Guest guest Posted February 10, 2001 Report Share Posted February 10, 2001 Hi, I thought this might interest the group. With regards, Gomu. What is Reality ? ----------------- All that is percieved, imagined, dreamed, etc are through the mind only. There is no proof of "real" objects existing apart from what is seen through the mind. This implies that there is no more reality which can be attributed to the percieved world than to the world that is seen in dream or voluntarily imagined. This shows the non-reality of space. Similar argument holds good for time also. The appearance of time is due to the faculty of memory. Without being able to remember the past, there cannot be a perception of time. So time is also in the mind only. Assignment of a "name" to an object or an event arise out of the concept of time. A name is necessary only to relate or narrate an object or event experienced in the past. Thus, whatever is seen or thought of is through the mind only. The world is seen as what the mind shows it to us, irrespective of what the "real" nature of the world is. The only way to see the reality is to "see" beyond and without the mind. This world, this body, the senses, the intellect, the memory, etc are all in the mind only. The only "seeing" without the mind is the feeling of existence - the Consciousness. This is a big jump. This needs explanantion. We said that all perception is as the mind is showing us. The world seen is no more real than the world seen in a dream. I can be a pig dreaming itself to be an elephant dreaming itself to be a mosquito dreaming itself to be what I see myself as. There can be any level. But, irrespective of how many ever levels of unreal world appreances are there, one thing certain is that I am the dreamer. In which ever world, I am the seer of the world. The world itself might be unreal and non-existent. But the basic dreamer cannot be non-existent. This is the key. Thus, the only absolute reality is my own existence - not as this body or as this mind or with this intellect - as pure consciousness. Everything else exists because the mind is showing things like that. Now the question is, isnt then the mind also an absolute reality ? The mind is when the world is seen. When the world is not seen, the mind is also not there. So, if there exists a time when the world is not percieved, then the mind can be said not to be absolute. During deep sleep, the world is not percieved at all. So there is no mind during deep sleep. When there is no mind to perceive, there is no world to be perceived also. This leads to a complication. This means when I was sleeping, there was no world. How can that be ? I see the same world after waking up, which I saw before going to sleep. How do you say that the world was not there when I was asleep ? The answer is "How do you know that this is the same world, in which you went to sleep ? Your statement is based merely on a memory of a world in which you went to sleep. There is no more proof. If your memory is manipulated, then you will not know." This leads to a still complicated situation. There is no sureity that even the previous moment actually existed. This world might have been created in the mind just this moment with all the memory of the past preloaded. The answer given by the Indian Scriptures is that it is exactly so. Every moment worlds are created and destroyed by the mind before the Consciousness. There is no continuity at all. The apparent continuity is only due to memory. The question is "Can there occur two successive moments which are 'logically' sequential as being perceived ?" The answer is by pure coincidence, it may happen so, but it has no significance. There is another interesting corollary. If at every moment, the world is created, then there can be no state called deep sleep. We know of the state only after we have woken up. The state called deep sleep is only in memory. There is no mind present to perceive the state of deep sleep. So there cannot be such a state. Thus, the question is "Can there be state when the mind is not there ?" If you say that you see people sleeping or in samadhi, then that is mere perception. You have to accept the existence of such a state by the fact that Consciousness does not depend on the mind for its existence and also the "knowledge" of its existence. "You do not need a mirror to know who you are." is a classic quote. -- ----------------------------- Email: gomu Phone(Off): +91 44 4466448, 4466449 Phone(Res): +91 44 8270104 Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/gokulmuthu/ ----------------------------- It is better to wear out than to rust out. - Swami Vivekananda ----------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2001 Report Share Posted February 11, 2001 --- "Gokulmuthu N." <gokulmuthu wrote: > Hi, > > > This leads to a complication. This means when I was > sleeping, there > was no world. How can that be ? I see the same world > after waking up, > which I saw before going to sleep. How do you say > that the world > was not there when I was asleep ? The answer is "How > do you know > that this is the same world, in which you went to > sleep ? Your > statement is based merely on a memory of a world in > which you went > to sleep. There is no more proof. If your memory is > manipulated, > then you will not know." --------------------- There is a definite difference between the waking states and the dream states in as much as, in two consecutive or several succeeding dream states one does not perceive the same things that he saw in the various earlier dream states with any degree of continuity whereas, in several cotinuous succeeding waking states ,one experiences, without doubt, the same state of things that existed in all the previous occasions with an alarming degree of continuity. You cannot brush this off as due to memory only! Any explanations please? Hari Om! Swaminarayan Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2001 Report Share Posted February 11, 2001 This doubt occurs only in the state you call as waking. In the dream, which you now claim has no continuity, you did not doubt the continuity. No two states are continuous. The waking, dream, dream sleep alternate with each other. In each state we do not see any unreality, we accept the dream as real in the dream, we accept the waking as real in the waking, we have no choice of accepting or rejecting in deep sleep. This is Maya. The only continuity there is, is yourself. Anand --- Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan wrote: > -------------------------------- > There is a definite difference between the waking > states and the dream states in as much as, in two > consecutive or several succeeding dream states one > does not perceive the same things that he saw in the > various earlier dream states with any degree of > continuity whereas, in several cotinuous succeeding > waking states ,one experiences, without doubt, the > same state of things that existed in all the > previous > occasions with an alarming degree of continuity. You > cannot brush this off as due to memory only! > > Any explanations please? > > Hari Om! > > Swaminarayan > > > > Get personalized email addresses from Mail - > only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail./ > Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2001 Report Share Posted February 14, 2001 >Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan >--------------------- >There is a definite difference between the waking >states and the dream