reality

February 19, 2001

Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy]

Monday, February 19, 2001 2:50 PM

advaitin

Re: Reality

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:

>

> The adviatic explanation of the dream and the waking states are

> exactly analogous.

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----------

The mental states in fact change from moment to moment. Sometimes a person

is calmly contemplating the higher truths and other times the person may be

angry, arguing, anxious, fearful, etc. If changes in mental states are

equated with increasing or decreasing levels of ignorance then we can say

that such changes take place both in the "waking" state and the "dreaming"

state.

Sadaji has suggested that the degree of viveka present differs between the

"waking" and the "dream" state, as there is less intellect present in the

"dreaming" state. This observation, however, is made from the "waking" state

only. What Sadaji observed earlier is accurate that from the Advaita

perspective both the "waking" and the "dreaming" state are equally unreal.

It cannot logically follow from that, that the degree of viveka present is

always more in one state than the other. It may be more in the "waking" or

the "dreaming" depending on the changes and shifts in the moods due to play

of maya (karma).

Hope this makes sense! :-).

Love

Harsha

February 19, 2001

only one thing

not higher or lower

niether real nor unreal

no bliss and no end to bliss

only one thing

no one can discover it

there is no end to discovering it

no dream no end of dreaming

only one thing

no understanding no end to understanding

it is not here nor is it there

it does not exist nor does it not exist

it cannot be found here

here is the only place to find it

only one thing

you are not it

you are only it

know this and be free

February 20, 2001

sunderh wrote:

> 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].

Shankara's bhaashhyam may help to make things clearer.

In the previous shloka 2.3.4, it is said, if one is unable to know

the brahman in this very life (before death of this body), he shall have to

take birth again in this or some other world. So it is advisable to make

efforts to

know brahman before this body dies.

In this verse 2.3.5. it is pointed out how it is more difficult to know brahman

in the other worlds. In this world an image can be seen clearly in a mirror

which is clean. In the same way, the Atman can be seen clearly , in ones own

intellect ( nirmalii-bhuutaayam sva-buddhau) provided the intellect is

thoroughly

clean.

In the pitR^uloka, the Atman is seen only as hazily as things are seen in a

dream.

In the gandharvaloka, the atman is seen even more indistinctly like a

reflection

seen in water.

According to the shaastra-s the same happens in the other worlds(indistinct

vision

of atman).

It is only in the brahmaloka that an absolutely sharp and distinct vision of

atman

- like light and dark without grey areas- is obtainable. But brahmaloka is very

difficult to reach ; it requires extremely difficult practice of karma and

jnaana.

Tasmat atma-darshanaaya iha eva yatnaH kartavyaH -- Therefore, you must strive

for

atma-darshana in this manushhya-loka itself, before this body dies.

E & O E.

V.M.Sundaram

>

February 20, 2001

Namaste Sundaram-garu,

Thank you very much for the explanation. To focus and

rephrase my doubt and question: is the indistinctness in the dream on

par with that in the other states? Is the adhyaasa explanation

equivalent for all these states?

Regards,

s.

advaitin, "V.M.Sundaram" <venkataraman@p...> wrote:

>

> sunderh wrote:

>

> > 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].

>

> Shankara's bhaashhyam may help to make things clearer.

>

> In the previous shloka 2.3.4, it is said, if one is unable to know

> the brahman in this very life (before death of this body), he shall

have to

> take birth again in this or some other world. So it is advisable to

make efforts to

> know brahman before this body dies.

>

> In this verse 2.3.5. it is pointed out how it is more difficult to

know brahman

> in the other worlds. In this world an image can be seen clearly in

a mirror

> which is clean. In the same way, the Atman can be seen clearly ,

in ones own

> intellect ( nirmalii-bhuutaayam sva-buddhau) provided the intellect

is thoroughly

> clean.

> In the pitR^uloka, the Atman is seen only as hazily as things are

seen in a dream.

> In the gandharvaloka, the atman is seen even more indistinctly like

a reflection

> seen in water.

> According to the shaastra-s the same happens in the other

worlds(indistinct vision

> of atman).

> It is only in the brahmaloka that an absolutely sharp and distinct

vision of atman

> - like light and dark without grey areas- is obtainable. But

brahmaloka is very

> difficult to reach ; it requires extremely difficult practice of

karma and jnaana.

