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

[Jay Nelamangala]

>terms. Thus hardness is not real in itself. We are
>increasing our level of understanding by looking at
>the essence in each case.

You can also increase your level of understanding
by looking at the grosser forms,  just as you look at
subtler forms.  Both are needed.  No can say one
knowledge has higher level truth than other knwoeldge.

"aNoraNeeyAn mahatO maheeyAn sam anusmarEdyaha"
One need to understand the subtler of the subtlest,
and bigger than the biggest.

>From brick you need to go down,  from the same brick
you need to go up as well.  Either knowledge has the
same truth,  because there are no levels in truth to begin
with.  Either it is true or it is not true.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nagarjuna Siddhartha" <nagarjunasiddhartha at yahoo.com>
To: "Jay Nelamangala" <jay at r-c-i.com>; <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 29


> Dear Nelamangala,
>
> > What is self-nature?.  Give me the sanskrit
> > equivalent.
>
> I suggest sva-bhAva as the equivalent. But please keep
> in mind that my sanskrit knowledge is limited.
>
> > What is reality to you?
>
> Metaphysical notion of reality can be defined as the
> ultimate essence.
>
> > For me,  if you bang your head on a brick and get
> > hurt
> > because the brick is hard,  then that is reality.
>
> Look at the essence of the process. What makes the
> brick hard? What causes the sensation of pain? What
> phenomenon in this world express themselves as
> hardness and pain?
>
> > How molecules are arranged is left to nature.  But
> > the
> > fact remains that nature 'did'  arrange brick
> > molecules
> > and pillow molecules differently for 'real'.  That
> > is reality.
> >
> > Why do you deny this 'reality' of work of nature ?
>
> None denies the empirical reality of nature.Hardness
> is accepted as some level of reality. But a better
> sense of reality is obtained by looking in molecular
> terms. Thus hardness is not real in itself. We are
> increasing our level of understanding by looking at
> the essence in each case. Yes, the different
> arrangements of molecules has its own empirical
> reality. But it would not be wise to claim that that
> is reality in itself. For in each case we again need
> to look at the essence. Hardness for example depends
> on the arrangement of molecules and has no separate
> reality. Since you accept the absolute dependance of
> the world on brahman, you are accepting brahman as the
> ultimate essence of everything. Thus brahman alone is
> the ultimate reality. This is the advaitic teaching.
>
> Thus the second brahmasutra is very much advaitic in
> its teaching.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
>