states in as much as, in two >consecutive or several succeeding dream states one >does not perceive the same things that he saw in the >various earlier dream states with any degree of >continuity whereas, in several cotinuous succeeding >waking states ,one experiences, without doubt, the >same state of things that existed in all the previous >occasions with an alarming degree of continuity. You >cannot brush this off as due to memory only! > >Any explanations please? > >Hari Om! > >Swaminarayan Here is my understanding. The comparison of two succeeding waking states and two succeeding dream states are not exact. The reason is in order to compare we need a reference state which is independent of the two states that we are comparing. Then only the comparison is valid or at least on equal merit. When one is comparing two waking states, the two waking states are not completely independent. For one thing the comparison is done in the waking state assuming that it is an independent reference state. But when one is comparing the dream states the comparison is not done in the Dream State but in the waking state. Hence the two comparisons are not equal. This one should be aware. Now let us go into this more carefully. When one says there is continuity in the waking state and not in the dream state - who is making that comparison, a waker or a dreamer? The statement of the continuity is raised by a waker, and answered by a waker, but not only about his own state but a dreamer state on his terms. Now one should ask the same question to a dreamer whether there is continuity in the dream states or not. First of all a dreamer is not aware of any other dream state different from his state unless he goes to sleep in the dream and dreams in the dream- that is a second order dream and if he wakes up from this second order dream then he will be back on his first dream world that he left. Then he can alos declare his two first order (dream - remember he does not think it is a dream) are real but not his second order dream. Is the first ordre dreamer aware of the two frist ordre dreams that waker had during the previous nights for him to compare whether there is a discontinuity in this dream state in relation to discontinuity in the previous dream state. Obvously the dreamer has no knowlege of the other dreams of a waker even to question. In fact he may not even be aware of the existence of the waker! Hence Shankara's statement - sakaale satyavad bhaati prabhode satyasat bhavet" - Amabodha sloka #? As long as one is dreaming that Dream State is real and only when one is awake that dream state appears to be unreal. To see each one of the states in correct perspectives one has to have an absolute state to compare them in each of their reference states. And that is the Turiya State for all states. From that state - these lower statement can be compared and from that state even this waking state is only like a dream state - samsaarah svapnatulyohi raagadveshaadhi sankulaH - the first part of the above sloka. Another point to be noted is there is a difference between the waking state and Dream State as well as the Turia State - It is in the level of discriminative intellect playing the role. In the waking state we have a degree of intellect playing its role depending on how evolved a being is. As we go to sleep, most part of our intellect takes rest to rejuvenate itself and hence only very partial discriminative intellect will be functioning. Hence the dream is only an avenue to throw out all the suppressions and appressions of the waking state - one only exhausts one suppressed feelings so that mind is free from the burden. Even in the waking state our discriminative intellect is not evolved completely unless one trains himself by saadhana. We need to develop that viveka - nitya anitya vastu viveka - what is real and what is ephemeral - that discriminative intellect is not there. When it is fully developed one wakes up to the absolute state - turiya state - from that state one can see the waking and dream and deep sleep states on just diminishing role of intellect. The difference is there one of degree and not of a kind. I hope the explanation is clear from the total perspective. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2001 Report Share Posted February 14, 2001 --- Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda wrote: one thing the > comparison is done in the waking > state assuming that it is an independent reference > state. But when one is > comparing the dream states the comparison is not > done in the Dream State but > in the waking state. Hence the two comparisons are > not equal. - turiya state - from > that state one can see > the waking and dream and deep sleep states on just > diminishing role of > intellect. > I hope the explanation is clear from the total > perspective. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > ------------------- Dear Sadanandaji, Pranams and I thank you so much for your clear cut explanation of the 'OBVIOUS' which was not seen by me! I will now strive to experience the Vedic declaration: "Prabhodhe swapnavat sarvo vyavahaaaro nivertate Etattaduttamum satyam yatra kinchit na jaayate". Bless me. Hari Om! Swaminarayan _______________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > http://explorer.msn.com > > Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Swaminarayan T wrote: > There is a definite difference between the waking > states and the dream states in as much as, in two > consecutive or several succeeding dream states one > does not perceive the same things that he saw in the > various earlier dream states with any degree of > continuity whereas, in several cotinuous succeeding > waking states ,one experiences, without doubt, the > same state of things that existed in all the previous > occasions with an alarming degree of continuity. You > cannot brush this off as due to memory only! > > Any explanations please? > > Hari Om! > > Swaminarayan > I am most grateful to shri Sadanandaji for his response to the above pointing out the need for a reference frame for comparing the similarity or otherwise of the dream and the wake-up states. I like to bring up a few points in this context. 1. It is often said that the dreamer considers the dream-state to be real until the dream is over. Only when he/she gets to the wake-up state, the dream is realized to be unreal. My question is: is it the *dreamer* that considers the dream to be real or is it the character(s) in the dream that consider the dream-world to be real? I submit it is the dream-character who thinks (while the dream lasts) that the dream-world is a real world. When the dream is over, that dream-character's role is over and the whole dream-world collapses. All through this, the dreamer keeps on dreaming, creating the dream-world. The dreamer is completely oblivious whether the dream is real or not and has never paid attention to it. It is true there are situations where a dream-tiger wakes up the dreamer, but these situations are few and far between. What I am trying to say here is: dreamer is Ishwara for the dream-world and is unconcerned and unaffected by the reality or otherwise of the dream-world. I am trying to express my doubt at the common statements we hear that "the dream-world is as real to the dreamer as the wake-up world is to the wake-up person". I am trying to put that statement as "the dream-world is as real to the dream-character as the wake-up world is to the wake-up character". If we extend this