Who is dreaming?

August 2, 1999

Dear ac

It looks like you are not familiar with the unwritten rule in the advaitin

list that one should not ask too many intelligent questions in one sigle

post! Just kidding.

Enjoying your posts and the answers by Prof. Krishnamurthy.

Keep posting. Oneday all these questions dissolve themselves in the

knowledge of the waker.

Regards

Sadananda

>

>a c <ac

>

>It seems to me we must be dreamed rather than dreaming. When the dreamed

>man knows he is dreamed that knowledge is held in common with the real

>dreamer of the world which is God. You might say this knowledge is God's

>perception of His dream from that single viewpoint. This much is not

>uncommon though it is the highest experience a human can have (in my

>opinion). God however also views the same dream simultaneously from all

>other viewpoints as well and I don't think Ramana or Sankara or anyone but

>God ever does that. In the Bhagavad Gita (7:26), Krshna says he knows all

>beings of past, present and future but is known by none as he is in

>himself. I agree.

>

>It seems to me Advaita says ordinary men create the dream of the world but

>(it seems to me) all men (including Sankara and Ramana) are just parts of

>that world that is actually created or dreamed by God. Krshna says

>(18:61) although he dwells inside the hearts of all beings he causes them

>to revolve as though mounted on a machine. I interpret this to mean we are

>part of God's dream and not really the dreamer at all. The most we can

>realize is that we are dreamed. This knowledge at once liberates us from

>the misunderstanding of ourselves as independent entities and unites us

>with God because this knowledge is actually God's knowledge of us. Does

>this square with Advaita or even Visistadvaita?

>

>Please forgive my cheek in quoting the Bhagavad Gita to you. :-)) Are you

>a professor of philosophy or religion? I glanced at your website and

>wished there was a way to download a .zip version of the entire site so I

>could browse it at leisure off-line.

>

>my pranams to all who love the truth in any guise whatever... :-))

>

>Namaste sir...

>

August 2, 1999

Dear Sir,

>"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

>[...]

>Ordinarily in our world experience we never realise that we are dreaming

>until we wake up; or, until our dreams are shaken up. Nobody tells us in

>our dream that we are dreaming.

>But that is exactly what is happening when a Sankara or a Ramana talks to

>us. They appear in our dream - namely our mundane world, which we do not

>realise is a dream from the absolute point of view - and tell us: 'Wake

>up, you fellows, brahma satyam jagan-mithyA, you are now dreaming!' .

>

It seems to me we must be dreamed rather than dreaming. When the dreamed

man knows he is dreamed that knowledge is held in common with the real

dreamer of the world which is God. You might say this knowledge is God's

perception of His dream from that single viewpoint. This much is not

uncommon though it is the highest experience a human can have (in my

opinion). God however also views the same dream simultaneously from all

other viewpoints as well and I don't think Ramana or Sankara or anyone but

God ever does that. In the Bhagavad Gita (7:26), Krshna says he knows all

beings of past, present and future but is known by none as he is in

himself. I agree.

It seems to me Advaita says ordinary men create the dream of the world but

(it seems to me) all men (including Sankara and Ramana) are just parts of

that world that is actually created or dreamed by God. Krshna says

(18:61) although he dwells inside the hearts of all beings he causes them

to revolve as though mounted on a machine. I interpret this to mean we are

part of God's dream and not really the dreamer at all. The most we can

realize is that we are dreamed. This knowledge at once liberates us from

the misunderstanding of ourselves as independent entities and unites us

with God because this knowledge is actually God's knowledge of us. Does

this square with Advaita or even Visistadvaita?

Please forgive my cheek in quoting the Bhagavad Gita to you. :-)) Are you

a professor of philosophy or religion? I glanced at your website and

wished there was a way to download a .zip version of the entire site so I

could browse it at leisure off-line.

my pranams to all who love the truth in any guise whatever... :-))

Namaste sir...

August 2, 1999

>a c <ac

>God however also views the same dream simultaneously from all

>other viewpoints as well and I don't think Ramana or Sankara or anyone but

>God ever does that.

Of course not. Ramana, Sankara, etc, are merely figures in the dream

themselves (as I think you're pointing out) - so how could "they" do it?

W

August 3, 1999

a c writes:(addressing to me)

<The most we can realize is that we are dreamed. This knowledge

at once liberates us from the misunderstanding of ourselves as independent

entities and unites us with God because this knowledge is actually God's

knowledge of us. Does this square with Advaita or even Visistadvaita?

Please forgive my cheek in quoting the BhagavadGita to you. :-)) Are you

a professor of philosophy or religion?>

My humble answer (subject to the approval of Sadanandaji):

It is not God's dream we are in. It is rather naive to bring in the

so-called God here in this fashion. In His Impersonal state. there is

nothing more to be talked (or dreamed!). In His Personal Manifested state,

say, or Vishnu, or Siva, He is so perfect (full, pUrNa, Ananda, etc.) that

again there is no question of any duality. He alone exists. If you think

in the viSishTAdvaita way that we and the universe are part of Him, we are

as true as He is, and there is no dream; that is, we are not being

'dreamed', to use your language. If you think in the advaita manner He and

We are not different and again there is no dream for Him.

But the real problem arises when we take advaita as an intellectual

pursuit and we try to understand whether we are in his dream or not. The

dream is not His. It is ours. He appears as Sankara or Ramana before us in

our dream world. Sankara roars (to use the familiar analogy of the

Vedanta-DiNDima, rightly quoted by Sadanandaji) - Sankara roars to

frighten us out of our dream. And hopefully, Sankara, Ramana, You and We

all vanish and He alone exists.

Well this is again an intellectual explanation and so still is only a

finite approximation to the Infinite.

Incidentally you wanted to know what my profession is. I was a Mathematics

Professor all my life. I am a retired Professor now.

PraNAms to all advaitins

Profvk

Postscript to all advaitins: Recently I have posted the following

additional chapters in my website:

dakshiNA-mUrti ashTakam:

www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/2952/gohitvip/63.html

dhruva-stuti:

www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/2952/gohitvip/92.html

===

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

You are invited to visit my latest book entitled GEMS FROM THE OCEAN OF HINDU

THOUGHT VISION AND PRACTICE at

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/2952/gohitvip/contents.html

___________

Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.

August 3, 1999

Namaste sir,

"V. Krishnamurthy" says:

>It is not God's dream we are in. [...] The dream is not His. It is ours.

So you imagine you are dreaming me but somehow you imagine I am also

dreaming you? How could that be? You think it is "rather naive to bring

in the

so-called God" to be the supporting dreamer of us both -- but if we are

dreaming separate dreams what accounts for the high degree of co-relation

between them if not God? If there is no co-relation between our dreams

then how can we communicate at all? Is there a better Advaitin reply than

"no communication occurs, no you nor I exist" because that amounts to

"this statement does not exist " -- which seems rather stupid.

>.......................He appears as Sankara or Ramana before us in

>our dream world. Sankara roars (to use the familiar analogy of the

>Vedanta-DiNDima, rightly quoted by Sadanandaji) - Sankara roars to

>frighten us out of our dream. And hopefully, Sankara, Ramana, You and We

>all vanish and He alone exists.

I don't see how you can have it both ways. If God actually appears in our

dream then we are not dreaming that appearance but witnessing an actuality.

If we are conjuring a mere appearance from our own resources then our

dreamed up Sankara is not God but only our own dreaming. If God is

conjuring up the appearance of Sankara inside our dream then it isn't just

our dream anymore but also God's dream as well. Which part of this dream

world is conjured up by God and which part by the Advaitin?

My own approach is not as intellectual as you might assume. My question

wasn't so much "who am I?" but "what knows this?" From repeated

experience, I can say true awareness of oneself is the awareness of one's

own abscence because in that moment there is awareness but no object or

subject of awareness (other than that awareness itself). While it occurs

it seems as if there is no world nor has there ever been a world. When the

world returns it is obvious it is fabricated (in part) by an individual

mind/body apparatus but it is also obvious the apparent world is being seen

from only one viewpoint and not from the other 6 billion human viewpoints.

I conclude when awareness is turned back on itself and the world disappears

it only does so from that point of tangency with the absolute and not from

all the others. Advaita seems to miss this (near as I can tell so far).

You say this is *your* dream (not God's) but what you consider to be your

dream (ie. "me") is now telling you otherwise. I suggest you return this

world (and yourself along with it) to the "so-called God" without delay.

:-))

August 3, 1999

>a c <ac

>

>So you imagine you are dreaming me but somehow you imagine I am also

>dreaming you? How could that be?

Depends what you mean by the word "you" in that sentence - the personality,

the mind, the subtle body, the Atman, God....?

For whatever it's worth, here's my view:

The person and his environment (the universe) are all part of the same

dream. The soul is manifesting the whole show, from the "viewpoint" of that

particular person, and the person is part of the show. But each

"viewpoint" - which includes not only humans, but animals, plants, etc down

to the atomic level - has its own version of the show. In other words, there

are as many universes as there are points of view. "You" appear in "my"

dream universe, and "I" appear in "your" dream universe - they are not the

same dream, but ALL of the countless dreams are reflected in each of them

(each viewpoint, down to the very least, contains or reflects the whole).

Think of the image of Indra's net (or necklace) - all of the jewels are

reflected in each jewel, and the reflections of the reflections, etc.

The whole thing is grounded in a reality you can call "God" if you wish -

it's as good as any other name.

>You think it is "rather naive to bring in the

>so-called God" to be the supporting dreamer of us both -- but if we are

>dreaming separate dreams what accounts for the high degree of co-relation

>between them if not God? If there is no co-relation between our dreams

>then how can we communicate at all?

You have no way of knowing if such co-relation or communication is a fact,

or just part of your own dream.

August 4, 1999

>

>a c <ac

>

>Namaste sir,

>

>"V. Krishnamurthy" says:

>

> >It is not God's dream we are in. [...] The dream is not His. It is

>ours.

>

>So you imagine you are dreaming me but somehow you imagine I am also

>dreaming you? How could that be? You think it is "rather naive to bring

>in the

>so-called God" to be the supporting dreamer of us both -- but if we are

>dreaming separate dreams what accounts for the high degree of co-relation

>between them if not God? If there is no co-relation between our dreams

>then how can we communicate at all? Is there a better Advaitin reply than

>"no communication occurs, no you nor I exist" because that amounts to

>"this statement does not exist " -- which seems rather stupid.

ac

Here is my two cents on the topic.

Suppose you are dreaming and in your dream there are severall subjects with

whome you are having a discussion. Besides several people there are many

inert things like chairs and tables etc that eveyone is seeing and using in

your dream? YOu are also a subject in your own dream. and there is a guru

who is leading the discussion. Now that guru says this is all like a dream

and ac in your dream asks the question whose dream is this? Is is my dream

or the fellow setting next to you who is also participating in the

discussions or the dream of the guru or many other subjects who are

participating in the discussion since that dream consists of you and the

guru and all the other people plus the chairs and tables that every one of

them independely aware of etc. Whose dream is that one since ac appears to

be separate from the rest of the guys there in your dream?

First as a subject in your own dream that dream ac does not konw that it is

a dream and even told by guru he cannot accept that it is until guru kicks

him hard to wake him up from his dream. When ac wakes up, the dream ac

resolved into waker ac and all the subjects that were in your dream are

resolved into your mind including the guru and the inert chairs and tables -

every thing. While the dream is going on the dreamer ac mind appears to be

different from the guru's mind which is different from the minds of each one

of the mind ofthe subjects and obviously different from the inert chairs and

tables. Yet all are resolved into the waker's mind as one homogeneous

entity no more distinctions in terms of guru and the subjects and ac and the

chairs and tables. Is it a high degree of correlation that everyone of the

subjects dreaming the same things - same guru same chairs and tables and

same environment and so on. Does that question everarise in you as a waker

since you dismiss that all - all means everythings both movable and

immovable are nothing but projection of your own mind. But as long as the

dream lasts the dream appears to be real and the differences and

distinctions between subjects and the subjects and the objects etc are all

real. That is the trick of the mind.

Hence Shankara says in dRik dRishya viveka:

antar dRik dRisyorbhedam bahischa brahma sarga yoH}

aavRinostya paraashaktiH saa samsaarasya kaaraNam||

The distinction between the seer and the seen in the mind (such as in your

dream as you and your subjects) and the difference between the Brahman and

the creation outside is due to maaya shakti - the non-apprehenskion of the

truth and in its wake the mis-apprehension of the truth and that is the

cause of this samsaar.

Thus who is dreaming and how can there be such a pefect correlation of all

things and people etc is the question that bother when told that it is all

like a dream? It is the dream of the waker and who is that waker who is

dreaming - for that to understand and appreciate one has to wakeup and when

one wakes up you would not ask that question just as you would not ask any

more who dreampt your dream when your were dreaming all those subjects and

the guru and the tables and the chairs etc.

I hope the answer is clear and what professor Krishnamurthy implied in his

answer is exactly this as I understood.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

> >.......................He appears as Sankara or Ramana before us in

> >our dream world. Sankara roars (to use the familiar analogy of the

> >Vedanta-DiNDima, rightly quoted by Sadanandaji) - Sankara roars to

> >frighten us out of our dream. And hopefully, Sankara, Ramana, You and We

> >all vanish and He alone exists.

>

>I don't see how you can have it both ways. If God actually appears in our

>dream then we are not dreaming that appearance but witnessing an actuality.

