Is there a real jagat?

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste all

I have a question on advaita. Its not my own. I think I read it in one of the books on dvaita or vishishtha-advaita, but I dont remember exactly where I read it. I am asking the question here, because I could not come up with an answer. 

Here is the question -

1. To mistake mirage as water, one must have seen real water somewhere.

2. To mistake a rope for a snake, one must have seen a real snake somewhere.

In both the above cases, the non-existent rope or water have a real (higher order of reality) counterpart. 

The reasoning then proceeds as follows- 

If brahman is mistaken for the jagat, it follows therefore that there must be a real jagat somewhere - (higher order real), meaning - there must be a jagat as real as brahman. .

What is this real jagat? This reasoning would be problematic for non-duality. - is what the other party claims.

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

>In both the above cases, the non-existent ***rope or water have a real (higher order of reality) counterpart. 

This should be ***snake and not "rope". Sorry for the error. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji.

1. To mistake mirage as water, one must have seen real water somewhere.

Not correct. To mistake mirage as water, one should have had anubhava of water earlier. That is the requirement. That prior anubhava can either be pramA or bhrama i.e. the vishaya of his anubhava can either be real-water or non-water.

A person, who always have had bhramAtmaka-anubhava of water, can mistake mirage as water.

2. To mistake a rope for a snake, one must have seen a real snake somewhere.

Not necessary. A person who has never seen a real snake, but has only seen snakes in comic books, can confuse a rope for a snake.

A person can confuse something for a non-existent dragon or phoenix.

I am adding the relevant excerpts from SiddhAnta Bindu and Tattva-anusandhAnam.

I have answered this in SDV framework. If you take the DSV framework, the answer will make much more sense. Just refer to dream example. In your dream, Mr A, your companion in Thar desert, confuses mirage for water. Rest is self-explanatory.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

 

Yes, I am not surprised that you couldn’t come up with an answer because you tried to find an answer using a framework of thought away from the philosophical framework of advaita.

The two levels of reality in Advaita are Paramarthika Satya (Absolute Reality) and Vyavakarika Satya (Relative Reality). The Paramarthika Reality is highest, unchanging and ultimate. Level of Existence. According to Advaita only the Brahman Possesses this level of Reality. This is also known as  the Non-dual Pure Consciousness.

Advaita also recognizes that Vyavaharika is the practical, conventional reality that we experience every day which is the world of objects (Jagat). The individual souls (jivas), and a personal God (Ishvara) are also perceived to be part of Vyavaharika.  From our limited perspective, this world appears completely real, but it is ultimately dependent on Brahman and is not absolutely real. It is compared (Dream Reality) to the reality of objects within a dream, which are real only as long as the dream lasts.

As you may see that your argument that mistaking Jagat (the world) for Brahman implies a "Real Jagat" somewhere else is not consistent with the Advaita Vedanta perspective or framework of thoughts. The Mahavakya, Brahma Satyam, Jagan Mithya (Brahman is real, the world is an illusion) is meant to be True within the advaita framework.

Advaita Vedanta refutes by explaining that the misperception does not require an external, "Real" prototype. What is required is the prior experience of a snake, not the simultaneous, or even prior, existence of a Real Snake. The world is an appearance superimposed on Brahman due to ignorance (avidya), just as the illusory snake is superimposed on the rope. The existence of the Mithya (illusion) depends on the perceiver's ignorance and not necessarily a parallel Real object. 

Let me stop here to allow expert scholars to provide additional answers for your question.  We need to recognize that we do not have freedom to find answers using frameworks with different perspectives.  If we want to watch an enjoy a #D movie, we need to wear a 3D enables glasses!  When Arjun wanted to visualize the Vishwarupa, he needed a “Divine Eyes” provided by Lord Krishna!  I am giving these examples to caution why we need to use the Advaita Framework.

With my warm regards,

Ram Chandran

Note: Advaita also includes a lowest degree of reality known as  Pratibhāsika Satya (Illusory Reality): This is the apparent, purely subjective reality, like a hallucination or a mirage.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sudhanshu-ji

>Not correct. To mistake mirage as water, one should have had anubhava of water earlier. That is the requirement. That prior anubhava can either be pramA or bhrama i.e. the vishaya of his anubhava can either be real-water or non-water.

>A person, who always have had bhramAtmaka-anubhava of water, can mistake mirage as water.

Any anubhava of water - real or imaginary, has to be itself based on a prior anubhava of real water. 

>Not necessary. A person who has never seen a real snake, but has only seen snakes in comic books, can confuse a rope for a snake.

True. But comic book snakes are based on real snakes. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji.

How did your companion Mr A, in Thar desert, confused mirage as water in your dream? Which "real water" had he seen which enabled him to confuse mirage as water?

And how did you confuse a "real" light-projection in the 7-D theater as a non-existent dragon/phoenix? You were later complimenting the director and telling me that you got mighty afraid when the dragon came and hissed near you!!

These are standard objections and standard answers. It is for the seeker to apply mind and understand.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2939334e-e741-4b8c-b7f0-fb117a20746cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Sudhanshu-ji

>How did your companion Mr A, in Thar desert, confused mirage as water in your dream? Which "real water" had he seen which enabled him to confuse mirage as water?

