sleep awareness, "black-in" ? , etc. [was: Reply to Warren]

August 1, 1999

At 08:18 PM 7/31/99 -0500, you wrote:

>"Warren E. Donley" <wedonley

a c --

>>I have perfect certainty it is always already the

>>case as I can enjoy it as I wish but as much as I am inseparable from it, I

>>am not it.

>

>Then what are you?

>

There is "no knowing" that (certainly not as an object). I'm not

advocating dvaita. If the individual self inquires into itself it is seen

not to be there because the gaze towards oneself can find nowhere to stop.

The gaze itself is there however, just awareness unidentified with an

object. This awareness may be intimately related to absolute awareness

(ie. Brahman) it may even seem temporarily indistinguishable but the sense

of individualized awareness returns (or appears to) in every case -- even

though according to Advaita there is no Gaudapada and there is no world in

which Gaudapada says there is no world. The very fact of Advaita's

existence contradicts this tenet (or so it seems to me).

>

>Ever read Paul Brunton? You might appreciate him. A student of "advaita" who

>frequently criticized the statements made by "advaitins" in much the same

>way as you are.

>

Yes, I read him and at the time I thought he was placing God on top of

non-duality which seemed like strapping a moosehead on top of a Masserati

to "improve its looks" -- but now I tend to agree with him.

>I'm not exactly an orthodox "advaitin" myself (whatever that is).

>Philosophically, I'm more in tune with Kashmir Shaivism. I don't think

>they're actually saying anything fundamentally different from Advaita, but

>their terminology and attitude towards the subject is different. (Any

>thoughts from you on Kashmir Shaivism?)

>

I wish I knew more about Kashmir Shaivism and Visistadvaita. I like them

both for not gainsaying the existence of the world but seeing it as an

emanation of God who both transcends and pervades it. This allows for both

the identification of one's self with God and the worship of God in a real

way whereas in Advaita (it seems to me) both God and man are illusions.

>

>Everyone witnesses the sleep state. Whether you remember it or not is

>irrelevant.

>

hmm... it's not a question of remembering. It's a simple matter of being

there or not. In my case I am simply "wide awake" without any particular

thought -- the return of the waking state is also witnessed and the change

is noted. In retrospect I understand the body must have been fast asleep

while I was wide awake. If you are really there you *do* remember -- the

only reason people don't remember is because of insufficient awareness.

It's no big deal for a jiva (like me) to lose or maintain awareness during

sleep but *any* un-awareness is absolutely unacceptable for Brahman (in my

opinion). Anyone who loses awareness for even the briefest instant is

ipso facto NOT Brahman by definition. How could awareness itself "lose

awareness" ????

>

>You're still presupposing a duality between Brahman and phenomena (in this

>case, sleep), and there ain't no such animal. :-)

>

I don't know how my conversation seems to you but I do know about awareness

during the sleep state -- I wouldn't say there is a duality between

awareness and the sleep state. There is witnessing going on while the body

is fast asleep -- that's all.

P.S. hey Jonathan!!! good to see another "old-timer" still here. I

never did understand what the heck you meant by the phrase "black-in" -- it

always sounded to me like a judgement made in retrospect. Sleep awareness

(in my experience) most definitely occurs during the time the body is

asleep so I'm unsure what blacking out or in means in this context.

August 1, 1999

"a c" wrote:

>Yes, I read him [Paul Brunton] and at the time I thought he was placing God

on top of

>non-duality which seemed like strapping a moosehead on top of a Masserati

>to "improve its looks" -- but now I tend to agree with him.

I would recommend the works of Brunton's main pupil, Anthony Damiani, even

more highly. He likewise is highly critical of all the "illusion" talk in

Advaita, pointing out that it mostly just confuses people. Also, their

"school" teaches that the most anyone can do is realize their identity with

their own soul (Brunton's term is "Overself"), which is forever one with,

and at the same time distinct from, God. So this seems to be more of a

Visishtadvaita perspective.

>I wish I knew more about Kashmir Shaivism and Visistadvaita. I like them

>both for not gainsaying the existence of the world but seeing it as an

>emanation of God who both transcends and pervades it. This allows for both

>the identification of one's self with God and the worship of God in a real

>way whereas in Advaita (it seems to me) both God and man are illusions.

Yes. In fact, I've long thought one could make the argument that such

"unity-in-diversity" teachings actually represent true non-dualism (as

opposed to "advaita" which constantly tends to degenerate into mere monism).

They see both Brahman and the universe distinctly - two "things" - and

declare that both are real, but "not-two". They don't reduce one "thing" to

the other, in monistic fashion, and then claim they're teaching

"non-dualism". Although I must say that in my opinion the Advaita

teachings - properly and deeply understood - are not fundamentally in

opposition to those other schools. (Dvaita, now, seems to be a different

animal entirely.)