logic to the wake-up world, and if we take the analogy of the dream-world, we can take the wake-up world as the dream of a higher reality. For lack of better word, let us say the wake-up world is the dream of 'Ishwara'. Then 'Ishwara' is performing exactly the same role to the wake-up world as the dreamer for the dream-world. Both 'Ishwara' and the dreamer are not concerned about the reality of the worlds they created. It is only the dream-character(s) and the wake-up characters (the jIvA-s) who consider their respective worlds to be real. 2. I read somewhere sometime ago (and I can dig up the reference) that it is only GauDapAda in the kArikA-s that argues the wake-up state and the dream-state are identical and there is no difference. The kArikA-s are the view from the Absolute. Shri shankara did not equate the dream-state to the wake-up state fully, except in His bHAShya on the kArikA. In other places, He says: reject the wake-up state *as if* it is a dream. In the Atmabodha, He uses "svapnatulyohi..." as if it is a dream. That doen not mean a perfect identity between the two states - it is a suggestion to reject the wake-up state as you reject a dream. I would be grateful for any comments/corrections. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 Namaste, Here are the words of Sri Ramana Maharshi: "All that we see is a dream., whether we see it in the dream state or in the waking state. On account of some arbitrary standards about the duration of experience and so on, we call one experience dream experience and another waking experience. With reference to Reality, both the experiences are unreal."..... [in 'Day by Day with Bhagavan',26 Feb. 1946; p. 172; by A. Devaraja Mudaliar;1968, Ramanashram]. Regards, s. advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Swaminarayan T wrote: > > > There is a definite difference between the waking > > states and the dream states in as much as, in two > > consecutive or several succeeding dream states one > > does not perceive the same things that he saw in the > > various earlier dream states with any degree of > > continuity whereas, in several cotinuous succeeding > > waking states ,one experiences, without doubt, the > > same state of things that existed in all the previous > > occasions with an alarming degree of continuity. You > > cannot brush this off as due to memory only! > > > > Any explanations please? > > > > Hari Om! > > > > Swaminarayan > > > > I am most grateful to shri Sadanandaji for his response > to the above pointing out the need for a reference frame > for comparing the similarity or otherwise of the dream > and the wake-up states. I like to bring up a few points > in this context. > > 1. It is often said that the dreamer considers the dream-state > to be real until the dream is over. Only when he/she gets > to the wake-up state, the dream is realized to be unreal. > > My question is: is it the *dreamer* that considers the dream > to be real or is it the character(s) in the dream that consider > the dream-world to be real? I submit it is the dream-character > who thinks (while the dream lasts) that the dream-world is a > real world. When the dream is over, that dream-character's > role is over and the whole dream-world collapses. > > All through this, the dreamer keeps on dreaming, creating the > dream-world. The dreamer is completely oblivious whether the > dream is real or not and has never paid attention to it. It > is true there are situations where a dream-tiger wakes up the > dreamer, but these situations are few and far between. > > What I am trying to say here is: dreamer is Ishwara for the > dream-world and is unconcerned and unaffected by the reality > or otherwise of the dream-world. I am trying to express my > doubt at the common statements we hear that "the dream-world > is as real to the dreamer as the wake-up world is to the wake-up > person". I am trying to put that statement as "the dream-world > is as real to the dream-character as the wake-up world is to > the wake-up character". > > If we extend this logic to the wake-up world, and if we take > the analogy of the dream-world, we can take the wake-up world > as the dream of a higher reality. For lack of better word, > let us say the wake-up world is the dream of 'Ishwara'. Then > 'Ishwara' is performing exactly the same role to the wake-up > world as the dreamer for the dream-world. Both 'Ishwara' and > the dreamer are not concerned about the reality of the worlds > they created. It is only the dream-character(s) and the wake-up > characters (the jIvA-s) who consider their respective worlds to > be real. > > 2. I read somewhere sometime ago (and I can dig up the reference) > that it is only GauDapAda in the kArikA-s that argues the wake- up > state and the dream-state are identical and there is no difference. > The kArikA-s are the view from the Absolute. Shri shankara did not > equate the dream-state to the wake-up state fully, except in His > bHAShya on the kArikA. In other places, He says: reject the > wake-up state *as if* it is a dream. In the Atmabodha, He uses > "svapnatulyohi..." as if it is a dream. That doen not mean a > perfect identity between the two states - it is a suggestion to > reject the wake-up state as you reject a dream. > > I would be grateful for any comments/corrections. > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > -- ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 Shree Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > >1. It is often said that the dreamer considers the dream-state > to be real until the dream is over. Only when he/she gets > to the wake-up state, the dream is realized to be unreal. > > My question is: is it the *dreamer* that considers the dream > to be real or is it the character(s) in the dream that consider > the dream-world to be real? I submit it is the dream-character > who thinks (while the dream lasts) that the dream-world is a > real world. When the dream is over, that dream-character's > role is over and the whole dream-world collapses. > > All through this, the dreamer keeps on dreaming, creating the > dream-world. The dreamer is completely oblivious whether the > dream is real or not and has never paid attention to it. It > is true there are situations where a dream-tiger wakes up the > dreamer, but these situations are few and far between. > > What I am trying to say here is: dreamer is Ishwara for the > dream-world and is unconcerned and unaffected by the reality > or otherwise of the dream-world. I am trying to express my > doubt at the common statements we hear that "the dream-world > is as real to the dreamer as the wake-up world is to the wake-up > person". I am trying to put that statement as "the dream-world > is as real to the dream-character as the wake-up world is to > the wake-up character". The adviatic explanation of the dream and the waking states are exactly analogous. The explanation that you are providing is only a one reference point- The reference being the subject who thinks he is the dreamer and who thinks he is the waker. That is the essence of the adhyaasa that pervades in the dream and the waking world. I am a subject in the waking state looking at the rest of the universe separate from me. This is me ( ahankaara) and this is mine ( mamakaara) both arising from this adhyaasa as outlined in the Adhyaasa bhaashya of Shankara. Hence that universal consciousness 'I' identified with small local subject 'i' entity with body, mind and intellect - conceives himself/itself/oneself as 'I am