[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Lots of hogwash!NOT!!!!!!
Mani Varadarajan <mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> 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, without accepting that there are strong
>counter-arguments, and without defining what they
>mean by the term, and without studying all sides
>before coming to a conclusion.
Many people, if not most, including advaitins do not understand what advaita
says by "jagat mitya". A good place to start would be dR^ik dR^ishya viveka.
>> 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? Dear friend, even Sankaracharya
>explicitly disagrees with you! [see Sankara's Brahma-Sutra
>bhashya, ii.2.29].
Not so fast.
In the upadeshasaahasrii:
Objects that come into being and are capable of being made the objects of
knowledge are as unreal as those in dream. As duality has no existence,
knowledge is eternal and objectless IX.7
As there is nothing other than the self in the dreamless sleep, it is said by
the sruti that the consciousness of the knower is eternal. The knowledge of
objects in the waking state must be due to ignorance. Accept then that its
objects are also unreal. IX.8
Further,
Just as dreams appear to be true as long as one does not wake up, so, the
identification of oneself with the body etc. and the authenticity of sense
perception and the like in the waking state continue as long there is no self
knowledge. XI.5
In the gauDapaada kaarikaa shaMkara says in the introduction to I.2:
"The three kinds of experiences in the three states are described. All these
experiences, in fact, belong to the waking state alone. That dreaming and deep
sleep have different characteristics is known only in the waking state. Further
as far as the absence of the knowledge of reality is concerned, ** the three
states are identical ** (emphasis mine). Therefore the three apparently
different perceivers in the three states are identical and their **so-called**
distinction is due to their identification with the three states."
Typical verses of shaMkara: concise, precise and hits home. These are examples
of what Sri Aurobindo calls the completely masculine style, no flowery epithets,
just plain economy of words.
So Kartik wins 2:1. Further, other than in the suutra bhaashhya shaMkara does
not ascribe a "special reality" to the waking state.
There are three main schools in advaita: ajaata vaada, dR^isTi-shR^ishTi vaada,
and shR^ishTi-dR^isTi vaada. The gauDapaada kaarikaa adopts the ajaata vaadi
position and at times the second (for exposition purposes). These are taught to
the more advanced people. The last one is taught to the lowest class of
aspirants and shaMkara has graciously descended to that level in the suutra
bhaashhya with all it's talk about brahma loka and so on. The last time I read
the suutra bhaashhya was about 10 years back. But I seem to remember talk about
the "soul" going through various stages, theories of creation etc. But these are
typically taught to neophytes to advaita.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
