Really

Here’s an interesting argument for the conclusion that all the really exists is undifferentiated Brahman from the ancient sage Shamkara, the “unrivalled propounder of advaita Vedanta, the non-dualistic aspect of the Vedic teachings” as explained by Swami Prabhavananda in Spiritual Heritage of India:

Shamkara accepts as “real” only that which neither changes nor ceases to exist. No object, no kind of knowledge, can be absolutely real if its existence is only temporary. All of our various experiences of waking and dreaming are only temporary. So, every object of knowledge, external or internal, is subject to modification; they all change and/or cease to exist; same with the objects themselves, which pass into and out of existence. Therefore, neither the objects of knowledge, nor the objects themselves are real. The only thing that never leaves us is pure consciousness; this is the constant feature of all experience, whether we’re awake, dreaming, or in dreamless sleep. Thus, only pure consciousness is real.

Now, we might wonder why only unchanging, eternal things are real, but we might also be willing to allow that such things would be “more real” (if you can put it that way) than things that change or cease to exist. In that case, maybe pure consciousness, or Brahman, is “realer” than the “reality” we generally experience. Okay, grant that.

And I’ll be damned if Shankara doesn’t beat me there: Again, Swami Prabhavananda: “Here then, we are confronted by a paradox—the world is and is not. It is neither real nor unreal…It is nonexistent, yet it differs from the Reality, the Brahman, upon whom it depends for its existence. It is not real since it disappears in the light of knowledge of its eternal basis.”

I’m not entirely sure I buy it, but I have to admit, it really is intriguing.