[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Is there a real jagat?

Sudhanshu Shekhar sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com
Wed Oct 1 07:46:19 EDT 2025


Namaste Subbu ji.

Except Charvaka, all branches of Indian Philosophy accept that
deha-Atma-aikya is illusory. Means deha-AtmA-aikya appears to exist, people
act in pursuance thereto but deha-Atma-aikya doesn't exist. It is illusory.

If the logic - to know an illusory object, the real object must be known -
is propounded by the opponent -- he must show as to where has he seen a
real deha-Atma-aikya.

There is no evidence of real deha-Atma-aikya anywhere. Everywhere it is
illusory. Be it a goat's body or lion's body or our relative's bodies.

If the opponent is Charvaka, then his view is easily refuted.
Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita guys cannot show an evidence of real dehAtmaikya
anywhere and yet they accept the seeing of illusory dehAtmaikya.

So, they have to accept that the rule is incorrect. And an illusory object
can be known without having seen corresponding real object earlier. Of
course it is shown with great ease in DSV and also through the logics
adduced earlier!!

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

On Wed, 1 Oct, 2025, 4:26 pm V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> By asking a counter-question, we can arrive at a conclusion to the
> question of a 'real world' that precedes the world bhrama. The body-bhrama
> is not separable from the world-bhrama because the body also is part of the
> world.  The 13th Chapter Bh.Gita teaches that the whole of the creation
> consists of two divisions: the outside inert world and the body-mind-organs
> complex that is required to interact with the world. Consciousness is
> beyond both these components of the world as the ultimate observer.
>
> All Vedantic systems accept that the identification of the Self with the
> body-mind complex is a 'bhrama', error:
>
> Shankara's Adhyāsa bhāshya is a document on this very topic.
>
> श्रीभगवद्यामुनमुनिविरचितगीतार्थसंग्रहव्याख्या   Ramanuja system
>
> नित्यात्मसङ्गकर्मेदृगोचरा सांख्ययोगधीः । द्वितीये स्थितधीलक्षा प्रोक्ता
> तन्मोहशान्तये ॥6॥
> संख्यया- बुद्धयाऽवधारणीयमात्मतत्त्वं सांस्व्यम्, तद्विषयबुद्धिस्सांख्यधीः
> । नित्यात्मगोचरेति तद्विकरणम् । एवमत्र असङ्गकर्महाशब्देनापि
> योगशब्दार्थविवरणादपौनरुक्त्यम् । सांख्ययोगयोः-सांख्ययोगयोधः । स्थितधीः..
> स्थितप्रज्ञता, ज्ञाननिष्ठेत्यर्थः । सा साध्यत्वेन लक्षं यस्यास्सा तथोक्ता । *तन्मोहशान्तये
> उपकारस्य अर्जुनस्य देहात्मादिभ्रमनिवृत्त्यर्थम् ।   Body-bhrama*
>
>
> बुभुक्षा च पिपासा च शोकमोहौ जरामृती ॥ 26 ॥
> षडूर्मयः
> *प्राणबुद्धिदेहेषु स्याद्द्वयन्द्वयम् ।आत्मत्वेन भ्रमन्त्यत्र वादिनः
> कोशपञ्चके* ॥ 27 ॥  Body bhrama
>
> Madhwa:
>
> 'अतो भ्रान्त्यादिसम्बन्धो नास्य क्वचन युज्यते । भ्रान्त्या जीवस्य संसार
> ईशज्ञानाद्विलीयते ।
> *भ्रान्तिर्देहाद्यभिमति*रीशज्ञानाद्विनश्यति''॥ इति ब्रह्माण्डे ॥ १०-१२ ॥ *
> Identification with body, etc. is bhranti. *
>
> 'आत्मभावः शरीरे तु द्रव्यभ्रम उदाहृतः ।   *The identification of the Self
> with the body is bhrama.*
>
> The Bh.Gita 13th chapter is also about this. Also the Upanishads have this
> very topic to discuss and offer solutions.
>
> The question arises: If the Atma has to identify itself with the body by
> taking the body to be the Self, there needs to be a 'real' body which the
> Atma has experienced/seen before coming to identify with the body, in other
> words, seeing the body in the place of the Atma, just like the question
> about the world being seen in the place of Brahman precedes an experience
> of a real world prior to the jagat bhrama.  One can easily see the
> absurdity of the question.
>
> The inevitable conclusion will be: the body is also imagined/imaginary.
> Else, can anyone tell who, Ishwara or Prakriti, created a real body and
> placed it before the Atman to let the Atman to get the first ever bhrama of
> body-identification? If such a body was indeed created, was it a human body
> or that of any animal or any other species? What is the rationale behind
> choosing such a body? Why should the Atma be made to go with x body and not
> y body?   There are no answers to such questions as all Vedanta schools
> accept anādi samsara which means there has been anādi world (in srishti,
> sthiti, laya modes) and anādi jivatva which means embodiedness as anādi.
> Thus, the question: was there a real world before the world bhrama can
> happen? addressed to the Advaitin alone is unreasonable and will only
> bounce back on the questioner.  The questioner would not like to accept the
> body and world are unreal but they can't choose otherwise as there is no go
> for them too to accept the world mithyatva as the body-mithyatva can never
> be avoided by them.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 12:52 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Kalyan ji.
>>
>>
>> It is because I have experienced real water before! Thus, the concept of
>>> water can come in my dream.
>>> There must still be a "real water".
>>>
>>
>> Question is not about you. Question is about Mr A. How did he confuse
>> mirage for water. Which real water had Mr A seen before.
>>
>> Phoenix and Dragon are non-existent but they depend on things that exist
>>> in two ways -
>>>
>>> 1. As concepts that are presented in real books
>>> 2. As ideas or class of "birdness" for phoenix and "reptileness" for
>>> dragon. Birdness and Reptileness are real.
>>>
>>
>> You mean to say that non-existent dragon depends on real thing? You mean
>> to say that the reptile-ness in the non-existent-dragon is real? Sir, in
>> order to possess real reptile-ness, there has to be a real-dragon. A
>> non-existent dragon cannot possess real attribute.
>>
>> The question was this much - to confuse mirage as water, I must have seen
>> "real" water. The answer is - to confuse light-projection as dragon, there
>> is no need to see real-dragon. There is no need that a real dragon must be
>> present somewhere.
>>
>> Now, you are holding that reptile-ness is real and hence analogy is not
>> perfect. Reptile-ness must be present somewhere.
>>
>> So, I can draw a thing which exists nowhere and can project it on theater
>> screen and confuse you. But then you would say, it has seen-ness which is
>> real and hence analogy is not perfect.
>>
>> You basic presumption of real-ness of seen-objects itself is flawed. In
>> fact by virtue of being seen, your real-water is proved to be illusory. So,
>> unless one comes out of this basic flaw, one will not be able to find the
>> solution to your problem. Because at least seen-ness will remain in the
>> analogy which as per you will be real!!
>>
>> Regards.
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAJkKc0h0X2%2BUCQJaQg3MuxtP-NVnKFrvT5A41fRkcQLw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAJkKc0h0X2%2BUCQJaQg3MuxtP-NVnKFrvT5A41fRkcQLw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te05hEcC%3D9TztZcUSOeU4pKjRGbNxFET4sLQTvZRodEkPA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te05hEcC%3D9TztZcUSOeU4pKjRGbNxFET4sLQTvZRodEkPA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list