as waking up, or remembering our natural state of awareness, from this state even if one has never read Vedic texts or cannot understand Sanskrit the two will be the same in essence. Then as one developes sati~smṛti the texts and experience of life perfectly compliment each other and help with brahma jnana, expansion of our original consciousness.

Sub note

Sati-paṭṭhāna and Sati-upaṭṭhāna, at some point i would like to explore more in language and communication at another time, as there are two forms of mindfullness and strike at the heart of the teachings, one form of awareness in dharma is dealing with mind and external senses and the other form of mindfulness is supra~mental or para~transcendent. TBC


Back to Mithya ( hopefully to aid in removing it ) .....


mithya as I am understanding at the moment is related to false perception or imposition on the mind. As in the previous comments mithya is sometimes known as unreal or an illusion, then it gets applied to all things. More often to the world that we live in.

If we say the world is an illusion then it causes all sorts of problems because we know that experience in this world is not an illusion, our idea of the world or our view of the world maybe an illusion but we exist and the world is very real, the illusion is somewhere in our consciousness, perception of mind which ever one of these words we wish to choose, a thorn in the Third eye, dharma chaksu.

The word world is usually taken from the sanskrit loka, but as I understand from the texts and with some experience that loka doesnt mean the planet earth, so loka is not the world as a planet, but as an abode or quality of our state of being, I dont know sanskrit very well but am prepared to make a bold enough claim that all the sanskrit words reflect a state of consciousness, state being used in a loose way to refer to a quality of consciousness. And the outside world is not spoken about very much, for this we have secular educations, empirical sciences/knowedges, gross knowledges. Not that it dismisses the outside but deals specifically with consciousness, which then effects the outside world, so in a indirect way its included.

Consciousness is divided into 4 parts as per Vedanta

Jagrat sense consciousness
Svapna mind consciousness
Sushupti consciousness without mind or sense consciousness
Turiya Unchanging Ultimate Consciousness

This same structure is given in Bhagavad Gita

Chapter 3: Karma-yoga

TEXT 42
indriyani parany ahur
indriyebhyah param manah
manasas tu para buddhir
yo buddheh paratas tu sah

SYNONYMS

indriyani—senses; parani—superior; ahuh—is said; indriyebhyah—more than the senses; param—superior; manah—the mind; manasah—more than the mind; tu—also; para—superior; buddhih—intelligence; yah—one which; buddheh—more than the intelligence; paratah—superior; tu—but; sah—he.

TRANSLATION

The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and Shiva is even higher than the intelligence.

Indriyas~ senses
manah~ mind
Buddhi~Prajna
Sah~Turiya



Vedanta or Dharma vidyas or sciences start from senses consciousness and then refines, not goes more gross into the outside world.

Lokas~abodes are related to the first 3 states or spheres, so world loka is better understood ( at least for me, at this time ) as a state of our own personal awareness, which can either be in sense consciousness, mind consciousness or without sense and mind consciousness. 3 three conscious statesare not permanent states and depend on certain conditions or not lasting as permanent abodes, not permanent means they are shifting realities, simple awareness can understand this, we have many states of mind through the day, happy, sad, feel heat or cold and so on in so many varieties, its normal part of life, what the dharmas margs path of truths try to teach us is not be attached or disturbed.

within these 3 states there are many varieties

Mind and sense consciousness are related and work together in the same dynamic, when mind goes outwards it develops senses and seeks contacts to the objects of the senses. When mind turns inwards the senses are not seeking outward stimulation but is absorbing inwardly. This will be another subject which then deals with early stages and experiences of Dhyana and more subtle and refined aspects of the inward sense loka abode of consciousness.


Maya gets translated as illusion, ma meaning to measure and ya appearance, maya is not illusion, it just appears to be an illusion, and again as I am knitting this together is related to mana or lower quality of mind devoid of Buddhi or wisdom, when Buddhi comes into mind we wake up and we actually see that maya is actually mahamaya, the outside world didnt change our loka our consciousness state changed, because when we get glimpses nothing really changes outside, the world is the same, same body, same circumstances same everything yet the imposition on the mind mithya has been removed. We still live on the same planet, eat and drink and everything is still normal but the lokas, abode or quality of consciousness has shifted into something more para~transcendent, we have left a lower lokas behind, left a world behind, but remain in the same world, same sun will come up next say and so on.

Mithya sees and experiences birth and death, when in reality there is not birth and death as a finality, there are just changes in appearances maya is changing appearances, the measurement of maya just means there is causation, phenomenon movement is based on causation, the mixing of the elements which starts in the subtle, they can be measured to come degree but are beyond all measurements as the external world or all phenomenon is an eternal realm or continuous realm of cause and effects samasra included in samsara the cycle is nirvana.

To conclude for now with a simple example

4 people are standing in the same field and it is raining and they are becoming drenched

One will be in sense consciousness
One will be in mind consciousness
One will be in wisdom consciousness
One will be in original consciosness

they are all standing in the same field getting drenched by the rain, but all will experience the same situation differently.

the field and standing in the field and getting drenched in the rain is not an illusion only to see the whole reality of that of that experience maybe covered by mithya a a false impediment veil in perception