deep-sleep state

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

While going through brahmasUtrAbhAShya (in connection with

my earlier posting on birth and death and the responses to

that post), I came across this gem about deep-sleep which

I think is quite revealing. I am sure it will be of interest

to some List members.

 

The question is: why do we not cognize or see anything during

deep-sleep. The Consciousness (upper case C) is there and is

always there. The jIvA does not see in that deep-sleep state

because although seeing then, it does not see. The vision of

the turIyA can never be lost. But then, no second thing exists

there separate from It which It can see. This appearance of

the absence of awareness is owing to the absence of objects

of knowledge, but not owing to the absence of Consciousness.

It is like the non-manifestation of light, spread over space,

owing to the absence of things on which it can be reflected,

but not owing to its own absence.

 

This means: (i) Consciousness is always there, the Atman, the

brahman; (ii) the jagat evolves out of us as we wake up and

folds back into us as we go to deep-sleep.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-

[Guest guest]

Pranams to Gummuluruji

 

Thanks for interesting topic.

 

The question why do we not cognize or see anything during deep sleep

is because the mind the seer and seen merge to its origin

eventhough the conciousness is there all time. Ramana Bagawan said

that the deep sleep will come and go and cannot be real. The real

conciousness or the "I" will always exist. Conciousness plus deep

sleep, we call sleep.Conciousness is the screen. The seer and the

seen together costitute the mind. When the mind merges in the self,

and there is neither the seer nor seen. Below is a statement plucked

from the article Three State of Conciousness by S.S. Raghavachar, M.A

which could support the above facts.

 

In Deep Sleep, neither the senses function nor the mind functions.

The self withdraws into itself as it were, but there is no self-

understanding. The self is covered by a primeval ignorance from which

spring all wakings, and dreams. This ignorance covers the self in all

its states, but it does not set up the presentation of the non-self

in the deep sleep as it does in the waking and dream.

 

Hari Om Tat Sat

Kumari Kalaimalar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

>

> namaste.

>

> While going through brahmasUtrAbhAShya (in connection with

> my earlier posting on birth and death and the responses to

> that post), I came across this gem about deep-sleep which

> I think is quite revealing. I am sure it will be of interest

> to some List members.

>

> The question is: why do we not cognize or see anything during

> deep-sleep. The Consciousness (upper case C) is there and is

> always there. The jIvA does not see in that deep-sleep state

> because although seeing then, it does not see. The vision of

> the turIyA can never be lost. But then, no second thing exists

> there separate from It which It can see. This appearance of

> the absence of awareness is owing to the absence of objects

> of knowledge, but not owing to the absence of Consciousness.

> It is like the non-manifestation of light, spread over space,

> owing to the absence of things on which it can be reflected,

> but not owing to its own absence.

>

> This means: (i) Consciousness is always there, the Atman, the

> brahman; (ii) the jagat evolves out of us as we wake up and

> folds back into us as we go to deep-sleep.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> -

[Guest guest]

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

>

> namaste.

>

> While going through brahmasUtrAbhAShya (in connection with

> my earlier posting on birth and death and the responses to

> that post), I came across this gem about deep-sleep which

> I think is quite revealing. I am sure it will be of interest

> to some List members.

>

> The question is: why do we not cognize or see anything during

> deep-sleep. The Consciousness (upper case C) is there and is

> always there. The jIvA does not see in that deep-sleep state

> because although seeing then, it does not see. The vision of

> the turIyA can never be lost. But then, no second thing exists

> there separate from It which It can see. This appearance of

> the absence of awareness is owing to the absence of objects

> of knowledge, but not owing to the absence of Consciousness.

> It is like the non-manifestation of light, spread over space,

> owing to the absence of things on which it can be reflected,

> but not owing to its own absence.

>

> This means: (i) Consciousness is always there, the Atman, the

> brahman; (ii) the jagat evolves out of us as we wake up and

> folds back into us as we go to deep-sleep.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> -

[Guest guest]

Interesting topic - couple of points from my understanding of the

deep-sleep state. Couple of years ago I wrote an article " who is

the deep-sleeper I" - or some such title - may be there somewhere in

the archives. It addresses some of the issues raised.

 

Kumari Kalaimalar wrote:

>Pranams to Gummuluruji

>

>Thanks for interesting topic.

>

>The question why do we not cognize or see anything during deep sleep

>is because the mind the seer and seen merge to its origin

>eventhough the conciousness is there all time.

 

Absolutely. Hence the absence of mind - leads to absence of thoughts

and the lack of seer and seen distinction. Hence the question of

seeing does not arise - and it is not the question of lack of objects

but lack of the instruments of knowledge needed to see. Hence when a

waking mind says "I slept well" - from the mind's point it appears to

be an inferential statement. But a waking mind knows is that it was

not there - there is blank in the memory that can be recognized in

the waking mind - Like the 18-min of blank tape in Nixon-tapes! There

it was erased but here it is the lack of the recorder. But a waking

mind can know its absence and its refreshed or rejuvenated state

since it was free from thoughts - mind free of thoughts (may not be

called mind ) is in principle free from duality and what was

reflecting in the mind before still remains as the pratibimba of the

consciousness that is all pervading. There is no self-recognition

either due to absence of the mind. - we draw one important

conclusions here. Mind is essential for self-realization - it is not

getting rid of the mind but getting rid of wrong notions in the mind

- the wrong notions being the "I am the object and not the subject -

or getting mixed with the seer-seen duality which always exists as

long as mind is there. Hence it is not the duality that is the

problem but taking the duality as reality is the problem. The

notions cannot be got rid of unless the mind is free-from

impurities.(one cannot serve two masters at the same time - hence

Krishna says ananya bhakti).

> Below is a statement plucked

>from the article Three State of Conciousness by S.S. Raghavachar, M.A

>which could support the above facts.

>. The self is covered by a primeval ignorance from which

>spring all wakings, and dreams. This ignorance covers the self in all

>its states, but it does not set up the presentation of the non-self

>in the deep sleep as it does in the waking and dream.

 

I have problems with the Shree Raghavachar' last statements. The

self being all pervading cannot be covered and in fact even the so

called covering or ignorance is noted in the light of the self only.

A mahatma's mind also sleeps in the deep sleep state - see the

discussion between myself and Shree Gummaluru garu some time back. In

his case he has realized that he is not the object but the subject.

The notional mind has dropped and mind free from notions exists in

the waking and dream state. In the deep sleep state there is no mind

to have notions or lack of notions. Self is pure all the time. All

the explanations about the deep sleep state are explanations to and

by the waking mind about the state of affairs about which it does not

know since it was not there in that state.

