Re: [advaitin] mAyA – The Great Enigma
- View SourceOn Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:12 PM, sriram <srirudra@...> wrote:Dear Sri Vinayaka nsIam unable to understand when you say that- I quote" This in no way implies that a real snake must exist ,for the knowledge of the snake may be false knowledge".If one was not knowing anything about a snake then why should at all he be afraid of a rope as a snake?See here it presupposes a real knowledge of a snake and its mortal sting.That is why he gets unnerved on seeing a rope and mistaking for a snake to err on the safe side.R.Krishnamoorthy.======================Dear Krishnamrthy-ji,namaste.It is a good question!pUrvapakshi says:2. "A snake must exist if a rope is to be mistaken for a serpent. So also, the world must exist apart from Brahman if Brahman is to be mistaken for it. "siddhAntin's reply:"Answer: If one entity is to be mistaken for another, say a rope for a snake, it is necessary that one have a knowledge of the superimposed entity, such as the snake. This, in no way implies that a real snake must exist, for the knowledge of the snake may be false knowledge. For instance, a person may see a monster in a dream. It is possible for him, after waking up, to mistake a tree in dim light to be that monster and to flee in terror. This mistaken cognition requires a knowledge of the monster but does not demand the reality of the monster. "In the example the snake does enjoy the higher degree of reality; it is part of empirical reality.But then, what happens in the dArSTAntika or the exemplified? What is the ontological status of the world which includes the so called real snake? Does it exist apart from brahman? It is mithyA or apparent only. Is it not the product of mithyAjnAna? If it is not so, it will never get sublated on the dawn of knowledge.It is also very important to note the following remark:"Since samsAra is beginningless, it cannot be argued that at the very beginning there was only Brahman and no possibility of any knowledge of an earlier world, real or false, which could serve as the basis for the subsequent misconception of Brahman as the world."What happens is the misconception of the Brahman as the world continues till the dawn of knowledge.gItAchArya says:4.24 The ladle is Brahman [Some translate as'Brahman is the ladle...,' etc.-Tr.], the oblations isBrahman, the offering is poured by Brahman in thefire of Brahman. Brahman alone is to be reached byhim who has concentration on Brahman as theobjective [As an object to be known and attained.(Some translate brahma-karma-samadhina as, 'byhim who sees Brahman in action'.)shAnkara bhAshya:..4.24 Brahma-arpanam, the ladle is Brahman: Theknower of Brahman perceives the instrument withwhich he offers oblation in the fire as BrahmanItself. He perceives it as not existing separatelyfrom the Self, as one sees the non-existence ofsilver in nacre. In this sense it is that Brahman Itselfis the ladle-just as what appears as silver is onlynarcre. (The two words brahma and arpanam arenot parts of a compound word, samasa.) Themeaning is that, to a knower of Brahman, what isperceived in the world as ladle is Brahman Itself.Similarly, brahma-havih, the oblations is Brahman:To him, what is seen as oblations is nothing butBrahman. In the same way, brahma-agnau, (-this isa compound word-) in the fire of Brahman: The fireinto which oblation is hutam, poured; brahmana,by Brahman, by the agent, is Brahman Itself. Themeaning is that Brahman Itself is the agent (of theoffering). That he makes the offering-the act ofoffering-, that is also Brahman. And the result thatis gantavyam, to be reached by him; that also isbrahma eva, surely Brahman. Brahma-karmasamadhina,by him who has concentration onBrahman as the objective: Brahman Itself is theobjective (karma); he who has concentration(samadhi) on That is brahma-karma-samdhih. Thegoal to be reached by him is Brahman alone.