It is because I have experienced real water before! Thus, the concept of water can come in my dream.

There must still be a "real water".

>And how did you confuse a "real" light-projection in the 7-D theater as a non-existent dragon/phoenix? You were later complimenting the director and telling me that you got mighty afraid when the dragon came and hissed near you!!

Phoenix and Dragon are non-existent but they depend on things that exist in two ways -

1. As concepts that are presented in real books

2. As ideas or class of "birdness" for phoenix and "reptileness" for dragon. Birdness and Reptileness are real. 

Best Regards

Kalyan 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji. 

It is because I have experienced real water before! Thus, the concept of water can come in my dream.

There must still be a "real water".

Question is not about you. Question is about Mr A. How did he confuse mirage for water. Which real water had Mr A seen before.

Phoenix and Dragon are non-existent but they depend on things that exist in two ways -

1. As concepts that are presented in real books

2. As ideas or class of "birdness" for phoenix and "reptileness" for dragon. Birdness and Reptileness are real. 

You mean to say that non-existent dragon depends on real thing? You mean to say that the reptile-ness in the non-existent-dragon is real? Sir, in order to possess real reptile-ness, there has to be a real-dragon. A non-existent dragon cannot possess real attribute.

The question was this much - to confuse mirage as water, I must have seen "real" water. The answer is - to confuse light-projection as dragon, there is no need to see real-dragon. There is no need that a real dragon must be present somewhere.

Now, you are holding that reptile-ness is real and hence analogy is not perfect. Reptile-ness must be present somewhere. 

So, I can draw a thing which exists nowhere and can project it on theater screen and confuse you. But then you would say, it has seen-ness which is real and hence analogy is not perfect.

You basic presumption of real-ness of seen-objects itself is flawed. In fact by virtue of being seen, your real-water is proved to be illusory. So, unless one comes out of this basic flaw, one will not be able to find the solution to your problem. Because at least seen-ness will remain in the analogy which as per you will be real!!

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

By asking a counter-question, we can arrive at a conclusion to the question of a 'real world' that precedes the world bhrama. The body-bhrama is not separable from the world-bhrama because the body also is part of the world.  The 13th Chapter Bh.Gita teaches that the whole of the creation consists of two divisions: the outside inert world and the body-mind-organs complex that is required to interact with the world. Consciousness is beyond both these components of the world as the ultimate observer. 

All Vedantic systems accept that the identification of the Self with the body-mind complex is a 'bhrama', error:

Shankara's Adhyāsa bhāshya is a document on this very topic.   

श्रीभगवद्यामुनमुनिविरचितगीतार्थसंग्रहव्याख्या   Ramanuja system

नित्यात्मसङ्गकर्मेदृगोचरा सांख्ययोगधीः । द्वितीये स्थितधीलक्षा प्रोक्ता तन्मोहशान्तये ॥6॥
संख्यया- बुद्धयाऽवधारणीयमात्मतत्त्वं सांस्व्यम्, तद्विषयबुद्धिस्सांख्यधीः । नित्यात्मगोचरेति तद्विकरणम् । एवमत्र असङ्गकर्महाशब्देनापि योगशब्दार्थविवरणादपौनरुक्त्यम् । सांख्ययोगयोः-सांख्ययोगयोधः । स्थितधीः.. स्थितप्रज्ञता, ज्ञाननिष्ठेत्यर्थः । सा साध्यत्वेन लक्षं यस्यास्सा तथोक्ता । तन्मोहशान्तये उपकारस्य अर्जुनस्य देहात्मादिभ्रमनिवृत्त्यर्थम् ।   Body-bhrama

बुभुक्षा च पिपासा च शोकमोहौ जरामृती ॥ 26 ॥
षडूर्मयः प्राणबुद्धिदेहेषु स्याद्द्वयन्द्वयम् ।
आत्मत्वेन भ्रमन्त्यत्र वादिनः कोशपञ्चके ॥ 27 ॥  Body bhrama

Madhwa:

'अतो भ्रान्त्यादिसम्बन्धो नास्य क्वचन युज्यते । भ्रान्त्या जीवस्य संसार ईशज्ञानाद्विलीयते । 

भ्रान्तिर्देहाद्यभिमतिरीशज्ञानाद्विनश्यति''॥ इति ब्रह्माण्डे ॥ १०-१२ ॥  Identification with body, etc. is bhranti. 

'आत्मभावः शरीरे तु द्रव्यभ्रम उदाहृतः ।   The identification of the Self with the body is bhrama.

The Bh.Gita 13th chapter is also about this. Also the Upanishads have this very topic to discuss and offer solutions. 

The question arises: If the Atma has to identify itself with the body by taking the body to be the Self, there needs to be a 'real' body which the Atma has experienced/seen before coming to identify with the body, in other words, seeing the body in the place of the Atma, just like the question about the world being seen in the place of Brahman precedes an experience of a real world prior to the jagat bhrama.  One can easily see the absurdity of the question. 