 

But as Bhagavaan Ramana points out clearly that which comes and goes

cannot be real in the absolute sense and what remains all the time is

the ever lasting life-principle in us which is the

existence-consciousness-bliss.

>

>Hari Om Tat Sat

>Kumari Kalaimalar

>

>

> > The question is: why do we not cognize or see anything during

>> deep-sleep. The Consciousness (upper case C) is there and is

>> always there. The jIvA does not see in that deep-sleep state

>> because although seeing then, it does not see.

 

Here we are on a very thin line - concept of jiiva is due to notional

mind. So one has to be careful to say whether jiiva sees in the

deep-sleep state or not. When jiiva himself is questionable, the

question of jiiva seeing does not arise. The "time- space and seeing

and seen" are products of thoughts - the world is due to thoughts

and I am jiiva is another thought which we call ego - idam vR^itti

and aham vR^itti. The notional mind is that which takes idam vR^itti

as aham vR^itti or I am this - thought. When there is no thought who

can say I am to whom!

> The vision of

>> the turIyA can never be lost. But then, no second thing exists

> > there separate from It which It can see.

 

Here it is not non-existence of, but non-recognition of - But if you

analyze deeply what you say is right since existence of any object

is also not absolute since its existence is due to mental thoughts

only - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naama dheyam. If mind is not there -

there is no time or space and hence objects occupying a space! - But

the point is the absence of mind is the problem for non-recognition

of the objects. - since recognition and non-recognition question does

not arise when the mind is not there.

> This appearance of

>> the absence of awareness is owing to the absence of objects

>> of knowledge, but not owing to the absence of Consciousness.

>> It is like the non-manifestation of light, spread over space,

>> owing to the absence of things on which it can be reflected,

>> but not owing to its own absence.

 

The above thoughts are unclear to me. - space-time - illumination of

objects etc all concepts of the mind to explain the object-subject

distinctions. When the mind is not there - all others perturbations

associated with the mind are also not there.

 

Hence meditation or self-realization is not folding the mind - since

as Bhagavaan Ramana reminds us again and again - the folded mind will

come back with its full forces with all its ignorance just as

deep-sleeper wakes up with the same problems. What is needed in the

sadhana is reeducating the mind -or destruction of ' notional-mind' -

it is also not just doing a repetition of " who am Iwho am I" or

or aham brahmaasmii - aham brahmaasmi - it is an inquiry of 'who am

I' . The inquiry can only be done by the mind when it is fully

available for inquiry - that is in waking state - inquiry can be done

only when the mind is pure since it is an inquiry of itself -

introverted inquiry and that cannot be done when the mind is running

out. Hence purification process by yoga. The recent quotes from A

NET of JEWELS daily meditations for seekers of Truth - RAMESH S.

BALSEKAR - out of context, shows what one should not do -Statements

like " that it is not positive it is negative" - etc will cause more

confusion than clarification. Hence the need of proper teacher and

the emphasis of sampradaaya. It is not problem with Shree Balsekar

book - it is the over zealousness of the disciples who want to

publicize without giving deep thought - any way this is my opinion

and not intended to criticize anyone - I would welcome the whole

article of Shree Balsekar rather than unconnected quotes here and

there intended for deep meditation. I hope my criticism is taken in

the right spirit.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

> >

>> This means: (i) Consciousness is always there, the Atman, the

>> brahman; (ii) the jagat evolves out of us as we wake up and

>> folds back into us as we go to deep-sleep.

>>

>>

>> Regards

>> Gummuluru Murthy

> > -

>

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:

> Interesting topic - couple of points from my understanding of the

> deep-sleep state. Couple of years ago I wrote an article " who is

> the deep-sleeper I" - or some such title - may be there somewhere in

> the archives. It addresses some of the issues raised.

>

> Kumari Kalaimalar wrote:

>

> >Pranams to Gummuluruji

> >

> >Thanks for interesting topic.

> >

> >The question why do we not cognize or see anything during deep sleep

> >is because the mind the seer and seen merge to its origin

> >eventhough the conciousness is there all time.

>

> Absolutely. Hence the absence of mind - leads to absence of thoughts

> and the lack of seer and seen distinction. Hence the question of

> seeing does not arise - and it is not the question of lack of objects

> but lack of the instruments of knowledge needed to see.

 

 

namaste shri Sadananda garu and shri Kumari Kalaimalar-ji,

 

Thanks very much for your thoughts.

 

shri sadananda garu is saying above ".. It is the *lack of instrument*

that makes us not see during the deep-sleep state and further it is

*not the lack of objects*."

 

I want to ask: why is it not the lack of objects? Is there any evidence

for the presence of objects while the jIvA is in deep-sleep?

 

Shri Sadananda garu seems to be concentrating on the instrument

(of cognition) only. By saying it is the lack of instrument that

is causing us not seeing, the automatic differentiation is made

between the doer (the seer), the objects seen and the instrument

of observation (the mind). It also implies that the seer (the

ignorant jIvA) and the objects are present during deep-sleep and

*only* the instrument is missing. The jIva has him/herself folded

into the Atman, so there is no evidence that the doer (the ego) is

there either. The Consciousness is present but not the consciousness.

 

What I am saying is: there is no evidence that the wake-up (ignorant)

jIvA can bring forward to say that the objects are present while the

instrument of cognition is absent.

 

To clear up my understanding, I put multiple-choice answers here.

 

(a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is absent

and hence the objects cannot be seen.

 

(b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

objects is absent.

 

I choose (b) as my correct answer. I wonder if shri sadananda garu

and shri kumari kalaimalarji agree with me.

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> [...]

>

> To clear up my understanding, I put multiple-choice answers here.

>

> (a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is absent

> and hence the objects cannot be seen.

>

> (b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

> objects is absent.

>

> I choose (b) as my correct answer. I wonder if shri sadananda garu

> and shri kumari kalaimalarji agree with me.

>

 

namaste.

 

In my previous post, the wording of the multiple-choice answers could

be made more correct. Better wording may be

 

(a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is folded or

subdued and hence the objects cannot be seen.

 

(b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of objects

is folded or subdued and hence the objects cannot be seen.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

>

>

>shri sadananda garu is saying above ".. It is the *lack of instrument*

>that makes us not see during the deep-sleep state and further it is

>*not the lack of objects*."

>

>I want to ask: why is it not the lack of objects? Is there any evidence

>for the presence of objects while the jIvA is in deep-sleep?