> If we are conjuring a mere appearance from our own resources then our

>dreamed up Sankara is not God but only our own dreaming. If God is

>conjuring up the appearance of Sankara inside our dream then it isn't just

>our dream anymore but also God's dream as well. Which part of this dream

>world is conjured up by God and which part by the Advaitin?

>

>My own approach is not as intellectual as you might assume. My question

>wasn't so much "who am I?" but "what knows this?" From repeated

>experience, I can say true awareness of oneself is the awareness of one's

>own abscence because in that moment there is awareness but no object or

>subject of awareness (other than that awareness itself). While it occurs

>it seems as if there is no world nor has there ever been a world. When the

>world returns it is obvious it is fabricated (in part) by an individual

>mind/body apparatus but it is also obvious the apparent world is being seen

>from only one viewpoint and not from the other 6 billion human viewpoints.

>I conclude when awareness is turned back on itself and the world disappears

>it only does so from that point of tangency with the absolute and not from

>all the others. Advaita seems to miss this (near as I can tell so far).

>

>You say this is *your* dream (not God's) but what you consider to be your

>dream (ie. "me") is now telling you otherwise. I suggest you return this

>world (and yourself along with it) to the "so-called God" without delay.

>:-))

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.

>

>------

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

>focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available

>at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>

August 4, 1999

At 11:44 PM 8/3/99 -0500, you wrote:

>"Warren E. Donley" <wedonley

>>a c <ac

>>

>>So you imagine you are dreaming me but somehow you imagine I am also

>>dreaming you? How could that be?

>

>[...]

>For whatever it's worth, here's my view:

>The person and his environment (the universe) are all part of the same

>dream. The soul is manifesting the whole show, from the "viewpoint" of that

>particular person, and the person is part of the show. But each

>"viewpoint" - which includes not only humans, but animals, plants, etc down

>to the atomic level - has its own version of the show. In other words, there

>are as many universes as there are points of view. "You" appear in "my"

>dream universe, and "I" appear in "your" dream universe - they are not the

>same dream, but ALL of the countless dreams are reflected in each of them

>(each viewpoint, down to the very least, contains or reflects the whole).

>Think of the image of Indra's net (or necklace) - all of the jewels are

>reflected in each jewel, and the reflections of the reflections, etc.

>

>The whole thing is grounded in a reality you can call "God" if you wish -

>it's as good as any other name.

>

well... your view at least recognizes the problem and offers a solution.

It seems you might agree that when the universe disappears for the advaitin

it does so from one viewpoint only but not from the countless other

viewpoints through which "the show" continues to manifest. What do

Advaitins say?

August 4, 1999

At 09:14 AM 8/4/99 -0700, you wrote:

>"Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda

>

>Suppose you are dreaming and in your dream there are

> severall subjects with whome you are having a discussion.

Yes sir, this is the dream and you and I and Krishnamurthy are

the ones having the discussion. We are all 3 of us being dreamed.

I am not really asking "who is having the dream?" I am telling you

and Krishnamurthy that it is not either of you who are having it

because you are being dreamed and so am I. I was saying so in

response to his statement that it was not God who was dreaming

but us.

> It is the dream of the waker and who is that waker who is

>dreaming - for that to understand and appreciate one has to wakeup.

Yes it is the dream of "the waker" which I'm calling God.

Do you agree we are all of us being dreamed or not?

August 4, 1999

namaste.

Let me add my understanding on this topic which is of interest to me

and to all advaita-adherents. This discussion is to be recognized as

only an intellectual exercise and our objective here is to stretch it

as far as logically consistent and possible. If this intellectual

exercise is performed without any egoistic effects or implications,

it will be a worthwhile exercise.

Firstly, I see merit in the viewpoint that we are dreamed rather than

the concept that we are the dreamers. If we are the dreamers of the

jagat, difficulties arise, some of which are alluded to by a c.

1. How can all the dreamers (jeevas) have the same dream ? [strictly,

it is not the same dream because the world seen by a c is not the

same as the world seen by me, or by profvk, but still the perceived

world is the same, i.e. we see the same objects; and for that to

happen, we have to have a very similar dream if we are the dreamers

of the jagat]. The commonality in all of us is the Consciousness

(Atman) which does not dream. The aspect of us which dreams (the

gross-subtle body combination or the body-mind-intellect complex)

is different for each of us, hence we cannot support too well that

we are all having the same dream.

2. The defining property of a dream is that the dream looks real while

we are in the dream. There is no way, while in the dream, we can say

it is a dream. By extension, if the wake-up state is also *our* dream,

(as profvk and Shri Sadananda say), then we cannot say that wake-up

state is a dream while we are in the wake-up state. That is,

jeevanmukta state is not possible.

