/lit/ - Literature

>>16757584

>It is everybody’s experience that only unreal object is perceived, when Bhrama occurs but not a new object that is created. Hence the object which is perceived in Bhrama is not an inexplicable object that is created. In addition, it is neither a real object that exists somewhere. Nor it is an object in the form of knowledge inside us. It is only the unreal object, which is perceived as a real object, which is actually in front of us. This is the only logical conclusion and in tune with the experience.
Here, they are arguing for the adoption of the incorrect use of the term "unreal", as I explained above. If we accept this definition then the word unreal doesn't distinguish between things we never experience and things we do experience and believe are real without them being real; and this is a major flaw which makes Advaita reject using unreal in that blanket sense.

>Those who say that this world is Vyaavahaarika (transactional) and anirvachaniiya (inexplicable) accept Ajnaana, which is treated as positive (bhaava vastu), and that it is the cause of the Jagat and its illusion. The world, jagat is the transformation of Ajnaana just as the pot is the transformation of clay. The existence of clay and the existence of pot are not different. Similarly, as Ajnaana is Mithyaa (unreal), the world, which is the transformed product of Ajnaana, should also be Mithyaa. When Ajnaana is destroyed by the realization of Brahman, the world, which is the transformed product of Ajnaana, also gets destroyed. This is the theory of Maayaavaadins.
No it's not, there are actually a complex web of different positions of the exact relation between these various cosmological factors among all the various post-Shankara Advaitins and their sub-schools, but none of this stuff actually a necessary component of Advaita. One of the reasons so many attempted critiques of Advaita on alleged logical inconsistency grounds in Indian philosophy are not actually real critiques of Advaita is because they are the critiques of ideas which are not found in Shankara's works where he makes it into a consistent theology, but are the views of later post-Shankara Advaitins, some of whom adopted ideas Shankara himself disagreed with. It's because of this that we don't actually know with any reliability whether Ramanuja or Madhva actually read Shankara's works or one of the various post-Shankarite Advaitins of various flavors.