Regarding Kashmir Shaivism, two of the best books on it I've read are by

Westerners - "The Doctrine of Vibration" by Dyczkowski, and "The Triadic

Heart of Siva" by Muller-Ortega (both published by SUNY Press).

Thanks for the conversation - I'm going to shut up for a while now....

Warren

August 1, 1999

Greetings ac:

Shankara uses the Sanskrit word Maayaa and there is no exact translation of this

word in English. Shankara does not claim that God and man are illusions. To

understand Maayaa , we have to go beyond our

intellect and that is the problem and that is the reason for the confusion. The

enclosed article can help you to understand it better but there is no guarantee!

Shankara uses this well known example - “Snake in the Rope” to illustrate the

relationship between Maayaa and Brahman. In this example, the rope is confused

to be a snake due to ignorance. Such ignorance

could be attributed to darkness and with more light the appearance of snake

disappears and the rope emerges. Shankara uses this example to illustrate the

distinction between the world and the Brahman. The

appearance of the world as the reality is due to the presence of Maayaa

(ignorance). With the emergence of wisdom, we can visualize the Brahman. In

this context, it is important to understand what is Maayaa?

Let us start our discussion with an explanation on the two powers of maayaa -

aavarana sakti and vikshepa sakti. When we mistake a rope for a snake, our

inability to recognize the rope is because of

aavarana sakti (concealing power) of maayaa. The appearance of snake instead of

rope is due to the vikshepa sakti (projecting power) of maayaa. It is this dual

cosmic power of maayaa that brings about the

presentation of the physical universe concealing the totality (Brahman). Maayaa

is one of the most misunderstood terms of Advaita. Maayaa means that which is

not absolutely real but which has the power to

appear as real. The root word for Maayaa is maya (with both vowels short),

which has very much to do with magic. Sankara explains Maayaa as yaa maa saa

Maayaa, meaning, ‘that which is not is Maayaa.'

According to Sankara, the world is a myth, infact a total dream. To whom is a

dream a dream? A dream is a dream only to a person who has awakened from the

dream. So the world is not a dream to me or you who

are still dreaming! Sankara's conception of maayaa is from the absolute point of

view.

Let us examine the word ‘dream.' To whom is a dream a dream? A dream is a dream

only to a person who has awakened from the dream. A dream is not a dream to the

dreamer. So also the world is not a dream to

you, me and everyone else who are still dreaming! The world is as real as you

and I are - so long our mind exists. It has an empirical reality. When Sankara

says it is a myth and a dream, it is so from the

absolute point of view. His different orders of reality have to be understood

well if we want to give sensible meanings to statements like Brahman is the

Absolute Truth, the universe is a myth, Brahma Satyam,

Jagat Mithyaa. Once the mind merges itself in the infinite, when we have been

awakened by the Absolute Consciousness overpowering us, we are then no more in

the dreaming state and to such an awakened soul

the world is indeed a dream and myth!

The story on King Janaka’s dream can help us additional clarifications. Janaka

had a dream that he was a beggar on the street. He suddenly woke up and started

wondering who he was? He asked this question:

Who is real - Janaka the king or Janaka the beggar ? In the waking stage,

Janaka the king appears real and Janaka the begger is a dream. At the realized

stage (Absolute), Janaka the king and the begger both

become unreal! This example is just to illustrate the conceptual difficulty in

understanding the difference between absolute and relative stages: Until we

become the absolute, we can’t resolve the question

whether Janaka the King is also a dream!

The true nature of sun gets distorted due to the presence of clouds. Similarly,

our true nature (Brahman) is distorted due to the presence of ignorance

(Maayaa). When we experience our true nature

(self-realization), we can understand that the world is Maayaa. The Shastras

say that one has to go beyond the intellect to understand one’s true nature.

Examples such as the snake and the rope is an

illustration so that we can understand the Advaitic Concept within our

intellect. Shankara knows the limitations of examples and limitations the

intellect. How is it possible to go beyond the intellect

using the intellect? The answer is quite simple. We have seen the pole-vault

jumpers who use the pole to go beyond the height of the pole! Faith is another

important input to go beyond the intellect. Let

me state this beautiful quotation from St. Augustine: “Faith is to believe what

we don’t see, and its reward is to see what believe!”

==============================

a c wrote:

> ...................................

>

> I wish I knew more about Kashmir Shaivism and Visistadvaita. I like them

> both for not gainsaying the existence of the world but seeing it as an

> emanation of God who both transcends and pervades it. This allows for both

> the identification of one's self with God and the worship of God in a real

> way whereas in Advaita (it seems to me) both God and man are illusions.

