[Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Nithin Sridhar <sridhar.nithin at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

That is a fine reply.  The ultimate Vedanta siddhanta is: no creation.  Yet
since one has already assumed a creation, Vedanta gives replies based on
this assumption.  Within that assumption of a 'real' creation the
explanations such as bondage, its removal, mukta, mukti, etc are spoken
of.

regards
subrahmanian.v

>
>
> 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
> > after
> > > > 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
> > oasis
> > > is far
> > > away, but also right here, within you, and also everywhere around. And
> > you
> > > 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
> > looking
> > > for.
> > > So long as the problem is your thirst, you might as well try and
> > implement
> > > 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
> > are
> > > 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/
> > 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
>