The inevitable conclusion will be: the body is also imagined/imaginary.  Else, can anyone tell who, Ishwara or Prakriti, created a real body and placed it before the Atman to let the Atman to get the first ever bhrama of body-identification? If such a body was indeed created, was it a human body or that of any animal or any other species? What is the rationale behind choosing such a body? Why should the Atma be made to go with x body and not y body?   There are no answers to such questions as all Vedanta schools accept anādi samsara which means there has been anādi world (in srishti, sthiti, laya modes) and anādi jivatva which means embodiedness as anādi.  Thus, the question: was there a real world before the world bhrama can happen? addressed to the Advaitin alone is unreasonable and will only bounce back on the questioner.  The questioner would not like to accept the body and world are unreal but they can't choose otherwise as there is no go for them too to accept the world mithyatva as the body-mithyatva can never be avoided by them. 

warm regards

subbu  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAJkKc0h0X2%2BUCQJaQg3MuxtP-NVnKFrvT5A41fRkcQLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

Except Charvaka, all branches of Indian Philosophy accept that deha-Atma-aikya is illusory. Means deha-AtmA-aikya appears to exist, people act in pursuance thereto but deha-Atma-aikya doesn't exist. It is illusory.

If the logic - to know an illusory object, the real object must be known - is propounded by the opponent -- he must show as to where has he seen a real deha-Atma-aikya.

There is no evidence of real deha-Atma-aikya anywhere. Everywhere it is illusory. Be it a goat's body or lion's body or our relative's bodies.

If the opponent is Charvaka, then his view is easily refuted. Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita guys cannot show an evidence of real dehAtmaikya anywhere and yet they accept the seeing of illusory dehAtmaikya.

So, they have to accept that the rule is incorrect. And an illusory object can be known without having seen corresponding real object earlier. Of course it is shown with great ease in DSV and also through the logics adduced earlier!!

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te05hEcC%3D9TztZcUSOeU4pKjRGbNxFET4sLQTvZRodEkPA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Subbuji

>The question arises: If the Atma has to identify itself with the body by taking the body to be the Self, there needs to be a 'real' body which the Atma has experienced/seen before coming to identify with the body, in other words, seeing the body in the place of the Atma, just like the question about the world being seen in the place of Brahman precedes an experience of a real world prior to the jagat bhrama. One can easily see the absurdity of the question. 

This is a very interesting argument. If the Self is mistaken to be the body, there must be a real body somewhere. 

But this argument does not work because the dvaitins already accept the existence of a real body, unlike the advaitins who hold the body to be unreal. I do not know what is the position of vishishtha-advaitins.

The dvaitins will say that since they accept a real body anyway, the above argument does not work against them.

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

One response from Advaita is that the current appearance of jagat stems from the existing karma / vasanas, which in turn depends on its previous experience of jagat in previous janma which again depends on prior karma / vasanas, so on and so forth - like the seed and the sprout. However there is no fallacy of circular dependency or infinite regress as it is accepted that karma / vasanas & janmas are beginningless. There is no question of first janma or karma. The jagat appearance & experience is generated & rendered by Ishvara (through Ishvara's inherent maya shakti). Ishvara has created this jagat in a certain way through maya, and His maya shakti alone has enabled us to experience this jagat in this certain consistent way. Ishvara and His maya shakti are anadi too.

As a simplified analogy, you can think of this like the Matrix movie (or even Inception) wherein the architect has designed the appearance & experience of the world and wired into the dreamer's mind to experience in a certain way. The infinite omniscience & omnipotence of the architect does not require a real world somewhere to be able to generate this appearance & experience.

prostrations,

Vikram

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste  Sri Vikramji

Your response is excellent. In principle, I do not have anything against your response.

However, Sri Shankara bhagavatpAda rejects this kind of reasoning in his Brahmasutra bhAshya, when considering the position of Buddhist idealists. 

Please refer to BSB 2.2.32, links below - 

https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34206.htm

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-2-05.html

Specifically, I point out this from the first link from the bhAshya translation- 

"The hypothesis of a beginningless series of mental impressions would lead only to a baseless regressus ad infinitum, sublative of the entire phenomenal world, and would in no way establish your position"

Alternately, you may look at BSB 2.2.28-32 for the full arguments.

Best Regards

Kalyan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 7:24 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Subbuji

>The question arises: If the Atma has to identify itself with the body by taking the body to be the Self, there needs to be a 'real' body which the Atma has experienced/seen before coming to identify with the body, in other words, seeing the body in the place of the Atma, just like the question about the world being seen in the place of Brahman precedes an experience of a real world prior to the jagat bhrama. One can easily see the absurdity of the question. 

This is a very interesting argument. If the Self is mistaken to be the body, there must be a real body somewhere. 

But this argument does not work because the dvaitins already accept the existence of a real body, unlike the advaitins who hold the body to be unreal.

Dear Kalyan ji,  

That acceptance is what is questioned and the problem there is shown.  

regards

subbu

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Sorry, the main sutra under consideration is 2.2.30 and not 2.2.32.

The error is regretted. But the links point to the correct sutras.

