The Real and the Unreal

[Guest guest]

Namaste to All,

 

In Advaita as expounded by Sri Shankaracharya, what is it that is the

unreal?

 

To provide a background to the genesis of this question, I would

briefly mention that there seems to be two perspectives to the manner

in which the division between the real and the unreal may be made. In

one perspective, it would be the division between Brahman and the

seen world. In the second perspective, there is really no division at

all in the sense that the unreal, being unreal and devoid of

existence, is simply not there, and hence it cannot lie anywhere

within the horizons of what can be meaningfully conceived. It is the

second interpretation that appeals to me the more, both to my

intellect and to my heart. However, this interpretation seems to go

against the grain of the more popular interpretation of Advaita that

is currently prevalent.

 

It is true that there are a number of statements in the writings of

the Acharya that point to the world being unreal, but these, it seems

to me, are the prescriptive denials meant for a sadhaka to proceed

via-negativa to the Truth. In the Vivekachudamani, one finds that the

awakening disciple proclaims, almost triumphantly, that this entire

world is unreal, only to follow it up with an assertion that the

world is only Brahman. I remember also that Sri Ramana Maharshi had

said that the world as apart from Brahman is unreal, but as Brahman

it is real.

 

Again, it may be seen in the Brahma Sutra Bhasya that the Acharya

does not deny Saguna Brahman as untrue, but only points to Nirgunam

as the highest Truth because that is the dominant note in the

Upanishads: the highest Truth is Brahman as nirgunam because Brahman

is purnam and unlimited and is not exhausted by the attributions of

sagunam, howsoever grandly it may be manifest.

 

The compelling reason to accept the second interpretation arises from

the fact that it seems to point to a truly universal Advaitic

doctrinaire. It makes it easy to explain how Shankaracharya's Advaita

has effortlessly subsumed the doctrines of all the other schools into

its overarching sycretism. It also provides a seamless continuum

between the Advaitic revelations and the Stotras composed by the

Acharya. To me, personally, it also provides a means to quell a host

of questions that (would otherwise) arise when I read the Agamas.

 

I leave it to the learned and respected members of this group to

comment on the question.

 

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan,

>In Advaita as expounded by Sri Shankaracharya, what is it

>that is the unreal?

>

>To provide a background to the genesis of this question,

>I would briefly mention that there seems to be two

>perspectives to the manner in which the division between

>the real and the unreal may be made.

 

 

I also agree that there seems to be a two-stage process in Advaita.

 

In our normal state, we see body, mind and world as *objects*, i.e.

as something other than consciousness (which is 'subjec't under this

illusory dichotomy). Paradoxically, we then identify with some of

those objects,namely, body and mind. While we are still under the

spell of this illusion, we should, as a first step, cease to identify

with any illusory objects.

 

But once this identification ceases, the next stage can begin, which

is to see everything as the Divine Consciousness. Body, mind and

world are included, though now they are no longer seen as objects but

as manifestations of consciousness, like illusions. In this way, we

realize that there is only Consciousness or Brahman, and this

realization produces liberation, according to the testimony of sages.

 

Failure to understand this two-step process leads to much confusion.

If we are too literal, the famous 'Neti, neti' seems to contradict

the even more famous 'All is Brahman'. This is explained by the

two-stage process, where first we are under the spell of the illusion

of objects, and then we come to understand that spell and liberate

ourselves from it.

 

The 'unreal' is only unreal when perceived as an object, as something

other than consciousness. That is, no object has a status as an

independent self-sustaining entity outside of consciousness, as it

seems to. When properly interpreted as a dream or illusion, all

apparent objects then dissolve into consciousness, i.e. Brahman.

 

Such is my understanding of the theory.

 

We have been over this many times, but it never hurts to sharpen

one's thoughts! This message is still too long...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin,

 

 

You wrote

 

This message is still too long...

 

I do not think so; in my opinion not a word in this message is superfluos. In

fact When you say

 

Quote.

 

If we are too literal, the famous 'Neti, Neti' seems to contradict the even more

famous 'All is Brahman'. This is explained by the two-stage process, where

first we are under the spell of the illusion of objects, and then we come to

understand that spell and liberate ourselves from it.

Unquote

 

 

 

 

I think,You could even have added a sentence after the first one ( 'Neti, Neti'

is stage 1 and 'All is Brahman' is stage 2) to make things more clear. So I had

to think a bit before I fully understood the connection between the 2

statements.

 

So, my dear Benjamin, that was an almost ideal message from you.

 

praNAms,

 

Venkat - M

 

 

 

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download

Messenger Now

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote:

> Namaste Benjamin,

>

>

> You wrote

>

> This message is still too long...

>

> I do not think so; in my opinion not a word in this message is

superfluos. In fact When you say

>

> Quote.

>

> If we are too literal, the famous 'Neti, Neti' seems to contradict

the even more famous 'All is Brahman'. This is explained by the two-

stage process, where first we are under the spell of the illusion of

objects, and then we come to understand that spell and liberate

ourselves from it.

> Unquote

>

>

>

>

> I think,You could even have added a sentence after the first one

( 'Neti, Neti' is stage 1 and 'All is Brahman' is stage 2) to make

things more clear. So I had to think a bit before I fully understood

the connection between the 2 statements.

>

> So, my dear Benjamin, that was an almost ideal message from you.

>

> praNAms,

>

> Venkat - M

 

the immense kindness of liberated beings in explaining the difference

between the real and the unreal, must not have us lose sight of the

fact that they did so only pressed with questions; not out of

historical necessity or to satisfy a "personal" need. To them

the 'sacred value' in the questions of 'the real' or 'flower

gardening' is the same.

What makes us long for cruxial knots of understanding?

eric

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

> >To provide a background to the genesis of this question,

> >I would briefly mention that there seems to be two

> >perspectives to the manner in which the division between

> >the real and the unreal may be made.

 

Benjamin - the techniques you just described is in a way the essence of

two stage process involved what is technically known as 'adhyaaropa

apavaada'. That is how advaita accounted for the Bheda shaastra - that

emphasizes that the 'Iswara' out there with all attributes that jiiva

does not have. Dvaitin literature gives importance to those statements,

while interpreting the identity statements to suite those Bheda

statements. VishishhTaadvaitins believe that they integrate the two

types of scriptures by taking the advaita from Brahman point but with

internal differences containing many jiiva-s and world as part of the

total body of the Iswara.

