[Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Rajaramji,

You say My existence is selfevident to me. We all know " I exist". But can
you for sure identify that " I ". Have you ever tried out. Does the " I "
include this body/mind/intellect. If not then what else is it. If yes how
does the same " i " experience the dream world as these very same
body/mind/intellect do not exist in the dream world ( in the sense we are
not aware of them during dream ) . Can " I " exist without any body? If yes
what does it consist of then. If no how does the vey same I "  have the
wonderful experience of pure happiness while we were in deep sleep. Surely
we dont have the feeling of a different " I " as experiencing it. Nor do we
have a feeling of discontinuity in our existence for that period. The
correct position is " I " that our awareness of " I " consists of two parts
the real and the unreal. The self evident part which normally recognize and
identify with body etc is the visheshana part ( unreal part ) . We never
really recognize the Swarupa ( Real part ) in its true aspect. That is what
the Shastras do. You are not correct in assuming that only the future
effect of dharma/adharma are not known for which alone we need the
shastras. More importantly one would try and avoid getting into a position
where one should be constantly worried about these effects, get Liberated
from their hold. That is the Goal of all Shastras. In fact even the portion
detailing the effects of dharma/adharma are only meant to lead one to this
Liberation, by performing them without hankering after the effects which
enables him to undertake the further sadhanas for getting Liberated.

For the sake of brevity, i will stop with this. I presume this clarifies
the more important aspect of your doubt.

Regards


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:55 AM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the scholars are missing my question or argument. Let me re-phrase
> for clarity. We don't need sastras or a guru to determine a. I exist or b.
> The world is not what it appears to be. My existence is self - evident to
> me. I know that a pot is clay, which in turn is made of elements, which in
> turn is form of energy. A pot is not what it appears to be. I need sastras
> only to tell me of things I can't know otherwise - the future effect of
> dharma and adharma, existence of unseen realities such as devas and Ishwara.
>
> The world is not what it appears to be but the question is whether it has
> existence or not is the question. The inevitability of the experience of a
> pot even for a jnani makes us wonder whether his conclusion that the world
> was never created and does not exist is true. If we see water on a desert
> land during summer afternoon, we will think its a mirage but if we see it
> even after the sun sets (equivalent of dawn of knowledge), will we say that
> there's no water?
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> Sender: "Advaita-l" <advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>Date:
> Wed, 11 Dec 2013 22:05:51
> To: Advaita List<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>  <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal
>
> > H S CHANDRAMOULI
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Let me add my 2 cents views on the subject of Mithya which i understand
> fro
> > VMjis mail has been discussed elaborately earlier.
> >
> > Mithya has no doubt many definitions like nonindependant, nonpermanent
> etc.
> > But i think for understanding its implications it is useful to understand
> > it as a mixture of real ( that is vastu ) and unreal ( that is a-vastu )
> > . When we see a pot we say the "pot is".When we see a cloth we say "
> cloth
> > is ". Similarly " creation is ".
>
>
>
> Yes, this mixture of the really real and the other is indeed the crucial
> meaning
> of mithyAtva. The taittirIya upanishad says, "satyaM ca anRtaM ca satyam
> abhavat. yad idaM kiM ca." Accordingly, Sankara bhagavatpAda uses the term
> "satyAnRte maithunIkRtya" in the sUtrabhAshya. What SAstra helps us do is
> to
> separate out the satya from the anRta that come to us in a mixed way in all
> our sensory experiences.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vidyasankar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>