>

> Tasmat atma-darshanaaya iha eva yatnaH kartavyaH -- Therefore, you

must strive for

> atma-darshana in this manushhya-loka itself, before this body dies.

>

> E & O E.

>

> V.M.Sundaram

>

> >

February 20, 2001

Dear Shri sundaram,

You have put the mantras of the Kathopanishad in the

right perspective.Thank you for giving the context

which clarifies the same.I shall study the entire

section to assimilate the teaching of the same.

Actually,I feel there is no comparison of these

thoughts with those expressed in the Mandukya

Upanishad which promotes Advaita.

In referring to Kathopanishad Mantras presented here,

I should have stated that these belong to Karma Kanda

rather than purva mimamsa even though they appear in

the Upanishads which are in urttara mimamsa.

--- "V.M.Sundaram" <venkataraman

wrote:

>

> sunderh wrote:

>

> > >

> > 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,

>

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

February 22, 2001

Sunder - I do not know if Shree Sundaramji responded to your

question. Here is my understanding.

As Shree Sundaramji pointed out the purity of the intellect is

essential for full refection of the bimba or consciousness. There is

beautiful sloka in Atmabodha of Bhagavatpaada Shankara.

sadaa sarvagotopyaatmaa

na sarvataavabhaasate |

budhyaaveva bhaaseta

swachchheshu pratibimbavat||

all though the consciousness pervades everywhere, it shines forth not

equally everywhere due to the purity of the reflecting equipments.

In inert things it shines only as sat padaartham. It shines maximum

in the buddhi or intellect and more so if the buddhi is very clean or

free from agitations or impurities, just as reflection on a shining

mirror.

Intellect beams the light to see the truth as the truth since Brahman

enquiry is done by the intellect. Hence the requirement of the

purity of the intellect. The adyaasa is fundamentally the same that

is taking oneself other than oneself due to ignorance; the degree of

error varies depending on the saatvic to rajasic to tamasic guNa-s -

like how dim the light is.

The loka-s are only the fields of experiences for karma or vaasana-s.

So in every loka there is an experiencer and experienced and the

experiencing - the three aspects or tripuri. Some are grosser and

some are subtler depending on the intensity and quality of the

vaasana-s. Vaasna-s being prakR^iti related they have the tamasic,

rajasic and saatvick qualities with different proportions of them.

Similarly one can think of the various lokas or fields involving

tamasic predominant to saatvic predominant and the jiiva goes to

proper field depending on his karmaphala so that he can experience

the dominant vaasana-s that he has accumulated. Brahmaloka is

supposed to be predominant saatvic vaasana-s implying the minds are

very pure except for traces of ego left. According our scriptures

even Brahma (the four-faced one) is a post a jiiva occupies when it

gets qualified for it and has those vaasana-s for creation! After

his term is over he takes the new field of experience dictated by his

vaasana-s. Also there are many brahmaanDam-s with many Brahma-s in

the creation. Because of the predominant saatvic vaasana-s the mind

is relatively free and if one finds a proper teacher there also one

can evolve from Brahma loka too, at least that is implied in our

scriptures. The brahasuutra-s last chapter deals with the liberation

in steps involving Brahmaloka, and we will discuss that when we come

to that section. In the other loka-s as Shree Sundaramji emphasized

the mind is not purified - hence buddhi is not clear for the true

vision of the truth or see adhyaasa as adhyaasa. Hence back to

karmabhuumi where buddhi can be purified by karma yoga - since karma

yoga is considered as the most efficient purification process.

It is said that the Gajendra etc that one encounters in Bhagavatam is

not from this world but from the higher worlds where Gajendra had the

needed saatvik vaasana-s and purity of the mind and had the vision of

his past lives. Hence he could surrender to the Lord and get

liberated by destroying his bondage by surrendering his ego at the

feet of the Lord.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>Namaste Sundaram-garu,

>

> Thank you very much for the explanation. To focus and

>rephrase my doubt and question: is the indistinctness in the dream on

>par with that in the other states? Is the adhyaasa explanation

>equivalent for all these states?

>

>Regards,

>

>s.

