Still Confusion regarding Shankara’s co

[Rushikesh K. Joshi]

> You can see that a radical idealism which treats objects as being wholly
> illusionary will only end up in absurdity.


This is the beginning of Bhakti.



> The pot has an essential existence which is illumined by
> Brahman.  It appears different from Brahman because of maya.



This looks paradoxical. You say that the pot has an essential
existence, and then you deny its appearance immediately. Now I am
confused, what 'essential existence' are you talking about ?
The existence that cannot be verified due to the Maya obstruction,
or the existence that has been verified ? If the former, then the
the idea of pot itself is illusory, and hence the pot as it is
known now is non-existent, and hence talking about its essential
existence becomes absurd. But if the latter, then you are saying
that there is nothing like Maya. And hence talking about Maya becomes
absurd.


> Sometimes
> the Acharya have used language of awakening from a dream as an evocative
> metaphor for jnana but it is not something to be taken literally.


That's convenient.
In many other cases too.


- joshi