>From advaita point, what is discard in the neti neti - is the only

superficial name and from superimposed as an 'object'; while what is

accepted in the final analysis is the substratum or substantive 'the

consciousness-existence' which is nothing but myself.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji,

 

You wrote:

> >To provide a background to the genesis of this question,

> >I would briefly mention that there seems to be two

> >perspectives to the manner in which the division between

> >the real and the unreal may be made.

>Benjamin - the techniques you just described is in a way the essence of

>two stage process involved what is technically known as 'adhyaaropa

>apavaada'.

 

 

Your message gives the impression that I wrote the words beginning

with 'To provide...'. Actually, it was Sri Chittaranjan who wrote

those words, and I was replying to him. Let us give Sri Chittaranjan

credit where credit is due!

 

However, I agree with what you then said. By the way, I've been

learning something new about the history of Vedanta, which has a

bearing on the issue of Advaita vs. Buddhism. Basically, I have

discovered that Sri Jay is hardly an exception. The Advaitins have

been under severe attack by other Vedantins ever since Ramanuja,

Madhva and on up to Sri Prabhupada (of Hare Krishna fame).

Basically, these are all the Vaishnavaites, Bhaktis, etc. who wish to

worship God not as Self but as object of adoration, like the

Christians and Muslims. (There may also be complications due to

Hindu societal divisions, about which I am largely ignorant.)

 

These people accused Shankara and Advaitins in general of being a

'secret Buddhists', and the charge continues until today. Sri

Prabhupada is quite severe! In America, this may seem like a mere

academic debate, but in India, where religion is very important and

tied to society, I can understand how Advaitins may sometimes be made

to feel uncomfortable, as though they were renegades from Vedanta and

Hinduism. My sympathies if this is indeed the case!

 

Really, the problem is not Buddhism but the abstract nature of

nonduaity, which is so different from vyavaharik common-sense and so

difficult to understand. Yet there is no doubt that it is a

necessary consequence of the Upanishadic mahavakyas 'Brahman is

consciousness' and 'Brahman is One without a second'. Anyone who

accepts these mahavakyas and who can do elementary math is forced to

the nondual conclusion. Buddhism is irrelevant, although I do

believe that this shows that Buddhism drew inspiration from the

Upanishads, which are older. So the sequence of influence, according

to my theory, is Upanishads -> Mahayana Buddhism -> Gaudapada ->

Shankara. I hope this does not annoy anyone. Notice which is first!

We might even identify a person and give him a name ... Sage

Yagnavalkya or Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. However, I think that the

real truth is that nonduality is independently discovered by all deep

meditators who can transcend the mind.

 

By the way, my earlier comment regarding the Table of Contents to

your collected Advaitin messages, which I described as 'trivial', may

have seemed a bit strange. I did not mean that your imposing Table

of Contents was trivial. Quite the contrary. I meant that it was

trivial of me to comment on how imposing it looked. But I think you

understood...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

> These people accused Shankara and Advaitins in general of being a

> 'secret Buddhists', and the charge continues until today. Sri

> Prabhupada is quite severe!

 

Hare Krishna literature is mostly criticism of Mayavaada. They do not

have much to say about their own philosophy.

 

Even you look at Jay's mails, you find that what advaita says first

since they consider that as the major puurvapaksha and most of it

incorrect criticism - that is from the beginning also.

 

I can understand how Advaitins may sometimes be made

> to feel uncomfortable, as though they were renegades from Vedanta and

> Hinduism. My sympathies if this is indeed the case!

 

Actually no need for any sympathies. There are criticisms and counter

criticisms all along. If you look at complete history - there are many

advaitic masters that have countered the criticism of dvaitins and

vishiShaaTaadvaitins.

> So the sequence of influence, according

> to my theory, is Upanishads -> Mahayana Buddhism -> Gaudapada ->

> Shankara. I hope this does not annoy anyone. Notice which is first!

 

Benjamin - there is nothing to be annoyed about it. It is Indian

philosophical tradition to present other theories as 'puurvapaksha' or

current existing theories and what is wrong with them and how the new

theory is going to address it better. From Vedic age we had pouraanic

age and that is where the personification of gods took deep root.

Actually the epistemological arguments in Buddhism took deep root with

Nagarjuna of 3rd Century. Brahmassutra-s must have come later than

that, although tradition has equated Sage Badaraayana with Vyaasa. Again

most of the puraaNa-s are attributed to Vyaasa which is doubtful.

> We might even identify a person and give him a name ... Sage

> Yagnavalkya or Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. However, I think that the

> real truth is that nonduality is independently discovered by all deep

> meditators who can transcend the mind.

 

Yes - If truth is one that has to be. Only thing is Upanishads by

recording formalized the knowledge and therefore they have become an

acceptable pramaaNa. Otherwise knowledge, absolute cannot have

differences. In communicating the knowledge we are forced to use words

which are limited and therefore language and means of expression become

important in communicating that which cannot be communicated.

Upanishads used mystic language to accomplish that - it is smaller than

the smallest yet bigger than the biggest - subtler than the subtlest

etc. John Grimes has written an excellent book on the Language related

to Advaita Vedanta - I am not sure the exact title.

 

>Quite the contrary. I meant that it was

> trivial of me to comment on how imposing it looked. But I think you

> understood...

>

Yes I understand.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin,

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Sadaji,

>

> You wrote:

>

> > >To provide a background to the genesis of this question,

> > >I would briefly mention that there seems to be two

> > >perspectives to the manner in which the division between

> > >the real and the unreal may be made.

>

> >Benjamin - the techniques you just described is in a way the

essence of

> >two stage process involved what is technically known as 'adhyaaropa

> >apavaada'.

>

>

> Your message gives the impression that I wrote the words beginning

> with 'To provide...'. Actually, it was Sri Chittaranjan who wrote

> those words, and I was replying to him. Let us give Sri

Chittaranjan

> credit where credit is due!