>

>advaitin, "V.M.Sundaram" <venkataraman@p...> wrote:

>>

>> sunderh wrote:

>>

>> > 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].

>>

>> Shankara's bhaashhyam may help to make things clearer.

>>

>> In the previous shloka 2.3.4, it is said, if one is unable to know

>> the brahman in this very life (before death of this body), he shall

>have to

>> take birth again in this or some other world. So it is advisable to

>make efforts to

>> know brahman before this body dies.

>>

>> In this verse 2.3.5. it is pointed out how it is more difficult to

>know brahman

>> in the other worlds. In this world an image can be seen clearly in

>a mirror

>> which is clean. In the same way, the Atman can be seen clearly ,

>in ones own

>> intellect ( nirmalii-bhuutaayam sva-buddhau) provided the intellect

>is thoroughly

>> clean.

>> In the pitR^uloka, the Atman is seen only as hazily as things are

>seen in a dream.

>> In the gandharvaloka, the atman is seen even more indistinctly like

>a reflection

>> seen in water.

>> According to the shaastra-s the same happens in the other

>worlds(indistinct vision

>> of atman).

>> It is only in the brahmaloka that an absolutely sharp and distinct

>vision of atman

>> - like light and dark without grey areas- is obtainable. But

>brahmaloka is very

>> difficult to reach ; it requires extremely difficult practice of

>karma and jnaana.

>>

>> Tasmat atma-darshanaaya iha eva yatnaH kartavyaH -- Therefore, you

>must strive for

>> atma-darshana in this manushhya-loka itself, before this body dies.

>>

>> E & O E.

>>

>> V.M.Sundaram

>>

>> >

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

>For details, visit: /local/news.html

>Post message: advaitin

>Subscribe: advaitin-

>Un: advaitin

>URL to Advaitin: advaitin

>File folder: advaitin

>Link Folder: advaitin/links

>Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

February 22, 2001

Namaste Sadaji,

Thank you , as always.

Regards,

s.

advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

>

The adyaasa is fundamentally the same that

> is taking oneself other than oneself due to ignorance; the degree

of

> error varies depending on the saatvic to rajasic to tamasic guNa-s -

> like how dim the light is.

March 2, 2001

namaste.

If I can continue on this thread-topic for a bit more:

Shri Sadananda garu argued last week that the dream and

the wake-up states are exactly identical. While I see that

so from the paramArtha perspective (there, it is not only

the dream and wake-up states, but the deep sleep state is

also identical; there are no states), I have difficulty

accepting it even from advaitic intellectual (vyavahArika)

perspective. In the normal day-to-day experience, we consider

only the wake-up state to be real and the other two states

to be simply appendages to the wake-up state. So, in the

normal day-to-day life, the dream and the deep-sleep states

are very much ignored. From advaitic intellectual perspective

(from the vyavahArika), the dream and the deep-sleep states

are looked at as importantly as the wake-up state because

that helps us to understand what we are. Even in this

advaitic intellectual (vyavahArika) perspective, the dream

and the wake-up states are not identical, as I see. They

are as important as the other, but not identical.

I concede that I am making this statement and analysis from

the wake-up state only, with no knowledge of what I would

do from the dream state.

The Ishwara (the creator) for the dream-world is the mind

(shri Sadananda garu calls it the wake-up mind: why not

call it the dreaming-mind?). Taking the wake-up state as

also a dream, the dreamer for that dream is 'Ishwara'.

If we see it that way, we can, to some extent, justify

the *identity* of the dream and the wake-up states.

But, still, difficulties arise. For example:

A. Let us say that X dreams that X is realized. Although

he/she might have dreamt that he/she is realized, in the

dream state, that does not translate into the wake-up state.

In the wake-up state, X is still an ajnAni. That is,

what happened in the dream state cannot be transferred

to the wake-up state. This can also be seen from the

various standard examples that dream thirst can be

quenched with dream water only; also the wake-up

dinner is not going to solve the dream hunger. So,

the things cannot be transferred from one state to

the other.

