Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [advaitin] mAyA – The Great Enigma

Expand Messages
  • vinayaka ns
    ... ====================== 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
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 9, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:12 PM, sriram <srirudra@...> wrote:
       

      Dear Sri Vinayaka ns
      Iam 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 is 
      Brahman, the offering is poured by Brahman in the 
      fire of Brahman. Brahman alone is to be reached by 
      him who has concentration on Brahman as the 
      objective [As an object to be known and attained. 
      (Some translate brahma-karma-samadhina as, 'by 
      him who sees Brahman in action'.) 

      shAnkara bhAshya:
      .
      .
      4.24 Brahma-arpanam, the ladle is Brahman: The 
      knower of Brahman perceives the instrument with 
      which he offers oblation in the fire as Brahman 
      Itself. He perceives it as not existing separately 
      from the Self, as one sees the non-existence of 
      silver in nacre. In this sense it is that Brahman Itself 
      is the ladle-just as what appears as silver is only 
      narcre. (The two words brahma and arpanam are 
      not parts of a compound word, samasa.) The 
      meaning is that, to a knower of Brahman, what is 
      perceived in the world as ladle is Brahman Itself. 
      Similarly, brahma-havih, the oblations is Brahman: 
      To him, what is seen as oblations is nothing but 
      Brahman. In the same way, brahma-agnau, (-this is 
      a compound word-) in the fire of Brahman: The fire 
      into which oblation is hutam, poured; brahmana, 
      by Brahman, by the agent, is Brahman Itself. The 
      meaning is that Brahman Itself is the agent (of the 
      offering). That he makes the offering-the act of 
      offering-, that is also Brahman. And the result that 
      is gantavyam, to be reached by him; that also is 
      brahma eva, surely Brahman. Brahma-karmasamadhina, 
      by him who has concentration on 
      Brahman as the objective: Brahman Itself is the 
      objective (karma); he who has concentration 
      (samadhi) on That is brahma-karma-samdhih. The 
      goal to be reached by him is Brahman alone. 


      Best Wishes,

      Vinayaka
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.