>

> However, I agree with what you then said. By the way, I've been

> learning something new about the history of Vedanta, which has a

> bearing on the issue of Advaita vs. Buddhism. Basically, I have

> discovered that Sri Jay is hardly an exception. The Advaitins have

> been under severe attack by other Vedantins ever since Ramanuja,

> Madhva and on up to Sri Prabhupada (of Hare Krishna fame).

> Basically, these are all the Vaishnavaites, Bhaktis, etc. who wish

to

> worship God not as Self but as object of adoration, like the

> Christians and Muslims. (There may also be complications due to

> Hindu societal divisions, about which I am largely ignorant.)

>

> These people accused Shankara and Advaitins in general of being a

> 'secret Buddhists', and the charge continues until today. Sri

> Prabhupada is quite severe! In America, this may seem like a mere

> academic debate, but in India, where religion is very important and

> tied to society, I can understand how Advaitins may sometimes be

made

> to feel uncomfortable, as though they were renegades from Vedanta

and

> Hinduism. My sympathies if this is indeed the case!

>

> Really, the problem is not Buddhism but the abstract nature of

> nonduaity, which is so different from vyavaharik common-sense and

so

> difficult to understand. Yet there is no doubt that it is a

> necessary consequence of the Upanishadic mahavakyas 'Brahman is

> consciousness' and 'Brahman is One without a second'. Anyone who

> accepts these mahavakyas and who can do elementary math is forced

to

> the nondual conclusion. Buddhism is irrelevant, although I do

> believe that this shows that Buddhism drew inspiration from the

> Upanishads, which are older. So the sequence of influence,

according

> to my theory, is Upanishads -> Mahayana Buddhism -> Gaudapada ->

> Shankara. I hope this does not annoy anyone. Notice which is

first!

> We might even identify a person and give him a name ... Sage

> Yagnavalkya or Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. However, I think that the

> real truth is that nonduality is independently discovered by all

deep

> meditators who can transcend the mind.

>

> By the way, my earlier comment regarding the Table of Contents to

> your collected Advaitin messages, which I described as 'trivial',

may

> have seemed a bit strange. I did not mean that your imposing Table

> of Contents was trivial. Quite the contrary. I meant that it was

> trivial of me to comment on how imposing it looked. But I think

you

> understood...

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

 

 

Thank you Benjamin for passing on the credit to me. I do not think

there is any specific merit in my post to deserve this credit, but

your words go to show your sense of justice.

 

Your current message brings up an interesting theme that is in a way

related to the question of the real and the unreal that I had posted

earlier. There has indeed been an inclination by the more theistic

schools to attack the mayavada doctrine of Advaita. This antagonism

has been further attenuated by the fact that the later Advaitic works

lay more emphasis on the illusion aspect of the doctrine and tend to

mask the realism that runs through the Acharya's writings. It was my

intention, in the previous post, to draw attention to this thread of

realism. The writings of the Acharya are tremendously rich and

varied, and this wealth is often lost in the overriding emphasis that

is placed by later interpreters on the illusionist metaphysics.

 

Again, it is not easy for us, with our acculturations in modern

styles of thinking, to appreciate the realism in Advaita. For

example, we do not easily see that the doctrine of Advaita is

realistic in contrast to the idealistic doctrines of the prominent

schools of Buddhism. To appreciate this realism, it is necessary for

us to be familiar with the Nyaya system without which our

interpretation is liable to be warped by the influence of modern

conceptions that have reified the symbolisms of the past. (Nyaya is

considered one of the Vedangas or "arms of the Vedas".) Much of what

we would call subjective in modern terminology is termed in Nyaya as

the objective. Nyaya is based on the insight into language and the

world in which the one orchestrates in perfect harmony with the

other. This is one reason that the study of language and grammar

finds such a prominent place in the Vedic Darshanas. However, even

without this understanding of Nyaya, it is still possible to find the

realism that exists in Sri Shankaracharya's exposition of Advaita.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

-

"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik

 

To appreciate this realism, it is necessary for

> us to be familiar with the Nyaya system without which our

> interpretation is liable to be warped by the influence of modern

> conceptions that have reified the symbolisms of the past. (Nyaya is

> considered one of the Vedangas or "arms of the Vedas".) Much of what

> we would call subjective in modern terminology is termed in Nyaya as

> the objective. Nyaya is based on the insight into language and the

> world in which the one orchestrates in perfect harmony with the

> other. This is one reason that the study of language and grammar

> finds such a prominent place in the Vedic Darshanas. However, even

> without this understanding of Nyaya, it is still possible to find the

> realism that exists in Sri Shankaracharya's exposition of Advaita.

>

> With regards,

> Chittaranjan

 

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

nyAya is an upAnga not a vedAnga.

 

vedAnga-s : shiksha, vyAkaraNa, chandas, nirukta, jyotisha, kalpa

upAnga-s: nyAya, mimAmsa, purANa, dharmashAstra

(From Kanchi site..)

 

I liked your emphasis on realism of SankarAchArya !

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

May I request you to lead this topic : 'Shankara's Realism

contrasted with Mayavada', later in this year? Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

Nyaya is based on the insight into language and the

> world in which the one orchestrates in perfect harmony with the

> other. This is one reason that the study of language and grammar

> finds such a prominent place in the Vedic Darshanas. However, even

> without this understanding of Nyaya, it is still possible to find

the

> realism that exists in Sri Shankaracharya's exposition of Advaita.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji,

 

Thank you for correcting me. I am not all that familiar with the

shastras and need to be often corrected. Thank you once again.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

>

> -

> "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik>

>

> To appreciate this realism, it is necessary for

> > us to be familiar with the Nyaya system without which our

> > interpretation is liable to be warped by the influence of modern

> > conceptions that have reified the symbolisms of the past. (Nyaya

is

> > considered one of the Vedangas or "arms of the Vedas".) Much of

what

> > we would call subjective in modern terminology is termed in Nyaya

as

> > the objective. Nyaya is based on the insight into language and

the

> > world in which the one orchestrates in perfect harmony with the

> > other. This is one reason that the study of language and grammar

> > finds such a prominent place in the Vedic Darshanas. However,

even

> > without this understanding of Nyaya, it is still possible to find

the

> > realism that exists in Sri Shankaracharya's exposition of Advaita.

