The Unreal Can Cause the Real

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbu-ji,

re#46120:

 

The claim is that we can get to the real from the unreal. And so we can,

the evidence of many mahatmas is convincing. However we may still ask: is

the thinking behind the analogies offered persuasive? If everything on

the relative plane is unreal how are we to lift ourselves off it to the

plane of reality or the absolute? The analogies offered are all on the

relative plane and they make the indisputable point that illusions can

have real effects. All these effects are on the same plane as their

cause. The placebo is fake medicine but a real placebo. The dream is a

real dream etc.

 

OK I understand that these analogies are offered by way of being a 'moon

on the bough' i.e. a way of making the remote and abstruse seem homely and

accessible to the intellect of the questioner. They represent a

provisional and intermediate understanding and lead to the more difficult

question: what is it about ordinary everyday awareness that is not

sublatable? What is the nugget of truth in the rumour?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Subbu-ji,

> re#46120:

>

> The claim is that we can get to the real from the unreal. And so we can,

> the evidence of many mahatmas is convincing. However we may still ask: is

> the thinking behind the analogies offered persuasive? If everything on

> the relative plane is unreal how are we to lift ourselves off it to the

> plane of reality or the absolute? The analogies offered are all on the

> relative plane and they make the indisputable point that illusions can

> have real effects. All these effects are on the same plane as their

> cause. The placebo is fake medicine but a real placebo. The dream is a

> real dream etc.

 

Dear Michael, Namaste.

 

The purpose of Shankara using the dream snake-bite, dream bathing, etc. is to

drive home the point that between two states of reality namely: 1. the

sublatable-in-parlance (vyavahara)-reality which is known as prAtibhAsika and

2. the parlance-reality (vyavahArika) which, of course, is sublatable only on

Brahman-realization - the former enjoys a lesser degree of reality, as we all

know; the rope-snake sublates when the rope-knowledge arises and the

dream-objects sublate when we wake up. Shankara argues, in that Brahmasutra

commentary quoted, that while the objects themselves (of a dream) are indeed

rendered false upon waking, most importantly, the 'experiencing' of these

dream-objects resulting in a particular consciousness 'I saw a wild elephant

chasing the farmer in my dream last night' is NOT falsified upon waking. In

fact, it is only because it has not been falsified that one is able to recount

it either to himself or to another.

 

So, here we have a knowledge that arises in a prAtibhAsika state but continues

unfalsified in the vyavaharika state. This is what is helpful in holding that

the vEda, as a pramANa, although operating in one falsifiable plane is capable

of generating an unfalsifiable knowledge about the truth of Atman/Brahman.

Thus, the comparison is limited to the common feature of 'a knowledge generated

in a falsifiable state can result in valid knowledge (of Atman)'.

 

The placebo, although 'real', is fake, as you agree. Shankara does not hold the

dream itself to be false; only the dream objects, the dream setting, to be

false, as is evidenced in everyone's experience. In other words, what I saw in

a dream can be false but that I saw is not false. This is the heart of the

whole thesis.

 

It is in this sense that the analogy is positively persuasive.

 

 

 

>

> OK I understand that these analogies are offered by way of being a 'moon

> on the bough' i.e. a way of making the remote and abstruse seem homely and

> accessible to the intellect of the questioner. They represent a

> provisional and intermediate understanding and lead to the more difficult

> question: what is it about ordinary everyday awareness that is not

> sublatable? What is the nugget of truth in the rumour?

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael

 

 

Once the example is understood and appreciated in its totality, one has to

extend it to the case on hand. Now, we have the vEda operating in the waking,

vyAvahArika, state. We have evidence in the vEda itself that the vEda does not

subsist in the pAramArthika state. An arthApatti, presumptory inference, is

drawn: Therefore, the vEda while belonging to the sublatable vyaavahArika state

succeeds in imparting knowledge about the pAramArthika Reality. Having

accomplished this, it too sublates along with the world. You ask: //what is it

about ordinary everyday awareness that is not

> sublatable? What is the nugget of truth in the rumour?//

 

There is unambiguous evidence in the Veda itself that a realized man is no

longer deluded, having gained the vision of Oneness. These passages along with

the actual experience of the realized ones prove that the ordinary everyday

awareness is indeed sublatable. The Panchadashi has specifically clarified that

what constitutes realization is the firm conviction that the objective world is

false, mithyA and NOT its disappearance.

 

To conclude, if the 'rumour' is that 'upon Self-realization the world gets

sublated', the 'nugget of truth' is 'sublation is the unshakable conviction of

the unreality of the world and NOT its disappearance from the range of

ocular/sensory apparatus.'

 

At the cost of lengthening the reply, let me cite Shankara's words that are very

illuminative to your question, that I came across very recently:

 

In the Brihadaranyaka Up. commentary II.i.20: (p.209 latter half of the page, in

the Swami Madhavananda's translation.)

 

// Nor can the Scriptures speak about an unknown thing without having recourse

to conventional words and their meanings.//

 

This is because, the Scripture is faced with a peculiar problem: It has to

impart knowledge of that Thing that is beyond words, analogies, etc. But we can

understand only words, analogies, etc. So, per force, the Scripture uses those

words, analogies, etc. that we are familiar with. This is inevitable.

 

Similarly, Shankara uses what is familiar to us: the dream being capable of

imparting a knowledge that is not invalidated in the waking. He cites examples

from everyday life. Once we appreciate this, he extends this to the next higher

stage: the sublatable vyAvahArika being capable of giving the unsublatable

knowledge of the pAramArthika. This method is inevitable.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 8/6/09, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote:

..........

...............

 

There is unambiguous evidence in the Veda itself that a realized man is no

longer deluded, having gained the vision of Oneness. These passages along with

the actual experience of the realized ones prove that the ordinary everyday

awareness is indeed sublatable. The Panchadashi has specifically clarified that

what constitutes realization is the firm conviction that the objective world is

false, mithyA and NOT its disappearance.

..............

To conclude, if the 'rumour' is that 'upon Self-realization the world gets

sublated', the 'nugget of truth' is 'sublation is the unshakable conviction of

the unreality of the world and NOT its disappearance from the range of

ocular/sensory apparatus.'

--------------

 

Subbuji - PraNAms

 

Excellent post.

 

If I may add, what is negated is not the experience of the world but reality

that is assumed for the superficiality in those experiences. What is understood

is the substantive of the reality in spite of the superficiality of the

experiential reality. Hence the negation is only for the reality of the names

and forms with the recognition that they are mithyaa and not satya - as in there

is no pot when I recognize the clay from the point of the truth; but I can still

say that it is a pot for transactions, knowing that there is really no pot. Pot

becomes mithyaa, nether real nor unreal. However pot is still useful not only

for transactions but to recognize the substantive clay. The problem comes only

if I give absolute reality to the pot, not recognizing the clay that is

substantive. What I am negating is not the experience of pot but reality that is

given to the experience of the pot. What I am experiencing is only clay in the

form of pot and that is

knowledge.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda