Reslity from advaita's perspective

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

A synopsis of advaita philosophy

One real self is one's atma. The atma is the same in every person and is only entity that is real. A person's atma is veiled by a force called maya which makes it perceive the world as diverse. In other words, the atma in every person is the same entity but there is different extent of veiling of it in each person which causes the diversity. The atma eventually realizes that it is the true self of a person and that, it is the only reality and is brahman.

The maya is a force that is used by brahman with attributes called as saguna brahman to create the world. The reason for the creation of world by brahman which is already in bliss is that the creation of the world is a diversion and produces unique and diverse experiences. Finally everything merges back into brahman. So sankara calls the creation a sport of brahman.

Since maya creates only a temporary reality, sankara calls it an illusive force that obscures reality from the atmas and let the atmas learn and know the reality through their experiences in the world. Brahman is not under this illusive force but as saguna brahman wields it

Folks,

Please feel free to raise queries, objections and .express your views on the above and on the general philosophy of advaita.

 

[tbs]

hi

so we can discuss brahma sutras based on bhamati thika......

saastra yonitvaad...third sutra....

 

[auh]

So, it is advaita now...

A synopsis of advaita philosophy

One real self is one's atma. The atma is the same in every person and is only entity that is real. A person's atma is veiled by a force called maya which makes it perceive the world as diverse. In other words, the atma in every person is the same entity but there is different extent of veiling of it in each person which causes the diversity. The atma eventually realizes that it is the true self of a person and that, it is the only reality and is brahman.

I hope you think that I am not picking on you if I say that the sentence construct above doesn't really express the core of advaita. To simply put - "A person's atma" is a wrong way of expression.

The maya is a force that is used by brahman with attributes called as saguna brahman to create the world.

So what are the other attributes of maya and why is it called separately from brahman? who has the "attributes" that make them "saguna brahman"? can maya exist outside of brahman? is maya at all necessary? was there a period when maya did not exist?

The reason for the creation of world by brahman which is already in bliss is that the creation of the world is a diversion and produces unique and diverse experiences.

Presume that brahman does not want the bliss that he is already experiencing and decides to have more fun in unique and diverse experiences.

Finally everything merges back into brahman

meh? So what's the whole point of brahman deciding to create unique and diverse experiences?

So sankara calls the creation a sport of brahman.

Yes, he had to label it something fearing rejection of his theory.

Since maya creates only a temporary reality, sankara calls it an illusive force that obscures reality from the atmas and let the atmas learn and know the reality through their experiences in the world.

So maya obscures brahman (atma = brahman from your first post) because brahman (atmas) should learn from the unique and diverse experience that brahman aka atma created in the first place so that they can know that atmas (they) are brahman. Phew.

Brahman is not under this illusive force but as saguna brahman wields it

:faint2: but but...

Folks,

Please feel free to raise queries, objections and .express your views on the above and on the general philosophy of advaita.

Sravna, since I understood the above clearly, I ventured into this thread

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri TBS,

Can you please elaborate and say exactly what the sutra is?

 

[tbs]

Dear Shri TBS,

Can you please elaborate and say exactly what the sutra is?

hi
shaastra yonitvaad.....the main four brahma sutras are......ATHATHO BHRAHMA JIHNASA......JANMADHYASA YATAHA.....

SHASSTRA YONITVAAD.....TATVA SAMANVAYAAD.....so the third one....

 

[sravna]

So, it is advaita now...

I hope you think that I am not picking on you if I say that the sentence construct above doesn't really express the core of advaita. To simply put - "A person's atma" is a wrong way of expression.



So what are the other attributes of maya and why is it called separately from brahman? who has the "attributes" that make them "saguna brahman"? can maya exist outside of brahman? is maya at all necessary? was there a period when maya did not exist?


Presume that brahman does not want the bliss that he is already experiencing and decides to have more fun in unique and diverse experiences.

meh? So what's the whole point of brahman deciding to create unique and diverse experiences?

Yes, he had to label it something fearing rejection of his theory.

So maya obscures brahman (atma = brahman from your first post) because brahman (atmas) should learn from the unique and diverse experience that brahman aka atma created in the first place so that they can know that atmas (they) are brahman. Phew.


:faint2: but but...


Sravna, since I understood the above clearly, I ventured into this thread

Dear Auh,

Good you ventured into this thread. I hope you have fun.

Firstly as always more than rigorous ways of putting things and making people understand what I say, I believe in the intuitive understanding by others. If you don't you just have a different frequency and wavfelength. But I would do my best to present what I think with clarity.

Maya I would say is just for the diversion of brahman. Just as bliss is the unique experience of brahman, the physical existence gives experiences that are different from that experience.

Brahman as one who only experiences only bliss is nirguna brahman or attributeless. It is another way of saying that all the attributes are perfectly balanced and there is no one attribute that projects itself.

Brahman as saguna brahman naturally exists along nirguna brahman but possesses attributes. In other words saguna brahman projects the attributes unlike nirguna brahman.

Nirguna brahman, saguna brahman and maya are all timeless.

May be there is something unique in playing hide and seek with oneself and that is where the fun is derived. Think about this. according to advaita your atma is brahman. But due to ignorance that reality is obscured. There is another who is able to see the reality and sees your atma and his atma are the same and there is only one reality. Your point of view and his point of view are at loggerheads and both think the other is wrong. This makes for an interesting tension and tussle that plays out in a logical way to the truth.

Whereas the fun as nirguna brahman is due to the sheer positive experience of the bliss, the fun due to creation is in the tussle that is being played out in the world.

 

[sravna]

Here is what Shri.TBS refers to:

The scripture being the source of right knowledge.


Sastra: the scripture; Yonitvat: being the source of or the means of the right knowledge.

The Omniscience of Brahman follows from His being the source of scripture. The aphorism clearly points out that the Srutis alone are proof about Brahman.


As Brahman is the cause of the world we have to infer that Brahman or the Absolute is Omniscient. As the scripture alone is the means of right knowledge with reference to Brahman the proposition laid in Sutra 2 becomes confirmed. Brahman is not merely the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer of the world, He is the source or womb of scriptures and is revealed by scriptures. As Brahman is beyond the reach of the senses and the intellect, He can be apprehended only on the authority of the Srutis which are infallible and contain the spiritual experiences of realised seers or sages. The Srutis declare that Brahman Himself breathed forth the Vedas. Therefore He who has brought forth the Srutis or the Vedas which contain such wonderful divine knowledge must be all-knowledge and all-powerful.


The scriptures illumine all things like a search light. Scripture is the source or the means of right knowledge through which you have a comprehensive understanding of the nature of Brahman. Srutis furnish information about what is not known from other sources. It cannot be known by other means of knowledge independently of the Srutis. Brahman is formless, colourless, attributeless. Hence it cannot be grasped by the senses by direct perception. You can infer the existence of fire by its accompanying smoke but Brahman cannot be established by inference or analogy, because it is attributeless and there cannot be a second thing which is similar to Brahman. Brahman is Infinite and secondless. He who is ignorant of the Srutis cannot know that Supreme Being. There are other means of knowledge also which have got a place but they are not independent. They supplement after Brahman is established by the Srutis.


What are your views on this Shri.TBS and others?
[h=3][/h]

 

[sangom]

AdiSankara had perforce to follow "शास्त्र यॊनित्वाद्" (śāstra yonitvād) or that the Scriptures being (the only) source of right knowledge, because he could not get any other source of knowledge, right or left! But we today have the benefit of all the mind boggling advances in true sciences. Hence, it may not, and need not be a fetter for us to tie those scriptures alone as a dead weight to our necks.

My thinking on the above premises has taken me to the conviction that the adhyāsa concept of Sankara is rather a misfit. Parabrahman is nothing but a universal field of force (or energy, power, whatever one may want to call IT) which enters into the womb as the ovum fertilizes, along with a package of Karmas for which the Karmaphalas have remained unexperienced (just like outstanding, unresponded entries in an account book). The new life, the new person or animal, bird, worm or whatever life form gets born into this world in this manner, in which the major impelling factor is 'outstanding' Karma for which the results — good or bad — have to be experienced by that specific life form during its current life time. The life form experiences the world and even the vast universe, subject to a three-dimensional world controlled by what is called "Time" all because the said universal life force (Parabrahman) makes it to feel so. In actual fact nothing whatsoever seems to be happening as aptly declared by Gaudapadacharya in His mANDUkya kArika :—
न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः

न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥
na nirodho na chotpattirna baddho na cha saadhakaH
na mumukShurna vai mukta ityeShA paramArthatA ||


There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth!

Hence, all this hullabaloo about individual AtmA, Saguna Brahman, creation or sṛṣṭi, sthiti and samhaara, moksha etc., are all pure hogwash and little else.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Maya can be the only concept that reconciles the timeless parabrahman with the space time reality we are in. How does your theory explain it?

There seems to be confusion in your thoughts. You seem to embrace the concept of parabrahman and saying that nothing actually is happening and so I am not sure what your conception of reality is and at the time you are eager to point out the mind boggling advances of science which according to my understanding of your theory means nothing.

Can you provide more clarity?

 

[auh]

My thinking on the above premises has taken me to the conviction that the adhyāsa concept of Sankara is rather a misfit. Parabrahman is nothing but a universal field of force (or energy, power, whatever one may want to call IT) which enters into the womb as the ovum fertilizes, along with a package of Karmas for which the Karmaphalas have remained unexperienced (just like outstanding, unresponded entries in an account book). The new life, the new person or animal, bird, worm or whatever life form gets born into this world in this manner, in which the major impelling factor is 'outstanding' Karma for which the results — good or bad — have to be experienced by that specific life form during its current life time. The life form experiences the world and even the vast universe, subject to a three-dimensional world controlled by what is called "Time" all because the said universal life force (Parabrahman) makes it to feel so.

Sir, the problem with the above is that it is assumed that a conscious or unconscious karmaphala exists but cannot be proven. We cannot even know whether karma devolves or not.

Consider this theory : All sentient beings pass through many worlds that exist in the great vastness around us. After all, there is a lot of space in space. They are so far away that we cannot reach them with the current level of science and technology. The beings experience their wholeness (true identity which is a unique self) after their sojourn in one world. And then they get to decide on the destination-worlds which open up to them (similar to a video game). And so on and so forth. There is no "good" or "bad". No one to control us. Or perhaps, there may be beings more evolved and capable than us in other worlds.

Hence, all this hullabaloo about individual AtmA, Saguna Brahman, creation or sṛṣṭi, sthiti and samhaara, moksha etc., are all pure hogwash and little else.

Looks very much so!

 

[auh]

Dear Auh,

Good you ventured into this thread. I hope you have fun.

Firstly as always more than rigorous ways of putting things and making people understand what I say, I believe in the intuitive understanding by others. If you don't you just have a different frequency and wavfelength. But I would do my best to present what I think with clarity.

Maya I would say is just for the diversion of brahman. Just as bliss is the unique experience of brahman, the physical existence gives experiences that are different from that experience.

Brahman as one who only experiences only bliss is nirguna brahman or attributeless. It is another way of saying that all the attributes are perfectly balanced and there is no one attribute that projects itself.

Brahman as saguna brahman naturally exists along nirguna brahman but possesses attributes. In other words saguna brahman projects the attributes unlike nirguna brahman.

Nirguna brahman, saguna brahman and maya are all timeless.

May be there is something unique in playing hide and seek with oneself and that is where the fun is derived. Think about this. according to advaita your atma is brahman. But due to ignorance that reality is obscured. There is another who is able to see the reality and sees your atma and his atma are the same and there is only one reality. Your point of view and his point of view are at loggerheads and both think the other is wrong. This makes for an interesting tension and tussle that plays out in a logical way to the truth.

Whereas the fun as nirguna brahman is due to the sheer positive experience of the bliss, the fun due to creation is in the tussle that is being played out in the world.

Dear Sravna,

You have not said about how maya is created !

So I assume braman creates maya and an alter-ego so that maya can delude alter-ego; all for fun. But brahman realizes that alter-ego may not like so much of fun, grief, madness and death and so makes a provision by which alter-ego can escape the clutches of maya; the only catch is that they (alter-ego) do not know how. So brahman takes on another form of alter-ego (number 2) to tell the original alter-ego about the ways and means of escape. Since, the original alter-ego can somehow identify that this new alter-ego is the original untouched and unbonded brahman, who is also his creator, he accepts the teachings.

Now it is all clear to me !

 

[sravna]

Now it is all clear to me !

Dear auh,

It is one's beliefs that makes one see truth in a certain way. I respect your beliefs.

 

[sravna]

Consider this theory : All sentient beings pass through many worlds that exist in the great vastness around us. After all, there is a lot of space in space. They are so far away that we cannot reach them with the current level of science and technology. The beings experience their wholeness (true identity which is a unique self) after their sojourn in one world. And then they get to decide on the destination-worlds which open up to them (similar to a video game). And so on and so forth. There is no "good" or "bad". No one to control us. Or perhaps, there may be beings more evolved and capable than us in other worlds.

Dear auh,

There can be any number of theories. The real test is can it explain everything without any contradiction? In my view advaita passes that test.

 

[sravna]

Folks,

You might wonder the reason for me starting so many heavy duty threads on science, spiritual power, morality, philosophy etc. The fact is I am planning to start a course on Reworking of one's beliefs to make one's thinking free of contradictions. That is when you get into the spiritual perspective and your thoughts begin to be connected and be spontaneous.

Efforts on my part and the participants part need to be intense. Through the threads I am trying to think aloud and hopefully bring more clarity and focus to my thinking. I plan to bring together the ideas in all the threads and develop a course material that would be effective.

Here's my rationale on how people might begin to think differently for a better quality of life:

1. They need to see the truth in values that do not change with time. That way people themselves can have strong convictions and be able to face pressures and temptations well. To do that our scriptures which teaches mental discipline need to be shown as relevant and having practical value

2. They need to believe in spiritual energy as much as physical energy. This is where using spiritual power to accomplish things normally beyond control of even science will help people understand that reality. This is also most likely to break the hardened misconceptions and disbeliefs many people have with respect to spirituality

3. Actually help people to use practical techniques that will enhance people to practice spirituality. It can start with physical discipline which will lead to mental discipline.

4. Guide people in righteous thinking only reason being it will help them to think with clarity and help them maintain inner peace. People can get into higher thinking mode gradually and be able to be easily discerning and resolving any problems on their own.

I have the support of couple of people in this regard and people are welcome to join in this initiative.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Maya can be the only concept that reconciles the timeless parabrahman with the space time reality we are in. How does your theory explain it?

There seems to be confusion in your thoughts. You seem to embrace the concept of parabrahman and saying that nothing actually is happening and so I am not sure what your conception of reality is and at the time you are eager to point out the mind boggling advances of science which according to my understanding of your theory means nothing.

Can you provide more clarity?

My dear Sravna,

The concept of māyā was not clearly spelt out by Sankara and that was why bhāmati, vivaraṇa and other interpretations came into being. Still the locus of māyā is a thorn in the flesh of advaita! I envisage a universal field which is the root cause of all living forms. It enters the body of any living organism with a package of "unresolved karmas" and that living being experiences the results or phalas of all those packaged, unresolved karmas during its life time. Because the life force enters into the living entity, it starts activating the life process which includes the body, sense and other organs, mind and intellect and, above all the feeling of "I-ness" and in this process it becomes unable to get back to its default position of the universal field (equivalent to Parabrahman of advaita).

There is no individualized jīvātmā as in the traditional system, nor is there one's own karma baggage. Each one of us has come here to experience the results (phalas) of certain karmas which have remained unexperienced so far. These karmas could be of anybody, from anywhere and not necessarily from the past births of one quantum of jīvātmā. Similarly the good and bad results of one's karma will be experienced by some entity at some point of time, not necessarily the re-incarnation of the same quantized portion of parabrahman, called jīvātmā.

This may result in irresponsible behaviour on the part of those who are not yet matured to understand the intricacy and grandeur of the system, and that is why, probably, our Achaaryas stuck to the jīvātmā idea along with re-incarnation.

One good simile for my proposal is to campare the bubbles in seawaves to individual lives. (This analogy is already present in some of our scriptures). Just as the bubbles arising are all out of the sea water and end up also as sea water, our in-dwelling power also will merge into the universal life force once death terminates this life. And, no one will vouch for the same limited volume of water forming successive bubbles in order to have re-incarnation of bubbles. Yes, we are all like the bubbles but religions have made us grand fools!

 

[sravna]

My dear Sravna,

The concept of māyā was not clearly spelt out by Sankara and that was why bhāmati, vivaraṇa and other interpretations came into being. Still the locus of māyā is a thorn in the flesh of advaita! I envisage a universal field which is the root cause of all living forms. It enters the body of any living organism with a package of "unresolved karmas" and that living being experiences the results or phalas of all those packaged, unresolved karmas during its life time. Because the life force enters into the living entity, it starts activating the life process which includes the body, sense and other organs, mind and intellect and, above all the feeling of "I-ness" and in this process it becomes unable to get back to its default position of the universal field (equivalent to Parabrahman of advaita).

There is no individualized jīvātmā as in the traditional system, nor is there one's own karma baggage. Each one of us has come here to experience the results (phalas) of certain karmas which have remained unexperienced so far. These karmas could be of anybody, from anywhere and not necessarily from the past births of one quantum of jīvātmā. Similarly the good and bad results of one's karma will be experienced by some entity at some point of time, not necessarily the re-incarnation of the same quantized portion of parabrahman, called jīvātmā.

This may result in irresponsible behaviour on the part of those who are not yet matured to understand the intricacy and grandeur of the system, and that is why, probably, our Achaaryas stuck to the jīvātmā idea along with re-incarnation.

One good simile for my proposal is to campare the bubbles in seawaves to individual lives. (This analogy is already present in some of our scriptures). Just as the bubbles arising are all out of the sea water and end up also as sea water, our in-dwelling power also will merge into the universal life force once death terminates this life. And, no one will vouch for the same limited volume of water forming successive bubbles in order to have re-incarnation of bubbles. Yes, we are all like the bubbles but religions have made us grand fools!

Dear Shri Sangom,

There are a lot of questions that a theory of reality needs to answer convincingly

1. What is reality?
2. How does our world fit into the above definition?
3. what is the basis of our world: space, time, energy, our life, our consciousness etc
4. why is there existence instead of nothingness?
5. Is there any meaning to our world?
6. Is there any permanence to our existence?
7. How does one explain the existence of laws and order in nature?
8. how does one explain evolution?

A theory should be able to consistently explain everything.

 

[sravna]

I will give one rationale for non-dualistic reality. It can be explained in other ways also.

In theory;

Instead of existence there could have been nothingness. If existence came out of nothingness it has to be omnipotent since something which is a contradiction was made possible. Something that is omnipotent is also omniscient and omnipresent. Because of these characteristics it is existence and not nothingness that is the true nature of reality. Because of omniscience and omnipresence it makes the entity timeless and formless and something that is equivalent to pure consciousness.

In Our Experience:

We know our existence is also real but we experience time.

Advaita reconciles the timeless reality with the time bound reality through the concept of maya.

 

[tbs]

hi sravana sir,

we put POORVAPAKSHA AND UTTARA PAKSHA ACCORDING TO BRAHMA SUTRA.....

according to BHAMATI TIKA...we summarize poorpaksha questions and reply according to advaita....please all acharyas written

commentary on brahma sutra....sometomes i feel madhva paksha DVAITHA VEDANTA in some places better than advaita...

im very open minded....

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

I had spent some considerable amount of time before reading up about religious philosophy etc.

I would not say I have acquired sufficient understanding but after a while a feeling came to me "Hey just what are you doing?"

Then I dropped everything in my mind and thought "why don't I just exists and learn to appreciate life"

To a great extent most religions do not teach humans to live in the world.

Religion spins a web of delusion around our mind creating an impression that life is all suffering and the human body is just a house of waste products etc.

Why start off with such negativity?

Life should not be seen as suffering or even enjoyment but rather a process that comes with many shades of experiences.

But sadly we are always thought to have a pessimistic view about life and the focus is always about the after-life.

My views have totally changed..I feel I do not wish to be taken for a ride anymore.
Just being myself should suffice.

But I would try to answer the questions you have posted.

My answers in blue:

1.What is reality?

Personally I feel reality is a perception.
No two humans have the same definition for reality..not even sages.
Therefore it remains a perception.


2. How does our world fit into the above definition?

However we wish to define it.


3. what is the basis of our world: space, time, energy, our life, our consciousness etc

There has to be a substratum of energy that supports everything but none of us know yet what the substratum is and how it functions.


4. why is there existence instead of nothingness?

Becos right now there is existence..may be nothingness existed or will exists..just that there was no one present to document nothingness.


5. Is there any meaning to our world?

Yes..fall in love..you would know the meaning of the world!LOL

6. Is there any permanence to our existence?

In a way yes..cos energy is permanent.Nature recycles.


7. How does one explain the existence of laws and order in nature?

It is not fixed...laws and order of nature changes with time.
The Jurassic era had Carbon Dioxide levels 5 times higher than now.



8. how does one explain evolution?

I would also include devolution.
Both are ongoing processes.

 

[tbs]

hi sravana,

Maya is still not clear....like rajju/sarpa example.......aavarana/adhyasa is also most confused....when we say saguna/.nirguna

brahman ....dualism is there.....world is dualism for common man...just for thought...

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I had spent some considerable amount of time before reading up about religious philosophy etc.

I would not say I have acquired sufficient understanding but after a while a feeling came to me "Hey just what are you doing?"

Then I dropped everything in my mind and thought "why don't I just exists and learn to appreciate life"

To a great extent most religions do not teach humans to live in the world.

Religion spins a web of delusion around our mind creating an impression that life is all suffering and the human body is just a house of waste products etc.

Why start off with such negativity?

Life should not be seen as suffering or even enjoyment but rather a process that comes with many shades of experiences.

But sadly we are always thought to have a pessimistic view about life and the focus is always about the after-life.

My views have totally changed..I feel I do not wish to be taken for a ride anymore.
Just being myself should suffice.

But I would try to answer the questions you have posted.

My answers in blue:

1.What is reality?

Personally I feel reality is a perception.
No two humans have the same definition for reality..not even sages.
Therefore it remains a perception.


2. How does our world fit into the above definition?

However we wish to define it.


3. what is the basis of our world: space, time, energy, our life, our consciousness etc

There has to be a substratum of energy that supports everything but none of us know yet what the substratum is and how it functions.


4. why is there existence instead of nothingness?

Becos right now there is existence..may be nothingness existed or will exists..just that there was no one present to document nothingness.


5. Is there any meaning to our world?

Yes..fall in love..you would know the meaning of the world!LOL

6. Is there any permanence to our existence?

In a way yes..cos energy is permanent.Nature recycles.


7. How does one explain the existence of laws and order in nature?

It is not fixed...laws and order of nature changes with time.
The Jurassic era had Carbon Dioxide levels 5 times higher than now.




8. how does one explain evolution?

I would also include devolution.
Both are ongoing processes.

Dear Renuka,

When it comes to understanding the physical world there are differences among humans. In my view, such differences are the essence of the physical world.

Thanks for your replies to the questions. I would definitely agree on your answer to the meaning of our world. Fall in love and also stay in love.

 

[sravna]

hi sravana,

Maya is still not clear....like rajju/sarpa example.......aavarana/adhyasa is also most confused....when we say saguna/.nirguna

brahman ....dualism is there.....world is dualism for common man...just for thought...

Yes Sir it is dualism for common man. When the influence of maya is there, we have dualism.

In nirguna there is no dualism. From the pint of view of nirguna, even saguna and maya are not real. So dualism does not really exist

 

[tbs]

hi

only four MAHAVAKYAS are sounding like advaita...........AYAMATMA BRAHMA....TATVAMASI.......SATYAM JNANAM ANANTHAN

BRAHMA.... EKAMEVA ADVITHIYAM BRAHMA.......just for thought...

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

There are a lot of questions that a theory of reality needs to answer convincingly

1. What is reality?
2. How does our world fit into the above definition?
3. what is the basis of our world: space, time, energy, our life, our consciousness etc
4. why is there existence instead of nothingness?
5. Is there any meaning to our world?
6. Is there any permanence to our existence?
7. How does one explain the existence of laws and order in nature?
8. how does one explain evolution?

A theory should be able to consistently explain everything.

My dear Sravna,

I am sorry I am unable to respond quickly to your posts. That's because I tend to spend only limited time with my computer; age is slowly telling on me!

Now, for your questions.

1. Nobody knows, I think, what exactly is "reality". It may be that the ultimate "reality" is pure nothingness, just as our (one) Upanishad says, न संदृशे तिष्ठति न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्च नैनं (na saṃdṛśe tiṣṭhati na cakṣuṣā paśyati kaśca nainaṃ).

2. This world (not 'our world') has nothing to do with that reality. This world is merely an appearance just like a mirage.

3. The basis is that the universal life force is able to make us perceive this world (and this universe) in a particular way and so we feel that there is space, time, energy etc.; but our life, mind, intellect, consciousness, etc., are outcome of that universal life force being present within our physical bodies.

4. We feel there is existence but we are unable to know, in the ordinary course of human life, whether this so-called "existence" is really REAL or merely a phantom, just like a cinema.

5. Our world has only limited meaning; it serves as a stage for all of humanity and all other living organisms to act out their respective parts of a mind-boggling drama of infinite characters so that the Law of Karma will operate here unhindered by anything else.

6. Our existence is limited to our present life times and no more. There is, thus, no permanence to our existence. Even during a life time, it is not the same person who lives from birth to death since all our body cells get replaced over a period of time and thus we undergo complete body changes. But this "world appearance" may have permanence; we just can't know about that.

7. None of us can "explain" the 'how' or the 'why' of the existence of natural laws and order in nature. Probably, in tha absence of such order and such laws, the Law of Karma will not succeed.

8. Darwinian "evolution" may or may not be correct. But it looks as though random impulses from the universal life force, brings about the origin of some new species. (It is not that all apes are gradually and uniformly evolving all the time, into humans; one ape at some point of time long past in our reckoning, underwent significant changes and gradually evolved into Homo Sapiens ultimately.) For example the horse is an example which became stunted without any further 'evolution'. Ultimately all such evolutionary changes will have to subserve the operation of the Law of Karma; that was why, perhaps, the Dinosaurs perished completely, just as the Dodo.

The above are my points of view, and you are welcome to critique those and comment. That will be useful to me also.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

It is nice to see that even at your age you have the enthusiasm to think about perspectives that are fresh but I would say that you need to take care of your health first.

Coming to the topic, even though you say what is reality is difficult to know, I think it is necessary to give your definition of reality. I think it is the basis on which we can have a discussion. Philosophy is only about logic and so as long as you are able to defend your logic, I think that is all that matters. But it is also true that a consistent logic very likely represents the truth.

So can you try to define what reality is? and if there are different levels of reality what are they? and how do our experiences fit into the concept of reality?

Alternately you can say why your reality is not definable?