> >

> > With regards,

> > Chittaranjan

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> nyAya is an upAnga not a vedAnga.

>

> vedAnga-s : shiksha, vyAkaraNa, chandas, nirukta, jyotisha, kalpa

> upAnga-s: nyAya, mimAmsa, purANa, dharmashAstra

> (From Kanchi site..)

>

> I liked your emphasis on realism of SankarAchArya !

>

> Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Sri Sunder said to Chittaranjanji:

>May I request you to lead this topic : 'Shankara's Realism

>contrasted with Mayavada', later in this year? Thank you.

 

 

This would be an excellent topic, and one we have come back to

repeatedly with Michaelji, Ranjeetji, and others who are realists.

Since we may have a full blown discussion on this later, I'll make

only a few brief comments now.

 

I actually agree with the thesis of Michaelji and Chittaranjanji that

the earlier and more authentic works of Shankara, such as the Bashyas

(esp. Brahma Sutra Bashyas) have a pronounced realistic streak, if

one reads them literally. There have been many discussions here on

just how to interpret certain passages. It's an interesting and

non-trivial question.

 

And the apparently later Advaitin works, such as the Vivekachudamani

and Yoga Vasistha, have a more 'idealistic' or 'illusionistic'

emphasis, which is what I personally like, since it agrees with other

ideas of mine regarding reality (or the lack thereof).

 

Fortunately, by taking Hindu toleration at face value, I feel free to

choose whichever emphasis I prefer, especially since the

Vivekachudamani and Yoga Vasistha are clearly authentic parts of the

living Advaitic tradition, taught to many generations of students

until the present day. And it seems clear to me that their ideas are

echoed in Ramana and Nisargadatta. This does raises an uncomfortable

question: Who got it right, Shankara or the later tradition? Or must

we really choose?

 

I think a key part of the answer is what we mean by 'illusion'. To

the extent that the mahavakyas of the Upanishads say that 'Brahman is

consciousness' and 'Brahman is all', this clearly indicates that

everything must be consciousness in some sense. This almost

certainly means that the objects must be unreal in some sense,

especially if by 'objects' we mean something 'outside' of or 'other'

than consciousness.

 

However, illusion can also be taken to mean something utterly

non-existent, such as a barren woman's child. I do reject this kind

of illusion. Sadaji has discussed this rather carefully. Yet I

still feel that there is a valid case one can make that Shankara does

sometimes speak as though he thinks the objects are really 'there' in

some sense. But again, he may just be saying that within the

ordinary vyavaharika state, the dichotomy of subject and object is so

*vivid* that we must accept it as 'real' while we are in that state,

even though somewhere in the back of our mind we know it cannot be

true.

 

I can't stop wrestling with this theme, and indeed I have recently

bought a lot of Advaita related books to read on this, such as 'The

Essential Shankara' by D.B. Gangoli, which claims to be the

translation of Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swamiji's Kannada

magnum opus 'Shankara Vedantas Saara', or S.C. Chakravati's 1935

book, 'The Philosophy of the Upanishads'. I have no idea how

authoritative these books are, but they were there on the bookshelf

at Nataraj books and relatively inexpensive. I have to watch out

though ... some of these Indian authors are Brahmin-hating

Communists! Then I bought some other books on Advaita by Western

scholars, but I don't trust them as much as authentic non-Communist

Indians! :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin,

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjan,

>

> >In Advaita as expounded by Sri Shankaracharya, what is it

> >that is the unreal?

> >

> >To provide a background to the genesis of this question,

> >I would briefly mention that there seems to be two

> >perspectives to the manner in which the division between

> >the real and the unreal may be made.

>

>

> I also agree that there seems to be a two-stage process in Advaita.

>

> In our normal state, we see body, mind and world as *objects*, i.e.

> as something other than consciousness (which is 'subjec't under

this

> illusory dichotomy). Paradoxically, we then identify with some of

> those objects,namely, body and mind. While we are still under the

> spell of this illusion, we should, as a first step, cease to

identify

> with any illusory objects.

>

> But once this identification ceases, the next stage can begin,

which

> is to see everything as the Divine Consciousness. Body, mind and

> world are included, though now they are no longer seen as objects

but

> as manifestations of consciousness, like illusions. In this way,

we

> realize that there is only Consciousness or Brahman, and this

> realization produces liberation, according to the testimony of

sages.

>

> Failure to understand this two-step process leads to much

confusion.

> If we are too literal, the famous 'Neti, neti' seems to contradict

> the even more famous 'All is Brahman'. This is explained by the

> two-stage process, where first we are under the spell of the

illusion

> of objects, and then we come to understand that spell and liberate

> ourselves from it.

>

> The 'unreal' is only unreal when perceived as an object, as

something

> other than consciousness. That is, no object has a status as an

> independent self-sustaining entity outside of consciousness, as it

> seems to. When properly interpreted as a dream or illusion, all

> apparent objects then dissolve into consciousness, i.e. Brahman.

>

> Such is my understanding of the theory.

>

> We have been over this many times, but it never hurts to sharpen

> one's thoughts! This message is still too long...

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

 

Thank you for your reply Benjamin, and I agree with Venkatramanji

that your response was not at all too long; rather it was to the

point, succinct and eloquent. But I am afraid that my response will

be rather long and meandering. However, I have another reason to

specially thank you, and that is for providing me with the means for

an important distinction, something that struck me with an uncommon

force when I re-read your message on the two-step process. Let me

explain.

 

I had said in my first post on this topic that there was another

manner in which Shankara's Advaita may be interpreted. But when I

read your message for the second time, I suddenly realised that this

was not another interpretation, but the same interpretation with an

important distinction to be made between two aspects of the

interpretation. This is the distinction between the upaya, the means

to the end, and the assertion of truth. The one is the method

prescribed for the sadhaka, the other is the statement of the

Advaitic Ontological Truth. And then everything seemed to fall into

place almost magically. Truth is not a matter of a step-by-step

process. The Truth is eternal. It is always the same, both when we

are blinded to it, and when our eyes are open to see it. This truth

is the paramarthika satya that All is Brahman. The world is Brahman,

Brahman is the Real, the world is therefore real.

 

(The perceptive Eric hints at this distinction between upaya and the

nature of Truth in his post.)

 

The prescription of "neti, neti" is the upaya, a provisional means

for the sadhaka to free himself from the bondage of the limited to

awaken to the light of the Unlimited. Again, it may be noticed

that "neti, neti" is used with a greater emphasis on the denial of

the seen as constituting the Self than on the denial of the world

itself. The mind is naturally directed outward towards objects and

does not "see" the Self, and it must return from being outward bound

to its source by a denial of the objects that attract its attention.

The entire process is a process of dispelling the false notion of the

objects it clings to as being the Self.

 

In order to obtain conviction that this is not just a clever sleight

of hand, the following points may be considered:

 

1. A large part of the Brahma Sutra Bhasya of the Acharya is

devoted to showing that the material cause of the world is Brahman.

This is done on the observation that the effect is nothing but the

cause itself and is only a name for a peculiar condition of the

cause. The Acharya proceeds to establish that all the five elements

resolve themselves one by one into its involute cause until they are

identical with Brahman. Thus the world is the reality of Brahman. It

is Brahman alone that is the world through and through. It is by

focussing on maya to the exclusion of this part of the Acharya's

writings that Visistadvaita was able to launch one of its two major

points of attacks on Advaita. Their point of contention was that if

the world is maya, then the Sruti statement that by knowing One all

is known becomes false. But this objection is invalidated by Brahman

being the material cause of the world in Advaita.

 

2. It is significant that the Acharya considers Samkhya as the

doctrine that is closest to Advaita Vedanta. Samkhya is a doctrine of

realism. Indeed the Acharya explicitly states that by adopting the

doctrine of the effect being the cause, Samkhya comes closest to

Vedanta. But whereas Samkhya stops at undifferentiated Avyakta as the

cause of the universe and maintains the duality of Purusha and

Prakriti, Advaita proceeds to bind Prakriti and Purusha into a non-

duality. Again, the word "bind" is used in a metaphorical sense,

because there is no binding of two things in Advaita: Purusha and

Prakriti are not two, but two aspects of the one Brahman.

 

3. In order to understand how there can be two aspects of One,

it is necessary to remember that Brahman is the substratum of the

world. (It might be mentioned here that the symbolism of substance

has lost its meaning in the modern world, and contemporary academic

philosophy vainly grapples with a variety of new concepts such as the

compresence of universals, bare-particulars, tropes, etc, to find a

solution to the problem of substances.) This necessitates an

understanding of the relationship between dravya and guna, or in the

English language, between substance and attributes. In the philosophy

of Nyaya, it is the intimate relation of samavaya, or inherence, that

binds the two. The very connotation of the word "inherence" is to

exist within, yet because the distinction of dravya and guna

distinctively separates them, Nyaya posits the relation of inherence.

In the Brahma Sutra Bhasya, the relation of inherence is not accepted

by the Acharya on two grounds, the first being that it leads to an

infinite regress, and the second that it is against the principle of

parsimony. The Acharya's writings are unequivocal that attributes are

co-terminous with the substantive itself. This is also the manner in

which Visistadvaita conceives of the entire universe as being the

body of Ishwara. But Visistadvaita in its persistence of calling

Advaita a doctrine of mayavada, launches its second major point of

attack on Advaita stating that an object is not false and that its

reality only points through the attributes to its substantive which

is Existence or Brahman itself. But here again, we may see that the

objection is invalid because the position of Advaita is the same. (In

the history of Western Philosophy, there is only one unique

philosopher who conceived of God in this manner, and that is Spinoza.

Yet he was, and continues to be, much misunderstood, primarily

because of the erosion of the symbolism of substance.)

 

4. The Acharya provides a very lucid explanation in his

commentary on the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, starting with the

verse "There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was

covered only by Death...". The Acharya says "on the authority of the

Sruti we conclude that the cause which covered, and the effect which

was covered, were both existent before the origin of the universe."

Again, he says as follows: "Manifestation means coming within the

range of perception. It is a common occurrence that a thing, a jar

for instance, which was hidden by darkness or any other thing and

comes within the range of perception when the obstruction is removed

by the appearance of light or in some other way, does not preclude

the previous existence. Similarly this universe too, we can

understand, existed before its manifestation. For a jar that is non-

existent is not perceived even when the sun rises." Again he

says: "The terms and concepts `destroyed', `produced', `existence'

and `non-existence' depend on this two-fold character of

manifestation and disappearance." The commentary goes on to explain

the different types of obstructions to manifestation, and declares

the eternality of the cause as well as the effect. We may consider

this example: The statue is not created. It already exists in the

granite block out of which it is carved. The sculptor only unveils

and makes manifest the form (rupa) which already exists in the

granite block, and to which the name (nama), statue, is attached.

Likewise, this world exists eternally in Brahman; it exists both when

it is unmanifest and when it is made manifest.

 

5. In Advaita, the world is nama and rupa, name and form. The

name, or word, is different from the form, but the two are intimately

wedded to each other. When there is the name, there is the form.

Indeed, creation is said to arise from the word by the invocation of

forms through speech. Now in Advaita, as with the Grammarians, words

are said to be eternal. If words are eternal, how can forms not be

eternal? If in the silence of nirgunam, the eternal word is

unmanifest, then it only follows that likewise in the silence of

nirgunam the eternal world is also unmanifest, and not that the world

is unreal or non-existent.

 

6. Maya is not illusion. It is Prakriti that is one with

Purusha. This is not unreal. Maya is also the projective power of

Brahman associated with Time. This too is not unreal. Maya is also

the concealing power within this projection in Time. It is only this

that we may perhaps call unreal. I am not sure.

 

One can find many more instances in the Acharya's writings to support

the view that the world is reality itself. Now, then, what is it that

is unreal? Indeed, there is only Reality everywhere! There can never

be anything that can be pointed to as being unreal! The unreal is

not in the world, but in the knots of the heart, in the paradoxical

avidya that seems to fracture this world into a multiplicity of self-

subsisting objects. The seat of the unreal is the ignorance within

that hides the plenitude of the Self and makes us attached to the

limited body, or makes us run after objects when indeed the entire

universe is in the Self. It is this ignorance that imbues the world

with two kinds of falsities arising out of viparya (conflation) and

vikalpa (delusion).