3. Communication is possible within one state only, but not between

states. That is, we cannot have communication between Shri Shankara,

or Shri RamaNa in a realized state and us mortals in the dream (i.e

wake-up) state. Profvk said that it is possible for mahAtmAs to

transcend the states. My objection to that is (i) we are giving

extra *powers* to the mahAtmAs, which is not necessary. They are

mahAtmAs, not because of their power of transcending states, but

because of their Knowledge; (ii) if it is our dream rather than we

are dreamed, we are adhoc ascribing powers, which defies logic.

4. If we say it (jagat) is our (jeeva's) dream, we are giving ourselves

(our body-mind-intellect complex) a reality which we do not have.

That is, we are still clinging on to some reality of this b-m-i

unjustifiably.

Thus the jagat cannot be our dream. Part of the jagat, the inferential

part may be our dream, but the visible or perceptual jagat is part of

the dream of an entity that is common to all jeevas. Rather than

bifurcating the jagat into perceptual and inferential parts, why not

we take the only possible conclusion with the least inconsistencies.

The difficulty arises because undue importance is given to the wake-up

state, while we dismiss the dream state as unreal. It is much more

natural to take all the three states (the dream, the wake-up and the

deep sleep) superimposed on a sleep state. The present waking-state

is no more than a dream. The display of these three states is again

a dream which is superimposed on another sleep. There is really no

waking up in which we can say that now we are awake whereas earlier

we dreamt.

The wake-up world is also a dream. But it is not the dream of the jeeva,

but of some unifying agent of all jeevas (whom I call prajApati for lack

of any better word). Shri RamaNa is also a character in that dream (of

prajApati). Just like the characters in our dream go through the joys and

sorrows and the whole human emotions, the characters in this dream (of

prajApati) also go through the whole range of human emotions. Some of the

characters in this dream (of prajApati) are to question the "reality" of

the jagat, but that is part of the dream-story. So, we are having various

heirarchies of dreams, all superposed on a sleep (ignorance or avidyA)

state.

Finally, Shri Sadananda in the most recent post gives the example of

a c having a dream in which a c, various other people, a guru and a

set of chairs etc are present. I notice in that example Shri Sadananda

took the dreamer a c and the character a c of the dream to have the

same reality. That can not be so. The dreamer a c is at a different

heirarchy and reality than the character a c of the dream. They have

to be distinguished. In the model which I put above, the dreamer a c

is prajApati whereas the character a c of the dream is the list-member

a c. They have different levels of realities, as I understand.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

August 4, 1999

>

>a c <ac

>

>At 09:14 AM 8/4/99 -0700, you wrote:

> >"Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda

> >

> >Suppose you are dreaming and in your dream there are

> > severall subjects with whome you are having a discussion.

>

>Yes sir, this is the dream and you and I and Krishnamurthy are

>the ones having the discussion. We are all 3 of us being dreamed.

>I am not really asking "who is having the dream?" I am telling you

>and Krishnamurthy that it is not either of you who are having it

>because you are being dreamed and so am I. I was saying so in

>response to his statement that it was not God who was dreaming

>but us.

>

> > It is the dream of the waker and who is that waker who is

> >dreaming - for that to understand and appreciate one has to wakeup.

>

>Yes it is the dream of "the waker" which I'm calling God.

>Do you agree we are all of us being dreamed or not?

>

What you say is right if understood correctly. from the point of the waker

of the dream, there is no more concepts of "God" - "God exists only when

there are creation and subjects of creation when they are all desolved or

resolved into one then even the concept of God will not have any meaning -

is it not true. Hence the discussion of the dream stops there.

For a dramer it is only an anology provide to press the point that the whole

creation is the projection of the mind and whose mind it is - it is the mind

of the subject who is asking the question - as for that subject is concerned

everything else including krishnamurty, sadananda etc all are objects of

cognition. There is only one consciousness and every thing is only a

superimpostion when everything is recognizing as existing.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

August 5, 1999

Gummaluru Murthy raised several questions echoing some of the concerns of ac

related to dream. Profvk has answered many of those in his amicable style.

Here is some of my understanding related to the topic and points Murthy

raised.