B Let us say X is realized in the wake-up state. Such a

person will not have dreams. [The statement "such a person

will not have dreams (1)" is not exactly correct. Firstly,

statement (1) is from a third person perspective. From the

first person perspective, i.e., from the realized's

perspective, there is no personality there and for that

realized state, the dream-, the wake-up, and the deep-sleep

states are all the same. Hence, statement (1) can only be

made by a third person). We have to look at it from third

person and first person perspectives. From the third person

perspective, we say that X is realized, and X's realization

extends into his/her dream and deep-sleep states (if X has

those states). From first person perspective (X's perspective),

there are no dream-state, no wake-up state, no deep-sleep

state. All states are identical. That is, the realization

transcends the states.

[scenarios A and B above are presented with the assumption that

it is the same entity in the wake-up state and also dreaming.

Argument can be made that jIvA is not the same from one

moment to the next, in which case there is no continuity

for scenarios A and B.]

Scenarios A and B show that even in advaitic intellectual

(vyavahArika) perspective, wake-up and dream states do not

have the same level of reality and are not exactly identical.

>From a realized's perspective of course, all states (dream,

wake-up and deep-sleep) are identical.

I am trying to get a grip on the three states at various levels

of understanding. I am using in my studies GauDapAda kArika,

MAnDUkya u. and bhAShyA-s on both by shri shankara, and also

Talks with RamaNa MaharShi. Is there any other good material

for this subject? At the moment, basically, I am thinking out

loud and I hope the List does not find it too intrusive.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

March 2, 2001

Namaste Murthygaaru,

Swami Sivananda has a brief introduction to this at URL:

http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/download/mind.htm#_VPID_8

Patanjali Yoga Sutra I:38 relates to dream and sleep, and any

good commentary [short or long] would be helpful. [The ones I have

are all in Marathi].

Some Tibetan Masters have written on 'Lucid Dreaming'.

Mme. Blavatsky & W.Q.Judge [Theosophists] have written a

book "Dreams".

Yoga-Vasistha is a veritable store-house of dream-stories.

Hope this gives you a few helpful leads.

Regards,

s.

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> I am trying to get a grip on the three states at various levels

> of understanding.

Is there any other good material

> for this subject? At the moment, basically, I am thinking out

> loud and I hope the List does not find it too intrusive.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

>

March 3, 2001

Gummuluru Murhty gaaru (G.M) wrote:

namaste.

If I can continue on this thread-topic for a bit more:

Shri Sadananda garu argued last week that the dream and

the wake-up states are exactly identical. While I see that

so from the paramArtha perspective (there, it is not only

the dream and wake-up states, but the deep sleep state is

also identical; there are no states), I have difficulty

accepting it even from advaitic intellectual (vyavahArika)

perspective.

Sada: Murthy gaaru – To clarify my statement again – 1) I said is there is

an exact similarity not that they are exactly identical, since as I

mentioned the degree of the intellect-involvement varies. It is a question

degree and not of type. 2) In the paaramaarthika level – there is no

identity either – they are only apparent while the turiiya state is real –

in the appearances there are differences (that is why they are appearances –

masthaani sarva bhuutaani -) but theses differences are understood as

appearances only and not real.

GM:

In the normal day-to-day experience, we consider

only the wake-up state to be real and the other two states

to be simply appendages to the wake-up state. So, in the

normal day-to-day life, the dream and the deep-sleep states

are very much ignored.(Sada: remember this is waker’s notion)

GM: From advaitic intellectual perspective

(sada: I would not call it adviatic intellectual perspective – it is

actually not intellectual – that cannot be deduced on the basis of simply

anamaana pramaaNa – it is deduced from shabda pramaaNa – shaastra yonitvaat-

or Vedanta pramaaNa although it is not illogical and in that sense it is

known through intellect)

GM:(from the vyavahArika), the dream and the deep-sleep states

are looked at as importantly as the wake-up state because

that helps us to understand what we are.

Sada: Murthy gaaru – human experience involves all the three states –

waking, dream and deep sleep – analysis of one state as most of the western

philosophies do will only give a partial knowledge. Any valid scientific

investigation must include a total system and any conclusions drawn based on

partial data will be incomplete and questionable at best. The analysis must

include – all the three states of experiences as well as all the three

states of experiencer and experiencing– to have a complete system. – This is

to help to understand the validity of any experience itself –Hence my

appreciation of how scientific our sages were.

GM: Even in this

advaitic intellectual (vyavahArika) perspective, the dream

and the wake-up states are not identical, as I see. They

are as important as the other, but not identical.

