ADVAITA-L Digest - question?

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik at ENG.AUBURN.EDU> wrote:

>Sincerely sorry for opening up a topic on Buddhism. I read a few books on

Why be sorry, It may help us to understand advaita better?

>MMK (13.3) "Because of the perception of change, the absence of self-nature
>of existents is [recognized]. Because of the emptiness (shUnyataa) of
>existents, there is no existent without self-nature".
>
>> can say is that the seen object has no reality apart from you, i.e., there is
>> no way of distinguishing objects seen "outside" and "inside" (waking and
>> dream). This is the only way we can say "jagat mithya", i.e., ascribing a
>> special reality to the world, apart from you, is "mithya". A seer is
 certainly
>> meaningful, since there must be someone to deny the "seen", otherwise you get
>
>If the "seen" is non-existent, how then can there be a "seer" for the word
>"seer" to have meaning?

I don't know what you mean by non-existent, I take it you mean it to be an
"illusion" or maya.

The reality of the seer need not be denied even if the seen is an "illusion".
Examples from vyaavahaarika satya:

1. We see the blue sky, but we know it not to be blue. Inspite of knowing this
we see the illusory blue colour,however, notice that the seer is not negated.

2. If you go on the road in a car, in a really sunny hot day, you'll see
mirages of water on the road. You can deduce that there is no water since there
would've been no rain for quite sometime. Still, the mirage persists, though
you know it to be an "illusion". Of course when you come very near the mirage it
disappears. However, the reality of the seer cannot be negated even here.

further,

in deep sleep there is no "seen". However the "I" consciousness still exists.

Actually the reasoning is quite simple.

I see an object and determine the reality or unreality of it. Say I determine
it as "unreal". In this case, there must be _some one_ to negate the reality of
the "seen" object. As I showed in the examples above, the seen can be determined
as illusory, but the seer cannot be negated. It is quite clear that just because
the seen is doubted, it is not the case that the seer is also to be doubted.
That cannot be, since there must be someone to do the doubting. Don't accept
Nagarjuna's (or for that matter mine) word for it. Think about it, the seen
being illusory, cannot imply that the seer is also illusory.

Perhaps, you are confused by the jagat mithya statement which advaita is fond
of. A brief write-up of my understanding:

The two types of states in which we experience the "seen" are the svapna and
jaagrat. The former is the "reality" one experiences in dreams and the latter
the "reality" of the waking state. We take dreams to be real when asleep and
realize it's "false-ness" on waking up. By various arguments we can deduce
that the jaagrat and svapna avathas cannot be _meaningfully and fairly
distinguished_ as "more real" and "less real". I will not repeat all the
statements from the kaarikaa with shaMkara's masterly commentary on them.

You should really read gauDapaada kaarikaa, where shaMkara also goes through
some objections which may arise. The bulk of this material is in the vaithaatya
prakaraNa (second chapter). Thus the statement "jagat mithya" arises. In the
kaarikaa, gauDapaada admits diversity of experience, but says "thoughtful
persons speak of the similarity of dreams and the waking state". Thus the
diversity of experience in the jaagrat avastha is not denied per se, only the
"special" reality which people usually ascribe to it is denied.

In other places he denies creation itself. However, it should be realized that
this latter statement is what _he_ knows to be true. If you have faith in him
you can accept that on "realization" you'll experience the same thing. However,
th other arguments (like the similarity of jaagrat and svapna avasthas) are
based purely on logic and does not require jnaani-hood.

Ofcourse, from the point of view of a jnaani there is no creation at all, and
hence jagat mithya is just that for him. However, we do not know that yet, it's
only hearsay. shaMkara emphasizes the the jaagrat avastha in the suutra
bhaashhya. But I feel this is more to conduct arguments with dvaitins rather
than anything else.

Later advaitins like bhaaratii tiirtha talk about paaramaartika,
praatibhaasika and vyaavahaarika satyas. I am not too fond of these kinds of
arguments, since you get caught more into the dvaitin quagmire. More arguments
about jivan-mukti etc arise. Of course these kinds of arguments have the
advantage that the svapna avastha is not given equal status with the jaagrat
avastha, which will appeal to dvaitins better.

>I don't know what is meant by "anybody". :-) Nagarjuna seems to say that
>the "seer" is non-existent apparently because of the word "seer" (as above)
>being a subject in seer-sees-seen.

This is not clear to me.

>Probably a play on the word "can". But I think I see your point.
>
>> The last statement above is according to masters, who I have
>> faith in, and certainly not by experience. So breaking away from formal
>> language is quite an impossibility and indulging in such a thing by making
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Perhaps you meant : possible only on realization?

Yes, but that's only a belief. It's not based on my experience.

Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate