tackleberry Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Both dvaita and advaita believe that the world is only a reflection of Brahman. But dvaita says the reflection is real, and therefore the jivas (being reflections/pratibimbas) are as real as Brahman. Advaita claims that the reflection can never be the real thing (or why do we call it a reflection?), and so everything, except Brahman, is an illusion. What you see in the mirror is an appearance, an illusion, not the 'real' you. This is their argument. Which is true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 If a boy comes to a beach, sits down and make a sand castle from the sands. Which is true? The Castle or the Sand? If you just see the sand, then you will not see the castle and therefore, the castle is an illusion. If you see the castle, then you will not see the sands by which it is made off. Therefore, the castle is truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Advaita claims that the reflection can never be the real thing (or why do we call it a reflection?), and so everything, except Brahman, is an illusion. What you see in the mirror is an appearance, an illusion, not the 'real' you. This is their argument. Which is true? This is much the same as the statement "you are not the body". What does it mean to you? Do you stop caring for your body or do you start feeling different once you have heard the statement? Neither of the two. Everything remains the same as before. Consider Vaishnava Liberation which is basically serving Shri Hari in Vaikunta at his lotus feet. There are a number of open questions here. What service does the Lord want from you & me? Assuming, he does need service, there are already a number of people there servng him. How does my service add value? It does not seem like much to keep one eternally happy - ocean of milk, a big snake and Vishnu. That is pretty much it. As far as I can tell from studying the scriptures, all you do in heaven is pretty much just sit around all day and praise the Lord. I don’t know about you, but I think that after the first, oh, I don’t know, 50,000,000 years of that I’d start to get a little bored. - Rick Reynolds The point, is post-Liberation is not a state that one can understand or even try to understand now. The same logic applies with Jagat Mithya. It does not mean the world is an illusion to us (it is not). Rather, it is the Advaita position that on Liberation where only truth sans Maya prevails, Jagat is Mithya, Brahman is Sathya and Jiva is Brahman and nothing else. The key point to be noted here is on Liberation. Some dunces on this forum have been posting nonsense about how Advaita says you are me and I am someone else and everything is an illusion anyway. Needless to say, all that is nonsense and all these wannabe critics have performed vanishing acts when asked for evidence. In short, the world is not an illusion to anyone - Advaitin or Dvaitin. The daily life & mindset of a staunch Advaitin is no different than the daily life of a staunch Dvaitin. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 If a boy comes to a beach, sits down and make a sand castle from the sands. Which is true? The Castle or the Sand? If you just see the sand, then you will not see the castle and therefore, the castle is an illusion. If you see the castle, then you will not see the sands by which it is made off. Therefore, the castle is truth. Isn’t the sand castle a 'higher order' structure than the individual grains of sand? And doesn’t this imply that the material world is a higher order structure than its origin (Brahman)? And isn’t Krishna the highest order structure? Isn’t Advaita true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visnujana Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Brahman is Absolute. So there can be nothing outside or independent of Brahman. So, the 'illusion' is also a part of Brahman. As such it is real, but the way a conditioned jiva sees it is illusion, because such is the potency, beauty or should I say leela of the Supreme Brahman pertaining to this particular part of his energy / creation - the material world... When I watch a movie I am put into a sort of illusion. However, all the 'causing' it constituent parts, such as the TV set, are real. I think this analogy with the movie can also be useful in understanding that the jivas are not placed into illusion for 'no reason'. Such are their desires. Jivas are also part of Brahman, but they have consciousness. Thus as individuals they will have desires. This material creation also facilitates certain desires of individual jivas. This is much as in a way I myself is the cuase of being in illusion while watching the movie. I placed myself into the illusion because I had had the desire to watch a movie.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Which is true? Both dvaita and advaita try to describe the reality using an imperfect and imprecise tool of language. We can argue for hundreds of years which better describes the reality without reaching ultimate conclusion. Instead, I advise you to immerse yourself in the practical process of discovering the reality and see for yourself. Experience Brahman and decide which approach (dvaita or advaita) describes it better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 by primate Isn’t the sand castle a 'higher order' structure than the individual grains of sand? And doesn’t this imply that the material world is a higher order structure than its origin (Brahman)? And isn’t Krishna the highest order structure? Isn’t Advaita true? Brahman (God) is Performer of Action - NOT the Action itself. I did say there was a boy there who made the sand castle from the sands, have I not? In this discussion, the discussion revolves around whether Reality is True or Illusion, NOT whether Brahman is True or Illusion. And Yes, you could be partially correct. The castle is "higher order" in term of structure if compared to sand. In that reflection, you should remember that the "higher order" between a sand castle and sands exist in term of "Purpose". In another word - the sands had no purpose and therefore, it is in a lower order compared to the "sand castle" which exists due to a specific purpose. Same as in Reality. Now, you just need to know what is the "Sand" in this Universe, and the secrets of the Universe shall be open for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Experience Brahman and decide which approach (dvaita or advaita) describes it better. decide which path is closest to your heart and approach to experience brahman . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saileshbose Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 I found the discussion around this issues of Reality v/s Illusion very clear in Maya Radj's free online (mayaradj.com) novel, R's Journey - The Wounded Elephant. It clarified my own questions around this with some straightforward arguments, based on facts. The novel is also a great way to learn about key aspects of Indian spirituality and philosophy - just see its glossary of over 200 terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Illusions are real man. <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 In one sense everything is Krishna. When we forget this everything we experience is illusion to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 An 'illusion' is a distortion of the senses. Unlike a hallucination, which is a distortion in the absence of a stimulus, an illusion is a misinterpretation of a real sensation. For example, hearing voices regardless of the environment would be a hallucination, whereas hearing voices in the sound of running water would be an illusion. (from Wikipedia) I don’t think our material percept of the universe is unreal. However, it may be a (very) limited - or distorted 'projection' of reality. Thus, the term 'illusion' seems appropriate.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 An 'illusion' is a distortion of the senses. Unlike a hallucination, which is a distortion in the absence of a stimulus, an illusion is a misinterpretation of a real sensation. For example, hearing voices regardless of the environment would be a hallucination, whereas hearing voices in the sound of running water would be an illusion. (from Wikipedia) I don’t think our material percept of the universe is unreal. However, it may be a (very) limited - or distorted 'projection' of reality. Thus, the term 'illusion' seems appropriate.. This is good. I never really considered the difference between a hallucination and illusion before. Krishna is right before our eyes but we mistake his presence to be something else. We are in illusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackleberry Posted February 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 In short, the world is not an illusion to anyone - Advaitin or Dvaitin. The daily life & mindset of a staunch Advaitin is no different than the daily life of a staunch Dvaitin. Cheers I find this hard to accept. The sunrise is always unreal, even though we perceive it every day. So why can't we conclude that the world also is unreal, even though we perceive it? In any case, my problem is with the reflection theory, which is common to both dvaita and advaita. Why does dvaita believe that the reflection is real, when that would be a contradiction in terms? If the reflection were real, it wouldn't be a reflection. Hence, advaitins argue that the reflection is always false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 I find this hard to accept. The sunrise is always unreal, even though we perceive it every day. So why can't we conclude that the world also is unreal, even though we perceive it? In any case, my problem is with the reflection theory, which is common to both dvaita and advaita. Why does dvaita believe that the reflection is real, when that would be a contradiction in terms? If the reflection were real, it wouldn't be a reflection. Hence, advaitins argue that the reflection is always false. It’s really quite simple. This 'reflection' (Maya) is both real and unreal; just like dreams - and illusions are simultaneously real and unreal, depending on your perspective. When you are awake, dreams appear to be unreal. Yet memory of dreams proves that the experience in itself was real. When you hear voices in the sound of running water, the experience again is real. But when you realise there is 'only' the static noise of running water, the voices will disappear and become unreal. Likewise, everything we consciously experience is real, until we realise it’s all 'an illusion'.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.