Reality of the world

Jaldhar H. Vyas jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM
Wed Aug 15 23:52:54 CDT 2001

On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:

> Jaladhar - thanks for your comments.
> But I think there is more involved than what Shree P.
> Sankaranaarayana points out for the Vedanta Deshika's objections
> raised in Shatadhuushanii.  One argument of course is related to sat,
> asat and mithya aspects as you have pointed out.  There are several
> dialectic  arguments  that relates ultimately to the interrelations
> between the attributes and the objects- and the associated
> ontological implications.  Discussions between Shree Nanda Chandran
> and myself  currently pertains to this issue - attributes, objects -
> their relations and ontological implications associated with these.
> As you are aware there are extensive discussions on the pramaa and
> bhramaa aspects while discussing the mithya aspect of adviata. These
> again rest on the epistemological aspects that are partly brought out
> in the discussions with  Nanda.

The reason I brought this up is that it shows Advaita Vedanta is not
idealistic (from a philosophical point of view) but realistic in the sense
that there are "things" out there.  The problem is they are misunderstood
not that they are figments of the imagination.  These leads to a two-tier
level of truth.  There is a vyavaharic or pratibhasika satya and there is
paramarthika satya.

What this means for the sadhaka is it seems not to be enough to "know" one
must also be aware of at what level one knows.  How is this to happen?
For instance how does realizing that the snake is really a rope help you
realize the rope is really Brahman?  And how to know if Brahman is not
just an adhyasa on to something else?  Potentially there is an infinite
regress here.  The answer I think is this is where anubhava comes in.
After Brahman one "sees" there is nothing left as a basis for

> Jaladhar - actually it is more than that - the prapancha continues
> as apparent or mithya even after tatvajnaana - when mula ajnaana is
> there the apparent is taken as real and that is the cause of
> samsaara.  The apparent snake causes no problem but if that apparent
> snake is taken as real then it becomes a problem.  And when the
> ajnaana is destroyed the apparent becomes apparent and the real is
> known as ones own self as the substratum for even the apparent   That
> is what I have presented in the discussions.

Yes and I do believe what you are saying is the authentic Vedantic
position.  But what needs to be clarified now is how one should arrive at
the conclusion that a thing is real or needs further deconstruction.

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at>

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list