1. How can all the dreamers have the same dream is the question? In an

analogy discussed with reference to ac's dream in relation to this

question, I have pointed out that the dreamer is only one mind that is the

waker's mind. Several subjects and objects in his dream are all projections

of his mind which actually the substratum of all the body mind and

intellects of all the subjects and the objects that he is dreaming since

upon waking they resolve into one waker's mind. The community of all of

us is not just the consciousness, it is the consciousness operating on the

total mind and that is what is termed as Iswara as ac has resorted to. What

I pointed out to him is that when the dreamer is resolved into waker then

there is no more dream subjects and objects and in the process the concept

of Iswara is also dissolved since notion of Iswara is in the mind of the

subjects who are dreaming. - to proceed further there is objective world

and the subjective world as Murthy gaaru noted in the parenthesis. The

objective world is the projection of the sum total of all the minds put

together and is called macrocosmic mind and that is the Iswara and the

separate individual projections are the subjective creations like snake that

I see when there is a rope etc and that is the microcosmic projection of the

individual or subjective mind and that differs from subject to subject and

hence it is subjective projection. Hence individual suhka and duhkha are

different since they are subjective. There is also collective vasanaas like

so many died together in the train accident recently etc. Hence even though

the BMI (body, mind and intellect) equipments differ for each subject, all

of them put together are projections of the one total mind and from that

point it is similar to ac dreaming discussions that is going on in his dream

between different subjects etc.

2. There seems to be some misunderstanding in the statements. When I sleep

and dream then all the subjects in my dream are real for me as a dreamer

till I wake up when I realize that it was all projection of my waking mind.

The analogy is exact. The dreamer I do not differentiate from the waker I

since the identification with myself is so intense in both dream I and waker

I. I feel I am the dreamer and I am the one who was being chased in my

dream by a dream tiger. That is the reason why the fear and the heart beat

of the dreamer and the waker are affected by the same dream. Where as the

heart beat of the tiger that was chasing in my dream is not felt although

that is also the projection of my waking mind. Here the identity with one

small part of the total projection is clear. Hence ac dreaming that he had

discussions in his dream is an experience that can be intense even in the

waker ac even though the waker ac is total mind that is projecting all other

subjects too. When I realize the truth about my self in the jagrata

avasta(waking state), then in the turia state (the fourth state) the

previous staate will be realized as just a projection of the total mind

just as the dream is the projection of the individual mind. Turia state is

not like a waking state since it is the true state of mine, independent of

all the projections or lack of projections. Jevanmukta is the one who

identifies not with any state but with his own true state that is

independent of any particular state, realizing that all states are simple

projections of the mind and even the mind itself is a projection of myself.

"bahu syaam - prajayeyeti- vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyamlet me

become many - thus became many - (creation) is nothing but the

transformation of the thought into names and forms" etc says Ch.U.

Jeevanmukta state is not a state like a dream state or waking state - it is

a state beyond all states which migrates to all states. 'I am' there in the

waking state and 'I am' there in the dream state and 'I am' there in the

deep sleep state and my true state is beyond all states and independent of

all states, a state wherein 'I am' period and that is the understanding of

the Jiivanmukta.

3. About communication from states - This is one of the fundamental

objections of the VishishhTaadviata on adviata. " Is Krishna a realized soul

or not?" They ask. If he is not what good is his teaching. If he is, how

can he teach when there are no subjects to teach - sounds logical but one

has to be clear in this. A Jeevanmukta is the one who has realized that

he is the totality - "sarva bhutasta maatmaanam sarva bhuutaanicha atmani -

all beings are in me and I am in all beings" - is his declaration. When he

has realized, he has become one with Brahman - brahma vit brahmaiva bhavati

is the sruti - the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman - If that is so, in

