Still Confusion regarding Shankara’s co

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Rushikesh K. Joshi wrote:

> > 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.
>

Please clarify.  What is the beginning of Bhakti, radical idealism,
illusion or absurdity?

>
> 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 ?

Brahman is the pots essential existence.  The appearence which I deny is
maya.

> 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.
>

Your argument is predicated upon the idea that Brahman cannot be
recognized.  It is covered or veiled by maya yes, but not so completely
that it is impossible for us to ever pierce the veil.  We can always know
the essential nature of a thing because we know that the essential nature
is Brahman and Brahman is self-illuminating.  If this were not so Moksha
would be impossible as we would never be able to know Brahman.  (You
cannot wriggle out of this by saying "we were always Brahman"  because the
natural state of the jiva is delusion and it doesn't know this yet.)  Maya
does not become irrelevant because it explains why the deluded observers
observe the same things.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!