Deep sleep state

[Guest guest]

Sri Murthy-ji

 

I really appreciate your precise logical attempts to get to the bottom of

subjects like this. We seem to share similar concerns and I find your

analyses very useful. It seems to me, however, that you are doomed to fail

on this one.

 

There is only the Self, the background, turiiya, on which the avasthaatraya,

objects, mind are all only appearances. The mind and objects are both absent

in the deep sleep state. In the dream and waking states (which can be

regarded as equivalent for this discussion), the mind is present but is only

a false identification - another subtle object. And objects are present

(thoughts, emotions, percepts) but are only mistaken superimpositions of

name and form upon the unchanging reality.

 

How can it ever be meaningful to attempt to explain one illusion by another

or to say that one illusion has more reality than another? All is illusion

piled upon illusion, like a complex dream. It is surely beyond the abilities

of the dreamer to unravel his own dream, at the time of the dream. Why

should we assume that the waker can unravel his waking dream? Perhaps to do

so would, indeed, bring realisation, but then the explanation would

presumably be of no more interest than the unravelled dream would be to the

waker...

 

One point I would ask is how could you attempt to discuss the existence of

objects without bringing the mind into the discussion? Without the mind we

could not be aware of objects nor even conceive of them. I thought you had

conceded that it is only because of the mind that objects are assumed to

exist in the first place (whether or not the mind actually 'creates' them).

It is like trying to decide whether you and I have the same subjective

impression when we see the colour red, but without taking our perceptual

equipments into consideration. There could be no meaningful discussion

because these are intrinsic to the phenomenon.

 

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dennis Waite wrote:

> Sri Murthy-ji

>

> I really appreciate your precise logical attempts to get to the bottom of

> subjects like this. We seem to share similar concerns and I find your

> analyses very useful. It seems to me, however, that you are doomed to fail

> on this one.

>

> [...]

 

 

namaste shri Dennis-ji,

 

i surely agree with you that this analysis is deemed for failure

in the sense that we cannot get to the Truth and still be able to

have a dialogue about It.

 

However, my attempt here is to get to the truth without the usage

of the mind. I find saying mind is not there and hence we cannot

know it, is looking at It (the Truth) from an intellectual jIvA's

perspective. I admit we are still doing it, and we have to do it

and it can't be helped. The discussion, communication are all

intellectual exercises mired in duality.

 

When i say, do not get the mind involved, i mean to say, look

at it from the Truth's perspective rather than the mind's.

Let me give an example. We say brahman is the sub-stratum for

all the upAdhi-s. We also say jIvo brahmaiva naH paraH (jIvA

is none other than brahman). That statement is not made by

the mind. That is a statement of Truth.

 

Similarly, re existence of objects: yes, the mind is not

there during deep sleep and hence we do not see the objects.

That is a statement made by the jIvA's analytical perspective.

But "the objects are absent" is a universal absolute statement

irrespective of what the human mind does. Once we have that

absolute statement of Truth, the same can be extended to

the wake-up and dream states.

 

Thanks for your very understanding post. May be, I am too

vociferous in appealing for viewing from the Absolute

perspective rather than the jIvA's analytical perspective.

i should be quiet, i think.

 

> Dennis

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Murthy-ji,

 

You say: - 'But "the objects are absent" is a universal absolute statement

irrespective of what the human mind does.'

 

Surely, this statement cannot be true (or is not meaningful) if 'objects'

only exist by, in or through the mind. I would have said the absolute

statement is that 'there are no objects'. If there were, that would be

duality. But this means that we cannot say anything (at an absolute level)

about objects. Since they do not exist at all (in reality) there does not

seem to be much point in asking whether they exist during the waking state.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

>"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

>advaitin

>"Advaitin" <advaitin>

> Re: Deep sleep state

>Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:03:39 +0100

>

>Murthy-ji,

>

>You say: - 'But "the objects are absent" is a universal absolute statement

>irrespective of what the human mind does.'

>

>Surely, this statement cannot be true (or is not meaningful) if 'objects'

>only exist by, in or through the mind. I would have said the absolute

>statement is that 'there are no objects'. If there were, that would be

>duality. But this means that we cannot say anything (at an absolute level)

>about objects.

 

That is true from logical point or loukika anumaana pramaaNa. Hence we need

to go to shaastra as the means of knowledge. There two we have different

interpretations. Some acharya's interpret that the exist in a subtle form

and comeout as gross form. Since conceptually we donot know what that

subtle form means, from the human conception, they donot exist is stil a

valid statement even from the other acharya's point.

 

Since they do not exist at all (in reality) there does not

>seem to be much point in asking whether they exist during the waking state.

 

They do not exist at all in reality is again based on shastra-s only. What

is definite appears to be our own existence since we cannot negate out

existence absolutely.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

>Dennis

>

>

 

_______________

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