The world and brahman

[Anand V. Hudli]

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:13:22 PDT, nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM>
wrote:

>0. Is the essence of the world brahman? If by essence it's
>meant - something at the core (like the Self in the body or
>the seed in a plant) - then what about the rest - the body?
>Is that the illusion?
>
>1. Or is the world a total other to brahman (salt and water)?
>If so, then as per Advaitam since Brahman is one without
>another, then the world would be only an illusion.
>
>2. Or is the world itself brahman (as gold is the truth, in
>gold ornaments)? Then what's the illusion?
>

 How Shankara has answered these questions can be answered by
 taking a "wholistic" approach to his writings rather than examining
 some quotes. There are two main topics that would help one to
 narrow down the search for Shankara's views on these. 1) His
 commentaries/explanation of Cosmogony/Cosmology. 2) His commentaries/
 explanation of the waking, dream, and sleep states. This is because
 Shankara is more likely to say the world evolved from Brahman, and
 is essentially Brahman in his discussion of cosmology and he is
 more likely to discuss the illusory nature of the world in a
 discussion of the dream and waking states.

 Shankara's Cosmological explanation is found, for example, in his
 commentaries on the sixth chapter of the chhAndogya upanishhad,
 upadesha-sAhasrI, first chapter, passages 18-22, BrahmasUtra bhAshhya,
 third chapter, second pAda, bR^ihadAraNyaka upanishhad, chapter 1,
 brAhmaNa 4, and elsewhere. His explanation of the dream and waking
 states can be found, for example, in the commentary on the vaitathya
 prakaraNa of the mANDUkya kArikA of GauDapAda, upadesha-sAhasrI,
 chapters 17, 18 of the metrical section and others.

 In the context of explaining the origin and creation of the universe,
 Shankara does say that all this originated from Brahman. In that sense,
 the world is Brahman. But an analysis of the dream and waking states
 based on statements from the shruti shows that the objects in both
 states are not real. In this sense, the world is an illusion.

 Some academics make a rather dubious claim that Shankara's explanation
 of cosmology shows that he is more of a "realist" than an "illusionist."
 And they go on to say that Shankara's disciples carried the illusionist
 aspects of advaita too far, something that Shankara had not intended.
 But this is by no means universally accepted, and certainly not
 accepted by the advaita tradition.

 It is not hard to see clearly through this web of confusion. Shankara has
 said that the waking state is akin to the dream state "svapne yadvat-
 prabodhe" (up.sA.) and further says, "avidyAprabhavaM sarvam-asat-
 tasmAdidaM jagat.h" (all this world originates from avidyA, ignorance,
 and is therefore unreal, upadesha sAhasrI, 2.17.20). Given that the
 waking and dream states are alike, in the sense objects in both are
 unreal, it is easy to answer these questions all of which pertain to
 the world perceived in the waking state:

>0. Is the essence of the world brahman? If by essence it's
>meant - something at the core (like the Self in the body or
>the seed in a plant) - then what about the rest - the body?
>Is that the illusion?

 Yes. The world that you are talking about is perceived in the waking state.
 It is no different from a dream.

>1. Or is the world a total other to brahman (salt and water)?
>If so, then as per Advaitam since Brahman is one without
>another, then the world would be only an illusion.
>

 The world is projected from Brahman/Self just as dream objects are
 projected in the mind from the Self. Are the dream objects
 completely different from the Self? Perhaps not. But they
 are not real. Dream objects can never be real.

>2. Or is the world itself brahman (as gold is the truth, in
>gold ornaments)? Then what's the illusion?
>
  If the dream objects are the Self, then the world too is so.
  Otherwise not.

 Anand

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Fri Oct  1 03:25:29 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.1.OCT.1999.032529.0000.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:25:29 +0000
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: advaita epistemology

Devendra Vyas <dev_vyas74 at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>why advaita epistemology  'verbal testimony' is taken as a valid source of
>knowledge ,indeed all the logic and arguments of advaita can be attacked if
>the excuse of verbal testimnoy is not considered;is this why verbal
>testimony is accepted?why this axiomatic approach in a system which prides
>itself on it's very rigid and logical methods?

Let us turn around the question and ask this - is it possible to have any
rigid and logical system with no axioms whatsoever? At the root, there has
to be an axiomatic approach. There is no escape from it.

Vidyasankar

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.