 

Murthy gaaru - question boils down to Is there a proof whether the

objects exits without the observer to observe? - It can never be

proved that objects have independent existence. Hence advaita

position that the world itself is not real - what is there is only

existence which is consciousness and conscious entity cannot become

unconscious entity - hence object, by definition are inert have no

independent existence. Without the mind there is no world! - that is

the adviatic doctrine.

Objects are jadam and jadam is defined as anya adhiina prakaashatvam

and hence anya adhiina satvam. Hence no mind no world.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>

>Shri Sadananda garu seems to be concentrating on the instrument

>(of cognition) only. By saying it is the lack of instrument that

>is causing us not seeing, the automatic differentiation is made

>between the doer (the seer), the objects seen and the instrument

>of observation (the mind). It also implies that the seer (the

>ignorant jIvA) and the objects are present during deep-sleep and

>*only* the instrument is missing. The jIva has him/herself folded

>into the Atman, so there is no evidence that the doer (the ego) is

>there either. The Consciousness is present but not the consciousness.

>

>What I am saying is: there is no evidence that the wake-up (ignorant)

>jIvA can bring forward to say that the objects are present while the

>instrument of cognition is absent.

>

>To clear up my understanding, I put multiple-choice answers here.

>

>(a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is absent

> and hence the objects cannot be seen.

>

>(b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

> objects is absent.

>

>I choose (b) as my correct answer. I wonder if shri sadananda garu

>and shri kumari kalaimalarji agree with me.

>

>> Hari OM!

>> Sadananda

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

Sponsor

><http://rd./M=206662.1458837.3039162.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:\

N/A=682980/*http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/1114-3934-1039-0?mpt=992350867>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\

in/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

><advaitin/messages>\

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

><>

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Patanjali

Paada 1, sutra 10

10. ABHAVA PRATYAYALAMBANA VRTTIR NIDRA

The process of sleep is founded on the absence of arising thoughts.

 

abhaava : a + bhuu - being - nothingness, emptyness, state of not being,

changing quality

pratyaya - phenomenon?, conception , assumption , notion , idea, arising

thought

alambana - support, foundation

vritti - process

nidraa - sleep (in this case deep sleep)

 

|

| K. Sadananda [sada]

| Tuesday, 12 June 2001 14:30

| advaitin

| Re: deep-sleep state

|

|

|

| >

| >

| >shri sadananda garu is saying above ".. It is the *lack of

| instrument*

| >that makes us not see during the deep-sleep state and further it is

| >*not the lack of objects*."

| >

| >I want to ask: why is it not the lack of objects? Is there

| any evidence

| >for the presence of objects while the jIvA is in deep-sleep?

|

| Murthy gaaru - question boils down to Is there a proof whether the

| objects exits without the observer to observe? - It can never be

| proved that objects have independent existence. Hence advaita

| position that the world itself is not real - what is there is only

| existence which is consciousness and conscious entity cannot become

| unconscious entity - hence object, by definition are inert have no

| independent existence. Without the mind there is no world!

| - that is

| the adviatic doctrine.

| Objects are jadam and jadam is defined as anya adhiina prakaashatvam

| and hence anya adhiina satvam. Hence no mind no world.

|

| Hari Om!

| Sadananda

|

|

|

|

| >

| >Shri Sadananda garu seems to be concentrating on the instrument

| >(of cognition) only. By saying it is the lack of instrument that

| >is causing us not seeing, the automatic differentiation is made

| >between the doer (the seer), the objects seen and the instrument

| >of observation (the mind). It also implies that the seer (the

| >ignorant jIvA) and the objects are present during deep-sleep and

| >*only* the instrument is missing. The jIva has him/herself folded

| >into the Atman, so there is no evidence that the doer (the ego) is

| >there either. The Consciousness is present but not the

| consciousness.

| >

| >What I am saying is: there is no evidence that the wake-up

| (ignorant)

| >jIvA can bring forward to say that the objects are present while the

| >instrument of cognition is absent.

| >

| >To clear up my understanding, I put multiple-choice answers here.

| >

| >(a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is absent

| > and hence the objects cannot be seen.

| >

| >(b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

| > objects is absent.

| >

| >I choose (b) as my correct answer. I wonder if shri sadananda garu

| >and shri kumari kalaimalarji agree with me.

| >

| >> Hari OM!

| >> Sadananda

| >

| >Regards

| >Gummuluru Murthy

| >---------------------------

| ------------

| >

| >

| >

| >

| >

| >

| > Sponsor

| ><http://rd./M=206662.1458837.3039162.908943/D=egrou

pmail/S=1700075991:N/A=682980/*http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/1114-3934-

1039-0?mpt=992350867>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/ad

vaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

><advaitin/messages>/gr

oup/advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

><>

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

My pranams to Gummuluruji & Sadaji

 

Sadaji wrote :

Absolutely. Hence the absence of mind - leads to absence of thoughts

and the lack of seer and seen distinction. Hence the question of

seeing does not arise - and it is not the question of lack of objects

but lack of the instruments of knowledge needed to see.

 

Yes I agree Sadaji's facts. The mind or the instrument of knowledge

is the creater of the objects that we sees in the waking & dreaming

states. How a spider create its cobweb through it sliver and later

eat it, that's how the object that were created by the mind later

dislove within through the absence of the mind during deep sleep. At

this stage there's no creater, creating or created objects.

 

Gummuluruji wrote :

 

(a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is folded or

subdued and hence the objects cannot be seen.

 

(b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

objects

is folded or subdued and hence the objects cannot be seen.

 

(a) How can the objects be present when there is no instrument of

generation. The objects is nothing but the projection of thoughts in

waking and dreaming states. And mind is nothing but a bundle of

thoughts. When the mind disolve in its origin, there's no object

exist.

 

(b) the word "subdued" as for my understanding may not a correct term

because in deep sleep the mind the is not subdued but disolve (which

means it become one with it origin and not subdued in its origin). Am

I right Sadaji?.

 

Hari Om Tat sat

Ms. kalaimalar

 

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

>

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> > [...]

>

> >

> > To clear up my understanding, I put multiple-choice answers here.

> >

> > (a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is absent

> > and hence the objects cannot be seen.

> >

> > (b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

> > objects is absent.

> >

> > I choose (b) as my correct answer. I wonder if shri sadananda

garu

> > and shri kumari kalaimalarji agree with me.

> >

>

> namaste.

>

> In my previous post, the wording of the multiple-choice answers

could

> be made more correct. Better wording may be

>

> (a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is folded or

> subdued and hence the objects cannot be seen.

>

> (b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

objects

> is folded or subdued and hence the objects cannot be seen.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> --

----

[Guest guest]

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

>

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> > [...]

>

> >

> > To clear up my understanding, I put multiple-choice answers here.