an individual' different from the rest of the universe or the rest of the waking world. There is only one subject in the waking world. The rest are objects. That one feel that there are other subjects but that is only a notion in that one subject. The analogy in the dream state is also exactly the same. The universal consciousness identifying with a small subject 'i' , the dream subject 'i' with a dream body, mind and intellect with similar ahankaara and mamakaara, transacts with the dream world as if, the dream world is separate from himself/itself/oneself. There is also only one subject in the dream state too. That there are other subjects is only a notion of that one subject. The vyaavahaarika satyam or relative reality operates for the subject in the dream 'i' and also for the subject in the waking state 'i'. As one awakes from the dream state- we are now in a higher state of consciousness in relation to dream world - both the dream subject and the dream object merge into one reality that was pervading the whole dream world - and that is the waking mind which is the Iswara of the dream. That waking mind is the creator, sustainer and annihilator of the dream world and the dream subject into one. Hence yatova imannin bhuutani jaayante - applies to the dream world too where Brahman acts as jagat kaaraNam identifying with the waking mind as Iswara. The waking world is also the same. There is only one subject and the rest objects. The total mind that pervades the subject and the objects is Iswara. When awakened to the higher state, turiya state, the subject-object distinction dissolves into one homogeneous mass of consciousness - that is Brahman. At the vyavahaaric level, each level operates exactly in analogous manner. The waking mind is the Iswara of the dream and total mind is the Iswara of the waking world. There is only one subject in both waking world and the dream word. The apparent plurality is - one can say the glory of the mind at each level and the projection and division into subject and object is only apparent or play of the mind or play of Iswara or liila of Bhagavaan. How this split into subject-object occurs in both states is - anirvachaniiyam. Since it is only apparent and apparent becomes apparent only when we are awaken to the respective higher states. Vedanta is very precise, particularly Shankara's adhyaasa bhaashyam is extremely analytical if one really dwells on it. ManDukya upanishad is very precise in these and We cannot but bow down to those great masters who could not only see the truth in all but able to pass it on that knowledge to generations to come. > If we extend this logic to the wake-up world, and if we take > the analogy of the dream-world, we can take the wake-up world > as the dream of a higher reality. For lack of better word, > let us say the wake-up world is the dream of 'Ishwara'. Then > 'Ishwara' is performing exactly the same role to the wake-up > world as the dreamer for the dream-world. Both 'Ishwara' and > the dreamer are not concerned about the reality of the worlds > they created. It is only the dream-character(s) and the wake-up > characters (the jIvA-s) who consider their respective worlds to > be real. There are no other characters other than single subject both in the dream and in the waking world - that is the adviata concept. There is in both states one subject and the rest are objects perceived by that one subject. The separation of subject-object is a notion of that one subject. >2. I read somewhere sometime ago (and I can dig up the reference) > that it is only GauDapAda in the kArikA-s that argues the wake-up > state and the dream-state are identical and there is no difference. > The kArikA-s are the view from the Absolute. Shri shankara did not > equate the dream-state to the wake-up state fully, except in His > bHAShya on the kArikA. In other places, He says: reject the > wake-up state *as if* it is a dream. In the Atmabodha, He uses > "svapnatulyohi..." as if it is a dream. That doen not mean a > perfect identity between the two states - it is a suggestion to > reject the wake-up state as you reject a dream. If you look at my initial response -there is difference in the nature of the two worlds in terms of the degree of the viveka present or the intellect functioning. If intellect in dream is as much present as in the waking state, the fellow will not be able to go to sleep! He will be awake. If full viveka (nitya anitya vastu viveka) is present in all its glory, then the fellow will not be ignorant any more! He will be in the turiya state! Hence Shankara's statement of - like a dream - svapna tulyaH hi. The roarings of the tigers that can wake us up to the next level from each level are also not many in the waking state either as Krishna points out - manushyaanaam sahasreshu ....- Even if tigers roar, many of us are used to have so-sound asleep that it takes not only roaring but solid biting by the tigers to wake us up. It all depends on how tamasic-to rajasic to saatvik vaasana-s we are. This is shown beautifully using kumbhakarna example in Ramayana. Hence the degree of intellectual sharpness varies in each state - other than that all are unreal in realation to the turiya state and their analogy is exact. Anyway this is my understanding of advaitic doctrine. Hari OM! Sadananda >I would be grateful for any comments/corrections. > > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >------ > -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2001 Report Share Posted February 19, 2001 On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, K. Sadananda wrote: > > The adviatic explanation of the dream and the waking states are > exactly analogous. > The explanation that you are providing is only a one reference point- > The reference being the subject who thinks he is the dreamer and who > thinks he is the waker. That is the essence of the adhyaasa that > pervades in the dream and the waking world. I am a subject in the > waking state looking at the rest of the universe separate from me. > This is me ( ahankaara) and this is mine ( mamakaara) both arising > from this adhyaasa as outlined in the Adhyaasa bhaashya of Shankara. > Hence that universal consciousness 'I' identified with small local > subject 'i' entity with body, mind and intellect - conceives > himself/itself/oneself as 'I am an individual' different from the > rest of the universe or the rest of the waking world. There is only > one subject in the waking world. The rest are objects. That one feel > that there are other subjects but that is only a notion in that one > subject. The analogy in the dream state is also exactly the same. > The universal consciousness identifying with a small subject 'i' , > the dream subject 'i' with a dream body, mind and intellect with > similar ahankaara and mamakaara, transacts with the dream world as > if, the dream world is separate from himself/itself/oneself. There > is also only one subject in the dream state too. namaste. And thanks very much shri Sadananda garu for a very nice presentation on dream and wake-up states. I have learnt much from that. It is always good to see everything from the paramArtha, because that is the only way to look at. I have read that bhagavadgItA would be that much more illuminating as seen from krishna's perspective. However, while in the vyavahArika, we have to see from the dual perspective. It is the objective of discussion groups such as ours to stretch the vyavahArika perspective to the utmost to which it can withstand