real and unreal

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbu-ji,

 

Your offerings are of course erudite and you do not wish to waste your

time in endless discussions but since this is a list whose stated purpose

is the teasing out of the more intricate elements of Advaita and in

particular the teaching of Shankara then some elaboration will be

unavoidable. The distinction between Real and Unreal can hardly be

sustained by a few

standard definitions. Sastri-ji has sketched the outline of a beginning

students orientation. Now this fuller treatment may seem to someone at

that stage to be final which you may agree is probably not your intention.

 

" the absolute unreality, non-existence, of the world characterised by the

body, etc. By such reiteration by the Lord we conclude that the Lord’s

intention is in teaching ‘Brahma Satyam, jagan mithya’. Page 5 Your

recent file -

http://www.advaitin.net/Subrahmanian/Satyam_and_Mithya_in_Gita.pdf

 

Absolute unreality is a very strong interpretation. How about unreal in

the sense that it does not contain its reality within itself. This is the

view of Tripura Rahasya, a text recognised as authoritative by Ramana

Maharshi.

 

" ...the universe exists, but not separately from the primal Reality -

God. Wisdom lies in realising everything as Siva and not treating it as

void. " XVI.71-72

 

In a sense therefore declaring the world to be wholly unreal may be a form

of dualism because it is a failure to take into account what

self-evidently exists namely the world.

 

from B.S.B. II.i.14: The effect is the universe, diversified as space

etc. and the cause is the supreme Brahman. In reality it is known that

the effect has non-difference from, i.e. non-existence in isolation from,

the cause.

 

further down: " no modification has any existence separately from Brahman " .

 

Would you agree that there is a salient difference between " non-existence "

and " non-existence in isolation from " ?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2674 - Release 02/07/10

19:35:00

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Subbu-ji,

>

>

> " the absolute unreality, non-existence, of the world characterised by the

body, etc. By such reiteration by the Lord we conclude that the Lord’s

intention is in teaching ‘Brahma Satyam, jagan mithya’. Page 5 Your recent

file -

> http://www.advaitin.net/Subrahmanian/Satyam_and_Mithya_in_Gita.pdf

>

Dear Michael ji:

 

Thanks for raising this question. Pl. find my responses within

 

> Absolute unreality is a very strong interpretation.

 

[ If you would look into the following sentence on page 4 of the File, a

translation of Shankara's commentary for the verse 13.34:

 

// perceive the non-existence of PrakRti, avidyA, avyaktA, the material cause of

beings, //

 

you would perhaps appreciate that I have not stated anything that Shankara has

Himself not. 'Non-existence' is the translation for His word: 'abhAva-gamanam'.]

 

How about unreal in the sense that it does not contain its reality within

itself. This is the view of Tripura Rahasya, a text recognised as authoritative

by Ramana Maharshi.

>

> " ...the universe exists, but not separately from the primal Reality -

> God. Wisdom lies in realising everything as Siva and not treating it as

void. " XVI.71-72

 

[ You can see the play of words here: The above statement means: the universe

'does not exist' as apart from Brahman. The gold chain does not exist apart

from gold. For a person who wants to see the gold alone, the chain is 'no

matter'. Certainly it is not void; it is substantially something that a 'chain'

is not. Shankara's above definition/interpretation does not contradict the

Tripura Rahasya quote. See Shankara's position, on Page 9 of the File:

 

//all changeful things, such as pots, are unreal because they are not perceived

to be different from their (material) causes..// You can find this in this very

File; you have quoted below from the BSB this very thing.]

 

 

> In a sense therefore declaring the world to be wholly unreal may be a form of

dualism because it is a failure to take into account what

> self-evidently exists namely the world.

 

[ No. It is not any form of dualism; it is a negation of everything other than

Brahman as not having any existence of 'its own' and realizing the Advaya,

secondless-of-any-kind, Brahman. Also, the perceivable/perceived universe is

not 'self-evident'; that is precisely not the position of Shankara: This is His

very First reason to establish the unreality of the universe/effects - see Page

6 of the File:

 

//1.indeed …heat, cold, etc. together with their causes are not substantially

real as they are perceived/grasped by means of instruments.//

 

For Shankara, anything that depends on something other than itself for being

validated, grasped, perceived, is unreal for that very reason that it is so

dependent. If it were 'self-evident' it would not have to depend on an external

entity/pramana/instrument/knower for its being known. The contrary example is

the Atman; It alone can be said to be self-evident and nothing else, in Vedanta.