principle, there is no jeevanmukta coming back - the ego that was in that

equipment is dissolved and now only Brahman is there. Just as the bangle

identifying that I am no more bangle but gold which is the substratum in

all-gold ornaments including in the bangle. Bangle when it 'teaches" it

teaches 'as gold' to other ornaments who are still identifying themselves

that they are ring and necklace etc. The teaching is demanded by the

vasanaas of the subjects who are in dire need of a teacher. Hence it is the

samishhTi vaasanas that demand a teacher and Iswara to fulfil the demands of

the subjects utilizes the ready available equipment's (since the fellow who

was living there has vacated leaving it available for use) of the

Jiivanmukta and Iswara avataara teaches the fellow subjects - What is

implied is the total mind with the knowledge of the totality is now teaching

the individual minds. Now an objector says that this does not happen in the

dream, swapna, how can it happen in the waking state -jaagrata. One can

look it both ways - it can happen in the dream if waking mind identifies

strongly with one of the subjects mind as I am the waker and teach the rest

of the subjects. It cannot happen even in the waking state either - The

avataara of Krishna is only from the point of the Arjuna and others subjects

that brings Iswara down (avatarati) due to their vaasanaas and get taught by

that superior intellect. Hence teaching is from Arjuna's point who still

differentiates the teacher and the student and himself not realized the

truth yet. From Krishna's point all are in me and I am in all of them, the

teaching takes place in him but he himself does not teach! - I am the doer

from the point of the sadhakaas but yet I am not the doer in reality -

Prakriti does in my presence. Akarthaam abhoktaaham - I am neither doer nor

enjoyer yet Krishna declares I am the intelligence in the intellect and I am

strength among the strong etc since without him nothing can work yet he

himself does not work. Please read through some of the answers given by

Nisargadatta Majaraj to questions in the "I am that" An avataara teaching

the rest of them is also a notion in the minds of the seeker who are seeking

such knowledge. When the seeker realizes - he realizes there is neither a

teacher nor a student - as emphasized by the gurupadaka stotram of Shankara.

The problems get confused if one mixes the reference states without

realizing it.

4. Jagat is not jiiva's dream - only the subjective parts are - what is

implied is jagat is like a dream - the dreamer is the waker and not the

individual subjects in the dream as ac noted correctly. The analogy is to

emphasize the projection capability of the mind - and to show that upaadaana

and nimitta kaaraNa are one and the same for the world too.

5. Jagat, swapna and sushupti - the waking, dream and deep sleep are all

projection of the total mind - Iswara - or Iswara is the consciousness

identified with the total mind. It is not projection on the sleep as Murthy

gaaru's post alludes to- sleep state is aJNaana or pure ignorance and Iswara

is the wielder of Maya - maayaavi and Maya is his shakti or power and Maya

is the same as prakRiti - All the confusion dissolves if these are

understood in correct perspective. Advaita is the most self-consistent and

logical science of reality. There are no inconsistencies there.

6. In my example Murthy gaaru is differentiating the waker ac from dreamer

ac - but in whose mind? Does the dreamer ac thinks he is different from the

waker ac - no he just thinks that he is having a Vedanta discussions as

normal intelligent person ought to have and even if he dreams Sadananda and

profvk, never a moment he will have notions that they are not real. The

unreality of the dream subjects is recognized only when ac wakes up. And the

waker ac feels he had dreamt wherein there were Vedanta discussions between

him and 'the others' in his dream who apparently were different from him and

even disagreed with his arguments. That apparent appeared to be true during

the dream and now it is recognized as only apparent in the waking state.

Similarly the unreality of this waking state is realized when ac wakes up

to turia state and in that state there is no real ac or Sadananda or profvk

there are only apparent and only the true one is just 'I am'. The

analysis is fully consistent and logical and I have yet to find the

illogical aspects in the model.

A final note for reemphasis- realization is not another state - although it

is given a state "turia" just to differentiate from the other three. It is

the state of all states, substratum of all the states and exists in all

states and hence it is not like waker going to dream state and that does not

happen. It is identity with "I am" that is common in all the states as I am

the waker, I am the dreamer and I am the deep sleeper - Hence 'I am' need

not have to travel into states since it is there in all the three states and

without it the state cannot exist since it is the substratum for any given

state. Turia is a state of understanding of one own nature in all the three

states that one experiences. This should be clearly understood. Dream

analogy is brought to show only (1) the identity of nimittta kaaraNa

(intelligent cause) and upaadaana kaaraNa (material cause) which we do not

see in all other creations that we are familiar with such as creation of a

pot or chair etc and (2) world is just a projection but appears to be real

in the mind of the one who is perceiving. Its apparent nature become

apparent when one transcends that state. ( transcending is not one going or

travelling out of that state. It is true understanding of the nature of the

state we are in). Hence waking up is not exactly identical to dreamer

waking to jagrata - it is "like" that since that is a familiar example that

one can relate to understanding the projection part or unreality of the

world. Dream is a ready-made example nature has provided for us as to

examine and it is the glory of the Vedanta (Mandukya Upanishad) that

analyzes this beautifully and scientifically and presents it to us

logically.

samsaaraH swapna tulyohi

raaga dweshaadi sankulaH|

sakaale satyavat bhaati

Prabhodhe satyasat bhavet|| says Shankara in Atmabodha. -

"This samsaara is "like" a dream with all the attachments and likes and

dislikes. As long as it lasts it appears to be real and only when awaken

its unreal nature is recognized"

By the use of the word 'like" it is clear that dream is only an analogy used

to explain the unreality of the world. The analogy has to be understood in

its correct import.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

August 5, 1999

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

> "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda

>

> Gummaluru Murthy raised several questions echoing some of the concerns of ac

> related to dream. Profvk has answered many of those in his amicable style.

> Here is some of my understanding related to the topic and points Murthy

> raised.

>

> [...]

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

namaste.