 

There is nothing in what I submit here that is different than what is

already posted on this group from time to time, but it is only the

emphasis that is shifted. This emphasis helps me keep a balance when

speaking about Maya, and prevents me from unwittingly slipping into a

locution where Ishwara becomes only a concession to the play of Maya.

Ishwara is real. Ishwara is all-pervasive. The veil of Maya blinds my

eyes. When I use the word "I", it denotes a limited thing. But even

in vyavaharika satya, we are the clearings in which the light of the

divine shines, the Divine that dances as this world in the effulgence

of Conscious Spirit.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

<after reading Benjamin-ji>

 

real/unreal brings us to consensus and communication;

the topic hardly arises when i am on my own;

let's start from nirvikalpa samadhi: there is no line real/unreal;

then gradually coming back from samadhi some consciousness of

time/reality is brought back with senses and thoughts...

when gradually coming back from nirvikalpa samadhi to "reality", what

came back first?

inner feelings? (hungry) outer feeling? (a kid calling) vasanas?

thoughts?

which of the 4 above is realler?

what if i step directly from samadhi into sleep:

- dream sleep (my reality is dream), am i back from samadhi

to "reality" then?

- dreamless sleep; i have stepped from where to where? what is me?

what is real?

<still exploring real and being on my own>

now at the moment i die what is real? there is the pain maybe, a

certain loss of consciousness maybe, a fieverish dreamlike state

maybe.

if i believe in reincarnation, what will be realler to me? the life i

just spent (as a bhoga, a sinner), the day i just spent (not

expecting i would die tonight), the minute i just spent (with the

pressing call of death), or this moment where consciousness is still

there but the sense-real-world is remote.

i am pointing to the disposition of a mind at the moment of dying. Is

it real? if my last moment determines my reincarnation or absence

thereof, it must be real although senses are shutoff.

now if on the contrary we deny reality as an only sense-personal

experience, we put it in the hand of the community and communication

and my wife says: "while you were in samadhi a kid poured water on

you head, you didn't feel it". so the world was real apart from me.

but if we deny religion as a social event, but only as self-will to

awaken or my personal relation to grace, reality is only what i make

of it with my senses; if attention shifts from my right hand to my

left hand, i must conclude that the world has shifted with it.

eric

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Thank you, I am honoured by this invitation. At the same time I am

not sure if I am capable of leading this discussion. I have just now

posted a message on this topic and have exhausted almost everything

that I know about the subject. Also, I do not know Sanskrit, neither

am I versed in the shastras. Whatever I know is mostly second hand

knowledge collected from bits of sporadic readings of the Upanishads,

Sri Shankaracharya's writings and a few other books. Much of what I

have written here have their basis in my readings of Sri Ramana

Maharshi and the translations of Sri Chandrashekarandra Saraswati,

the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt, in the two books "The Vedas"

and "Hindu Dharma".

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> May I request you to lead this topic : 'Shankara's

Realism

> contrasted with Mayavada', later in this year? Thank you.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

>

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Nyaya is based on the insight into language and the

> > world in which the one orchestrates in perfect harmony with the

> > other. This is one reason that the study of language and grammar

> > finds such a prominent place in the Vedic Darshanas. However,

even

> > without this understanding of Nyaya, it is still possible to find

> the

> > realism that exists in Sri Shankaracharya's exposition of Advaita.

> >

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

 

Beautiful Chittaranjanji. My hearty congratulations. Very goood

summarization of Shankara's position.

 

Yes, Navya naaya provides a good starting point. Vedanta paribhaasha

takes a good stab at the Nyaaya-viasheshika's position and provides

synthesis of advaitic view of the epistemological issues. I had

requested once Michael to provide discussion on this topic, but for some

reason he kept quite on that issue. I was planning to examimine this in

my Adviata Manjari series - looking mostly from Annambhatta's work. It

is good if you discuss Shankara's position in relation to NavyaNaaya.

AdviataSiddhi of Madusuudhana Saraswati does examine theories of falsity

in response to VyasaThirtha's criticism of adviatic position. I am eager

to learn from your mails.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji

 

Your latest message shows that you are very thoughtful and

articulate. You should definitely take up Sunderji's suggestion to

host a discussion later in the year on Shankara vs. Mayavada. That's

what you get for making a good contribution to this list. No good

deed goes unpunished!

 

As for what you said, it sounds just fine to me. I would only add

this. Those who attack Shankara on the basis of making too much out

of maya do not, in my opinion, understand how Shankara uses maya.

Maya is not a real entity; rather it is the illusion that makes us

see the world of objects as something other than Consciousness. Even

when we are in a state of delusion, the substratum of those objects

is real, and this substratum is Consciousness. The delusion is

simply in thinking that those apparent objects are something *other*

than consciousness.

 

As you describe it, the Visistadvaitins got it seriously wrong! As a

devotee of the 'illusionistic' belief that all is consciousness, I

can assure you that by knowing the One all is indeed known, contrary

to the Visistadvaitins' misunderstanding. I can say this precisely

because it is an illusion and an error to interpret the apparent

object as something other than consciousness. Otherwise, if it were

indeed something other than consciousness (i.e. truly an object),

then it would remain forever unknowable.

 

The 'realism' you seek is the realism of consciousness itself, the

source and essence of all reality. That is, Brahman the Real is

consciousness, which is no different from your consciousness and

mine, and likewise the world is no different from Consciousness.

This is contrary to the prakriti notion of Samkhya, where prakriti is

taken to be something inert and unconscious like the Western

conception of matter. So I cannot agree that a dualistic philosophy

like Samkhya is close to Advaita. However, what you like in Samkhya

is that it emphasizes the world as *real*. The solution is simply to

realize that the real is precisely the same as Consciousness, and all

your fears about the 'unreality' of 'illusionism' will evaporate,

based on what I said above. I hope all this makes sense to you.

