[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Lots of hogwash!NOT!!!!!!
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> This debate is seemingly endless. What I object to,
> however, is the matter-of-fact-ness with which many
> people claim that Vedanta teaches that the world is
> illusory,
ok, but to clarify: I didn't claim so :-)
Of course, it should be "advaita" instead of "Vedanta".
As D.H.H.Ingalls (a reputed scholar) says," ...avidya, which is
variously translated as ignorance,nescience, illusion, is one of the most
important terms in the philosophy of Samkaracarya and his followers..."
>
> Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> writes:
> >
> > What if nothing else other than the Self is experienced, and then it is
> > seen that all "other" experience (any experience of duality) is an illusion?
>
> Why is it that the experience of a homogeneous Self is also
> not an illusion?
I asked a question first! :-)
Again, please note that I had not made a statement. (I realize that neither
did you; and I don't know the answer to your question).
Mr. Shrisha Rao said that
"illusion is known only with respect to a higher reality, but once experience
is denigrated wholesale, where is that higher reality..."
I took "experience" to include experience of non-duality (if such is possible)
and asked my question.
I wanted to point out that if (IF) his contention was that the dreams are
found to be unreal on waking up, then, "what if the `final' experience is that
of the self alone and then, `everything else', even the waking state, is seen
to be unreal in exactly the same way the dreams are seen to be unreal in the
waking state? Would it `then' be accepted that experience of duality is unreal?"
> Why is it that the unitive experience
> sublates the diverse experience and not the other way around?
Perhaps the same way dreams are known to be unreal in the waking state,
but not in the dreams themselves?
>
> Experience cannot *prove* that the world is illusory.
Mr. Shrisha Rao gave an argument for "no possible proof" of the world being
illusory. I wanted to see if one could argue (similarly) to the contrary.
i.e,"no possible proof" for the reality of the world (that we experience).
> >
> > If so, people could actually question the reality of their dreams
> > and then come to the conclusion that the dream is unreal.
> >
>
> So, life is just a dream?
I didn't say that!
> Dear friend, even Sankaracharya
> explicitly disagrees with you! [see Sankara's Brahma-Sutra
> bhashya, ii.2.29].
I am aware of Sankara's views on the difference between the waking & dream
states :-). Actually, the author of the Vivekachudamani seems to club the
dream and waking states together, which is why many doubt if the author is
indeed Sankara (which is the traditional view).
I merely stated that if inference is a possible method to
prove/disprove the illusory nature of the world, people could (and would?)
ask themselves in their dreams,"Is this real? If so, let me try and
prove/disprove it", and a logical proof of the illusory nature of
dreams could be arrived at in the dreams themselves.
I believe that experience can neither prove reality nor disprove it.
But it does give us food for thought :-)
For if something exists, how can it be known independent of
experience? If something is experienced, how can we claim that it exists, when
we know that experience deceives us in our dreams?
Does there exist something independent of all experience?
It's worthwhile to note that Kant (quite a philosopher!) believed Mathematical
theorems (such as 2+2=4) to be a priori truths.
> >
> > It is very much possible that someone "perceives"
> > a book in his dream and reads a statement from the book,"This is an
> > illusion". The book has stated its own unreality, and the truth of this
> > statement is verified on waking up.
> >
>
> But what makes the person wake up from the dream?
> Certainly not the fact that a book in the dream has
> stated that the individual was in a dream.
Note that I simply said that the statement in the book is
verified to be true on waking up, not that the statement caused
the change to the waking state.
Mr. Shrisha Rao said ," A scripture ...If it is
thought to be not real, i.e., as illusory, its interpretation strikes
at the roots of its own validity. If the scripture itself is real, as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it must be for it to be meaningful, then the interpretation cannot be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
right, and the world cannot be illusory."
I just wanted to show that a scripture can be illusory and yet can
be meaningful.
> Something
> else, beyond the individual's immediate control has
> waken him up.
That brings us to whether or not a person has control over his dreams.
If a person does have such control, he must be having a delightful time
dreaming :-)
If not, "who" controls the dreams?
If a person is in full control of himself in the waking state,
why does he lose control in the dream state? And how does the control shift back
to the person when he awakens?
What if someone experiences a nightmare and wakes up? Quite obviously, the
shift from dream to the waking state was caused by the events in the nightmare?
Now, if the events in the nightmare were unreal: how can an unreal thing
cause a "real" effect: that of waking up?
If the events were real: why do the events not continue in the waking state?
>
> The analogy does not correspond to our real-world
> experience.
How's that?
> Orthodox advaita teaches you that the
> knowledge gained from the sacred word *by itself*
> causes one to ``wake up'' to the Self. It is entirely
> different from the dream state.
"Orthodox advaita" can believe in it: I don't mind :-).
Though it is certainly difficult to say what really constitutes "orthodox
advaita".
> So once again, illusoriness is not easily proved.
I would like to see any proof to the contrary.
>
> Mani
>
Kartik
