[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-)

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste.

The reality is aloof from all this. It remains situated in its own glory.


> >  the above statement is itself unreal, the reality is unreal, its
> aloofness is unreal, its own glory is unreal, its socalled situated place
> is unreal!!
>

Whatever you speak about reality is unreal. The reality itself is not
unreal. On account of being self-contradictory and on account of
impossibility of assertion of unreality to unreal.


One may refer to Yoga VAsisTha 3.101 for more elaboration on this.
>
> >  what is yOga vAshishTa, when  shAstra itself  is unreal (atra veda
> aveda so says shruti) so, what is yOga vAshishta here !!?? , just a dream
> character and my dream's own creation without any substantiality outside 😊
> No questioner here and nor any responder here...  so, don’t go by all these
> unreal things as valid reference to prove something else is unreal, this is
> the ultimate teaching of vedAnta, no mOksha nor any mumukshu because at the
> first place no srushti.
>

Just as there was dream-YV, here is this waking-YV. Just as there was 3.101
in dream-YV, here is 3.101 in waking-YV. Just as one referred thereto in
dream, so is one doing in this so called "waking". What is the problem? A
dream is a dream. If a dream-book says dream to be dream, one can refer to
it. There is no harm. If the dream-book says the dream to be non-dream,
then that is rejectable. But if dream-book accepts dream to be dream, why
should one not "go by that unreal book as valid reference to prove
dreamhood of dream to those who believe in that book and in non-dream-hood
of dream".

Dream-X can very well prove dream-hood of dream to dream-Y by taking help
of dream-YV. There is no illogicality here.