Diamond

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

 

namaste.

 

This leads to the point: "Is advaita for dealing with

yourself or for dealing with others ?"

 

Yes, ducking is the proper thing to do in the context

above. Yet, the thought behind giving the charcoal; is

it mischievous, sneaky or with the genuine thought. It

is that matter

 

Namaste Sri Murthy,

I have to be careful lest I be taken for a vitandavadin

- humour may indeed be the last frontier. Anyway there

was a serious point hiding in the drollery. Analogies

of the real using material identity and nominal

identity do not imply that clay is more real in an

absolute sense than pots or tiles for that matter. The

level of description which you value depends on the

needs of the moment whether aesthetic, scientific or

romantic. None of this will survive the inevitable

cooling of the sun. It is contingent as against

necessary and real. About the really real Sankara has

this to say in II.i.9 : The effect is recognised to be

equally non-different from the cause during the three

periods of time. Also II.i.16: Just as Brahman, the

cause is never without existence in all the three

periods of time, so also the universe, which is the

effect, never parts with Existence in all the three

periods. But Existence is only one. And this is

further ground for the non-difference of the effect

from the cause.

 

These expressions of real or unreal are illustrations

taken from the transitory domain- II.i.14: "It has

existence only in name and it is unreal. As clay alone

it is real. This is an illustration about Brahman

cited in the Upanisad".

 

Viewing all mundane reality as existents or as

essentially contingent effects coupled with a theory of

the non-difference of cause and effect will lead some

to a sense of the absolute presence of God. Sankara

discounted the idea of a proof of the existence of God

- "So also it has been said by an author of a Purana

"Do not bring those things within the range of

argumentation which are beyond thought. The nature of

a thing beyond thought consists in its being other than

the things within Nature." Hence a supersensuous thing

is truly known from the Vedic source alone.

from B.S.B.II.1.27

 

Best Wishes, Michael.