[Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal
sridhar.nithin at gmail.com
Sat Dec 14 02:51:54 CST 2013
I understand the practical need for sastras and teacher but question
> the logical possibility of these. prArabdha karmA, avidyA-leSa, the
> remnant vAsana or saMskAra or IshwarAnugraha are all only possible in the
> realm of avidyA. I ask how they can exist in the absence of avidyA.
This conclusion is not proper I feel.
Just as after a tree has been uprooted, it takes sometime to wither away,
similarly some Jnani's exist as JivanMukta's due to Avidya-Lesha. Avidya
Lesha is not same as Avidya. Just as even after the mis-aprehension of a
snake is removed, the shivering caused due to fear lingers on for few
seconds, a Jnani may exist as Jivanmukta till his prarabda karma lingers.
What is important to be noted is, All these explanations are from
Worldly/Vyavaharika point of view. From the standpoint of Jnani, there is
neither creation, nor dissolution, neither liberation nor bondage. They
perceive Brahman alone.
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You do not necessarily have to suppose omniscience for anything or
> > anybody. All
> > you need to do is to accept that it or they know more/better than you do.
> > That
> > will do, for an initial entry into the study and for quite a while as you
> > progress.
> > RV: Vedanta means that the conclusion s a synthesis of all knowledge. We
> have to suppose omniscience with respect to the teacher, sastras or
> Ishwara. Teachers don't claim omniscience (leave alone the yogic state that
> Madhusudana refers to). Ishwara is known only through sastras. Sastras are
> not inerrant (e.g. chandra farther than surya). In my understanding,
> sampradaya accepts sastras as omniscient but does not treat sabda pramana
> as inerrant as Christians or Muslims treat bible or quran. We treat sabda
> as the authority with respect to unseen (result of dharma, devas, Ishwara
> etc.) but don't blindly accept when it contradicts pratyaksha or anumana.
> If sastras say fire is cold, we won't conclude that it is so and touch it
> as pratyaksha pramana tells us otherwise. In relation to the current
> topic, though sastras say that the world is unreal, we are forced to accept
> its reality as long as we see it.
> > You can also study a pot all you want, but unless you apply the SAstra
> > that says
> > that all matter is ultimately energy, you will never reach the conclusion
> > that the
> > pot is also ultimately energy. Similarly, you can study your self all you
> > want, but
> > unless you apply the SAstra that pertains to AtmavidyA, you will never be
> > free
> > of the adhyAsa that again and again conjures up a not-self as your Self.
> > RV: If sastras are established as the authority with respect to atma
> vidya, yes but self is self-evident unlike devas, dharma etc. that can only
> be known through sastras. sastras or logic can only challenge
> my mis-conceptions of my self. They cannot illumine what is already known -
> the self- as it lead to the fallacy of teaching the obvious. I may
> incorrectly conclude that I'm happy or sad but sastras (or logic) can tell
> me that these are characteristics of my mind not my self. Imay say that I'm
> transient but sastras (or logic)can tell me I'm eternal. They can only
> remove misconceptions about my self by challenging the conclusions drawn by
> the mind.
> > >
> > >
> > > RV: I agree that my analogy is flawed but my question is not. The
> > > non-existent world is perceived due to ajnAna. Why do I perceive it
> > > dawn of knowledge?
> > >T
> > Extend this desert analogy a bit further. In ignorance, you see only the
> > desert
> > and are looking for water. You are shown an oasis, are told that the
> > is far
> > away, but also right here, within you, and also everywhere around. And
> > are
> > taught the means to realize the truth of this statement. So, what is the
> > problem
> > with the perception of the desert? The teacher and the SAstra that bring
> > this
> > knowledge to you also tell you that the desert is seen, but is not real,
> > because
> > all around you and in you is the water that you are so desperately
> > for.
> > So long as the problem is your thirst, you might as well try and
> > the
> > means that are being taught to you to find this water, rather than
> > focusing your
> > energies on the paradoxical perception of the desert on the part of the
> > teacher
> > and/or the SAstra. Unless the teacher and the SAstra refer to the desert
> > that so
> > fully occupies the range of your perception, they cannot teach you the
> > means to
> > the water. Rejecting this teaching because you assume that the teacher
> > should
> > not even talk of the desert is but folly.
> > prArabdha karmA, avidyA-leSa, the remnant vAsana or saMskAra, all these
> > explanations being provided for the curiousity of ignorance. They
> > disappear in the
> > light of knowledge. The answer to your question will become self-evident
> > to you if
> > that knowledge has already dawned for you. Till then, all this is just an
> > exercise in
> > semantics. If you choose to disregard the means being taught, because you
> > think
> > that the person bringing it to you should not be able to perceive you or
> > the desert
> > you are in, then you lose the precious opportunity to find the water in
> > the desert.
> > RV: I understand the practical need for sastras and teacher but question
> > the logical possibility of these. prArabdha karmA, avidyA-leSa, the
> > remnant vAsana or saMskAra or IshwarAnugraha are all only possible in the
> > realm of avidyA. I ask how they can exist in the absence of avidyA.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list