[Advaita-l] Re: GITA - 2.16 : part 1

[sthanunathan Ramakrishnan]

First we define "unreal" quite differently from its
normal meaning, like say something that doesnt exist
or something that isnt perceived at all times. An
example of an unreal object would be, to use a
familiar example, say a hare's horn.

  Now with this new definition of unreal, we find that
the world and pretty much everything we know becomes
"unreal". And then we go on and say that there is
something beyond this definition of "unreal" and call
that "real".

  The other schools of philosophy dont agree with our
definition of "unreal" and assert that all are real,
even though they may be changing in form, with space
and time.

  Is it just a definition issue. What makes this
definition of "unreal" superior to the other.

regards
Sthanu


> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:04:36 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Amuthan Arunkumar R <aparyap at yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] GITA - 2.16 : part 1
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> 	<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
> > to understand this shloka, we first need to
> understand
> what is real and what is unreal. first, the criteria
> for deciding whether an entity is unreal will be
> given. once this is done, the criteria for an entity
> to be real follows easily: that which is not unreal
> is
> real.   
> 
> MS defines asat (unreality) as follows: that which
> is
> limited (by atleast one of) space (desha), time
> (kAla)
> or 'matter' (vastu) [1][2] is unreal. 
> 




	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/