 

Your message has been very helpful to me in clarifying how people can

interpret things very differently from me, from what I take for

granted as the true meaning of a word. I now realize that a word

such as 'realism' can mean something very different to someone else.

You simply hunger for 'reality'. No problem with that!

 

And there is much more in your rich message that we could talk about.

Clearly, you have studied philosophy. For example, if the

'attributes' (world) are 'co-terminous with the substantive'

(Brahman), then whatever else this means, we both agree that

everything is consciousness! And yes again, the unreality is in the

'knots of the heart' ... a point we have not often made here in the

midst of our too-scholastic discussions. You have as much to

contribute as anyone here; please stick around.

 

Anyhow, this should all wait for later in the year at the appropriate

time. We don't want to exhaust ourselves yet! I can see we are all

going to have a fruitful discussion under your leadership, because

you are articulate without being argumentative.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

And Eric what you said is profound too ... though your English is not

quite as smooth as Chittaranjanji's. Perhaps you should just tell it

to us in French! :-)

 

Please don't feel that my brief response is belittling your

perspicacious thoughts. I have a pile of books to read, and I've

already been on this list over an hour. Spiritual discussion is

addictive. Maybe they should outlaw that too...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> And Eric what you said is profound too ... though your English is

not

> quite as smooth as Chittaranjanji's. Perhaps you should just tell

it

> to us in French! :-)

>

> Please don't feel that my brief response is belittling your

> perspicacious thoughts. I have a pile of books to read, and I've

> already been on this list over an hour. Spiritual discussion is

> addictive. Maybe they should outlaw that too...

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

no problem Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>>

> 6. Maya is not illusion. It is Prakriti that is one with

> Purusha. This is not unreal. Maya is also the projective power of

> Brahman associated with Time. This too is not unreal. Maya is also

> the concealing power within this projection in Time. It is only

this

> that we may perhaps call unreal. I am not sure.

>

> One can find many more instances in the Acharya's writings to

support

> the view that the world is reality itself. Now, then, what is it

that

> is unreal? Indeed, there is only Reality everywhere! There can

never

> be anything that can be pointed to as being unreal! The unreal is

> not in the world, but in the knots of the heart, in the

paradoxical

> avidya that seems to fracture this world into a multiplicity of

self-

> subsisting objects. The seat of the unreal is the ignorance within

> that hides the plenitude of the Self and makes us attached to the

> limited body, or makes us run after objects when indeed the entire

> universe is in the Self. It is this ignorance that imbues the

world

> with two kinds of falsities arising out of viparya (conflation)

and

> vikalpa (delusion).

>

> There is nothing in what I submit here that is different than what

is

> already posted on this group from time to time, but it is only the

> emphasis that is shifted. This emphasis helps me keep a balance

when

> speaking about Maya, and prevents me from unwittingly slipping

into a

> locution where Ishwara becomes only a concession to the play of

Maya.

> Ishwara is real. Ishwara is all-pervasive. The veil of Maya blinds

my

> eyes. When I use the word "I", it denotes a limited thing. But

even

> in vyavaharika satya, we are the clearings in which the light of

the

> divine shines, the Divine that dances as this world in the

effulgence

> of Conscious Spirit.

 

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

Your summary is fantastic. I enjoyed it. Please give me one

clarification. If I add the following assertion to your summary of

Sankara's position, would it contradict your other statements? :

 

The world (or the universe, jagat) is not unreal in the sense of

barren woman's son. It is only unreal as what its appearance shows;

but it is real as Brahman!

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

It is only an acknowledgement of the honor you have

done to the list by your presentation, and corroborated by subsequent

posts from others.

 

The topic will follow nicely after Ken Knight's

presentation on Maya in the Vedas.

 

Hope you will keep the invitation under consideration

and as Benjamin put it, help us 'refine our thoughts' to untie

the 'knots of ignorance'.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Thank you, I am honoured by this invitation. At the same time I am

> not sure if I am capable of leading this discussion.

> > contrasted with Mayavada', later in this year? Thank you.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Sunder

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

Your name roughly means 'Delighter of mind-stuff' and that is exactly what you

did in your last post on the subject. After that post, being modest is not

likely to succeed. So I would like to join others in requesting you to lead the

discussions on the the topic of 'Shankara's Realism as contrasted to Mayavada'

whenever it is convenient to you. Not many on this list or elsewhere can express

lofty ideas in equally elegant prose as you have been doing in your last few

posts.

 

While on the subject I would request you to clarify the only thing that was not

clear to me in your post. You say in the last para,

 

"This emphasis helps me keep a balance when speaking about Maya, and prevents me

from unwittingly slipping into a locution where Ishwara becomes only a

concession to the play of Maya.Ishwara is real."

 

It is not clear to me how the above follows from whatever you said earlier.Just

as 'Neti, Neti' is only for people who are still under the sway of Maya, so is

'Ishwara'. By saying 'Neti, Neti' to the statue, one gets to the stone from

which it is carved out. But how does that lead one to Ishwara.

 

My question may seem only intellectual on the surface. But behind it a very real

problem I face in my daily life. Before I got very deeply into vedanta, with

Bhakti for my Ishta Devata, any problem that life contrived for me became

manageable. But now calling that problem 'Maya' somehow does not seem to be

doing the trick. I want to bring back Ishwara in to my life. Hence the question

to you.

 

praNAms,

Venkat - M

 

 

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Thank you, I am honoured by this invitation. At the same time I am

not sure if I am capable of leading this discussion. I have just now

posted a message on this topic and have exhausted almost everything

that I know about the subject.

 

 

 

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download

Messenger Now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji,

 

Thank you, Sir, for your comments which I respond with deep respect.

I have tried reading Navya nyaya, but found it rather difficult. One

problem that I have encountered while reading navya naya is that the

English translations make it particularly long-winded. I would be

happy to learn from your Advaita Manjari series on the interesting

and subtler arguments that are presented through the navya nyaya

dialectics.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> --- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Beautiful Chittaranjanji. My hearty congratulations. Very goood

> summarization of Shankara's position.