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

There is a subtle, and very pertinent, difference between Bhagavan Bhashyakara's argument against the Buddhists and Advaita's response to your question.

The Buddhists Idealists (the purvapaksha of this sutra 2.2.30) do not believe in the existence of any external object. They do not admit that an object produces a perception.  For them perception (& the object) is self-generated purely-mental concept. This, Bhagavan Bhashyakara argues, is illogical as there is a lack of a defined basis. Without an external object there cannot be a perception of the object. The infinite tendencies theory or even the seed-sprout theory falls short without a basis. 

But Advaita admits to the existence of the external object. Jagat is mithya (relatively real) and not asat (non-existent). This mithya jagat is created through Ishvara's maya. While all this is accepted to be non-existent in paramarthika, within the scope of vyavaharika (the scope of the question) the external jagat leads to the perception of the jagat (SDV). Hence there is no logical flaw. Swami Gambhirananda's footnotes for this sutra in his translation clarifies this point.

prostrations,

Vikram

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/d036af94-ec8b-4def-b3d9-d2b1e1dd94b2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Vikramji

>There is a subtle, and very pertinent, difference between Bhagavan Bhashyakara's argument against the Buddhists and Advaita's response to your question.

I hope you will pardon me if I call it "your response" and not "advaita's response",  at least until I know that this is the position adopted by traditional teachers of advaita.

Secondly, Please note, I am not in anyway suggesting similarities here between Buddhism and Advaita.

Having clarified the above -Whether it is your response or the Buddhist position, it appears to me that Sri Shankara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions (without corresponding ontological entities like objects). I think your response proposes beginningless series of mental impressions. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

<< it appears to me that Sri Shankara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions (without corresponding ontological entities like objects). I think your response proposes beginningless series of mental impressions.  >>

Yes, Bhagavan Bhashyakara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions without corresponding ontological entities like objects. However, my response (which I believe to be Advaita response) is beginningless series of impressions (karma / vasanas) but includes the corresponding ontological entities (categorized as mithya).

Without the ontological reality of the objects, the mental impressions become baseless & illogical, which is the criticism against Buddhists; however with the ontological reality of the objects there is no more any logical flaw.

prostrations,

Vikram

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Vikramji

In this case, how does this answer the original question?

Lets recap a bit. I am dropping off English and using some Sanskrit terms.

Opponent is claiming that - Mithya snake can be superimposed on a Satya Rope only if there is an experience of a Satya snake beforehand. (Any complicated examples one can think of would still always involve a Satya entity.)

Best Regards

Kalyan 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji, 

A couple of thoughts. 

Before asking whether jagat is real, we have to define real and define jagat. If you know, you can perhaps define these based on references from shastra.

My understanding: 

Real is satyam; and if something is satyam, then it can never be sublated through a higher knowledge. Brahman is that Real, the satyam that underlies all superimposed identifications. It is indicated as Sat-Chit-Ananda, or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss - at least the first two of these are evident in all our knowledge even as the object of knowledge changes. It is the Gold presently seen as ring that later is seen as bangle.

Now imu we say it is Brahman itself that is superimposed, known or cognized as jagat. And Brahman itself is the knower. Jagat involves the identification of Brahman in a plural differentiated manner, a duality of selves defined by nama-rupa upadhis. Such a jagat is the cognition or knowledge of the Self, and by definition jagat (as understood in its manifest sense) is an adhyasa of what is not true of Brahman onto Brahman.

Then what does it mean to say jagat is real? Firstly, the dvaitin and visishtadvaitin hold that the jagat is distinctly real and existent. Its manifest duality is a reality of Existence, either as a body-like part of Brahman or as a dependent but distinct entity (like a new-born baby). The samsara and karma-phala order of jiva-jagat therefore has a fundamental truth that is not sublated by higher knowledge of Self.

For the advaitin however, the jagat-cognition, so long as it is affirmed, is indicative of the cognitive/imaginative potential (Maya) of Brahman (realized as Ishvara here), to see "many" where there is only One. The "table" exists prior to its cognition/manifestation because its knowledge is eternally in Maya/Ishvara - as something Maya can project on/of Brahman that is not satya. Now even if we therefore argue for jagat being a vyavaharika satya (since it has 'existence' in Maya), it has to be accepted here that our notion of reality for jagat is only in the sense of imagination of Self by Self. This is very different from the stand taken by VA or dvaita. jiva-jagat samsara is relevant for us only in ignorance; when there is knowledge of Sat, the samsara becomes superfluous like of a dream (even if we argue over whether dream continues in some cognitive sense or other).

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdMHHM77mMadTDqqGNmr8xwUsL0qsfp0%3DP_4JDxTaD8uQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

The Bhagavatam gives the rope-snake and garland-snake analogies for the world:

आत्मानमेव आत्मतया अविजानतां

तेनैव जातं निखिलं प्रपञ्चितम् ।

ज्ञानेन भूयोऽपि च तत्प्रलीयते

रज्ज्वामहेर्भोगभवाभवौ यथा ।। 10.14.25

A person who mistakes a rope for a snake becomes fearful, but he then gives up his fear upon realizing that the so-called snake does not exist. Similarly, for those who fail to recognize You as the Supreme Soul of all souls, the expansive illusory material existence arises, but knowledge of You at once causes it to subside.

