Aurobindo & Shastra

[Guest guest]

Max

You said:

"In a sense what we're saying is: That which is eternal and

self-grounded(God) is more real than anything else, and all other

occurrences are of a lesser reality. Transient formations within the one

reality are not 'real' in the same sense that the one reality is real."

No. We are not saying that. We are not saying transient formations within

one reality are not real. I didn't say 'lump changing to pot' is unreal and

clay is real. I only said, both lumpness and potness are equally unreal.

There is a 'reality' in lumpness having gone and potness having come. But,

that portion is not our example.(My description in the previous posting

seems to give an impression that I am dismissing the reality of lump

changing to pot, since I was discussing 'dynamic' in that posting). Our

point is, the 'reality' is only clay (whether a lump or a pot). Let us look

at Pot. Pot can either be an entity or an attribute. Pot is not an entity

because, if it were to be an entity, it should exist independent of clay.

If pot is an attribute, it should be clay's attribute. Is pot an intrinsic

attribute of clay? If it were to be an intrinsic attribute, we will not be

able to see clay without it being pot. But, this is not the case. So, pot

is only an incidental attribute of clay. (This is what we call

dependent-reality.) The relationship between clay and pot is

'superimposition' or 'aadhyaasikaa'. Similarly both 'dynamicness' and

'staticness' are nothing but 'superimposition' on sadvastu (consciouness).

[Note: we don't say "God", because godness is also a superimposition on

sadvastu]. In the case of world experience, the experience is a

superimposition on sadvastu. This superimposition is attributed to maya

from the vyaavahaarika(empirical) standpoint.

In the context let me add a few things:

There is a paradigm shift between vyaavahaarika and paaramaarthika

standpoint (empirical and real standpoints). The 'dependent reality' etc.,

are only used at the vyaavahaarika level. Shastra, trying to free the

student by showing brahman, says 'that which is the existant is brahman'.

Existant is understandable only by seeing what is the 'reality'. The

pot-clay example is used only to show that an incidental attribute does not

have a reality other than the substantive.(example is not one-to-one, but

only for the reality portion). The teaching is used to show the 'reality'

and once that 'reality' is seen, reality, non-reality etc., are all

automatically resolved. When there is only ONE, what is 'reality' or

'non-reality'? what is modification or non-modification? if space, and

time are brahman where is 'change' or 'shakthi'? It is all just jargons and

words ... 'vaachaarambanam vikaro naamadheyam' (chaandogya upanishad),

meaning, it is all just 'words'! But, saying like this does not show

anything or reveal anything, does it? That is the reason why, shastra

starts with the world, talks about vyaavahaarika, dependent-reality etc.,

and takes the student to jnaanam(brahman,moksha). One can only use the

Shastra pramaana and get freed. There is no other way of finding out how it

actually happens.....because any pramaanam is swathaha sidhdham (provable by

itself and only itself).

kalyan