> >

> > (a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is absent

> > and hence the objects cannot be seen.

> >

> > (b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

> > objects is absent.

> >

> > I choose (b) as my correct answer. I wonder if shri sadananda

garu

> > and shri kumari kalaimalarji agree with me.

> >

>

> namaste.

>

> In my previous post, the wording of the multiple-choice answers

could

> be made more correct. Better wording may be

>

> (a) Objects are present but the instrument of cognition is folded or

> subdued and hence the objects cannot be seen.

>

> (b) Objects are absent because the instrument of generation of

objects

> is folded or subdued and hence the objects cannot be seen.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> --

----

[Guest guest]

>

>

>(b) the word "subdued" as for my understanding may not a correct term

>because in deep sleep the mind the is not subdued but disolve (which

>means it become one with it origin and not subdued in its origin). Am

>I right Sadaji?.

>

>Hari Om Tat sat

>Ms. kalaimalar

>

Thanks Ms Kumari Kalaimar for your excellent input. I was little

amused to address you as mrs. kumari - like in Shree Krishna

ashhTottara naamaavali there is one name - ajanma brahamacharine

namaH - one who is married to 16,000 wives still remains ajanma

brahmachaari. In a way the name reminds us that He is akarthaa and

ahbokta.

 

In a way, the word 'subdued' implies an action on the part of a doer.

sleep is going from one state of consciousness to the other and there

is no action involved in it - by will, one cannot go to sleep - one

glides into sleep without his knowledge. I am not sure even the word

dissolve describes the correct state of affairs. Since it is a

different state of consciousness, any description of words that we

are familiar in the waking world by the mind will have its

limitations. As long as we understand its correct import it is O.K.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

With respect, I find the point I was trying to understand was

glossed over in the responses. I hope I am not offending anyone

by persisting with my question on this topic.

 

The question is: why do we not see objects in the deep-sleep

state?

 

I said: this is because while the Consciousness was present,

the objects were absent during the deep-sleep state.

 

shri sadananda garu said: the reason we do not see objects

in the deep-sleep state is because the mind is absent and not

because the objects are absent. shri Sadananadaji did not address

my question "are the objects present or absent during deep-sleep?"

 

The implication of my question are the following and I think they

are quite vital (to my understanding). I am seeing the mind as the

*generator* of objects and not just the *detecting instrument*.

shri sadananda garu, while he did not say explicitly, seems to be

giving the impression that the mind is a detecting instrument and

its absence during deep-sleep is sufficient for us not to see the

objects during deep-sleep. I surmise this by his saying to the

effect "we do not see things during the deep sleep because the

mind is not there and not because the objects are not there."

 

The way I am seeing the answer to the original question is:

the ego-mind complex, the subtle part of the jIvA, is in a dormant

state during deep sleep. The Consciousness that is present (all the

time) would not see objects because there are no objects *generated*

during jIvA's deep-sleep.

 

I am trying to draw the discussion to the point "the world is

there, we cognize the world through the mind" versus "the world

has evolved out of the mind when it is awake and dissolves back

in when asleep". There is a distinct difference between the two

and I am trying to grapple with that. Another way to put the

question is: "when we wake up, do we wake up *to* the world?

or when we wake up, has the world evolved out of us?"

 

------

 

I use the word "subdued" in my last post, in the context of

subdued mind during deep-sleep. Reason for this is: for ajnAni-s,

the ignorance is in seed-state during deep-sleep. The concept

I am trying to find affirmation is, that out of this seed-form

(of ajnAna) which is dormant during deep-sleep, the huge tree

of jagat evolves during wake-up state and dissolves back again

during deep sleep. I meant to use the word "dormant" rather

than "subdued".

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

 

kerly89 [kerly89]

 

(b) the word "subdued" as for my understanding may not a correct term

because in deep sleep the mind the is not subdued but disolve (which

means it become one with it origin and not subdued in its origin). Am

I right Sadaji?.

 

Hari Om Tat sat

Ms. Kalaimalar

 

I have not followed this thread carefully. Here is one perspective in the

use of different terms in this context.

 

Deep sleep is the counterpart to Nirvikalpa Samadhi. To go to sleep, one

usually prepares a nice bed, opens the windows in the room for fresh air and

then lies down on the bed and relaxes. The first part requires some

preparation and effort. The second part is due to nature. After one lies

down, at some point sleep happens without conscious effort. So the mind in

deep sleep has become one with its origin and lies dormant as a potential.

It has neither been subdued nor has it dissolved.

 

Similarly, the first part of Samadhi requires preparation. The means of

preparation are contemplation on the words of the sages and scriptures,

reflection on the nature of life, and meditation on the nature of

consciousness. While the preliminary stages require preparation and

concentration and the efforts to subdue the mind, in the final stage,

Samadhi can take place only by surrender and grace and not by effort. Like

in deep sleep, in Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the mind lies absorbed in the Self. It

is neither subdued (there being no other actor remaining to subdue it), nor

has it dissolved (as it will have a tendency to sprout up again due to

latent vasanas).

 

The term dissolution of mind is best reserved for Sahaj Samadhi. This

dissolution implies a finality. As the Buddhist say, Gone, gone, gone!

 

Love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Good points Sri Murthyji. I apologize for catching only part of the thread

and responding to that. You raise subtle questions and due to lack of time,

I will be brief for now.

 

Advaita teaches:

 

1. Self is Real

2. The World (with all its objects and appearances) is Unreal

3. All This Is Self (including the world and all)

 

Your points appear to be related to the first two stages of the Advaita

teaching. The mind and the world appear together and they disappear together

as well. The bridge that seems to connect the two is the sense of individual

self, or the "I" sense...... as in "I see the world,I see the other

people and objects,I have these questions,I am grappling with this

issue", etc.

 

You enquire into the relationship between the world and the mind by asking

the following:

___________________________

[Another way to put the question is: "when we wake up, do we wake up *to*

the world? or when we wake up, has the world evolved out of us?"]

_____________________

 

Your use of the term "we" in the formulation of your question already

presumes the existence of the world independent of the mind. So in a way,

you are answering the question to your satisfaction.

 

If you rephrase the question with term "I" then the discussion takes another

direction.

 

Hope this makes sense.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy]

Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:34 AM

advaitin

Re: deep-sleep state

 

 

namaste.

 

With respect, I find the point I was trying to understand was

glossed over in the responses. I hope I am not offending anyone

by persisting with my question on this topic.

 

The question is: why do we not see objects in the deep-sleep

state?

 

I said: this is because while the Consciousness was present,

the objects were absent during the deep-sleep state.

