Dear Ram [dreaming] ,

[Guest guest]

>a c <ac

>

>

>Still, I wouldn't say things the way some people do... If Sankara "woke

>up" out of a dream how could he still talk to us inside the dream in a

>meaningful way? If he was still able to talk to us inside the dream how

>could he be outside it? I have never had a problem with the notion that

>the absolute is *more* real than the relative world and if that's all

>Advaita intends I just agree, period. It's when they start using language

>loosely (in my opinion) and say "no world exists" that I begin to be

>disturbed. If there was and is no world then there is no Sankara, no

>Advaita, no Sanatana Dharma, etc. If all these things are real in any

>meaningful sense then I don't see how it is an illusion -- it is just

>relatively real as opposed to absolutely real. Does it come down to that?

 

Dear ac

you have raised very fundamental issues that have been disucussed by many of

the advaitic masters in the past - particularly acharya chachuka and

Madhusuudhana since these were the questions raised against the maaya aspect

of the Jagat. Shree Madhawaacharya in fact emphsizes that since we

experience the world universally, it is absolutely real - changing but real.

changes are its intrinsic nature.

 

Hence the world is never dismissed as unreal, it is only unreal with

referece to Brahman state. It is considered as vyavahaarika satyam or

relatively real as long as relativity is understood in its correct import.

Dream is used as an example to educate us the relative reality since for a

dreamer dream is as real as for the waker his waking state. Although the

dream is real in its state, it can wake you up just as a roaring of dream

tiger can wake up the dreamer to a different state. The perspiration and

the heaviy breathing and the associated fear is felt even in the waking

state until the waker is fully awaken to realize the unreality of the dream

tiger.

Hence vedanta is called Vedanta kesari - lion of Vedanta - since its roar

can wake up the a waker to a higher state. From that higher state - neither

Shankara nor Krishna nor Geeta has any specific meaning. This is beatifully

brougt out at the end of VivekachuuDamani by a student who realizes the

truth after the teaching. He screams out loud that everything was a bluff!

That includes the bondage, the teacher the student and the teaching and the

sadhana - since he is eternally free from all these. These are all notions

in the mind.

 

Now what is real has been exhaustively analyzed by our sages and Jay has

given me a project to write an article on it and I am still working on it

but slowly within the realm of relativity.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste my friend,

>Ram Chandran <chandran

> Let us examine the word ‘dream.' To whom is a dream a dream?

> A dream is a dream only to a person who has awakened from the

> dream. A dream is not a dream to the dreamer. So also the world

> is not a dream to

> you, me and everyone else who are still dreaming! The world is

> as real as you and I are - so long our mind exists. It has an empirical

> reality. When Sankara says it is a myth and a dream, it is so from the

> absolute point of view.

 

Somehow I am quite certain we are all inspired by the self same thing and

all the arguments between seers mean little compared to the beauty they

attempt to convey. I have no *real* argument with anyone when it comes

down to it because I actuallyy love even the remotest rumors about the

truth. :-))

 

Still, I wouldn't say things the way some people do... If Sankara "woke

up" out of a dream how could he still talk to us inside the dream in a

meaningful way? If he was still able to talk to us inside the dream how

could he be outside it? I have never had a problem with the notion that

the absolute is *more* real than the relative world and if that's all

Advaita intends I just agree, period. It's when they start using language

loosely (in my opinion) and say "no world exists" that I begin to be

disturbed. If there was and is no world then there is no Sankara, no

Advaita, no Sanatana Dharma, etc. If all these things are real in any

meaningful sense then I don't see how it is an illusion -- it is just

relatively real as opposed to absolutely real. Does it come down to that?

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Allan:

 

Your attempted explanations do indicate that have a good grasp of the

meaning of Sankara's Doctrine - "Jagat Mithya." In the enclosed section

of his article, Swami Atmananda explains beautifully the meaning of

the statement, "Jagat Mithya." Swamiji correctly compares the

distinction between the permanent experience of Brahman

(Self-Realization) and the transient experience of the World.

 

Regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

URL Address: http://members.tripod.com/vedantamission/Pub/VSapr99.htm

Source: Vedanta Sandesh: The Free Monthly Electronic Magazine of

Vedanta Mission April 99: Article: The Three basic tenets of Vedanta …

by Swami Atmananda

 

" Jagat Mithya : The word Jagat embraces in itself this entire world,

this cosmos. All that which is or can be an 'object' of our knowledge.

It includes not only the gross but also the subtle 'objects'. The

thoughts, emotions, the energy all come under this word 'Jagat'. That

which is near or far, inside or outside, now or later, good or bad

everything is part of this Jagat. This word has been described as

reffering to that which is 'Jayate gachati iti jagat', i.e. that which

is born & dies is jagat. Birth & death are movements in time. That

which is in time constantly changes, there is a constant flux.

Something starts this process of activation & manifestation of time and

thus we see this dynamic flux. A realm of experience presents itself in

front of us. What exactly starts this process is a different matter,

but the point here is that all what is thus brought about is ultimately

transient, is not ultimately there. It is comparable to being in a

dream world. Something activates the process of dreaming, and when it

does get activated we see a realm of experience which is not ultimately

there. Mithya is that which is not there in all three periods of time.

That which had a birth at a particular time and that which will

certainly die at some point of time. It is there in this present moment,

because of some reason - known or unknown. The above aphorism of 'Jagat

Mithya' thus implies that all what is available for experience is

transient.

 

Mithya also implies that which does not have the capacity to give us

that which we basically seek. It is certainly beautiful,in fact very

beautiful, it is also true that 'objects' of the world alone are useful

for our worldly needs & purposes, but at the same time this is also a

fact that we basically remain where we were. It is like eating a dream

food, with which we never satiate our hunger. However much we eat the

dream food, we will still remain basically hungry. Whatever we have

sought in this world may have helped our life to get comfortable &

organised, but has certainly not helped us in eliminating the

fundamental desire 'to seek' something more. Like hunger the seeking

still remains as it is. The only difference is that it now manifests

differently. That which is Mithya does not have any independent

existence, thus it is not really dependable, for the simple reason that

it itself is perishable. What ever our heart basically seeks will never

be got from this Jagat. That is the implication of this sutra. It is

something to be seen in a detached way & not taking too seriously.

Whatever happens in the world never really matters, knowing this a

person should not plan to aggrandize & enjoy, he should rather serve &

give. This philosophical tenet, which is a fact of life provides us a

logic & basis for our religious values, culture & even the real goal of

life."