When we say jagad is mithya, when we say the experienced is mithya, the word mithya is a new word in our dictionary . Many a times we hear 'just mithya, simply mithya'. The word mithya itself we dont understand being a new fresh word, then on top of that , when adjectives such as 'just' or 'simply' are used, then we are even more confounded.
I rely on pujya swamijis definition of what mithya means.
Swamiji says , mithya means , "that which doesnt have existence of its own".
Now our examples given such as pot, such as ornaments, are clear enough to convey just that meaning , "doesnt have existence of its own".
So the message as as follows.
Atma alone is satyam. And everything experienced is mithya. It has no existence of its own, so when we say anything "is" the existence , the "is" , refers to atma and there is no other vastu. Atma is limitless by definition and limitless means non dual by definition.
Now where does that leave objects of the world. What about the body then. Body 'is', but there isnt a thing as body, its existence is from the one vastu atma.
But we cant say body is "not" also, there is a transactional truth for body.
So we cant use the word "non existent". Horn of a hare is non existent. But a tree exists, so we dont use the word "anrtam", which means "non existent".
Hence the word to be used here is 'mithya'. It has no direct english equivalent. That is why in english it is unfolded.
When it is explained only it gains a meaning, as its a new word. Rather a meaning is present, that meaning is assigned a word "mithya".
That meaning we apply to our understanding of the jagad. We say jagad mithya, and atma satyam.
I rely on pujya swamijis definition of what mithya means.
Swamiji says , mithya means , "that which doesnt have existence of its own".
Now our examples given such as pot, such as ornaments, are clear enough to convey just that meaning , "doesnt have existence of its own".
So the message as as follows.
Atma alone is satyam. And everything experienced is mithya. It has no existence of its own, so when we say anything "is" the existence , the "is" , refers to atma and there is no other vastu. Atma is limitless by definition and limitless means non dual by definition.
Now where does that leave objects of the world. What about the body then. Body 'is', but there isnt a thing as body, its existence is from the one vastu atma.
But we cant say body is "not" also, there is a transactional truth for body.
So we cant use the word "non existent". Horn of a hare is non existent. But a tree exists, so we dont use the word "anrtam", which means "non existent".
Hence the word to be used here is 'mithya'. It has no direct english equivalent. That is why in english it is unfolded.
When it is explained only it gains a meaning, as its a new word. Rather a meaning is present, that meaning is assigned a word "mithya".
That meaning we apply to our understanding of the jagad. We say jagad mithya, and atma satyam.
No comments:
Post a Comment