I concede that I am making this statement and analysis from

the wake-up state only, with no knowledge of what I would

do from the Dream State.

Sada: I want to emphasize the similarity instead of identity – samasaraH

swapna tulyohi – is Shankara’s statement – tulyam – is the word – it is like

a dream state.

G.M. The Ishwara (the creator) for the dream-world is the mind

(shri Sadananda garu calls it the wake-up mind: why not

call it the dreaming-mind?).

Sada: dreaming mind is the waker’s mind – Scientifically it is the

suppressions and oppressions (which are like vaasana-s) of the waker’s mind

that vomits out- Remember there are several tiny jiiva-s in the dream too

and each jiiva of the dream has his/her own mind and intellect –these are

bhootaani – mayatatamidam sarvam jagat avyakta muurthinaa – mastaani sarva

bhuutaani – I pervade this entire dream world in an unmanifested form for

all beings – both chara and achara – are in me – but I am not in them –

applies exactly – Hence to separate the tiny dream subjects bodies, minds

and intellects – and since it is the waker’s mind that is going to dream –

we call it waker’s mind. It is the Iswara of the dream since it pervades the

entire dream world – janmaadyasya yataH is valid suutra for this creator,

sustainer and dissolver.

GM: Taking the wake-up state as

also a dream, the dreamer for that dream is 'Ishwara'.

If we see it that way, we can, to some extent, justify

the *identity* of the dream and the wake-up states.

But, still, difficulties arise. For example:

Sada: True as along as identity is replaced by similarity.

GM:

A. Let us say that X dreams that X is realized. Although

he/she might have dreamt that he/she is realized, in the

Dream State, that does not translate into the wake-up state.

In the wake-up state, X is still an aj~nAni. That is,

what happened in the Dream State cannot be transferred

to the wake-up state. This can also be seen from the

various standard examples that dream thirst can be

quenched with dream water only; also the wake-up

dinner is not going to solve the dream hunger. So,

the things cannot be transferred from one state to

the other.

Sada: Murthy gaaru –I am glad you are raising the issue since it helps to

clarify again. We never talk about transferring things from one state to the

other – the order or the degree of realities are as explained in the

shaastra-s are different. From what point the comparisons are made is to be

understood. We cannot transfer exactly the things from one state to the

other. What are transferred are only the subtler impressions in sub-mind or

vaasana state. Since the dream itself is due to suppressions and

oppressions of the waking state – the dream state experiences will transfer

back to waking state as ‘those-vaasana-cleaned up’ waker’s mind – or mind

which is free from those vaasana-s or those particular suppressions and

oppressions. Thus Lord as provided dream as the cleansing house for the

waker’s mind. As I mentioned in the dream state the intellect is not at its

full potential – ‘will to act’ is not that intense for the new vaasana-s to

be formed strongly. Hence normally no new vaasana-s are formed that can get

deposited – hence it is not a karmaloka but bhoga loka – just as ksheene

punye martyulokam vishanti – one is pushed back once the vaasana-s are

exhausted. – see my response to Shree sunder’s question regarding other

loka-s. So when X dreams and in that he dreams that he as a tiny x who has

realized - He can only realize that he is the Brahman that is beyond the

dream world of plurality. When he wake up – small x becoming waker X – he is

now back to normal jiiva X in the waking state with all his waker ignorance.

A true waker – jiivanmukta is different – He has the full intellect – with

full discriminative power and with that he has realized that he is the nitya

that eternal that pervades in all the three states – the dreamer small x

does not have that full intellectual discriminative power as I already

mentioned – hence his vision of reality is only narrow. Hence rarely a

jiiva realizes in the dream state. He may dream as a realized master just

some vedantins day dream that they are realized! – But just because one

day-dreams of realization – that does not manifest. Realization involves

intensive – vichaara at the intellect level – requires suukshama buddhi –

Shree Anand Hudli has been rightly stressing this aspect in his postings –

It is with this buddhi one goes beyond the buddhi – like pole Walt. – hence

great emphasis on shravana, manana and nidhidhyaasana – since fundamental

ignorance that leads to adhyaasa has to be eliminated.

