[Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal

[Sujal Upadhyay]

Rajaram ji,

There is Arambha vAda, paraNAma vAda, vivarta vAda, ajAta vAda. Why are
there so many vAda-s.

Perhaps, if you stick to Brahma Satya Jagat MithyA, and then read each and
every verse commented by Shankara even in Gita, then you will notice that
even he has not stick to vivarta vAda

So, either Adi Shankara has failed in his theory OR
We have not understood him

Which one should I choose.

Different pramANa-s are there for persons with different mental make-up and
their inner purity. As I have explained in my earlier mail, every time
there is first person 'I', without which there is no 'You' (second person)
or 'he' (third Person). So you stop at 'I' and not go outward to think
about others. Naturally this world is no no concern to such a person, who
dives deep within to find out the real 'I' (and not Ego).

Questions depends upon the evolution of consciousness.

There is

vyavahArika satya
prAtibhAsika satya
pArmArthika satya

Why Adi Shankara had to use 3 satya-s? Why vyavahAra is called as satya?

Do you think that in olden days, people were so dumb and had blind faith
that they could not even raise question about the reality of this world? If
even a laymen of today can question and conclude that Adi Shankara's
teachings were ridiculous, then do you think that in olden days, during the
time of Adi Shankara, there was not a single men who could question him.
Was Adi Shankara unquestionable?

The thing is the word illusion and mithyA is so much bombarded that we
cannot think of anything else and all answers that we give are said to be
escape attempts. People fail to understand adhikAra bheda. They also accuse
our acharya who revived the vedic tradition, blended karma, bhakti, Jnana
and Yoga, not just by writing commentaries, but by asking us to rise above
duality.

Another important factor that all miss or ignore is adhikAra bheda. Arjuna
was asked to do karma, though Bhagavan praised Jnana. He asked laymen ot
follow bhakti as Jnana Marg (Advaita) is difficult to follow (BG 12.5-6 and
Uddhava Gita Chapter 6, 6.21-22).

If Bhagavan has himself given upadhesha on adhikAra bheda, then there must
be two different paths or say two different explanations. If Bhagavan
himself has given upadesha on adhikAra bheda, then is it not fair to Adi
Shankara to to explain in two ways - practical reality - world is real,
dream is real and absolute reality, the world is mithyA, Brahman is truth.

Perhaps vedenta asks us to renounce vedic karma. Are veda-s and vedanta
opposed to each other?

If you believe in other sampradAya-s like Vaishnava, lease have a look at
their commentary on BG 2.16.

Perhaps the definition of real as Eternal, unchanging, infinite, immutable,
etc are not adapted and sometimes there is a priori.

Please think on these matters.

I strongly advice you to study AND meditate.

Hari OM


OM

Sujal Upadhyay

"To disconnect from the self and to become Aware of anything else is
nothing but unhappiness" - Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi

He who has faith has all
He who lacks faith, lacks all
It is the faith int he name of lord that works wonders
FAITH IS LIFE, DOUBT IS DEATH - Sri Ramakrishna


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:49 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>