 

shri sadananda garu said: the reason we do not see objects

in the deep-sleep state is because the mind is absent and not

because the objects are absent. shri Sadananadaji did not address

my question "are the objects present or absent during deep-sleep?"

 

The implication of my question are the following and I think they

are quite vital (to my understanding). I am seeing the mind as the

*generator* of objects and not just the *detecting instrument*.

shri sadananda garu, while he did not say explicitly, seems to be

giving the impression that the mind is a detecting instrument and

its absence during deep-sleep is sufficient for us not to see the

objects during deep-sleep. I surmise this by his saying to the

effect "we do not see things during the deep sleep because the

mind is not there and not because the objects are not there."

 

The way I am seeing the answer to the original question is:

the ego-mind complex, the subtle part of the jIvA, is in a dormant

state during deep sleep. The Consciousness that is present (all the

time) would not see objects because there are no objects *generated*

during jIvA's deep-sleep.

 

I am trying to draw the discussion to the point "the world is

there, we cognize the world through the mind" versus "the world

has evolved out of the mind when it is awake and dissolves back

in when asleep". There is a distinct difference between the two

and I am trying to grapple with that. Another way to put the

question is: "when we wake up, do we wake up *to* the world?

or when we wake up, has the world evolved out of us?"

 

------

 

I use the word "subdued" in my last post, in the context of

subdued mind during deep-sleep. Reason for this is: for ajnAni-s,

the ignorance is in seed-state during deep-sleep. The concept

I am trying to find affirmation is, that out of this seed-form

(of ajnAna) which is dormant during deep-sleep, the huge tree

of jagat evolves during wake-up state and dissolves back again

during deep sleep. I meant to use the word "dormant" rather

than "subdued".

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

>namaste.

>

>With respect, I find the point I was trying to understand was

>glossed over in the responses. I hope I am not offending anyone

>by persisting with my question on this topic.

>

>The question is: why do we not see objects in the deep-sleep

>state?

>

>I said: this is because while the Consciousness was present,

>the objects were absent during the deep-sleep state.

>

>shri sadananda garu said: the reason we do not see objects

>in the deep-sleep state is because the mind is absent and not

>because the objects are absent. shri Sadananadaji did not address

>my question "are the objects present or absent during deep-sleep?"

 

Murthy gaaru sorry I did not address the question the way you want,

but I did address the question though!

 

First, how do you know that the objects are present or absent at any

time - not only in deep sleep but even in the waking state.

Even more important what is an object?

Let us give some definitions for clarity. Please bare with me.

1. Object is different from the subject.

2. Object is jadma or while subject is a chaitanya vastu - hence

object cannot declare itself that it exists! -

3. Hence Object is known to exist only because there a subject who

is a chaitanya vastu to declare that the object is or it exists.

4. Can the object exist without the subject present? - This is no way

to prove or disprove that an object exists independent of the

observer to prove its existence - I do not know if you heard of

Schrodinger's cat problem -May be a quantum mechanics guy can explain

this better - it is similar to that. The object exists or does not

exit is 50:50. The observer completes the cycle making 100% one way

or the other. - Hence we have sR^ishhTi- dR^ishhTi and

dR^ishhTi-sR^ishhTi theories in Advaita - see Vidya's URL for the

discussion of these two theories - but the point is either way we

need a dR^ishhTaa or a seer to finalize the existence or

non-existence of the object and without that the problem is an

inderminate problem with no solution to prove or disprove. You asked

me for a proof - how can solve an inderminate problem or actually an

invalid problem?

5. Subject exists without the need of an object to prove its

existence since he is self-existent or self-luminous or chaitanya

swaruupa.

6. Subject cannot be an object and vice versa. All these aspects are

discussed in one form or the other in dR^ik-dR^isya viveka text.

7. One can go deeper in the analysis of the attributes and locus for

an object, the need of sense input and ultimately the mind's

inference that locus has to exist for the attributes to exist since

they have to have locus - thus mind illumined by a conscious entity

has to be there to establish the object is and the world is. I am

skipping all these details- but the bottom line is mind has to be

there to prove the existence of an object. - This differs from

Bhagavaan Ramanuja's and Madhava's theories that world is real and

exists - satyam. There is a problem in their theories.

 

Now coming back to your question whether objects exist in deep sleep

state or not- When we cannot prove the existence of an object and the

world without the mind that is illumined by consciousness, even in

the waking state - then where is the question of proving that the

objects exists in dream state when the mind is not there. Hence

without the mind there is no world. If you say in the deep sleep

state the mind is folded, you can also say that the objects are also

folded - either way it is the same.

 

Now from Advaita point- the objects do not exist in reality any way.

To give briefly - the object out there are nothing but the thought in

the mind since without the thought of the object in the mind the

object out there is not recognized. The thought in the mind is the

perturbation in the consciousness or a thought wave in the ocean of

consciousness since I am conscious of the thought. Thus thought is

nothing but consciousness itself - just as a wave is nothing but the

ocean itself with a name and form. It is not a parniNaama or

permanent transformation of the consciousness but only a vikaara or

apparent transformation - Hence consciousness does not undergo any

change - it is only an apparent change just a wave in the ocean.-

that perturbation is the thought and thoughts nothing but mind - so

no mind no thoughts hence no world. Either way you come to the same

conclusion.

>

>The implication of my question are the following and I think they

>are quite vital (to my understanding). I am seeing the mind as the

>*generator* of objects and not just the *detecting instrument*.

>shri sadananda garu, while he did not say explicitly, seems to be

>giving the impression that the mind is a detecting instrument and

>its absence during deep-sleep is sufficient for us not to see the

>objects during deep-sleep. I surmise this by his saying to the

>effect "we do not see things during the deep sleep because the

>mind is not there and not because the objects are not there."

 

- Muuthy gaaru - both aspects are involved - mind as the generator

of the objects as well as the mind as the observer of the objects -

let us call this as objective- objects and subjective-objects. In the

first case also the mind acts as generator as well as observer of

that generated object.

 

Let me give you some example - our famous rope-snake case Is snake

an object or not - Where is the snake - it is out there if you ask

the seer-since it is really a rope, it is out there is actually it is

out in the mind of the seer- generated by the mind (projected) as

well as observed by that mind.

 

How about the statement or knowledge ' it is a rope' - case - rope

does not appear to be generated by the mind but observed by the mind.

Since I see the rope and you see the rope and everyone sees the rope,

it is not the projection of the individual minds but all minds that

are seeing have to be there to see it. One can say that rope and

thus the world is the projection of the total mind (all minds put

together or projection of Iswara) - but yet if you come down to it

the individual mind has to be there to see it, otherwise it is only a

speculation or faith from that mind's point of view that rope is

there- is it not true? . - this is where the analogy of

Schrodinger's cat problem comes. Mind is operated by the

consciousness again, which is one without a second and back to in one

way to Iswara who really sees though the individual mind. Without

the individual mind - is there a rope there - How can you tell? - It

is an indeterminate problem from logic point. Hence we go to Ch. Up.

sadeva soumya - and tat aikshata etc - to prove existence -

consciousness alone was there - one without a second.

 

Hence the question whether the objects exists without the individual

mind present is an inderminate problem and become an academic since

we need the individual mind any way to see the existence of the

object if it is there or not. Without that mind, the question of

objects then does not arise. - hence my answer to the deep-sleep

question the way I presented.

>

>The way I am seeing the answer to the original question is:

>the ego-mind complex, the subtle part of the jIvA, is in a dormant

>state during deep sleep. The Consciousness that is present (all the

>time) would not see objects because there are no objects *generated*

>during jIvA's deep-sleep.

>

>I am trying to draw the discussion to the point "the world is

>there, we cognize the world through the mind" versus "the world

>has evolved out of the mind when it is awake and dissolves back

>in when asleep". There is a distinct difference between the two

>and I am trying to grapple with that. Another way to put the

>question is: "when we wake up, do we wake up *to* the world?

>or when we wake up, has the world evolved out of us?"

 

 

Here the discussion separates to objective world and subjective world

- but in either case the mind as to be there to see both the

objective world and the subjective world - this aspect diverges as

prama and braama in the epistemological and ontological issues in

Vedanta. But the bottom line mind has to be there to see as well as

to resolve. - Otherwise the problem has reduces to faith and shabda

pramaana or an indeterminate problem. If there is no mind, the

indeterminate problem remains as indeterminate - no mind even the

shaastra-s are also folded since the mind is required to study and

understand and agree or disagree with the shaastra-s. We are back to

square one!

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gummulurji:

 

The question that you are asking is an ancient question with no

satisfactory resolution. Another way of posting the same question is:

Is the mind distinct from the object? I believe that according to

Advaita, the answer is no!

 

Let me give an example. During our dreams, we experience a world and

the entire dream experience is cognized by the mind. When we wake up,

we see a world different from the dream world. During deep sleep our

mind gets dissolved and we have no experience of any world!

 

King Janaka had a dream in which he was a begger. He suddently woke up

and asked the question: Who Am I? Am I the King or Am I the begger? In

reality, he is neither the king nor the begger but he is 'that it is!'

 

The Tamil proverb states the reality beautifully: "Kannal kandathum

poi, Kathal kettathum poi, thira visarippathu mei." (Everthing that

see, hear, touch, etc are illusionary and Truth is beyond what we see,

hear and touch).

 

As long as we are within the intellectual frame work of understanding,

mind and objects will appear as separate entities and one has to

go beyond the intellect to see the unity - just as witness the unity

during the deep sleep state.

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

>

> namaste.

>

> I am trying to draw the discussion to the point "the world is

> there, we cognize the world through the mind" versus "the world

> has evolved out of the mind when it is awake and dissolves back

> in when asleep". There is a distinct difference between the two

> and I am trying to grapple with that. Another way to put the

> question is: "when we wake up, do we wake up *to* the world?

> or when we wake up, has the world evolved out of us?"

>

> ------

[Guest guest]

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

> The question is: why do we not see objects in the deep-sleep

> state?

>

> I said: this is because while the Consciousness was present,

> the objects were absent during the deep-sleep state.

>

> shri sadananda garu said: the reason we do not see objects

> in the deep-sleep state is because the mind is absent and not

> because the objects are absent. shri Sadananadaji did not address

> my question "are the objects present or absent during deep-sleep?"

>

> The implication of my question are the following and I think they

> are quite vital (to my understanding). I am seeing the mind as the

> *generator* of objects and not just the *detecting instrument*.

 

Let us not forget the senses which are asleep! Maybe they are what

perceive objectively?

 

 

> shri sadananda garu, while he did not say explicitly, seems to be

> giving the impression that the mind is a detecting instrument and

> its absence during deep-sleep is sufficient for us not to see the

> objects during deep-sleep.

 

I like the Buddhist idea that It's All Mind whether there are thoughts

or It's empty.

 

Peace,

 

Col

[Guest guest]

Excellent points being made all round! On Murthy-ji' s last question: -

"when we wake up, do we wake up *to* the world? or when we wake up, has the

world evolved out of us?" I would like to suggest the following (Sada's last

response seemed to get very complicated!): -

 

Isn't it effectively the same thing? The world is seen as something other

than the Self only by the mind. Everything seen as something separate is

only appearance, not reality. When in the deep-sleep state, the mind is

inactive so there is no appearance. But the Self is still there, as it

always is. When we awake, the mind becomes active and, again there is the

appearance of something separate. But it is still only the Self, as it

always was. Nothing has changed other than that the mind, now active again,

is superimposing name and form upon the undivided reality. Whether we call

this 'the mind creating the objects' or whether we say ' the mind wakes up

to the objects' amounts to the same thing. There never were any objects and

there still aren't any.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis-ji,

 

Going along with you here. "We wake up to the world, We create the world

upon waking." Who says either creation story is true? It's like being

asked, "Yes or no: Have you stopped robbing banks?"

 

The mind and its relation to objects, insightful of you to say it's the

same thing as we and the world. Both are objects. But an object cannot

exist or have any relation to any other object. So what is the use of

creation stories?

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 06:06 PM 6/14/01 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote:

>>>>

Excellent points being made all round! On Murthy-ji' s last question: -

"when we wake up, do we wake up *to* the world? or when we wake up, has the

world evolved out of us?" I would like to suggest the following (Sada's last

response seemed to get very complicated!): -

 

Isn't it effectively the same thing? The world is seen as something other

than the Self only by the mind. Everything seen as something separate is

only appearance, not reality. When in the deep-sleep state, the mind is

inactive so there is no appearance. But the Self is still there, as it

always is. When we awake, the mind becomes active and, again there is the

appearance of something separate. But it is still only the Self, as it

always was. Nothing has changed other than that the mind, now active again,

is superimposing name and form upon the undivided reality. Whether we call

this 'the mind creating the objects' or whether we say ' the mind wakes up

to the objects' amounts to the same thing. There never were any objects and

there still aren't any.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Gregji:

 

Don't you know that the creation story is to create another story to

justify or nullify! This is part of the beginingless and endless cycle

of birth and death!!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Hi Dennis-ji,

>........

> So what is the use of

> creation stories?