I am indeed grateful to Shri Sadananda garu for his very patient

explanation. I will go through the post carefully, try to understand and

then respond.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

August 5, 1999

Fellow advaitins

In Sadanandaji we have a fantastic expositor who has dealt with all the

nuances regarding the dreamer, the dream and the dreamt. He has made

everything obvious now! Our thankful praNAms to Sadananda.

The word ‘made obvious’ written by me above suggests to me the narration

of a story from my mathematical world and it is for that I am making this

post. I want to do this so that all of us can relax a bit after the

profound discussion that we have had on ‘Who is dreaming?’

The following is a true story. It is about the mathematician Samuel

Eilenberg who was one of the most famous American mathematicians of the

20th century. His speciality was Homological Algebra. This story was told

to me by an equally famous mathematician in the sixties during a

mathematical conference at Cambrdige (Mass.) when a few of us were taking

a short coffee break amidst the strenuous technical sessions. Once

Eilenberg was lecturing to an international audience of top mathematicians

on some of his recent papers. The lecture was well into its peak point,

with all the technicalities and board-full of mathematical matter. As he

goes along, at one point, the speaker says, ‘It is obvious that …’ and

pauses. He is on the point of making a profound technical statement, but

he pauses and looks blankly at some corner and there is a dead silence in

the hall, where there are probably some 100 or so in the audience. The

speaker, after pausing for half a minute, repeats ‘It is obvious that …’

but does not continue. He looks at the first row of people, murmurs an

excuse and leaves the hall, rushes to his office across the corridor. The

audience is waiting. (Iam told) they waited for full half an hour.

Eilenberg was a most respected mathematician and he was the invited

speaker for the conference and it was a prestigious lecture. So nobody

stirred - not even for a smoke. But somebody did peep into into his office

and noticed that he was writing very fast and working with several sheets

of paper. …. After half an hour, Eilenberg returns to the hall with a

sheaf of papers in his hand, goes to the black board and continues: .. ‘it

is obvious that, …’ and he goes on with the rest of the lecture!.

After Sadananda’s explanations I think we might say, in Eilenberg-style,

It is obvious that ...! Thank you Sadanandaji.

Pranams to all advaitins

===

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

You are invited to visit my latest book entitled GEMS FROM THE OCEAN OF HINDU

THOUGHT VISION AND PRACTICE at

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/2952/gohitvip/contents.html

___________

Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.

August 5, 1999

Pranam Prof. VK:

Thanks for that beautiful inspirational story about the mathematician.

You remind me the story about the great mathematical genius, Ramanujam

whose biography has many references related to dreams and theorems.

According to Ramanujam, many profound theorems were delivered by the

Goddess of Namakkal (a place in Tamil Nadu) in his dream!

Here is a paragraph describing his greatness:

" In the old town of Cambridge, Ramanujan had found a kind of

``intellectual nirvana'' (Robert Kanigel: The man who knew infinity``,

Little, Brown & Co Ltd., London, 1991). Ramanujan attended a few

lectures. One morning, Mr. A. Berry stood at the blackboard working out

some formulae and at one point saw Ramanujan's face glowed with

excitement, Berry interrupted to ask him whether he was following the

lecture. At this Ramanujan went to the blackboard and, much to

everyone's surprise, wrote down some of the results which were yet to be

proved. W. N. Bailey, who attended with Ramanujan a course of lectures

by Hardy, recalled ''I remember that when Hardy wanted the value of an

integral he turned to my colleague and asked him for the value; and

Ramanujan immediately supplied him with the answer... He certainly had a

great effect on my own work; if Ramanujan had not lived, I should not

now be the new Professor of Mathematics."

Thanks again,

Ram Chandran

Note:

I have the full biographical article about this great mathematician who

knew infinity (he realized infinity). I will be be more than happy to

Email to anyone who is interested!

"V. Krishnamurthy" wrote:

>

> "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

> The word ‘made obvious’ written by me above suggests to me the narration

> of a story from my mathematical world and it is for that I am making this

> post.

August 5, 1999

I am greatful to profvk for his generous comments. It is acutally a great

privilage to be a student of vedanta and our humble pranaams go to the

linage of teachers and achaaryaas who have exhaustively analyzed the nature

of the truth and preserved their ideas through bhaasyaas and kaarikaas and

provided us their thoughts in crystal clear terms in many of their books. A

rich culture, tradition and teaching have been passed on to us, generation

to generation, and we cannot but prostrate with all the humility and express

our gratitude to the wisdom of our sages. It becomes our responsiblity to

pass it on to the next generation so that they too can get the same benefit.

Advaitin list serve is one step forward in helping to achieve this.