Connection between Real and unreal

Gummuluru Murthy gmurthy at MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA
Mon Oct 27 06:45:11 CST 1997

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, egodust wrote:

> Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
> >
> > Namaste.
> >
> > [...]

> > In the past few weeks, there is some mention of experiencing the Reality.
> >                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Allan Curry quoted Puligandla's text where Puligandla stated that
> > experiencing the reality is unsublatable. Experience as pramAna was being
> > discussed in other threads. It was also mentioned by Shri Ram Chandran in
> > the referred paragraph above.
> >
> > But, can the Reality be experienced by a human ? If human is in mithya and
> >                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > is a mithya, how can human experience Reality ? My feeling is, one cannot.
> > The most a human can do, in my view, is to recognize what is real and what
> > is unreal (not only intellectually but most importantly also in day to day
> > life). That alone would give a human eternal bliss. Such a person is
> > beyond the worldly attachments, and would not even be concerned whether
> > there is a re-birth or not. Because such a person has attained moksha here
> > itself. But, I do not think there is something called experience of Reality.
> >                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^
> > Would it not be conceptually simpler and easier to comprehend if we see
> > the Brahman Realization as the natural state and the human life as an
> > experience ? After all, experiences are short-term duration phenomenon
> > and may be wrong, whereas the jnana state is real and natural.
> >
> Concur.
> Here's an excerpt from a recent reply to a question re this idea:
> There is no realization for the jiva.  That's why there is, per se, no
> such thing as a jnani.  The jnani isn't a person.  A burnt rope is *not*
> a rope, it only looks to be one.  The ego or jiva is only capable of
> unrealization; or the realization that it itself *can't realize*.  This
> is what's meant by the surrender or destruction of ego-Mind.  So that, if
> we can discover that our perception being charged with the names and forms
> of maya is not to be somehow switched to some rarefied conceptual/experiential
> idea of the names and forms, *as such*, of brahman (which don't exist),
> we'll abandon our rigid pre-set notions of concrete hands-on bliss.
> This is why psychic and psychedelic experiences, although harbingers on
> the path, don't themselves confer samadhi.
> ******

Thanks very much for the elucudation and for confirming my thoughts on
this. I would need some further clarification on the topic.

I do not see the humans *experiencing* the Absolute. They can become
(or realize that they are) the Absolute, but it is not an experience. Or
am I just pre-occupied with semantics ?

Then, what happens in the samAdhi ? Is it an experience or is it being the
Absolute ?

Taking the water-bubble analogy, from the bubble's perspective, can the
bubble experience being water ? Bubble is always water, whether bubble
knows it or not. But, it cannot *experience* being water. Similarly, the
human is always Absolute, whether he/she knows it or not. He/she cannot
have brief occasional *experiences* of the Absolute.

Now, if we take the analogy of the child: we can say to the child, you are
a big boy now, and over a period of time, he feels like being a big boy.
That, again, is not an experience.

Further, when we say the "human experiences the Absolute or the Reality",
we are using the Absolute as an object, which cannot be the case. Absolute
has to be the subject. Hence, again, we cannot say that the humans
*experience* Reality.

I would be grateful if knowledgeable members clarify my concepts on this

Gummuluru Murthy
Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah
atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute   Katha Upanishhad II.3.14

When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal
becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list