Again if one has the full potential of the intellect even in dream – the

question will be can he/she really dream at all- he may be have trouble

sleeping! – the very dream state requires folding up of large part of one’s

intellect.

Similarly if one develops sharp viveka to discriminate nitya and anitya – he

will also be any more in this waking state – his intellect takes him (as

though) to that turiiya state. – Hence saadhana is only to develop this

discriminative intellect through vichaara or inquiry into the nature of

reality.

I see self-consistency in all these. Hence my admiration for the great

scientific minded sages.

GM:

B Let us say X is realized in the wake-up state. Such a

person will not have dreams. [The statement "such a person

will not have dreams (1)" is not exactly correct. Firstly,

statement (1) is from a third person perspective.

Sada: Murthy gaaru – one has to be carefully. Third person can never know if

someone is dreaming or not – perhaps through electrodes and alpha waves or

eye-movements one can infer that one is dreaming. That is the third person

inference.

Let us analyze the jiivanmukta state clearly. Just as in the waking state

the plurality exists for jiivan mukta but only the difference he knows that

the plurality is not reality but only appearance – hence it is called aatma

kriiDa – yo maam pasyati sarvatra and sarvancha mayi pasyati – who sees me

everywhere and everything in me – sarva bhuutastu maatmaanam sarva bhuutani

cha aaatmani – I am in all beings and all being in me – both imply that

beings and other things are there but they are only apparent – I pervade

everything – hence the world of plurality is there yet he understands that

he pervades that plurality without getting affected – na cha aham teshu

avasthitaH. Exactly the same analogy in the dream – the dream plurality goes

on even in jiivanmukta when his mind dreams – but that is the play of the

mind in His presence. He lends his support to the dream just as he lends

his support to the waking world. He is neither dreamer nor waker not

deep-sleeper – yet waking, dream and deep sleep states go on in his presence

since that belongs to prakR^iti – mayaa adhyakshena prak^itiH suuyate sa

charaacharam. From jiivanmukta point there is no third person either.

Whether in the waking state or in the dream state – this I want to make sure

is clear to everyone. Hence when we discuss about realized person – he has

realized he alone is – ekameva advitiiyam. If you examine your question

again – I feel you are jumping from the two references. From the reference

of the third person, he has is not realized and it is the same plurality he

experiences in the waking and dream world and he identifies that the

plurality is real.

GM:

>From the

first person perspective, i.e., from the realized's

perspective, there is no personality there and for that

realized state, the dream-, the wake-up, and the deep-sleep

states are all the same.

Sada: No there are not the same – He as an illuminator is the same – but the

projected plurality in which the levels of upaadiis -body, mind and

intellect are different – He says – waking world is going on – dream world

is going on and deep-sleep world is going on – I am none of these worlds

–they are in me but I am not in them – The difference in the world still

exists and similarities also exists – yet he is beyond the differences and

similarities – He is turiiya -

GM: Hence, statement (1) can only be

made by a third person). We have to look at it from third

person and first person perspectives. From the third person

perspective, we say that X is realized, and X's realization

extends into his/her dream and deep-sleep states (if X has

those states).

Sada: The third person’s knowledge is only hear-say or from Vedanta pramaaNa

or his faith or belief that the other person is realized or not realized

etc. Which is completely different from the self-knowledge of the

jiivanmukta.

G.M. From first person perspective (X's perspective),

there are no dream-state, no wake-up state, no deep-sleep

state. All states are identical.

Sada: I think I have explained above – first they are not identical – they

are similar but with different degrees of pluralities– second the jiivan

mukta sees the waking, dream and deep sleep states – but has no more notion

that these states are real – As long as the upaadhiis or equipments body,

mind and intellect exist – the plurality exists but he does not have

misunderstanding that the plurality is reality – He lends his support as

adhishhTaana or sarvavyaapaka or substratum for all the states – yatova

imaani bhuutani etc is valid for jivanmukta - here to each world of

plurality – and if I may add – this also includes other worlds or loka-s as

well – bhuvaH, suvaH etc to include Sunder’s question.

G.M:

That is, the realization

transcends the states.

[scenarios A and B above are presented with the assumption that

it is the same entity in the wake-up state and also dreaming.