August 1, 1999

Warren E. Donley wrote:

>

> "a c" wrote:

>

> >I wish I knew more about Kashmir Shaivism and Visistadvaita. I like them

> >both for not gainsaying the existence of the world but seeing it as an

> >emanation of God who both transcends and pervades it. This allows for both

> >the identification of one's self with God and the worship of God in a real

> >way whereas in Advaita (it seems to me) both God and man are illusions.

>

> Yes. In fact, I've long thought one could make the argument that such

> "unity-in-diversity" teachings actually represent true non-dualism (as

> opposed to "advaita" which constantly tends to degenerate into mere monism).

> They see both Brahman and the universe distinctly - two "things" - and

> declare that both are real, but "not-two". They don't reduce one "thing" to

> the other, in monistic fashion, and then claim they're teaching

> "non-dualism". Although I must say that in my opinion the Advaita

> teachings - properly and deeply understood - are not fundamentally in

> opposition to those other schools.

hariH OM!

i agree with what you're saying. the fact is that

**true advaita is not a mayavada doctrine**.

the idea that the world is completely an illusion

is not what Sankara was saying at all! this was

made very clear by Ramana Maharshi. i would,

in fact, strongly recommend reading works by or

about him. especially, [in the following order]:

MAHA YOGA, TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI, ERASING

THE EGO, DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN, SAT DARSHANA,

UPADESA SARAM, ULLADU NARPADU, and THE TECHNIQUE

OF MAHA YOGA.

it's all really a matter of getting to

the point where the judgmental mind no longer blocks

the natural state of the Self, which is described

as sat-chit-ananda (at least this is as close as

we can get to the description of the undescribable).

advaita--by emphasizing non-duality between

brahman and jiva--seeks to stop the incessant

identification or hang-up about thinking in terms

of 'lame man' vs 'perfect God.' this is the whole point.

and it goes even further than what this is implying.

and that is, what does it matter whether we regard

ourselves as God or not? what we're after is vibration.

essence. suchness. which, we know instinctively,

confers bliss. [this latter observation, as elucidated,

is sat-ananda; the chit aspect is implied]. and

whatever method can get us there, is totally cool!

why waste precious time judging the method?

what's right for you might utterly fail for me.

in any event, *all* paths up the mountain

reach the same summit. if in fact, someone is taking

a path that may not even seem best for *them*, is

being done for purposes known only to the soul.

again, the way of advaita--if you're interested--is

to free the mind of all this clutter.

namaste

August 2, 1999

>

>hey Jonathan!!! good to see another "old-timer" still here. I

>never did understand what the heck you meant by the phrase "black-in" -- it

>always sounded to me like a judgement made in retrospect. Sleep awareness

>(in my experience) most definitely occurs during the time the body is

>asleep so I'm unsure what blacking out or in means in this context.

>

Allan, is that you? Delighted to see you found your way to this friendlier

shore. I have only experienced sleep awareness once, though every night,

during a week of samadhi/madness/whatever. It was a deep rest that was

looking at the only thing present to my eyes, the dark side of my lids. It

is from this, and from the great Western advaitin, Parmenides, who forbids

us to talk or even think about nothingness, that I first began to believe in

the non-reality of nothingness, and began to see the great shutdown that we

all fear as simply a shutdown of self. My claim is that in ordinary

experience the door to sleep is black and the door out of sleep is black,

and although we don't acknowledge it, because there is no reverberating

experience present during it, consciousness as sleep, when it is not

consciousness as dreaming, is consciousness of black, a continuous black,

which, as we come-to, is, in fact, NOT remembered as continuous. Such

continuity, in our ordinary state, IS a judgement, I suppose, or at least an

inference. But it is, I would argue, a more supportable inference than an

impossible-to-imagine-or-think-about, but, alas, not talk about,

DIScontinuity of consciousness.

All the best to you dear friend,

Jonathan

August 2, 1999

a c [ac]

Sunday, August 01, 1999 5:17 PM

advaitin

sleep awareness, "black-in" ? , etc. [was: Reply to

Warren]

a c <ac

I wish I knew more about Kashmir Shaivism and Visistadvaita. I like them

both for not gainsaying the existence of the world but seeing it as an

emanation of God who both transcends and pervades it. This allows for both

the identification of one's self with God and the worship of God in a real

way whereas in Advaita (it seems to me) both God and man are illusions.

Harsha: Sri Ramana would probably point out that Advaita, Kashmir Shaivism,

Visistadvaita, etc., are philosophies developed by the mind to interpret and

understand certain types of experiences. Any one of these metaphysical

systems might have much utility for an aspirant, depending on his/her

inclinations at a certain point in time. Such attempts to understand are the

play of the mind but also might create conditions for surrender and

absorption of the mind in the Self.

>

someone said: Everyone witnesses the sleep state. Whether you remember it or

not is

>irrelevant.

>

a c ac