[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Advaita
In article <4e8vkt$oif@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Santhosh Kumar <santhosh@iss.nus.sg> wrote:
>anand hudli (ahudli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>:
>:
>: Another observation is the way Shankara treats the reality
>: of the world vis-a-vis the reality of a dream. For him,
>: the world is ultimately unreal, but it is more
>: consistent than a dream which is pure imagination.
>: Thus the world is somehow "more real" than a dream.
>: Shankara is more of a "realist" than GauDapaada.
>
>
>Probably, you may elaborate on what is meant by "more real".
>A dream is always REAL in the domain of the dream, meaning
>while dreaming it is real for you, in the same way the world
>is also REAL as long as we are in IT. When we come out of
>the dream, we say it was an imagination/manifestation of the
>mind and was an illusion. On the same ground, we can look at
>the world, as long as we are IN IT, we perceive IT as REAL,
>when we go beyond that "World also becomes an illusion". To
>me "If the dream is REAL, then the world also is real in that
>limited sense, otherwise both are just illusions". I do not
>agree with the concept of "more real", you may elaborate it.
First, I would like to clarify that there is no fundamental
difference between the philosophy of GauDapaada and
that of Shankara. There is only a difference in viewpoints
from which they explain advaita, but this does not amount
to a divergence in philosophy.
Having said that, I will explain how Shankara asserts that
the world or more precisely the waking state is "more real"
than a dream. Remember that when Shankara says this he is
speaking from the vyAvahArika level. In his commentary on
Brahma sUtras 2.2.28-2.2.32, Shankara launches a strong
criticism of VijnAnavAda of Buddhism. In 2.2.28 he argues
that external objects perceived in the waking state are
not non-existent for the very reason that they are preceived.
Thus the advaitic concept of the world is not the same as
subjective idealism, but admits a kind of objective reality
of the world. In the next sUtra, 2.2.29, Shankara affirms
that the waking and dream states are different. How are they
different? According to Shankara, the objects perceived
in a dream are sublated in the waking state. But the
objects perceived in the waking state are not so sublated.
For example, one may dream of meeting a great man in dream
and after waking up say," I did not, in fact, meet him. It
was only a dream." Knowledge in the waking state is through
the right means of knowledge, such as perception, inference,
etc. Such knowledge is not sublated in the same way as
objects/events in dreams. For example, if I go to sleep
at night with a clock at my bedside, then the clock will
still be there when I return to the waking state the next
morning. Even if the clock is not at my bedside the next
morning, there will be a logical explanation as to why it
is not in its usual place. The *only* way experience in
the waking state is sublated is by experience of the
pAramArthika satya, Brahman.
The substance of Shankara's argument is:
If one *experiences* the dream and waking states
differently, then that person cannot simply *say* that
the states are equally unreal. For everyone who is yet
to experience Brahman, these two states are different,
since a dream is unreal whereas the experience in the
waking state cannot be sublated, (at least until the
experience of Brahman, brahmAnubhava).
In the context of sUtra 2.2.29, the VijnAnavadin, who is
known to have had no such brahmAnubhava, cannot say
that the dream and waking states have no difference.
Note that Shankara does say that the world is a dream
elsewhere in his works. But when he does so, he is
speaking from the pAramArthika viewpoint. In the
Atmabodha (verse 6) he clearly equates the world with a
dream, using the phrase samsAraH svapnatulyaH.
A jiivanmukta not only says that the dream and waking
states are not different, but he also *experiences* them
to be so.
>:
>: GauDapaada, on the other hand, makes no distinction
>: between the unreality of the world and that of the
>: dream. In fact, in his MaaNDuukya kaarikaa he explains
>: that the world is as imaginary as a dream.
>
>I would like to agree with this view point! I would like
>to view the world as real as a dream.
GauDapaada had the luxury of enjoying the pAramArthika and
from that viewpoint he joyfully declared that the waking
and dream states are both unreal.
>
>
>:
>: Shankara never decried worship of the SaguNa Brahman, but
>: GauDapaada condemns this in his kaarikaa. He calls a person
>: who meditates or worships the conditioned Brahman, a
>: pitiable one.
>
>
>Advaitins, mainly Adi Sankara, say that a Sadguna Brahman
>can lead the path to Nirguna Brahman.Probably, that is why
>Adi Sankara did not decry idol worship. I also heard views on
>the contrary, those following the path of Bhakthi considers
>Brahman as Sadguna Brahman, and for them it will remain to
>be Sadguna always, it never becomes Nirguna Brahman as it
>should be for an Advaitin. The example is that of juice and
>the one who enjoys juice, as long as he enjoys the taste( love in
>the case of Sadguna Brahman ) juice , he would like to keep
>on enjoying it. Wonder, whether there is any meeting point!
MadhusUdana Saraswati, the renowned advaitin, upholds the view that
the worship of the SaguNa Brahman leads one to nirguNa Brahman,
thus completely reconciling Bhakti and Jnaana. In his masterly
commentary on the Giitaa called the GUDhaartha diipikA, he says
that people who follow the path of Bhakti eventually reach
Brahmaloka where the great Vedaantic truths are revealed to them.
They then attain unity with Brahman. Thus they too reach the
nirguNa Brahman by sheer devotion to SaguNa Brahman, through His
grace.
>
>regards,
>
>
>Santhosh
>
Anand
