[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Advaita
srh (srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu) wrote:
: 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.
:
I do agree that there is no fundamental difference between the
two philosophies, that of Adi Sankara and Gaudapada,
classifying this world as "more real" is quite confusing however.
: 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).
:
It is not fair to compare the experiences in the two states,
dream and awakened states. They are altogether two different
worlds, the laws in these two different worlds are different.
It is therefore quite natural to feel that the experiences
in the dream are sublated when you wake up, the other way
around also could be possible, feeling the experiences in
the real world as sublated in the dream world. On the contrary,
it could be possible that you see a dream that comes true
in the awakened world at a later time, exactly happens the
same way as you saw in the dream. There are people who
experienced this phenomena, but most of us, we don't remember
the happenings in the dream, so we are not really sure whether
we are sublating or not in the awakened world.
Logical reasoning is a property of the awakened state, if you
go beyond the awakened world, reasons get replaced by experiences,
then there won't be any place for logical reasoning. In that way,
we may also look at the dream as a higher state than this world
we call as awakened world. Logical reasoning is needed due to
the questioning of the intellect, when you don't have the ego,
then you don't have the intellect as well, hence the logical
reasoning also will cease to exist at that state. If I look
at the dream from that direction, I would see that we are
closer to the ultimate reality in the dream than in the
awakened world. Also, what we experience in the dream is a reflection
of our own future and past which we can see at the same time in
the dream, and the hence the domain called time ceases there.
Can I say we are closer to the truth in dream than in the awakened
world as we are pulled by our ego in the awakened world, whereas
in the dream it may not be.
: 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.
I have not read this book, does it really say how it happens?
regards,
Santhosh