logically, before bowing to the non-dual Oneness. If it is our *digested* understanding that there is only one subject, then there are no three states (waking, dream and deep sleep) and no discussion either. > That there are other > subjects is only a notion of that one subject. The vyaavahaarika > satyam or relative reality operates for the subject in the dream 'i' > and also for the subject in the waking state 'i'. As one awakes from > the dream state- we are now in a higher state of consciousness in > relation to dream world - both the dream subject and the dream object > merge into one reality that was pervading the whole dream world - and > that is the waking mind which is the Iswara of the dream. That > waking mind is the creator, sustainer and annihilator of the dream > world and the dream subject into one. Hence yatova imannin bhuutani > jaayante - applies to the dream world too where Brahman acts as jagat > kaaraNam identifying with the waking mind as Iswara. > > The waking world is also the same. There is only one subject and the > rest objects. The total mind that pervades the subject and the > objects is Iswara. When awakened to the higher state, turiya state, > the subject-object distinction dissolves into one homogeneous mass of > consciousness - that is Brahman. At the vyavahaaric level, each > level operates exactly in analogous manner. The waking mind is the > Iswara of the dream and total mind is the Iswara of the waking world. > There is only one subject in both waking world and the dream word. > The apparent plurality is - one can say the glory of the mind at each > level and the projection and division into subject and object is only > apparent or play of the mind or play of Iswara or liila of Bhagavaan. > How this split into subject-object occurs in both states is - > anirvachaniiyam. Since it is only apparent and apparent becomes > apparent only when we are awaken to the respective higher states. > > Vedanta is very precise, particularly Shankara's adhyaasa bhaashyam > is extremely analytical if one really dwells on it. ManDukya > upanishad is very precise in these and We cannot but bow down to > those great masters who could not only see the truth in all but able > to pass it on that knowledge to generations to come. > Thanks very much for the explanation of the dream state and the wake-up state in their respective states. I meant essentially the same when I said Ishwara for the dream world is the dreamer (you call it the 'wake-up mind') and Ishwara for the wake-up world is 'ishwara', the dreamer of the wake-up world. > > > > If we extend this logic to the wake-up world, and if we take > > the analogy of the dream-world, we can take the wake-up world > > as the dream of a higher reality. For lack of better word, > > let us say the wake-up world is the dream of 'Ishwara'. Then > > 'Ishwara' is performing exactly the same role to the wake-up > > world as the dreamer for the dream-world. Both 'Ishwara' and > > the dreamer are not concerned about the reality of the worlds > > they created. It is only the dream-character(s) and the wake-up > > characters (the jIvA-s) who consider their respective worlds to > > be real. > > > There are no other characters other than single subject both in the > dream and in the waking world - that is the adviata concept. There is > in both states one subject and the rest are objects perceived by that > one subject. The separation of subject-object is a notion of that one > subject. > We seem to have a slight difference in emphasis here. Who considers the wake-up world to be real? It is the jIvA. The Ishwara, the subject of the wake-up world is unconcerned whether this (wake-up) world is real or not. Taking this analogy to the dream-world, in exactly the same way, who considers the dream-world to be real? It is the character in the dream-world. As I understand, the dreamer, i.e. the wake-up mind, the subject of the dream-world is not concerned whether the dream-world is real or not. I said the same thing in my earlier post (quoted with >> above) and I would be grateful for your categorical assessment on this section, which was stated in my previous post as well. > > If you look at my initial response -there is difference in the nature > of the two worlds in terms of the degree of the viveka present or the > intellect functioning. If intellect in dream is as much present as > in the waking state, the fellow will not be able to go to sleep! He > will be awake. If full viveka (nitya anitya vastu viveka) is present > in all its glory, then the fellow will not be ignorant any more! He > will be in the turiya state! I have difficulty with this point, which you stated in your initial response to shri Swaminarayan as well. If this logic holds, it means that the level of ignorance (or nityAnityavastuviveka) changes from wake-up state to dream state to deep-sleep state. Is it possible for this to happen? As I understand, a jIvA has a certain level of ignorance which is the same in all the three states. A jnAni in wake-up state cannt be an ajnAni in the dream state (jnAni does not have the states. It is only an ajnAni who identifies with the three states). Please correct me if I am wrong. As always, I am most grateful for your explanations and time. > > Anyway this is my understanding of advaitic doctrine. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ---------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2001 Report Share Posted February 19, 2001 Namaste, This raises another question for me. Is not the dream state more akin to a mirage than to a waking state? In a mirage, one is 'awake' but does not know it is a mirage till one is 'really awake'! In any case, comparing two unreal entities will remain a futile exercise, till one who is AWAKE awakens you!! So even vyavahaarika truth will remain a misnomer. Regards, s. advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, K. Sadananda wrote: > > And thanks very much shri Sadananda garu for a very nice > presentation on dream and wake-up states. I have learnt > much from that. > > It is always good to see everything from the paramArtha, > because that is the only way to look at. I have read that > bhagavadgItA would be that much more illuminating as seen > from krishna's perspective. However, while in the vyavahArika, > we have to see from the dual perspective. It is the objective > of discussion groups such as ours to stretch the vyavahArika > perspective to the utmost to which it can withstand logically, > before bowing to the non-dual Oneness. > > If it is our *digested* understanding that there is only one > subject, then there are no three states (waking, dream and > deep sleep) and no discussion either. > > > > We seem to have a slight difference in emphasis here. > Who considers the wake-up world to be real? It is the jIvA. > The Ishwara, the subject of the wake-up world is unconcerned > whether this (wake-up) world is real or not. Taking this analogy > to the dream-world, in exactly the same way, who considers the > dream-world to be real? It is the character in the dream-world. > As I understand, the dreamer, i.e. the wake-up mind, the subject > of the dream-world is not concerned whether the dream-world is > real or not. > > I said the same thing in my earlier post (quoted with >> above) > and I would be grateful for your categorical assessment on this > section, which was stated in my previous post as well. > > have the states. It is only an ajnAni who identifies with the three > states). Please correct me if