Irony of deep sleep

[Guest guest]

Fascinating discussions initiated by the post on adhyAsa. Frustrating that I

haven't had time to get more involved. I still haven't caught up with the

most recent digests.

 

I just wanted to throw in a thought regarding the 'seed form' of ignorance

in the deep sleep state. I would really like to go back to the Sanskrit of

verses 87-89 of gauDapAda's alAtashAnti and shankara's commentary on these.

Doesn't the term vij~neyam come into it? This is usually translated as

'knowable' but also means 'to be understood or recognised'. Anyway, this may

be beside the point. What I was wondering is, could shankara be being

ironic? i.e. ignorance in the deep sleep state consists of not knowing that

there is anything there. Twisting this around to 'knowing that there is

nothing (but the Self) there' gives us the state of true knowledge. Of

course it is hardly the same thing but is an interesting observation

(perhaps). It does seem to me that, when discussing topics such as this, we

do need to be ever so careful about *exactly* what is said by the original

Sanskrit. We cannot rely on loose translations.

 

I would like to ask Stig (excellent post, incidentally on 'avidya'!) what

exactly is this word 'blja'? I assume it is in shankara's commentary on V.

89 since it is not in any of gauDapAda's original material. I cannot find it

in Monier-Williams. Can you quote the Sanskrit sentence in which it is used?

 

Incidentally, a metaphor used by Francis Lucille regarding the 'states of

consciousness' is that of a rock out of which faces have been carved.

(Incidentally, I would add my commendations to those of Greg and Warwick

regarding his worth as a teacher.) We normally see only the faces but, if we

look carefully, we eventually realise that there is only the rock, the faces

are merely aspects of it. The faces are the three 'states of consciousness';

the rock itself is turIyA, the 'background' upon which the 'states' are

manifest and our true nature, the only real vantage point for the witnessing

of the 'three states'. As has been pointed out by others, all that we are

discussing, thinking, observing etc. now is from the vantage point of a

single state, itself as illusory as the other two.

 

Sorry if this level of detail is too much for some. I appreciate Warwick's

point about these discussions often seeming to be too academic and losing

sight of practicality and the aims of advaita. However, there is a danger of

failing to appreciate the message of the great AchArya-s if we totally

misunderstand a key concept. Anyway, it's interesting isn't it? And what the

hell are we here for otherwise?

 

sukhaM chara,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis,

 

Looks like you are out to light the fireworks again. The adhyasa

thing is still smouldering awaiting the brilliant terminal blaze

promised by Shri Atmachaitanyaji.

 

You are right that we need to be extra careful in our interpretations

and must fully rely on the Sanskrit text. Let us await someone to

reproduce the exact verses in Sanskrit together with logical

commentary.

 

I believe you were looking for the meaning of the word "bija". In

your message, it is found inadvertently misspelt as "blja". It is

there in Monier-Williams. Check the itrans 5.2 box, type "biija"

(double "i" for the elongated sound) and search. There are several

meanings given. The relevant ones are: seed, semen, germ, element,

primary cause or principle, source, origin, truth as seed cause of

being etc.

 

If I may not be called "misguided" again, without seeing the Sanskrit

original of the verses concerned, I believe the last meaning

mentioned above resonates well with the context of our discussion.

Perhaps, what Sankara meant was that, during deep sleep, avidya

remains as the seed cause of our full-blown ignorance in dream state

and wakefulness [like a big banyan tree (samsaara) is hidden in its

seed]. Now, Dennis, please don't say that is too simplistic, okay?

 

Incidentally, Shri Jaishankarji and Shri Kathiresanji had posted some

information in this regard. I, therefore, request them both to

kindly contribute their invaluable insights with possibly the

original verses.

 

Coming to Francis Lucille's metaphor (faces on the rock), will you

please enlighten us if this metaphor is any better than the one we

have in gold and gold ornaments? I believe you have some special

reason to highlight it now in this avidya context.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Fascinating discussions initiated by the post on adhyAsa.

Frustrating that I

> haven't had time to get more involved. I still haven't caught up

with the

> most recent digests.

>

> I just wanted to throw in a thought regarding the 'seed form' of

ignorance

> in the deep sleep state. I would really like to go back to the

Sanskrit of

> verses 87-89 of gauDapAda's alAtashAnti and shankara's commentary

on these.

> Doesn't the term vij~neyam come into it? This is usually translated

as

> 'knowable' but also means 'to be understood or recognised'. Anyway,

this may

> be beside the point. What I was wondering is, could shankara be

being

> ironic? i.e. ignorance in the deep sleep state consists of not

knowing that

> there is anything there. Twisting this around to 'knowing that

there is

> nothing (but the Self) there' gives us the state of true knowledge.

Of

> course it is hardly the same thing but is an interesting observation

> (perhaps). It does seem to me that, when discussing topics such as

this, we

> do need to be ever so careful about *exactly* what is said by the

original

> Sanskrit. We cannot rely on loose translations.

>

> I would like to ask Stig (excellent post, incidentally

on 'avidya'!) what

> exactly is this word 'blja'? I assume it is in shankara's

commentary on V.