यस्मिन्निदं सदसदात्मतया विभाति

माया विवेकविधुति स्रजि वाहिबुद्धिः ।

तं नित्यमुक्तपरिशुद्धविशुद्धतत्त्वं

प्रत्यूढकर्मकलिलप्रकृतिं प्रपद्ये ॥३८॥ Bhagavatam 4/22/38

The creation is appearing in Brahman due to maya, just as one would take a rope for a snake. The true nature of Brahman can be known by viveka.  Obeisance to that Brahman that is nitya mukta shuddha and free from the blemish of karma. 

Thus Veda Vyasa has used the rope-snake analogy for the world-appearance in Brahman.  It is not just the Advaitins that use the analogy. 

warm regards

subbu

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 9:37 AM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Vikramji

In this case, how does this answer the original question?

Lets recap a bit. I am dropping off English and using some Sanskrit terms.

Opponent is claiming that - Mithya snake can be superimposed on a Satya Rope only if there is an experience of a Satya snake beforehand. (Any complicated examples one can think of would still always involve a Satya entity.)

Best Regards

Kalyan 

On Thursday, 2 October 2025 at 7:43:22 am UTC+5:30 Vikram Jagannathan wrote:

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

<< it appears to me that Sri Shankara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions (without corresponding ontological entities like objects). I think your response proposes beginningless series of mental impressions.  >>

Yes, Bhagavan Bhashyakara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions without corresponding ontological entities like objects. However, my response (which I believe to be Advaita response) is beginningless series of impressions (karma / vasanas) but includes the corresponding ontological entities (categorized as mithya).

Without the ontological reality of the objects, the mental impressions become baseless & illogical, which is the criticism against Buddhists; however with the ontological reality of the objects there is no more any logical flaw.

prostrations,

Vikram

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 7:01 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Vikramji

>There is a subtle, and very pertinent, difference between Bhagavan Bhashyakara's argument against the Buddhists and Advaita's response to your question.

I hope you will pardon me if I call it "your response" and not "advaita's response",  at least until I know that this is the position adopted by traditional teachers of advaita.

Secondly, Please note, I am not in anyway suggesting similarities here between Buddhism and Advaita.

Having clarified the above -Whether it is your response or the Buddhist position, it appears to me that Sri Shankara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions (without corresponding ontological entities like objects). I think your response proposes beginningless series of mental impressions. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/4af48220-68d3-44fe-aa63-b0d286a02cdbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Subbuji

I have fundamentally no problem with any of the Bhagavata purana quotes you gave.

However, your methodology of trying to counter a purely logical question from dvaitins/vishishta-advaitins using scripture, is incorrect, because the other parties are sure to have their own explanations of such scriptural passages. 

Meaning, I am saying that a logical question must be countered purely logically, not by resorting to scripture. 

Even if you disagree with what I say, please note that at least I am looking for a logic based answer to this question. 

Best Regards

Kalyan 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 12:19 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Subbuji

I have fundamentally no problem with any of the Bhagavata purana quotes you gave.

However, your methodology of trying to counter a purely logical question from dvaitins/vishishta-advaitins using scripture, is incorrect, because the other parties are sure to have their own explanations of such scriptural passages. 

Meaning, I am saying that a logical question must be countered purely logically, not by resorting to scripture. 

Even if you disagree with what I say, please note that at least I am looking for a logic based answer to this question. 

Dear Kalyan ji,

It is solely with the difficulty they face to give a logical answer to that do the non-Advaitins have devised a different way of explaining those verses. I have already asked the counter question:  What about the Atma adhyasa in the body-mind complex or the reverse? Should one not have seen a real body mind complex before he superimposed the same on the Atman?  If they find a reply to that, then they would not pose that question to the Advaitin. 

The Advaitins have already provided the answer:  Adhyasa requires only samskara and a samskara can be generated even from an unreal thing. 

  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/769c113f-4452-4ed6-a8e5-59f1fecfbc45n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

The ongoing discussions make me to remember the statement: “no one is convinced by others' arguments.” This is a description of how and why persuasion often fails. Many researches have shown that presenting many arguments can lead to skepticism and appearance of ulterior motives, making persuasion more difficult. The ongoing arguments are well-reasoned causing both opposing views appear to be acceptable. We may need to cultivate the habit of active listening which can greatly help us to, understand the differences in perspectives and to appreciate the more authentic viewpoints. When we try our level best to convince others with strong arguments, we may be able to Persuade others to listen the essence of what we try to convey.  The social interactions through persuasion may positively affect an individual to become more open minded. .

If and when an argument doesn't make any sense, it may be mostly because it is logically false.  Any argument with ‘ real merit’  needs to avoid logical fallacy in reasoning and any failure will lead to more confusion!  We do need to recognize the fact that someone committing logical fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that person is wrong.