Sada: From the jiivanmukta state – there is no question entities – he is

beyond entities – he is the consciousness that is conscious of the waking

world, dream world and deep sleep world – hence only for convenience we call

it is turiiya. It is not turiiya either – it is the substratum for all the

three states yet beyond all the three states – since states keep changing

but not the consciousness. A jiivanmukta is the one who identifies or

realizes that he is that consciousness that pervades all the three states.

States can exist as aatma kriiDa or states can be folded as aatma rati – but

folding unfolding is part of prakR^iti to which he lends his support as

addhyaksha.

G.M: Argument can be made that jIvA is not the same from one

moment to the next, in which case there is no continuity

for scenarios A and B.]

Sada: Murthy gaaru – I see some problem in this statement – jiiva notion is

not that temporary – there are ‘this thoughts’ idam vR^itti and “I thought’

or aham vR^itti – idam vR^itti has locus of idam which is changing and

impermanent – aham vR^ti has its locus on Brahman – hence ‘I am’ – the real

part of jiiva (see my adhyaasa notes in terms of real part and unreal part

in partial ignorance) – realization is full establishment of I am samsaarii

to I am Brahman – we already know two thirds – sat and chit – only the third

part Amanda has to be known. Hence there is no complete changing of jiiva –

samsaara part in which I am – father mother wife, husband etc roles keep

changing – but I am part remaining which is locused on Brahman – does not

change. Hence jiiva goes through transmigration – life after life – survives

the death of a physical body – whole of saankhya yoga rests on this.

G.M:

Scenarios A and B show that even in advaitic intellectual

(vyavahArika) perspective, wake-up and dream states do not

have the same level of reality and are not exactly identical.

>From a realized's perspective of course, all states (dream,

wake-up and deep-sleep) are identical.

Sada: I think identity and similarity are not identical! I have already

discussed the difference as well as the similarities in the two states.

These exists whether one has realized or not Since these belong to prak^iti

– the differences again is from unrealized jiiva he thinks one is real

(like waking state) and the other is unreal (dream state) – From jiivanmukta

all are apparently real in their respective reference states. I am alone is

real and none of the states, their world or their experiences are not

absolutely real. Yet they all exist in me but I do not exist in them. I can

fold it or unfold it – it is my glory!

G.M. I am trying to get a grip on the three states at various levels

of understanding. I am using in my studies GauDapAda kArika,

MAnDUkya u. and bhAShyA-s on both by shri Shankara, and also

Sada: Murthy gaaru I have presented what I understand as self-consistency in

all these teachings. I see every

Thing self-consistent and yet to see any inconsistencies in the logic. But

keep pushing until it is clear.

G.M.

Talks with RamaNa MaharShi. Is there any other good material

for this subject? At the moment, basically, I am thinking out

loud and I hope the List does not find it too intrusive.

My Best Wishes - Hari Om!

Sadananda

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

March 3, 2001

Dear shri Sadananda garu,

namaskarams. Thanks very much for your detailed response.

I am much obliged. A short answer at the moment and I will

try to respond in detail later.

If you say that the wake-up and dream states are similar

(rather than identical), I have no difficulty with that

at all. I took your previous post to say that they are

identical and hence my effort at clarification.

As I said in my previous post of a week ago, wake-up

state is svapnatulyavat. I take it "as if it is a dream",

or give it the same importance as what we give to a

dream. In any case, thanks very much for the detailed

explanation. I will keep that as extra study material

for my effort to understand the three states.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----------------------------

March 4, 2001

Namaste,

The dialog between Sri Sadananda and Sri Murthy was quite educational.

In reality, their view points are `identical' or at the least

`similar!' The expression, `identical' is based on perception and such

perceptions vary by individuals and it changes by time. For example,

new-born twins are sometimes called as `identical twins.' For some

outsiders they remain as `identical,' for some others, they become

`similar' but for the mother (who knows everything about the both

children) they are distinct!

Coming back to the discussion on the dream state and the wake state

they are the identical twins of `ignorance.' Some may call them

identical and others can call them as similar or even distinct.

Fundamentally, we all agree that these two are unreal at the absolute

level of understanding.

warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> Dear shri Sadananda garu,

>

> namaskarams.........

>

> If you say that the wake-up and dream states are similar

> (rather than identical), I have no difficulty with that

> at all.

