Why the same dream?

sadananda sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL
Wed Nov 26 10:50:31 CST 1997

Williams Pat wrote:

>I'd like to quibble just a bit.

>I must ask what is meant by "existence."  In Reality, there is no
>existence; there is nothing to exist.  In Reality, there was never any
>rope in existence either.  So when we use a word like "existence," we're
>referring to a "level" other than the ultimate; we're referring to the
>realm of relativity.  And from that perspective, the snake DID exist.
>My understanding is that if an object "exists," this means that the
>perceiver has projected a thought-form and attributed to it a name and a
>form.  Regardless of the "fact" that the sequence began with a rope,
>what existed for the perceiver was a snake.  We cannot say that what
>REALLY existed was a rope and that it was simply misperceived by the one
>who thought he saw a snake.  There was never any rope in existence
>either EXCEPT as the thought-form of someone who attributed the name and
>form of "rope" to it.

Obviously the snake-rope example is only to illustrate the superpostion of
apparent on the real - that is the extent of its usefulness.

But regarding existence itself - I just quated Chandigyopanishad in my mail
"Re: Perspective" - where it said "Existence was there in the begining
before creation and that existence was one without a second. -
Interestingly Uddalaka continues - in his teaching which I omited - that
"some say - non-existence was there before the creation (asateva idam agra
aseet - ekameva adviteeyam - tasmat astaH sajjayate) _ and it was one
without the second - from that non-existence  existence came - then He
questions how can that be possible - how can existence can come from
non-existence.  So he dismisis the statement and reemphasies his original
statement - sadeva somya idam agra aseet - ekamevaadviteeyam.

Essentially non-existence cannot come from existence.  If there is only
non-existence in the begining then how does one know that. At least there
must be a conscious entity (chaitanya vastu)  who is aware of the existence
of non-existence.  But at least that conscious entity must exist in order
for it to be conscious of the existence of the non-existence.  But we are
back to the base - that existent conscious entity is what we are originally
refering as it exists.  Hence there cannot be non-existence in the

Uday wrote some time back

>How if I rather take a totally opposite stand that :-


>I fear that the concept of "nothingness" and the stance that "everything
>is unreal" can lead me to a void which even negates tha Absolute One.
>And I don't think this would be in line with Advaita.

Negation can not lead you to void because negation can only be done by a
conscious entity.  Suppose one for argument sake negates the Absolute one.
But what one cannot negate absolutely is the negator, who is a conscious
entity. And that is the obsolute existence we are talking about or we are
that. Conscious existence which is also anada since it is ekameva adviteeya
is a must that cannot be absolutely negated.  That is the sat chit and
ananda that I am. Everything else can be negated including the concept of
Brahman. That is why I maintain I donot need scriputures to prove that I
am.  What scripture tell me and which is also logical is that I am not only
existence, consciousness, I am ananda too.  There I need a reinforcement
from shastras.

Hari Om!

K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list