This message of me is just inform my fellow posters to be aware that we do have the right to persuade others to listen to what we try to convey. Also at the same time, we do need to cultivate the habit to listen what the other person wants to convey in opposition or support what we conveyed!

Thanks for listening,

Warm regards,

Ram ChandWhat is posted here may be relevant in many of our social interactions on different topics and subject matters!

ran

Note: Please note that what is posted here is a general statement and I have no intention to be critical.  My post may be useful in many social interactions that we participate on different topics and subject matters!

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 5:29 PM <raghav...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbuji

Wouldn’t both viśiṣṭādvaita as well as advaita agree on the anāditvaṁ of dehātma-bhrama implying both schools look at pūrva-bhrama saṁskāra causing subsequent janma with its attendant dehātma bhāva?

Dear Raghav ji,

I think since all schools accept anaditva of samsara, the body adhyasa also must be admitted to be anādi. And the bhrama samskara perpetuates the samsara.  

The only difference being the satyatva of the body and mithyātva of the body?

Yes, while Advaita would hold the body is mithya (we have a classification: mukhyātma = Sākshi, mithyātma = body mind complex and gaunātma = the identification with mine - persons, property, etc. outside one's body.  Shankara has specified the last two in the Sundara Pandya verses he has cited at the end of the Tat tu samanvayāt bhashya. गौणमिथ्यात्मनोऽसत्त्वे पुत्रदेहादिबाधनात् । सद्ब्रह्मात्माहमित्येवं बोधे कार्यं कथं भवेत् ॥  the other schools would not hold the body mithya as that would lead to holding the entire world mithya. But the Gita 13th ch. is clear:  the body mind organs complex and the outside world are all kshetram and as per Shankara bhashya, the last verse of that chapter says: the kshetram is mithya. 

warm regards

subbu

Om

Raghav

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

>>>> beginningless series of impressions (karma / vasanas) *but includes*

>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/4af48220-68d3-44fe-aa63-b0d286a02cdbn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

>>> .

>>>

>> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

> "advaitin" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/769c113f-4452-4ed6-a8e5-59f1fecfbc45n%40googlegroups.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/769c113f-4452-4ed6-a8e5-59f1fecfbc45n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

> .

>

_______________________________________________

Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

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

For assistance, contact:

listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

<< Opponent is claiming that - Mithya snake can be superimposed on a Satya Rope only if there is an experience of a Satya snake beforehand. >>

This claim is invalid. Mithya snake can be superimposed even if there is an experience of a mithya snake beforehand. The prior snake doesn't have to be satya. This avoids all logical fallacies as karma-janma are anadi and the mithya snake is a perceived ontological entity created by Ishvara's maya.

prostrations,

Vikram

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 11:07 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Vikramji

In this case, how does this answer the original question?

Lets recap a bit. I am dropping off English and using some Sanskrit terms.

Opponent is claiming that - Mithya snake can be superimposed on a Satya Rope only if there is an experience of a Satya snake beforehand. (Any complicated examples one can think of would still always involve a Satya entity.)

Best Regards

Kalyan 

On Thursday, 2 October 2025 at 7:43:22 am UTC+5:30 Vikram Jagannathan wrote:

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

<< it appears to me that Sri Shankara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions (without corresponding ontological entities like objects). I think your response proposes beginningless series of mental impressions.  >>

Yes, Bhagavan Bhashyakara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions without corresponding ontological entities like objects. However, my response (which I believe to be Advaita response) is beginningless series of impressions (karma / vasanas) but includes the corresponding ontological entities (categorized as mithya).

Without the ontological reality of the objects, the mental impressions become baseless & illogical, which is the criticism against Buddhists; however with the ontological reality of the objects there is no more any logical flaw.

prostrations,

Vikram

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 7:01 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Vikramji

>There is a subtle, and very pertinent, difference between Bhagavan Bhashyakara's argument against the Buddhists and Advaita's response to your question.

I hope you will pardon me if I call it "your response" and not "advaita's response",  at least until I know that this is the position adopted by traditional teachers of advaita.

Secondly, Please note, I am not in anyway suggesting similarities here between Buddhism and Advaita.

Having clarified the above -Whether it is your response or the Buddhist position, it appears to me that Sri Shankara rejects beginningless series of mental impressions (without corresponding ontological entities like objects). I think your response proposes beginningless series of mental impressions. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/4af48220-68d3-44fe-aa63-b0d286a02cdbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Putran ji,

Excellent writeup sir. My understanding is aligned with your comments.

--

Acknowledging in more detail; please let me know if our understanding differs anywhere.

<< Before asking whether jagat is real, we have to define real and define jagat. If you know, you can perhaps define these based on references from shastra. >>

Real (satya) is that which when once ascertained remains ever unsublated. Jagat is the ever changing objects of experience (prameya). By this very definition, jagat is not satya. Mithya is also defined as an object of experience (drishya). Thus jagat is mithya.

<< Real is satyam; and if something is satyam, then it can never be sublated through a higher knowledge. Brahman is that Real, the satyam that underlies all superimposed identifications. It is indicated as Sat-Chit-Ananda, or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss - at least the first two of these are evident in all our knowledge even as the object of knowledge changes. It is the Gold presently seen as ring that later is seen as bangle. >>

Agreed.

