Share:
> This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is
> different in different states of consciousness...
>
Things and events - phenomena - are not real, yet not unreal either. They
are like an illusion in that they are not exactly as they appear to be, yet
they are real in the sense that they are presented to us as illusion. So,
it would not be correct to say that phenomena are unreal; they are simply
dream-like because phenomena can't be known or experienced without an
intermediary something - we call it 'consciousness'. We do not experience
phenomenon directly, but through the lens of the senses, which change the
objects of perception.

Dreams are real because they are dreams. Something that is unreal is
something that never existed, a figment of the imagination for example. But
quite often people see with double vision simply because they have a mote
in their eye, or they see the horns of a hare when in reality, there are no
horns on a rabbit.

"Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object
exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside
of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within
consciousness" (GK IV 25-27).

Work cited:

'Dispelling Illusion'
Gaudapada's Alatasanti
by Douglas A. Fox
State University of New York Press, 1993

Read more:

'Gaudapada'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada


On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Share Long <sharelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> emptybill, thanks for your clarity here. This brings to my mind
> Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of
> consciousness. Purusha Prakriti realization seems to be a GC experience to
> me whereas the experience of moksha as one's basic nature seems more like
> Unity.
>
> A friend is on a retreat where they are discussing three stages of
> Brahman: basic, refined and Wholeness or holiness. Mind boggling to me!
>
>
>
>   On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:35 PM, "emptyb...@yahoo.com" <
> emptyb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it
> is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya.
>
> This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th
> Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably
> one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented
> alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary
> preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya
> became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the
> belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that
> Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It
> uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a
> threefold authoritative Vedic source.
>
> However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an
> alternate source for understanding the *path* to realize Brahman. By the
> middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta
> that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and
> Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path
> to realize Brahman.
>
> The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just
> continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into
> three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars
> now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is
> more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta.
>
>  Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of
> “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and
> is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even
> propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” …
> separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating
> *what* from *what*”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion
> (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience
> (i.e. body, senses, mind).
>
> Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and
> prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality
> (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or
> Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of
> one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly
> that moksha (freedom) is *already* the inherent nature of human beings.
> It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from *any* experience, while
> realizing that like waves moving across the ocean, experience is itself
> nothing but Brahman.
>
>
>    
>

Reply via email to