I am wrong. > > As always, I am most grateful for your explanations and time. > > > > > Anyway this is my understanding of advaitic doctrine. > > > > Hari OM! > > Sadananda > > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ---------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2001 Report Share Posted February 19, 2001 >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > >We seem to have a slight difference in emphasis here. >Who considers the wake-up world to be real? It is the jIvA. Yes - the very concept of Jiiva involves identification with a local body, mind and intellect as perceriver, feeler and thinker (PFT) who thinks he is different from the perceved Objects, emotions and thoughts (OET. >The Ishwara, the subject of the wake-up world is unconcerned >whether this (wake-up) world is real or not. No. He knows that it is not real. Hence He is the Iswara. When he says I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifeted form - maya tata midam sarvam jagadavyakta muurtinaa. He knows it is from him the world arose, sustained and goes back into. Therefore he is concerned in that sense only, and he is not concerned by the individuals ups and downs - yet those who worship him, he comes closer to them - sa moham sarva bhuteshu... ye bhajantitu maam bhaktyaa mayi te teshu chaapyaham| >Taking this analogy >to the dream-world, in exactly the same way, who considers the >dream-world to be real? It is the character in the dream-world. >As I understand, the dreamer, i.e. the wake-up mind, the subject >of the dream-world is not concerned whether the dream-world is >real or not. You see in each world - waking world as well as dream world, there is a jiiva - 'i' in that respective jiiva thinks that, that particular world he is experiencing is real until he transcends to the higher state. To that waker prevous lower state is all projection of the waker's mind. > >I said the same thing in my earlier post (quoted with >> above) >and I would be grateful for your categorical assessment on this >section, which was stated in my previous post as well. > > > > > If you look at my initial response -there is difference in the nature > > of the two worlds in terms of the degree of the viveka present or the > > intellect functioning. If intellect in dream is as much present as > > in the waking state, the fellow will not be able to go to sleep! He > > will be awake. If full viveka (nitya anitya vastu viveka) is present > > in all its glory, then the fellow will not be ignorant any more! He > > will be in the turiya state! > >I have difficulty with this point, which you stated in your >initial response to shri Swaminarayan as well. If this logic >holds, it means that the level of ignorance (or nityAnityavastuviveka) >changes from wake-up state to dream state to deep-sleep state. Is it >possible for this to happen? As I understand, a jIvA has a certain >level of ignorance which is the same in all the three states. A jnAni >in wake-up state cannt be an ajnAni in the dream state (jnAni does not >have the states. It is only an ajnAni who identifies with the three >states). Please correct me if I am wrong. One has to be carefull here. Existence of states is different from the understanding of the reality or not. Problem is not with existence of plurality but the delution or lack of correct viveka that the plurality that one sees is real or mithya. A jiivanmukta has the discriminative faculty to know what is real and what is unreal in the apparent plurality. Hence he has learned to see the underlying substratum in the changing plurality. That is why he thinks, he acts, he eats, he sleeps and he dreams and he goes to deep sleep. But yet he knows that he does not think, he does not sleep, he does not dream and he does not go to deep sleep. He does not identify himself that he is a jiiva in each state but he is that turiiyam which pervades in all the states. brahmavit brahma eva bhavati - is the shruti. I was explaining the states from the jiiva's point of view only in each state. As a weaker my intellect is at full work. But when I go to sleep, most of it is folded - hence it is not available for full operation. Hence the mind can throw up all its vomitings to relieve itslef. One dreams strages things - elephant head with a human body etc., and all sorts of combinations - but for a dreamer there is no irregularity in these projections only because the discriminative intellect is not fully operational. For a j~naani when he dreams - he is not dreaming but dreaming of the mind is going on since he has shifted his attention from local entity to the global entity. I am that consciousness that illumines the mind that is throwing out all the junk that got stored in it during the waking state - so the process is a natural clensing process, but his identification as a jiiva is not there since he has realized he is consciousness that illumines the waking state as well as the dream state as well as the deep sleep state. Same in the waking state. A j~naani functions but yet he does not funtion. The prakR^iti functions in his presence. He only blesses it without interacting with it. - hence second part of the sloka - masthaani sarva bhuutaani na chaaham tesvavasthitaH| All beings are in me but I am not in their - ups and downs. Similar things happen in the dream world too. The beings and objects are there in the dream world. aj~naani identifies himself as one of the jiiva, as the subject. Where as j~naani will be identifying with the consciousness that illumines the dream world and dream beings etc. na chaaham teshu avasthitaH| Everyting is self-consistent - From jiiva-s point the degree of discriminative intellect diminishes - this is true in the dream of j~naani as well as aj~naani - in the case of j~naani there is need of nityaanitya vastu viveka - that is for a jiiva only - the j~naani had already gone beyond the intellect and has realized. Once realized he will never have the problem of misunderstanding that he is the intellect that needs nitya anitya vastu viveka. That requirement is only for jiiva who takes himself to be the intellect! My discussion was pertaining to jiiva aspect and who thinks waking world is real and dream world is not- etc. From the j~naani's point He alone is real and everything is apparent or drama in his presence and by his presence. It becomes aatma kreeDa. I hope I am clear now! Hari Om! sadananda > >As always, I am most grateful for your explanations and time. > > > > > Anyway this is my understanding of advaitic doctrine. > > > > Hari OM! > > Sadananda > > > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >---------- > > > > > > > > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2001 Report Share Posted February 19, 2001 >sunderh >advaitin >advaitin > Re: Reality >Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:40:54 -0000 > >Namaste, > > This raises another question for me. Is not the dream state >more akin to a mirage than to a waking state? In a mirage, one is >'awake' but does not know it is a mirage till one is 'really awake'! > Sunder, this adhyaasa is there both in the waking world and in the dream world for the aj~naani. Dream is a beatiful example the great Lord has provided for us, which teaches us 1. the subject-object distincition is only apparent. 2) the material cause and the efficient cause are one and the same. 3)a clear example of adhyaasa operating. Waking world is unique creation and there is nothing like that to compare with. Lord has provided a dream world an exact imitation of which can be used for inquiry to reach correct understanding. Hence we are indeed blessed with ManDukya Upanishhat wherein this analysis is beatifully provided. GouDapaada used this upanishhat to drive the advaitic concepts squarely. Without the dream analogy, I am not sure advaita will have a strong basis for its postulation. Whenever I study ManDukya Upanishat - tears comeout of my eyes - to see how scientific our great seers were. I have to bow down again and again and again - for giving us such a beautiful text. I am getting emotional but I cannot find any other words to express my joy. Hari Om! Sadananda > In any case, comparing two unreal entities will remain a >futile exercise, till one who is AWAKE awakens you!! So even >vyavahaarika truth will remain a misnomer. > >Regards, > >s. > > > > >advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, K. Sadananda wrote: > > > > > And thanks very much shri Sadananda garu for a very nice > > presentation on dream and wake-up states. I have learnt > > much from that. > > > > It is always good to see everything from the paramArtha, > > because that is the only way to look at. I have read that > > bhagavadgItA would be that much more illuminating as seen > > from krishna's perspective. However, while in the vyavahArika, > > we have to see from the dual perspective. It is the objective > > of discussion groups such as ours to stretch the vyavahArika > > perspective to the utmost to which it can withstand logically, > > before bowing to the non-dual Oneness. > > > > If it is our *digested* understanding that there is only one > > subject, then there are no three states (waking, dream and > > deep sleep) and no discussion either. > > > > > > > > We seem to have a slight difference in emphasis here. > > Who considers the wake-up world to be real? It is the jIvA. > > The Ishwara, the subject of the wake-up world is unconcerned > > whether this (wake-up) world is real or not. Taking this analogy > > to the dream-world, in exactly the same way, who considers the > > dream-world to be real? It is the character in the dream-world. > > As I understand, the dreamer, i.e. the wake-up mind, the subject > > of the dream-world is not concerned whether the dream-world is > > real or not. > > > > I said the same thing in my earlier post (quoted with >> above) > > and I would be grateful for your categorical assessment on this > > section, which was stated in my previous post as well. > > > > > have the states. It is only an ajnAni who identifies with the three > > states). Please correct me if I am wrong. > > > > As always, I am most grateful for your explanations and time. > > > > > > > > Anyway this is my understanding of advaitic doctrine. > > > > > > Hari OM! > > > Sadananda > > > > > > > Regards > > Gummuluru Murthy > > >---------- > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2001 Report Share Posted February 19, 2001 Namaste Sadaji, Thank you. Would you kindly compare the Mandukya statements with those in Kathopanishad: II:iii:8 ? yathaa aadarshe tathaa aatmani yathaa svapne tathaa pitR^i-loke yathaa apsu pariiva dadR^ishe tathaa gandharva-loke chhaayaa-tapayoH iva brahma-loke .. Regards, s. advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > > > >sunderh > >advaitin > >advaitin > > Re: Reality > >Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:40:54 -0000 > > > >Namaste, > > > > This raises another question for me. Is not the dream state > >more akin to a mirage than to a waking state? In a mirage, one is > >'awake' but does not know it is a mirage till one is 'really awake'! > > > > Sunder, this adhyaasa is there both in the waking world and in the dream > world for the aj~naani. Dream is a beatiful example the great Lord has > provided for us, which teaches us 1. the subject-object distincition is only > apparent. 2) the material cause and the efficient cause are one and the > same. 3)a clear example of adhyaasa operating. Waking world is unique > creation and there is nothing like that to compare with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2001 Report Share Posted February 19, 2001 --- sunderh wrote: > Namaste Sadaji, > > Thank you. Would you kindly compare the > Mandukya statements > with those in Kathopanishad: II:iii:8 ? > > yathaa aadarshe tathaa aatmani > yathaa svapne tathaa pitR^i-loke > yathaa apsu pariiva dadR^ishe tathaa gandharva-loke > chhaayaa-tapayoH iva brahma-loke .. > > > Regards, > > s. > ------------------- > Dear Sunderji, Could you complete the above Kathopanishad Mantra in its entireity? If a running meaning in English is also provided it will be very useful to ruminate over the same as well as to compare it with the Mandukya Upanishad Mantras. I some how feel there is no common ground for comparison and in my thinking the basic references are also different in the above two Upanishads. One is purva Mimamsa and the other is Advaita. Are they not so? Hari Om! Swaminarayan > Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2001 Report Share Posted February 19, 2001 Namaste Swamiji, Apologies on several counts: the correct reference for the mantra is II:iii:5 . The meaning is: As in the mirror, so [is it seen] in the soul; as in a dream , so in the world of the manes; as [an object] is seen in water, so in the world of gandharvas; as shade and light in the world of Brahma. [Tr. S. Radhakrishnan, Principal Upanishads [This is the complete mantra [#5, out of a total of 18 in this section]. Katha Upanishad is a Vedantic section or uttara-miimaa.nsaa, and not in puurva-miimaa.nsaa. I have the same doubts that you have expressed; whether there is a common ground of reference! Regards, s. advaitin, Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan> wrote: > > --- sunderh wrote: > > Namaste Sadaji, > > > > Thank you. Would you kindly compare the > > Mandukya statements > > with those in Kathopanishad: II:iii:8 ? > > > > yathaa aadarshe tathaa aatmani > > yathaa svapne tathaa pitR^i-loke > > yathaa apsu pariiva dadR^ishe tathaa gandharva-loke > > chhaayaa-tapayoH iva brahma-loke .. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > s. > > ------------------- > > Dear Sunderji, > > Could you complete the above Kathopanishad Mantra in > its entireity? If a running meaning in English is also > provided it will be very useful to ruminate over the > same as well as to compare it with the Mandukya > Upanishad Mantras. I some how feel there is no common > ground for comparison and in my thinking the basic > references are also different in the above two > Upanishads. One is purva Mimamsa and the other is > Advaita. Are they not so? > > Hari Om! > > Swaminarayan > > > > > > > Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2001 Report Share Posted February 19, 2001 <P>Thank you for a very lucid discussion,on Reality and Unreality- Sat and Asat.The former is the Truth and the latter is Vak mano gocharam (as perceived by the Mind and its indriyaas)---Maaya!Just as the dream state is not real to the Atman,so too the waking state and its experiences are not real-so states Lord Krishna.But one important connection we should not miss.As The Lord states- this is all "Mama Maaya"(MY Maaya).Even if we fully realize and know that this is all unreal or asat or maaya only,we can never transcend or overcome this indriya jaal of Maaya unless we beseech the Lord to rescue us from His Maaya.All this Maaya is so carefully designed in this University of Life as to make us ultimately turn prayerfully to the Lord,realizing His constant presence with us and in us as Avyakta as well as Vyakta,Nirguna as well as Saguna, Niraakara as well as Saakaara ..Efforts based on our little ego will be futile as even some of the great sages are pulled back into Maaya unless we constantly remember the Lord.