<< Now imu we say it is Brahman itself that is superimposed, known or cognized as jagat. And Brahman itself is the knower. >>

Agreed; this is just as how we say that the rope itself appears as the snake.

<< Jagat involves the identification of Brahman in a plural differentiated manner, a duality of selves defined by nama-rupa upadhis. Such a jagat is the cognition or knowledge of the Self, and by definition jagat (as understood in its manifest sense) is an adhyasa of what is not true of Brahman onto Brahman. >>

Agreed.

<< Then what does it mean to say jagat is real? >>

When a purvapaksha makes this claim, it is important to first clarify their definition and understanding of 'real'. When an advaitin makes this claim, 'real' here is mithya (relatively-real or empirically-real).

<< Firstly, the dvaitin and visishtadvaitin hold that the jagat is distinctly real and existent. Its manifest duality is a reality of Existence, either as a body-like part of Brahman or as a dependent but distinct entity (like a new-born baby). >>

If my understanding is correct, both VA and D define real as anything that is capable of being experienced. They do not differentiate between satya and mithya ontologically. Hence their use of the word real could differ between advaita satya or mithya and cause fundamental confusion.

<< The samsara and karma-phala order of jiva-jagat therefore has a fundamental truth that is not sublated by higher knowledge of Self. >>

Agreed; furthermore VA's and D's definition of 'Self' too is different from Advaita. In some form 'Self' for them is same as jiva/jivatma. Hence, according to them the knowledge of 'Self' cannot (and will not) sublate jiva-jagat distinction.

<< For the advaitin however, the jagat-cognition, so long as it is affirmed, is indicative of the cognitive/imaginative potential (Maya) of Brahman (realized as Ishvara here), to see "many" where there is only One. The "table" exists prior to its cognition/manifestation because its knowledge is eternally in Maya/Ishvara - as something Maya can project on/of Brahman that is not satya. Now even if we therefore argue for jagat being a vyavaharika satya (since it has 'existence' in Maya), it has to be accepted here that our notion of reality for jagat is only in the sense of imagination of Self by Self. >>

Very well put and agreed! Even though mithya is said to be vyavahara-satya and has the word 'satya' in it, it is actually indescribable. Even the vyavahara-satya, as you mention below, is relevant for us only in ignorance.

<< This is very different from the stand taken by VA or dvaita. jiva-jagat samsara is relevant for us only in ignorance; >>

While VA and D do transcend samsara, per my understanding, VA and D never attempt to sublate the jiva-jagat-Ishvara distinction. Samsara, for them, is satya and transcending samsara implies actually moving away from the material plane of samsara to a distinct divine plane.

<< when there is knowledge of Sat, the samsara becomes superfluous like of a dream (even if we argue over whether dream continues in some cognitive sense or other). >>

Agreed.

 

dhanyosmi

prostrations,

Vikram 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 6:17 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Dear Subbuji
Thank you for the detailed reply
What I meant was that by invoking the anAditvaM of the bhrama, even those
who hold the body to be real do not have to answer when or how the first
dehAtma bhrama occurred.

Thus, they can hold the body to be real (created by Ishvara based on past
karma) and yet dehAtma-bhAva to be a continuation of bhrama due to past
saMskAra.

I seem to be missing something in what is the weakness in holding the body
to be real but dehAtma-bhAva to be anAdi bhrama in these dualistic schools.

Namaste Raghav ji,

Those who accept the body adhyasa on the part of the jiva should answer the question:  if the jiva has mistaken the body to be the self, this cannot happen unless he has seen a real body before such mistaking. One might say this objection is absurd.  This is the same absurdity in asking the advaitin: has the jiva seen a real world before mistaking Brahman to be the world? 

Actually the acceptance of anāditva of samsāra prevents all such absurd questions. If samsara is due to the fundamental error of taking the body to be the Self (or the Self to be the body), such samsara has to be deemed unreal, by default. Holding samsara and the world that enables samsara to be real will not absolve them of the question posed above. Anādi bhrama and anādi samsara is admitted by all. For example in the Mandukya Upanishad 

अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुद्ध्यते ।

अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुद्ध्यते तदा ॥ ८ ॥  (This is Gaudapada karika for Advaita)

When the jiva wakes up from the delusion caused by anādi māyā he is freed from samsara.  

Madhwa says:

अनादिमायया विष्णोरिच्छया स्वापितो यदा ।

 

तया प्रबोधमायाति तदा विष्णुं प्रपश्यति ॥

 

इति प्रकाशिकायाम् ॥

anādi māyā = Vishnu's will.  The jiva is put into sleep by this Will of Vishnu. The awakening also happens by the same Vishnu's will. Then the jiva realizes Vishnu. 

Advaitins also hold that the samsara sleep is due to maya, which is the Ishwara shakti specified by Krishna in BG 7th chapter as 'daivI guṇamayī My māya:

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया । मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते ॥ १४ ॥ 7.14

One can easily see that there is absolutely no scope for the non-Advaitin to ask that question. 