>

> Yes, Navya naaya provides a good starting point. Vedanta paribhaasha

> takes a good stab at the Nyaaya-viasheshika's position and provides

> synthesis of advaitic view of the epistemological issues. I had

> requested once Michael to provide discussion on this topic, but for

some

> reason he kept quite on that issue. I was planning to examimine

this in

> my Adviata Manjari series - looking mostly from Annambhatta's work.

It

> is good if you discuss Shankara's position in relation to

NavyaNaaya.

> AdviataSiddhi of Madusuudhana Saraswati does examine theories of

falsity

> in response to VyasaThirtha's criticism of adviatic position. I am

eager

> to learn from your mails.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

> =====

> What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have

is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

>

>

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

It appears that I've put my neck on the block and can't escape now! I

haven't had experience in hosting discussions so far and will have to

learn how to face the brick-bats.

 

As regards our seeming differences, let me assure you that I don't

mean to say that the world is apart from consciousness. The

difference lies in the way that language is used, but I would say

that language is not a trivial thing. Language relates to the way in

which forms arise in consciousness, and the way in which the meanings

of the words we use find fulfilment in the forms and notions of the

original meanings conferred by consciousness. This seems to hint at

the importance of etymology...

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji

>

> Your latest message shows that you are very thoughtful and

> articulate. You should definitely take up Sunderji's suggestion to

> host a discussion later in the year on Shankara vs. Mayavada.

That's

> what you get for making a good contribution to this list. No good

> deed goes unpunished!

>

> As for what you said, it sounds just fine to me. I would only add

> this. Those who attack Shankara on the basis of making too much

out

> of maya do not, in my opinion, understand how Shankara uses maya.

> Maya is not a real entity; rather it is the illusion that makes us

> see the world of objects as something other than Consciousness.

Even

> when we are in a state of delusion, the substratum of those objects

> is real, and this substratum is Consciousness. The delusion is

> simply in thinking that those apparent objects are something

*other*

> than consciousness.

>

> As you describe it, the Visistadvaitins got it seriously wrong! As

a

> devotee of the 'illusionistic' belief that all is consciousness, I

> can assure you that by knowing the One all is indeed known,

contrary

> to the Visistadvaitins' misunderstanding. I can say this precisely

> because it is an illusion and an error to interpret the apparent

> object as something other than consciousness. Otherwise, if it

were

> indeed something other than consciousness (i.e. truly an object),

> then it would remain forever unknowable.

>

> The 'realism' you seek is the realism of consciousness itself, the

> source and essence of all reality. That is, Brahman the Real is

> consciousness, which is no different from your consciousness and

> mine, and likewise the world is no different from Consciousness.

> This is contrary to the prakriti notion of Samkhya, where prakriti

is

> taken to be something inert and unconscious like the Western

> conception of matter. So I cannot agree that a dualistic

philosophy

> like Samkhya is close to Advaita. However, what you like in

Samkhya

> is that it emphasizes the world as *real*. The solution is simply

to

> realize that the real is precisely the same as Consciousness, and

all

> your fears about the 'unreality' of 'illusionism' will evaporate,

> based on what I said above. I hope all this makes sense to you.

>

> Your message has been very helpful to me in clarifying how people

can

> interpret things very differently from me, from what I take for

> granted as the true meaning of a word. I now realize that a word

> such as 'realism' can mean something very different to someone

else.

> You simply hunger for 'reality'. No problem with that!

>

> And there is much more in your rich message that we could talk

about.

> Clearly, you have studied philosophy. For example, if the

> 'attributes' (world) are 'co-terminous with the substantive'

> (Brahman), then whatever else this means, we both agree that

> everything is consciousness! And yes again, the unreality is in

the

> 'knots of the heart' ... a point we have not often made here in the

> midst of our too-scholastic discussions. You have as much to

> contribute as anyone here; please stick around.

>

> Anyhow, this should all wait for later in the year at the

appropriate

> time. We don't want to exhaust ourselves yet! I can see we are

all

> going to have a fruitful discussion under your leadership, because

> you are articulate without being argumentative.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Respected Professorji,

 

Your remarks mean a lot to me as it comforts me that I am not

entirely on the wrong track. In respect of the question you ask me, I

would say that those assertions do not contradict my understanding of

Shankara's Advaita.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> >>

> > 6. Maya is not illusion. It is Prakriti that is one with

> > Purusha. This is not unreal. Maya is also the projective power of

> > Brahman associated with Time. This too is not unreal. Maya is

also

> > the concealing power within this projection in Time. It is only

> this

> > that we may perhaps call unreal. I am not sure.

> >

> > One can find many more instances in the Acharya's writings to

> support

> > the view that the world is reality itself. Now, then, what is it

> that

> > is unreal? Indeed, there is only Reality everywhere! There can

> never

> > be anything that can be pointed to as being unreal! The unreal

is

> > not in the world, but in the knots of the heart, in the

> paradoxical

> > avidya that seems to fracture this world into a multiplicity of

> self-

> > subsisting objects. The seat of the unreal is the ignorance

within

> > that hides the plenitude of the Self and makes us attached to the

> > limited body, or makes us run after objects when indeed the

entire

> > universe is in the Self. It is this ignorance that imbues the

> world

> > with two kinds of falsities arising out of viparya (conflation)

> and

> > vikalpa (delusion).

> >

> > There is nothing in what I submit here that is different than

what

> is

> > already posted on this group from time to time, but it is only

the

> > emphasis that is shifted. This emphasis helps me keep a balance

> when

> > speaking about Maya, and prevents me from unwittingly slipping

> into a

> > locution where Ishwara becomes only a concession to the play of

> Maya.

> > Ishwara is real. Ishwara is all-pervasive. The veil of Maya

blinds

> my

> > eyes. When I use the word "I", it denotes a limited thing. But

> even

> > in vyavaharika satya, we are the clearings in which the light of

> the

> > divine shines, the Divine that dances as this world in the

> effulgence

> > of Conscious Spirit.

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> Your summary is fantastic. I enjoyed it. Please give me one

> clarification. If I add the following assertion to your summary of

> Sankara's position, would it contradict your other statements? :

>

> The world (or the universe, jagat) is not unreal in the sense of

> barren woman's son. It is only unreal as what its appearance shows;

> but it is real as Brahman!

>

> praNAms to all advaitins

> profvk