[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Lots of hogwash!NOT!!!!!!
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> got angry and expostulated (:-)):
>> In addition to that, how is it known that the world of experience is
>> an illusion? Illusion is known only with reference to a higher
>> reality. But once experience itself is denigrated wholesale, where is
>> the higher reality that can show it to be illusion? Thus, experience
>> does not prove illusion.
>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?
>> Can illusion be inferred?
>
>If so, people could actually question the reality of their dreams
>and then come to the conclusion that the dream is unreal.
There seems to be some confusion about maayaa here. What is maayaa? First of
all, advaita is a system, which says that all three states, viz jaagrat, svapna
and sushupti, must be taken into account if a full realization of the truth is
to occur. Taking the jaagrat alone will lead to to _only_ a partial
understanding of the truth. That said, the unifying thread of the three states
is the the aatman or the one who "experiences". The goal is to find who this
aatman is. It is quite obvious that this is the starting point. If we take all
the three states into account, only this can be the starting point and not any
"book" which talks about "illusion" or whatever.
That being clarified some people get the doubt how this manifold experience
arises. This is attributed to the vikshepa and aavaraNa powers (multiplicity and
veiling) of maayaa. Again the question about this maayaa arises. The people
who cannot get beyond dehaatma buddhi think that the effect of maayaa is true,
and believe in an objective reality. The second class who have thought about
this a little more, say that maayaa is both real and unreal. This requires some
explanation. By considering all three states we can see that the aatman alone
is never negated. Thus we can say that there is no maayaa. However a
vyavahaarika (empirical) reality is attributed to the phenomena one
experiences. Why? This is because in both the svapna and jaagrat states, the
occurrences are taken to be real. So in the respective states, the respective
occurrences are taken to have a vyavahaarika satya (empirical reality). Note
that vyavahaarika satya is usually used to refer to the jaagrat state alone,
however the svapna state is no different, since vikshepa and aavaraNa work in
exactly the same way as in the jaagrat state. Thus maayaa is said to be both
real and unreal! On the other hand the GYaani says there is no maayaa. The
aatman alone IS and there is no creation, preservation or destruction. This
"point of view" is ofcourse only for the truly realized sage (ex. GauDapaada,
ramaNa, R^ibhu et. al). Both the gauDapaada kaarikaa and the R^ibhu giita adopt
the ajaata vaadi position.
The question about why this vyavahaarika satya of birth, growth, death etc
occurs. gauDapaada derisively dismisses theories like liila, pleasure of the
Lord, maayaa etc. He says "Verily this is the nature of the Lord". We can also
see that we don't have enough data to answer the question. Remember that the
fact the witness exists is all that we can infer from our experiences ( in the
three states). So the first thing to do is to attain self-realization. Trying
to explain why the vyavahaarika satya arises, is at best, speculation. The
claim of the masters and the scriptures is that there is nothing beyond that.
However, if one chooses not to believe them, they can keep an open mind and see.
>> For a last alternative, suppose you have a scripture that declares the
>> world to be an illusion. Now, is that scripture real or not? 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.
>
>Not at all. 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.
>
>> Shrisha Rao
>
>Kartik
The questions which you were trying to answer are stock dvaitin objections and
refutations of these can be found in standard texts like gauDapaada kaarikaa
and paMchadashii. I especially recommend the gauDapaada kaarikaa with
shaMkara's masterly bhaashhya. This book is quite sufficient to learn advaita.
I especially like the kaarikaa since shaMkara argues from the point of ajaata
vaada and not shR^ishTi-dR^ishTi vaada, like in the suutra bhaashhya. IMO,
shR^ishTi-dR^ishTi vaada is an abomination :-). You might want to look at dR^ik
dR^ishya viveka also. There is a good word-to-word translation available at the
Ramakrishna Mutt. This also goes through some of the stock dvaitin objections.
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