March 4, 2001

Ram Chandran [rchandran]

Sunday, March 04, 2001 8:03 AM

advaitin

Re: Reality

Namaste,

The dialog between Sri Sadananda and Sri Murthy was quite educational.

In reality, their view points are `identical' or at the least

`similar!' The expression, `identical' is based on perception and such

perceptions vary by individuals and it changes by time. For example,

new-born twins are sometimes called as `identical twins.' For some

outsiders they remain as `identical,' for some others, they become

`similar' but for the mother (who knows everything about the both

children) they are distinct!

Coming back to the discussion on the dream state and the wake state

they are the identical twins of `ignorance.' Some may call them

identical and others can call them as similar or even distinct.

Fundamentally, we all agree that these two are unreal at the absolute

level of understanding.

warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

_______

Quite right Sri Ramji. You make a central point. Sri Ramana has used similar

language and said that from the perspective of the Self, *All* states

(visionary, superconscious, astral, dream state, waking state, etc.) are

equally unreal. These discussions such as between Murthyji (I noted that

Murthyji is easier to write than to say Gummuluruji - please let me know if

there is a preference) and Sadaji are useful expressions for refining the

intellect but at the same time reveal the particular orientation of the

discussants. It has been said that an intellect that has become subtle and

pure reflects well and clear the light of the Self or Self-Knowledge. It is

important to be kept in mind that while a strong, pure, and subtle intellect

is needed to grasp the True Nature of the Self, still the "intellect" is not

the Self, but only one expression of it, that emanates from the Self. All

the refining of the intellect is needed, in order to See the Source,

Surrender without reservation and merge in That. The result of all the study

of shastras is to know that the mind, intellect, etc. have no independent

existence what so ever.

Sri Ramana has said that even the attachment to study of shastras and

scriptures is a vasana that hinders Self-Knowledge. Of course it is not a

bad vasana since we have so many other vasanas, study of scriptures and

meditating on the deeper meaning is a wonderful orientation. For some

people, it is more natural to delve into scriptural subtleties than others

depending on latent tendencies.

Once the Truth of the Self has been deduced or experienced through whatever

spiritual practices, scriptural studies, or by other means or in Samadhi,

the spiritual practice can consist of being Aware of that Truth of

Awareness.

Our sages emphasize scriptural study but also practice as well which

requires inward turning and churning of the mind and the intellect through

subtle self-reflection and self-awareness.

I vaguely recall that Bhagwan Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita says to Arjuna

that even a little bit of practice of this Yoga will save one from the fear

of death.

Love to all

Harsha

March 5, 2001

namaste.

What shri Ram Chandranji and shri Harshaji said is quite correct.

Both waking state and dream sleep are in the realm of ignorance.

Studying them is an intellectual study, which is in avidyA itself.

However, such a study is the only way we can recognize it as

ignorance only, and finally, when the knowledge is digested by us,

we do not give one state any more importance than the other state.

The objective of these studies is to recognize the wake-up state

is no more important than the dream-state; to see the wake-up

state as svapnatulyavat - as if it is a dream or just like how

we see a dream. At the moment we know intellectually that waking-

state is no more important than the dream-state. However much we

know that, still, spontaneously we fall into the trap of taking

the waking-state events more seriously than the dream-state events

and we respond to our wake-up state happenings going through the

pairs of opposites of emotions of joy and sorrow etc in response

to our wake-up state happenings. Thus our present knowledge is

still not adequate to go beyond generating the pairs of opposites

of emotions in our wake-up state. We have to see that this knowledge

is us, rather than the knowledge and the knower separate.

May be it is with this objective, the three states (looking at

life in three states together) forms the subject matter of many

upanishads. MANDUkya u. has this as its principal content.

Br^ihadAraNyaka and ChAndogya, although calling them by different

names, also discuss this in quite detail. Particularly, ChAndogya

has this telling statement about why the three states are to be

studied. It says the nature of uttama puruSha (the same as turIyA

of MANDUkya) may be well-understood by realizing the significance

of the deep-sleep experience. Everyday, we have this precious

experience, without knowing its meaning, even as one walks over

a place, without being aware of the treasure buried under-ground.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----

March 5, 2001

Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy]

Monday, March 05, 2001 9:22 AM

advaitin

RE: Re: Reality