</P> <P>Being Convinced by right discrimination that all the three state of the mind are caused only by gunaas by my maaya by Me,cut off all doubts by sword sharpened by jnana,Worship Me!--so calls us our Lord Sri Krishna!<BR></P> <P> <BR> <P> <B><I>Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda></I></B> wrote: <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><HTML><BODY><TT><BR><BR><BR>> sunderh<BR>> advaitin<BR>>To: advaitin<BR>> Re: Reality<BR>>Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:40:54 -0000<BR>><BR>>Namaste,<BR>><BR>> \ ; This raises another question for me. Is not the dream state<BR>>more akin to a mirage than to a waking state? In a mirage, one is<BR>>'awake' but does not know it is a mirage till one is 'really awake'!<BR>><BR><BR>Sunder, this adhyaasa is there both in the waking world and in the dream <BR>world for the aj~naani. Dream is a beatiful example the great Lord has <BR>provided for us, which teaches us 1. the subject-object distincition is only <BR>apparent. 2) the material cause and the efficient cause are one and the <BR>same. 3)a clear example of adhyaasa operating. Waking world is unique <BR>creation and there is nothing like that to compare with. Lord has provided <BR>a dream world an exact imitation of which can be used for inquiry to reach <BR>correct understanding. Hence we are indeed blessed with ManDukya Upanishhat <BR>wherein this analysis is beatifully provided. GouDapaada used this <BR>upanishhat to drive the advaitic concepts squarely. Without the dream <BR>analogy, I am not sure advaita will have a strong basis for its postulation.<BR><BR>Whenever I study ManDukya Upanishat - tears comeout of my eyes - to see how <BR>scientific our great seers were. I have to bow down again and again and <BR>again - for giving us such a beautiful text. I am getting emotional but I <BR>cannot find any other words to express my joy.<BR><BR><BR>Hari Om!<BR>Sadananda<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>> &nbs\ p; In any case, comparing two unreal entities will remain a<BR>>futile exercise, till one who is AWAKE awakens you!! So even<BR>>vyavahaarika truth will remain a misnomer.<BR>><BR>>Regards,<BR>><BR>>s.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>&\ gt;<BR>>--- In advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:<BR>><BR>> ><BR>> > And thanks very much shri Sadananda garu for a very nice<BR>> > presentation on dream and wake-up states. I have learnt<BR>> > much from that.<BR>> ><BR>> > It is always good to see everything from the paramArtha,<BR>> > because that is the only way to look at. I have read that<BR>> > bhagavadgItA would be that much more illuminating as seen<BR>> > from krishna's perspective. However, while in the vyavahArika,<BR>> > we have to see from the dual perspective. It is the objective<BR>> > of discussion groups such as ours to stretch the vyavahArika<BR>> > perspective to the utmost to which it can withstand logically,<BR>> > before bowing to the non-dual Oneness.<BR>> ><BR>> > If it is our *digested* understanding that there is only one<BR>> > subject, then there are no three states (waking, dream and<BR>> > deep sleep) and no discussion either.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > We seem to have a slight difference in emphasis here.<BR>> > Who considers the wake-up world to be real? It is the jIvA.<BR>> > The Ishwara, the subject of the wake-up world is unconcerned<BR>> > whether this (wake-up) world is real or not. Taking this analogy<BR>> > to the dream-world, in exactly the same way, who considers the<BR>> > dream-world to be real? It is the character in the dream-world.<BR>> > As I understand, the dreamer, i.e. the wake-up mind, the subject<BR>> > of the dream-world is not concerned whether the dream-world is<BR>> > real or not.<BR>> ><BR>> > I said the same thing in my earlier post (quoted with >> above)<BR>> > and I would be grateful for your categorical assessment on this<BR>> > section, which was stated in my previous post as well.<BR>> ><BR>><BR>> > have the states. It is only an ajnAni who identifies with the three<BR>> > states). Please correct me if I am wrong.<BR>> ><BR>> > As always, I am most grateful for your explanations and time.<BR>> ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > Anyway this is my understanding of advaitic doctrine.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Hari OM!<BR>> > > Sadananda<BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > Regards<BR>> > Gummuluru Murthy<BR>> ><BR>>--\ --------<BR>><BR><BR>______\ _________<BR>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A href="http://explorer.msn.com/">http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR><BR></TT><BR><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --><BR> <TABLE border=0 cellPadding=2 cellSpacing=0><BR> <TBODY><BR> <TR bgColor=#ffffcc><BR> <TD align=middle><FONT color=#003399 size=-1><B> Groups Sponsor</B></FONT></TD></TR><BR> <TR bgColor=#ffffff><BR> <TD width=470> <FORM action=http://rd./M=176325.1312152.2904070.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=17000\ 75991:N/A=590758/R=0/*http://whois.domains./domains_wresults.html method=get><BR> <INPUT name=action type=hidden value=1> <BR> <INPUT name=property type=hidden value=domains> <BR> <TABLE bgColor=#ffcccc border=0 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0 width=468><BR> <TBODY><BR> <TR vAlign=top><BR> <TD rowSpan=2><A href="http://rd./M=176325.1312152.2904070.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=170007\ 5991:N/A=590758/R=1/*http://domains./"><IMG border=0 height=60 src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/batch2/frigginb_3_01.gi\ f" width=265></A></TD><BR> <TD><A href="http://rd./M=176325.1312152.2904070.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=170007\ 5991:N/A=590758/R=2/*http://domains./"><IMG border=0 height=30 src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/_domain/batch2/frigginb_3_02.gi\ f" width=203></A></TD></TR><BR> <TR><BR> <TD><BR> <TABLE border=0 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=1><BR> <TBODY><BR> <TR align=middle><BR> <TD><BR> <INPUT name=name size=12></TD><BR> <TD vAlign=center><INPUT name=Submit type=submit value="Get Yours!"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FORM></TD></TR><BR\ > <TR><BR> <TD><IMG alt="" height=1 src="http://us.adserver./l?M=176325.1312152.2904070.1252795/D=egroupmai\ l/S=1700075991:N/A=590758/rand=328432916" width=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --><BR><TT>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. <BR>Advaitin List Archives available at: <A href="http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/">http://www.eScribe.com/culture/a\ dvaitin/</A><BR>Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server<BR>For details, visit: <A href="/local/news.html">/local/new\ s.html</A><BR>Post message: advaitin<BR>Subscribe: advaitin-<BR>Un: advaitin<BR>URL to Advaitin: <A href="advaitin">adva\ itin</A><BR>File folder: <A href="advaitin">/gro\ up/advaitin</A><BR>Link Folder: <A href="advaitin/links">/grou\ p/advaitin/links</A><BR>Messages Folder: <A href="advaitin/messages">/g\ roup/advaitin/messages</A><BR><BR></TT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.