>

> Om!

>

> --Greg

[Guest guest]

That's it - samsara in a sentence!

 

At 06:00 PM 6/14/01 -0000, Ram Chandran wrote:

>>>>

Hari Om Gregji:

 

Don't you know that the creation story is to create another story to

justify or nullify! This is part of the beginingless and endless cycle

of birth and death!!

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:

>

> Murthy gaaru sorry I did not address the question the way you want,

> but I did address the question though!

>

> First, how do you know that the objects are present or absent at any

> time - not only in deep sleep but even in the waking state.

> Even more important what is an object?

> Let us give some definitions for clarity. Please bare with me.

> 1. Object is different from the subject.

> 2. Object is jadma or while subject is a chaitanya vastu - hence

> object cannot declare itself that it exists! -

> 3. Hence Object is known to exist only because there a subject who

> is a chaitanya vastu to declare that the object is or it exists.

> 4. Can the object exist without the subject present? - This is no way

> to prove or disprove that an object exists independent of the

> observer to prove its existence - I do not know if you heard of

> Schrodinger's cat problem -May be a quantum mechanics guy can explain

> this better - it is similar to that. The object exists or does not

> exit is 50:50. The observer completes the cycle making 100% one way

> or the other. - Hence we have sR^ishhTi- dR^ishhTi and

> dR^ishhTi-sR^ishhTi theories in Advaita - see Vidya's URL for the

> discussion of these two theories - but the point is either way we

> need a dR^ishhTaa or a seer to finalize the existence or

> non-existence of the object and without that the problem is an

> inderminate problem with no solution to prove or disprove. You asked

> me for a proof - how can solve an inderminate problem or actually an

> invalid problem?

> 5. Subject exists without the need of an object to prove its

> existence since he is self-existent or self-luminous or chaitanya

> swaruupa.

> 6. Subject cannot be an object and vice versa. All these aspects are

> discussed in one form or the other in dR^ik-dR^isya viveka text.

> 7. One can go deeper in the analysis of the attributes and locus for

> an object, the need of sense input and ultimately the mind's

> inference that locus has to exist for the attributes to exist since

> they have to have locus - thus mind illumined by a conscious entity

> has to be there to establish the object is and the world is. I am

> skipping all these details- but the bottom line is mind has to be

> there to prove the existence of an object. - This differs from

> Bhagavaan Ramanuja's and Madhava's theories that world is real and

> exists - satyam. There is a problem in their theories.

>

> Now coming back to your question whether objects exist in deep sleep

> state or not- When we cannot prove the existence of an object and the

> world without the mind that is illumined by consciousness, even in

> the waking state - then where is the question of proving that the

> objects exists in dream state when the mind is not there. Hence

> without the mind there is no world. If you say in the deep sleep

> state the mind is folded, you can also say that the objects are also

> folded - either way it is the same.

>

> [...]

 

namaste shri Sadananda garu and thanks very much for your elaboration.

 

What you said above is true. Let me put my response (which is general)

in a point-wise way.

 

1. What you said above is one of the reasons why I had reservation

about your statement (in a previous post in the thread) that

"we do not see objects during deep-sleep because the mind is

absent and not because the objects are not present." Both

mean the same thing, but your answer implied non-denial of

the presence of objects.

 

2. My argument that objects are not present during deep-sleep is,

in my view, an earlier step towards a latter recognition that

objects are not present during waking state either.

 

3. I am not looking for a proof that *objects are not present*

during deep-sleep. If someone (from other schools of thought)

says that objects are present during deep-sleep, the onus is

on them to prove that objects are present. I believe advaita

is on very firm ground here, even at intellectual level.

 

4. I will further pursue the lead given by shri venkata subramanianji

(thread subject: Digest Number 997) in the Br^ihadAraNyaka

upanishadbhAShya. I will also pursue the lead given by you of

Dr^igdr^ishyaviveka for further insights. In your opinion, is

Dr^igdr^ishyaviveka a composition by bhagavatpAda or a later

shankarAcArya?

 

5. We both have agreed there are no objects during deep-sleep. You

say it is because of the absence of the mind. I am wondering if

the absence of objects during deep-sleep (or even in the wake-up

state) can be discussed without bringing the mind into the

discussion. I think that saying that objects are absent because

the mind is absent (during deep-sleep) is in a way a negative

argument i.e. we are taking the help of unreal mind to make a

statement of Truth.

 

The statement of Truth is: there are no objects during deep-sleep.

How do we know that?

 

As I stated in the earlier post, Consciousness is the only thing

that is present (ignorance is in seed or dormant state). Seeing

or perceiving an object would happen when Consciousness envelops

over an object. As there are no objects, Consciousness will not

be recognizing any objects. Hence, perception of objects will

not occur during deep-sleep. This is similar to light shining

through empty and vast space. If there are no objects, the

light simply shines through.

 

7. Duality is not perceived in deep-sleep while it is perceived

in the wake-up and dream states. This leads to the conclusion

that duality is unreal.

 

8. This argument (absence of objects) can be further extended to

wake-up and dream states as well. We perceive objects during

these two states while we do not perceive them during deep-

sleep state. This means external objects do not exist. Since,

if they exist in reality (sat in sat-cit-Ananda), they have

to exist in all three states.

> [...]

 

I am most grateful for all the elaborations and would be most

obliged for any further comments/corrections in what is written

above.

 

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Namaste Gummulurji:

>

> The question that you are asking is an ancient question with no

> satisfactory resolution. Another way of posting the same question is:

> Is the mind distinct from the object? I believe that according to

> Advaita, the answer is no!

>

> [...]

> warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

 

namaste shri Ram Chandranji,

 

I cannot presume that I have come up with an original question.

Advaita philosophy and Atma vidya has been thoroughly studied

and the questions we are raising now have all been thoroughly

studied before. shri shankara has anticipated all these questions

and has presented His bhAShyA-s in that way as an argument

between a pUrvapaksha and a vedantin. What we are doing here

is trying to find out where these questions were originally

mentioned and the answers presented.

 

If I can make another comment on the same topic: The difference

between paravidyA (higher Knowledge) and aparavidyA (lower

knowledge) [apart from the fact that they are entirely of

different types] is:

in aparavidyA, we progress forward, i.e. we come up with original

questions and find original answers and the field of study advances

forward. We are all familiar with this sort of research.

in paravidyA, whatever need to be known was known before and was

presented in the upanishads. Our task is to go backwards and

*de*-educate ourselves so that we are back on paar with upanishadic

sages. So, there are no new questions in advaita.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Let me ,for a moment ,think of the following posting

in this thread:

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

 

The question is "Do objects exist or do they not

> exist during

> deep-sleep?". By "exist", we mean, are they real,

> i.e. trikAla

> abAdhitam (they are there during past, present

> and future

> and also during the three states of deep-sleep,

> wake-up

> and dream). The clear answer to me is: they do

> not exist.