Hope this clarifies.

warm regards

subbu

  

Om
Raghav

On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 11:55 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 5:29 PM <raghav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Subbuji
>> Wouldn’t both viśiṣṭādvaita as well as advaita agree on the anāditvaṁ of
>> dehātma-bhrama implying both schools look at pūrva-bhrama saṁskāra causing
>> subsequent janma with its attendant dehātma bhāva?
>>
>
> Dear Raghav ji,
>
> I think since all schools accept anaditva of samsara, the body adhyasa
> also must be admitted to be anādi. And the bhrama samskara perpetuates the
> samsara.
>
>>
>> The only difference being the satyatva of the body and mithyātva of the
>> body?
>>
>
> Yes, while Advaita would hold the body is mithya (we have a
> classification: mukhyātma = Sākshi, mithyātma = body mind complex and
> gaunātma = the identification with mine - persons, property, etc. outside
> one's body.  Shankara has specified the last two in the Sundara Pandya
> verses he has cited at the end of the Tat tu samanvayāt bhashya.

> *गौणमिथ्या**त्मनो*ऽसत्त्वे पुत्रदेहादिबाधनात् । सद्ब्रह्मात्माहमित्येवं

> बोधे कार्यं कथं भवेत् ॥  the other schools would not hold the body mithya
> as that would lead to holding the entire world mithya. But the Gita 13th
> ch. is clear:  the body mind organs complex and the outside world are all
> kshetram and as per Shankara bhashya, the last verse of that chapter says:
> the kshetram is mithya.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
>
>
>
>
>> Om
>> Raghav
>>
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

>> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_&af_ios_store_cpp=9d3a686e-218d-4849-8298-b480188dc8ac&af_android_url=https%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2Fdetails%3Fid%3Dcom.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail%26listing%3Demail_signature>

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

       though mithya is said to be vyavahara-satya and has the word 'satya' in it, it is actually indescribable. Even the vyavahara-satya, as you mention below, is relevant for us only in ignorance.

This is a subtle point. The description of Brahman as Ishvara and reduction of jiva-jagat samsara to Maya has the specific effect of dissociating reality from the jiva-jagat, by emphasizing dream-likeness etc. But the fallback onto duality of Self with maya as adjunct is ultimately considered adhyaropa.  I think this final-description is a point of contention in this forum with SSS people; but the others agree that it is valid and proper. Ultimately there would be apavada of such a description as well. However it cannot be done simply "logically"; logically there has to be conceded Maya as the all-consuming shakti of Brahman, but we add that Maya is itself "actually indescribable" (anirvachaniya). (On a lighter note: we need not pretend that we understand this fully - that is why it is said to be anirvachaniya :)

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Balagopal Ramakrishnan]

Hari Om 

Does the Kena mantra 2.2 - नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति नो न वेदेति वेद च ।

यो नस्तद्वेद तद्वेद नो न वेदेति वेद च ॥ २॥ I indicates that knowing Brahman is really 'claiming' Brahman as ONESELF. As subject is never an object. And the SELF being 'advaitham' and the 'kaaraNam' of 'jagat', isn't the 'mithyattwam' of 'kaaryam' automatically established 🤔

Regards 

Balagopal Ramakrishnan 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-okyYZc3a%3DwpVODu7EsC5_gXF6gnR0Oopmqh5YWQv9pYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

From slightly modified version of this second post, to my personal group:

 ... [Finally,] the description of Brahman as Ishvara and reduction of jiva-jagat samsara to Maya has the specific effect of dissociating reality from the jiva-jagat, by emphasizing dream-likeness etc. But the fallback onto duality of Self with maya as adjunct is also considered adhyaropa [a special intentional superimposition, corresponding to our context of identification but which becomes negated (apavada) at a later stage of realisation]. I think this final-description [of Brahman as Ishvara in the absolute unitary sense] is a point of contention among some advaitins as well; but [most] agree that it is valid and proper ['vyavaharika satya', the highest reading of Brahman of the vyavaharika standpoint]. Ultimately however there would be apavada of such a description as well. 

[putran M]

 ... [Finally,] the description of Brahman as Ishvara and reduction of jiva-jagat samsara to Maya has the specific effect of dissociating reality from the jiva-jagat, by emphasizing dream-likeness etc.,

and shifting attention to the non-dual Self appearing as the All. ...

[V Subrahmanian]

Just wanted to add to this thread that the very first shloka of the Bhagavatam says 'the creation (world) is an appearance in Brahman: yatra trisargo mRShA. 

And we have already seen the Bhagavatam gives the rope snake analogy to the world and also has the clay-pot, etc examples for the Advaitic idea of non difference of cause and effect.

regards 

subbu

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Putran ji,

<< Ultimately however there would be apavada of such a description as well. >>

Yes indeed. Teachings such as "neha nanasti kinchana" is the apavada of the jagat and its mithyatva etc.

prostrations,

Vikram

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-r9dz%2BJV9sGborGnt%2Bwph8bNrBhTKtUeh3rVU32HZU05A%40mail.gmail.com.