Connection between Real and unreal

[egodust]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Ram Chandran wrote:
>
>
> > ...                                                           .....
> > question.  Whenever I try to explain REAL, I only elaborate how UNREAL I
> > am!  All my explanations are just my own thoughts or the thoughts of
> > others! Unfortunately there is no communication channel between the REAL
> > and UNREAL!  There can never be any communication channel between REAL
> > and UNREAL! When I experience REAL, I become SILENT and TOTAL PEACE and
> > completely FREE!  I will have neither thoughts nor any IDENTITY!
> > Brahman is THAT IT IS and not THIS IS IT!
> >
>
> Namaste.
>
> Yes, certainly, there is no connection between the Real and the unreal.
> Not even the vedas. Vedas also fall into the realm of maaya and hence are
> not a connection between the Real and the unreal.
>
> In the past few weeks, there is some mention of experiencing the Reality.
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Allan Curry quoted Puligandla's text where Puligandla stated that
> experiencing the reality is unsublatable. Experience as pramAna was being
> discussed in other threads. It was also mentioned by Shri Ram Chandran in
> the referred paragraph above.
>
> But, can the Reality be experienced by a human ? If human is in mithya and
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
> is a mithya, how can human experience Reality ? My feeling is, one cannot.
> The most a human can do, in my view, is to recognize what is real and what
> is unreal (not only intellectually but most importantly also in day to day
> life). That alone would give a human eternal bliss. Such a person is
> beyond the worldly attachments, and would not even be concerned whether
> there is a re-birth or not. Because such a person has attained moksha here
> itself. But, I do not think there is something called experience of Reality.
>                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^
> Would it not be conceptually simpler and easier to comprehend if we see
> the Brahman Realization as the natural state and the human life as an
> experience ? After all, experiences are short-term duration phenomenon
> and may be wrong, whereas the jnana state is real and natural.
>

Concur.

Here's an excerpt from a recent reply to a question re this idea:

There is no realization for the jiva.  That's why there is, per se, no
such thing as a jnani.  The jnani isn't a person.  A burnt rope is *not*
a rope, it only looks to be one.  The ego or jiva is only capable of
unrealization; or the realization that it itself *can't realize*.  This
is what's meant by the surrender or destruction of ego-Mind.  So that, if
we can discover that our perception being charged with the names and forms
of maya is not to be somehow switched to some rarefied conceptual/experiential
idea of the names and forms, *as such*, of brahman (which don't exist),
we'll abandon our rigid pre-set notions of concrete hands-on bliss.
This is why psychic and psychedelic experiences, although harbingers on
the path, don't themselves confer samadhi.

******

_______________________

"There are no answers
       because
there are no questions."
_______________________

http://digital.net/~egodust