[Advaita-l] Real vs. Unreal

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Mon Dec 16 01:30:49 CST 2013


I might also add following example in view of its applicability in the
current context

<creation is brahman but brahman is not creation but it appears to be so>


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:33 AM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Sri RVji,
> Normally, as between two objects  A and B pratyaksha pramana allows for
> only the following two options.
> Ais same as B and B is same as A.
> A is not same as b and B is not same as A.
> It normally does not allow of any other option. But the essence of advaita
> is based on a third option.
> A is same as B. But B is not same as A. How does this hold good. Advaita
> says
> A is same as B. But B is not same as A , but appears to be A.
> Most of the inferential reasoning in Advaita follows this principle. As an
> illustration of this < Snake is rope. But rope is not snake but only
> appears to be snake >. This is extended in the following.
> Annamaya is Atma, but Atma is not Annamaya. Pranamaya is Atma, but Atma is
> not Pranamaya.  So on and so on.
> Why is pratyaksha pramana not acceptable for a proper understanding of the
> fundamental truth?  pratyaksha pramana depends on the user of the pramanas
> namely " I " for its validity to be a pramana. If the understanding of " I
> " itself is wrong then the validity of the pratyaksha pramana also is lost.
> It is akin to the dreamer ( person in the dream ) considering the dream as
> real while it lasts. On wakingup the waker realizes that the dream world is
> not real and hence not valid. Wealth acquired in the dream is certainly not
> useful in the waking world. Advaita's standpoint is that there is a
> fundamental misunderstanding of " I " which leads one to all our normally
> understood experiences.
> Regards
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Once again, with patience. If you are concerned only with the truth and
>> if
>> > you
>> > are convinced that omniscience of the teacher or infallibility of the
>> > SAstra is a
>> > necessary prerequisite, then you need to repose the necessary faith in
>> that
>> > omniscience and/or that infallibility, to approach the teacher and the
>> > SAstra
>> > with humility, as means to the truth.
>> RV: The real humility that comes from acknowledgement of one's ignorance
>> and knowledge of others is I hope sufficient. False humility that seeks
>> confirmation to group thinking and opposed to truth is of no value to
>> either one who exhibits it or one who accepts it.
>> It is possible for a teacher to become omniscient in the sense of knowing
>> everything (rf. yoga sutra and Madhusudana). However, a teacher or sastras
>> should be omniscient only in the sense of knowing brahman, the essence of
>> everything. Of this there is no doubt as they speak of brahman. If you
>> call
>> me by my name, I don't need faith that you know my name as I have
>> knowledge
>> that you do. If you speak of a pot , I can verify what you say about it
>> because it is seen and here again there is no need for faith. If you speak
>> of some unseen attribute of a pot (e.g. maker), the knowledge that your
>> words produce is not contradicted by any thing I see. Hence, I accept it
>> without qualification and here again there is no need for faith. The only
>> occasion when faith is required is to trust the truthfulness of the
>> speaker. Of this, there is no doubt with regard to you what to speak of
>> the
>> sampradaya (s).
>> >
>> > Please clarify your thought about the applicability of the SAstra to
>> > AtmavidyA,
>> > dharma, deva-s and ISvara. And pray, do try to understand that any
>> apparent
>> > contradition between the testimony of two different pramANa-s cannot be
>> > resolved without accepting a hierarchy of authority of those pramANa-s
>> for
>> > the subject matters to which they pertain.
>> >
>> > RV: On objects that are known directly though senses, pratyaksha is
>> supreme. On objects that are inferred from relationships between objects
>> known from sensory perception anumana etc. rules supreme. On entities that
>> are beyond sensory perception, sabda rules supreme. The future effect of
>> dharma, the presence of devas and Ishwara can only be known through sabda.
>> We can have sambhavana that there must be an Ishwara or devas or that
>> results must have cause in dharma but we cannot be ascertain without
>> sabda.
>> The world is known through pratyaksha and also sabda. They produce
>> opposing
>> views - real and unreal. We have to interpret sabda to be in harmony with
>> pratyaksha.
>> >
>> > Which pratyakshAdi pramANa-s verify for you the truth of the Sabda
>> vAkya-s
>> > about dharma and ISvara? If these issues are amenable to pratyakshAdi
>> > pramANa-s that everybody has independent access to, why do you even
>> > need Sabda or a teacher to mediate knowledge of these things? In any
>> > case, why do you think that SAbda truths need to be verified through
>> non-
>> > Sabda pramANa-s?
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't know how many times and how many people need to explain to you
>> > that mithyAtva is not absolute non-existence. Hopefully, if you are
>> able to
>> > move away from this false equation of mithyA with non-existence, you
>> will
>> > see that your question will disappear.
>> RV: The world is totally non-existent (nasato vidyate bhavo nabhavo
>> vidyate
>> sata:) but it appears to exist. Hence, it is mithya. The cause of
>> appearance of the world (including cogniser's body and mind, the concepts
>> such as karma, bandha, moksha etc.) is due to ajnAnA. On destruction this
>> ajnAnA due to rise of jnAnA, where is the room for non-existent room to
>> appear? The only way I can resolve this is by using eka jIva vAdA where
>> all
>> liberation of others in the legends and even sastras until sarva mukti is
>> mere eulogy but your scholarship and intellect may have a better
>> explanation to offer. If you see a non-existent object, you are
>> hallucinating.
>> > In any case, given that you currently make this false conflation, on
>> what
>> > basis do you argue anything about any perception after the rise of
>> jnAna?
>> > Either you have already attained that jnAna and are speaking from your
>> own
>> > personal experience or you infer that jagan-mithyAtva is not a matter of
>> > experience even though you have not had the personal attainment of
>> removal
>> > of avidyA. In either case, you are saying that all those who have talked
>> > about this in the advaita tradition are liars. What are your pramANa-s
>> and
>> > how have you applied these pramANa-s to come to such a conclusion?
>> >
>> RV: I am not saying jagan mithyatva is not a matter of experience. In
>> fact,
>> quiet the contrary. The experience of the non-existent world even as a
>> mere
>> appearance without substance reveals a contradiction between sabda and
>> pratyaksha pramanas. The sabda, therefore,  must be interpreted in harmony
>> with the pratyaksha as jagat is the seen realm not unseen.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list