Even a lit lamp that normally one would consider as emitting light and

'self-evident' is only dependent on the conscious knower/observer for its very

existence, in Vedanta. For, only when the knower 'certifies' by virtue of

'knowing' it, it gains any existence.]

>

> from B.S.B. II.i.14: The effect is the universe, diversified as space etc.

and the cause is the supreme Brahman. In reality it is known that the effect

has non-difference from, i.e. non-existence in isolation from, the cause.

>

> further down: " no modification has any existence separately from Brahman " .

 

[ The above is the position where the concept of 'cause-effect' is admitted,

provisionally. This very cause-effect relationship has been questioned and

demolished in the Mandukya Karika elaborately and only stated in a gist-form in

the Gita commentary 13.34 we have quoted already. ]

 

 

> Would you agree that there is a salient difference between " non-existence "

and " non-existence in isolation from " ?

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

[ The former is the ultimate position and the latter is only a provisional one,

as stated above. Whenever the Shruti passage demands adopting the latter one,

Shankara would comment accordingly and when it comes to spelling out the exact

mode of Realization, as for example in Gita 2.16, 13.34, and the like, the

absolute position is stated unhesitatingly. This is how I understand the

commentary.]

 

I know this is one of your favorite topics and I expected a question from you

precisely on this. I have said all that I have to say on this question. Thank

you once again.

 

Best regards,

subbu

>

> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

> Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2674 - Release 02/07/10

19:35:00

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I am failed to find out the difference of opinion between

Sri Subbu prabhuji & Sri Michael prabhuji here. IMO, both are

of the same opinion but with an extra stretch by Sri Subbu prabhuji, i.e.

'' it is substantially something that a 'chain' is not " . I am

not able to understand Sri Subbu prabhuji's 'substantially something' brahman!!

By saying 'chain' is something which is 'minus' of substantially

something, subbuji giving us the impression that chain is something independent

that does not have 'substantially something'...(I know, Sri Subbu prabhji's

intention is not this!!) Can we cognize/realize the 'adhishtAna' gold without

the help of nAma & rUpa, a chain!!?? Can there be a separate

'chain' without its substance gold ?? can there exist a nAma & rUpa

like chain independently to say chain is NOT something substantial?? When

chain, ring or necklace is nothing but gold & gold is 'OtaprOta' (in

and out) of the chain, what exactly is the meaning in saying chain is NOT

that something substantial?? Are we not holding a 'kArya' apart from

the kAraNa & saying 'kArya' is aloof here??

> " ...the universe exists, but not separately from

the primal Reality -

> God. Wisdom lies in realising everything as Siva and not treating

it as void. " XVI.71-72

[ You can see the play of words here: The above statement means: the universe

'does not exist' as apart from Brahman. The gold chain does not exist apart

from gold. For a person who wants to see the gold alone, the chain is 'no

matter'. Certainly it is not void; it is substantially something that a

'chain' is not.

bhaskar :

I dont see any 'play of words' here in tripura rahasya

quote!! OTOH, it is of the same opinon of shankara in sUtra bhAshya. Shankara

has accepted the world dependent on the supreme lord but NOT independent

of Him. And shankara here clarifies that the existence of the (dependent)

world has to be necessarily admitted since it is surving a definite purpose.

Without this world, the supreme lord cannot be a creator, without

this potentiality of a creator he cannot be active etc.

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

//all changeful things, such as pots, are unreal because

they are not perceived to be different from their (material) causes..//

 

bhaskar :

Yes, they are unreal when viewed from the 'changing' nAma

& rUpa view point but it-is real when realized the underlying

reality rather reality of nAma & rUpa is ONE..When one realizes he

is secondless ONE he does not see even an iota of duality. Apte cha

nAnAtvapratyupasthApikAyA avidyAyA nivruttatvAt, iha brahmaNi nAnA nAsti

kiMchana 'aNumAtramapi', insists shankara somewhere. brahma dAshA

brahma dAsA brahmaiveme kitavAH..so says shruti..so there is no kArya 'chain'

and there is no kAraNa gold for this kArya when one realizes the secondless

truth...Because for him, there was/is/will be no kArya-kAraNa bedha in

brahman whatsoever.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar