Non-reality of the world

[Srinivas Sista]

>
> I think G Murthy has addressed a very fundamental and vital point out
> here. When we know the water is a mirage and the snake is a rope why
> don't people too realize the non-reality of the world?
>
> Well, for one to be certain that the water is a mirage and the snake is
> indeed a rope, one has to physically experience it ie literally touch the
> rope and prove that it's not a snake. The same way life has to be
> experienced and realized that it's indeed futile and to realize the reality of
> Brahman. But the problem is that, when one is young and has not really
> experienced all that life has to offer or is still experiencing the pleasant
> part of it, one needs either incredible faith or extremely strong reasoning
> that life as we know it, is indeed futile, to give it up. Such faith or
> reasoning is quite rare or will take time. There I feel lies the problem. It
> might also account for all the married guys who want to take up
> sanyaasin and go to the Himalayas!
>

There lies the whole problem. We cannot give up life! (I am not including
suicide here).  We may replace one set of circumstances with another. That
is all. We only replace one thought with another; `it is a snake' with
`it is a rope' and `it is a mirage' with `it is water'. But the `it' still
remains without the labels snake/rope or water/mirage. That `it' cannot be
thrown off. The fact that a mirage is acknowledged shows that it appears.
The problem seems to be in the way we define reality. Choose your own
definition of reality and play the game of partitioning the event space into
the real and non-real. Quite a cheap thrill isn't it?

regards,
Srinivas Sista.