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

The objects that I see in Vyavahara (Which are the

same, incidentally, for all the other Jivatmans that

co-exist with me in this environment) most certainly

existed during my deep sleep state for the simple

reason that,unlike in my individualised dream

states,where every time I enter into that dream state,

I encounter different objects and most ceartainly do

not encounter the same objects when I get into the

dream state again.This shows clearly that as and when

I get into a dream state or a deepsleep state,the

objects that are existing in the waking state

including the umpteen number of jivatmans remain there

very much in existence for me to meet them again as

and when I come back to my waking state!

 

Now, extending this arguement to all the other

Jivatmans that exist along with me in my waking state,

it will be seen clearly that each and every other Jiva

experiences the same thing as I have stated above.

Again, each of these other Jivas gets into a state of

dream and deep sleep of their respective own positions

and what we find is that in their dream states also

they do not go back to the dream objects encountered

by them when they get into that state again.In their

individual deep sleep states,however, each of all

these Jivas has the same type of existence as I have

in my deep sleep state!!

 

why this differentiation only in our dream states?

 

Verily, this Avidyaa is Anirvachaneeya!

 

Hari Om!

 

Swaminarayan

 

 

 

 

Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.

http://buzz./

[Guest guest]

>

>namaste shri Sadananda garu and thanks very much for your elaboration.

>

>What you said above is true. Let me put my response (which is general)

>in a point-wise way.

>

>1. What you said above is one of the reasons why I had reservation

> about your statement (in a previous post in the thread) that

> "we do not see objects during deep-sleep because the mind is

> absent and not because the objects are not present." Both

> mean the same thing, but your answer implied non-denial of

> the presence of objects.

 

Yes - hence my last answer. Because the objects exists only in the

mind of the seer and in reality there are no objects only a subject -

I.

 

>2. My argument that objects are not present during deep-sleep is,

> in my view, an earlier step towards a latter recognition that

> objects are not present during waking state either.

 

Yes - without the mind no objects either - hence Shankara defines

moksha as ashariiraa hi mokshaH - where shariira includes suukshma

shariira as well. - Since presence of objects without understanding

that they are in me - induces limitation in the mind of the seer and

hence bondage. - The sage sees the objects but he sees that they are

only apparent and not real.

>

>3. I am not looking for a proof that *objects are not present*

> during deep-sleep. If someone (from other schools of thought)

> says that objects are present during deep-sleep, the onus is

> on them to prove that objects are present. I believe advaita

> is on very firm ground here, even at intellectual level.

 

True. But in other schools the jiiva-s are many and Iswara is

different from jiiva and they are self-consistent- right or wrong!

>

>4. I will further pursue the lead given by shri venkata subramanianji

> (thread subject: Digest Number 997) in the Br^ihadAraNyaka

> upanishadbhAShya. I will also pursue the lead given by you of

> Dr^igdr^ishyaviveka for further insights. In your opinion, is

> Dr^igdr^ishyaviveka a composition by bhagavatpAda or a later

> shankarAcArya?

 

 

Last question is an academic for me. Yes that is being debated -

but from the point of contents it does not matter and it is quite

logical and consistent with adviata.

>

>5. We both have agreed there are no objects during deep-sleep. You

> say it is because of the absence of the mind. I am wondering if

> the absence of objects during deep-sleep (or even in the wake-up

> state) can be discussed without bringing the mind into the

> discussion. I think that saying that objects are absent because

> the mind is absent (during deep-sleep) is in a way a negative

> argument i.e. we are taking the help of unreal mind to make a

statement of Truth.

 

In the last mail - I mentioned that it is actually inderminate

problem to some extent. Actually if you go into epistemological

issue then object can never be seen - the senses sees only attributes

- form or color, smell, taste, smell etc and the mind has to be there

to integrate and then assume (assume is underlined) that there is an

object out there with these attributes since it has arrived by

inference (underline inference) that there cannot be an object with

out attributes. Hence no one can prove the existence of an object

independent of an observer. More importantly no object can ever be

perceived - perception involves only perception of the attributes of

an object and not an object per sec.

> The statement of Truth is: there are no objects during deep-sleep.

> How do we know that?

>

> As I stated in the earlier post, Consciousness is the only thing

> that is present (ignorance is in seed or dormant state). Seeing

> or perceiving an object would happen when Consciousness envelops

> over an object. As there are no objects, Consciousness will not

> be recognizing any objects. Hence, perception of objects will

> not occur during deep-sleep. This is similar to light shining

> through empty and vast space. If there are no objects, the

> light simply shines through.

 

One has to be careful - without the upaadhi that is mind -

consciousness cannot be conscious off! -Consciousness is all

pervading. Where as object-subject distinction or split comes in the

mind - without the mind present there is no split either - this is

what is discussed in dR^ik-dR^sya viveka.

>7. Duality is not perceived in deep-sleep while it is perceived

> in the wake-up and dream states. This leads to the conclusion

> that duality is unreal.

 

If the conclusion is that obvious all the achaaryas would have jumped

on it. What constitutes real has been debated. From adviata point

what you say is right to a large extent although, the above

conclusion is arrived at not from anumaana but from the declaration

of the shaastra that Brahman is one without second, consciousness is

brahman and the creation is only modification or vikaara just at

ornament is only a vikaara of gold etc - lohamityava satyam and not

the name and form satyam.

>

>8. This argument (absence of objects) can be further extended to

> wake-up and dream states as well. We perceive objects during

> these two states while we do not perceive them during deep-

> sleep state. This means external objects do not exist. Since,

> if they exist in reality (sat in sat-cit-Ananda), they have

> to exist in all three states.

 

 

Yes you got it. Hence in my last mail that objects do not exists in

the waking state either, but remember the existence or non-existence

cannot be established without the mind present. Adviata vedanta

zeros in on this aspect. Upaadhi is the problem for the appearance

of plurality. Hence Shankara's definition of moksha - pl. see my

notes on BSB -4i pertaining to this aspect.

 

As always the pleasure is mine.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>

>> [...]

>

>I am most grateful for all the elaborations and would be most

>obliged for any further comments/corrections in what is written

>above.

>

>

>>

>> Hari Om!

>> Sadananda

>>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>---

>

>

>

>

>

Sponsor <>

> Website Services- Click Here!

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\

in/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

><advaitin/messages>\

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

><>

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623