[Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal

[rajaramvenk at gmail.com]

Its about how do you resolve difference between different pramanas? In advaita interpretation of sabda pramana, there is no world in reality. It directly contradicts our direct experience (pratyaksha) even for a jnani. If sastras say fire is cold, will we touch fire? Sastras say chandra mandala is farther than the surya mandala. Will we accept it without qualification? We will say a. sastras are incorrect b. sastras are reflecting the common place misconceptions c. sastras are talking about different chandra and surya mandalas d. sastras should be re-interpreted to be in harmony with pratyaksha e. sastras are perhaps talking from a different perspective that we can't see. 

Why should we accept without when sastras say that the world is unreal when we never cease to experience it??? 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: balagopal ramakrishnan <rbalpal at yahoo.co.in>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:34:09 
To: rajaramvenk at gmail.com<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: balagopal ramakrishnan <rbalpal at yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal

RV Ji, examples are taken only to convey a certain aspect. It's not for detailed analysis. By so doing we miss the point. Knowing the water seen in the desert as a mirage is used ONLY to convey the illusoriness. Also it is a good example to show how after 'knowing' the mirage we continue to see it. Same way after having known the 'brahmanness' of the world we still continue to see the world as it is. It's ONLY KNOWING. If we try to see it as we see other things it is again in duality which obfuscates the very nature. For that matter in the final analysis one will agree with the 'ajathitwam'. Fundamentally all these are activities one goes through till one earns the right sense. So an advaitin is a dwaitin for the purpose of keeping the enquirer with himself till he realises the non duality. It's a teaching process - adhyaropa apavada. An advaitin accepts the vyavaharikatwam of the pot. He can carry water in it. But he knows that its reality is only that
 much and in paramarthikam it's only brahman. (brahmaarpanamm brahhma havir...)

I am sure the expertise of the forum will help you clear the doubts. I suggest to raise the doubts with respect to the scriptures &  prakarana granthas. This way the learned members will assist in seeing the arundhati. (nyaya).

Regards

Balagopal



On Thursday, 12 December 2013 2:09 PM, "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
 
We see mirage (jagat) only due to the sun (ajnAna) not in its absence at night. If the presence of the world is due to ajnAnA, how can you see it after jnAnA has destroyed it? How can you see a pot space after the pot has been destroyed?

I don't think you can say that there is reality or existence for the world and still claim to be an advaitin. The upanishadic assertion that only clay is real negates the reality of the pot etc. totally not in any relative sense.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
________________________________

From:  balagopal ramakrishnan <rbalpal at yahoo.co.in> 
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:10:17 +0800 (SGT)
To: rajaramvenk at gmail.com<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
ReplyTo:  balagopal ramakrishnan <rbalpal at yahoo.co.in> 
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal



>>>The world is not what it appears to be but the question is whether it has existence or not is the question.


Yes, it has existence, Rajaram Ji (none can deny it, because we are experiencing it!) - but, transactionally not absolutely i.e it is ever changing putting one into a fix disabling him from really pin point and say - yes, this is it. By the time he says so it would have changed forcing him to say - not this - ma ya.

The mistake we often make is about the 'real & unreal'. Dream is 'the reality' while I am in the 'dream state' - the 'dream thirst' is for 'real', for my throat and mouth are parched up and it's quenched when I drink the 'dream water' - and 'realises' its unreality on waking up. So the real & unreal are not absolute but relative.  Now the world I experience in the 'waking state' is also 'unreal' when I gain 'self knowledge'. Here the sublimation is in a different way. Even after the self knowledge the world exists as the 'mirage' is still seen after knowing the 'unreality' of the mirage water.  It's an understanding. As one clears the existing vasanas & prarabdhams in such a way that no new ones are being added, he /she will finally stop from falling in to this stubborn dream (samasara) again. Since enquiring the 'world' leads to infinite regression, it is advised to look for 'brahman', knowing which the unreal disappears as the darkness goes with
 light.

Regards

Balagopal



On Thursday, 12 December 2013 11:55 AM, "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <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