[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 29

[Nagarjuna Siddhartha]

> Well, we are talking about reality of world and not
> its self-nature or it's
> independence from Brahmn. You are saying , world is
> unreal in terms of its
> separate self-nature , and may I ask why there
> should be any condition (such
> as "self-nature" ) for the definition of Reality ?

Refer to the hardness example in my previous mail to
see why.

> What is the pramaNa for such definition of reality ?


Inference.

>Reality is nothing to do with dependence or
> not.

It definitely has. That too when you talk about
essence. The sun and moon example should tell us why.
Pose the question - Is the moon essentially luminous?
A "No", which is the correct answer,contradicts our
perception.(Gives us one reason why perception cannot
always be trusted.) Perception alone would not notice
such dependancy (of the moon on the sun) and might
confuse this with self-nature of the moon. Here
perception does not give reality due to dependance
involved.

>We do agree, this world and all these jIvas are
> eternally depends on
> Brahmn. 

That would mean that the the world and the jivas have
no self-nature. This is the best justification for
advaita that one can get.


> True, but, we need physical moon to begin with  to
> reflect the sun's light,
> isn't it ? Sun itself is not Moon. Without moon, no
> moon light even if sun
> light is there. Moon light depends on Sun light but
> also at the same time
> moon is *as real as* the Sun itself.

The analogy is not about whether the physical moon is
as real as the sun. It is about whether or not the
moon is luminous like the sun. A non-luminous moon
appears to be lumionus here.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com