> 89 since it is not in any of gauDapAda's original material. I

cannot find it

> in Monier-Williams. Can you quote the Sanskrit sentence in which it

is used?

>

> Incidentally, a metaphor used by Francis Lucille regarding

the 'states of

> consciousness' is that of a rock out of which faces have been

carved.

> (Incidentally, I would add my commendations to those of Greg and

Warwick

> regarding his worth as a teacher.) We normally see only the faces

but, if we

> look carefully, we eventually realise that there is only the rock,

the faces

> are merely aspects of it. The faces are the three 'states of

consciousness';

> the rock itself is turIyA, the 'background' upon which the 'states'

are

> manifest and our true nature, the only real vantage point for the

witnessing

> of the 'three states'. As has been pointed out by others, all that

we are

> discussing, thinking, observing etc. now is from the vantage point

of a

> single state, itself as illusory as the other two.

>

> Sorry if this level of detail is too much for some. I appreciate

Warwick's

> point about these discussions often seeming to be too academic and

losing

> sight of practicality and the aims of advaita. However, there is a

danger of

> failing to appreciate the message of the great AchArya-s if we

totally

> misunderstand a key concept. Anyway, it's interesting isn't it? And

what the

> hell are we here for otherwise?

>

> sukhaM chara,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Fascinating discussions initiated by the post on adhyAsa.

Frustrating that I

> haven't had time to get more involved. I still haven't caught up

with the

> most recent digests.

>

> I just wanted to throw in a thought regarding the 'seed form' of

ignorance

> in the deep sleep state. I would really like to go back to the

Sanskrit of

> verses 87-89 of gauDapAda's alAtashAnti and shankara's commentary

on these.

> Doesn't the term vij~neyam come into it? This is usually translated

as

> 'knowable' but also means 'to be understood or recognised'. Anyway,

this may

> be beside the point. What I was wondering is, could shankara be

being

> ironic? i.e. ignorance in the deep sleep state consists of not

knowing that

> there is anything there. Twisting this around to 'knowing that

there is

> nothing (but the Self) there' gives us the state of true knowledge.

Of

> course it is hardly the same thing but is an interesting observation

> (perhaps). It does seem to me that, when discussing topics such as

this, we

 

Namaste,

 

Ignorance is bliss and that it is it. Deep sleep is the continous

thought of nothing, the first stage of the dream of illusion. If

one 'knew' then one would be awake and all this world etc would

disappear as the dream fades when you wake in the

morning....ONS..Tony, In the end sankara fed up with argumentation

etc said 'bhaja govindam'.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair

 

The "Sculptures in the Rock" metaphor is contained in Sri Krishna Menon's little

bok called ATMA - DARSHAN. I'll reproduce it here.

 

4. Different stages of illumination.

 

 

 

1.. He whose mind is captivated by the beauty of a figure sculptured in a

piece of rock, forgets even the fact of the rock being its background.

 

 

2.. When he rises above this captivation and looks at the figure, he sees the

background, rock, which supports the figure.

 

 

3.. When the rock thus receives attention, rock is seen also in the figure,

and later on the figure is seen as nothing other than rock.

 

 

4. Enlightenment of truth also comes in this manner. Consciousness

becomes dimmed chiefly through one's captivation and abiding interest in

external objects.

 

 

 

5.. When one outgrows this interest and looks at the objects it will be found

that they rise and abide in Consciousness alone.

 

 

6.. When the Consciousness thus begins to receive due attention, it becomes

revealed in the objects as well, and they themselves will in due course become

transformed into Consciousness.

 

 

7.. It is the realisation of oneself and the entire world as one Consciousness

that is known as realisation of Truth.

 

 

Personally, I can't see that it's any superior to the gold in gold ornaments

metaphor, but different people find different metaphors are more accessible.

 

 

 

I find the very first metaphor, the "snake and rope", difficult to really

understand.

 

Maybe someone here could help me? What is the symbol for consciousness in that

metaphor, and what do the other items represent?

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Warwick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

madathilnair

advaitin

Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:59 AM

Re: Irony of deep sleep

 

 

Coming to Francis Lucille's metaphor (faces on the rock), will you

please enlighten us if this metaphor is any better than the one we

have in gold and gold ornaments? I believe you have some special

reason to highlight it now in this avidya context.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Fascinating discussions initiated by the post on adhyAsa.

Frustrating that I

> haven't had time to get more involved. I still haven't caught up

with the

> most recent digests.

>

> I just wanted to throw in a thought regarding the 'seed form' of

ignorance

> in the deep sleep state. I would really like to go back to the

Sanskrit of

> verses 87-89 of gauDapAda's alAtashAnti and shankara's commentary

on these.

> Doesn't the term vij~neyam come into it? This is usually translated

as

> 'knowable' but also means 'to be understood or recognised'. Anyway,

this may

> be beside the point. What I was wondering is, could shankara be

being

> ironic? i.e. ignorance in the deep sleep state consists of not

knowing that

> there is anything there. Twisting this around to 'knowing that

there is

> nothing (but the Self) there' gives us the state of true knowledge.

Of

> course it is hardly the same thing but is an interesting observation

> (perhaps). It does seem to me that, when discussing topics such as

this, we

> do need to be ever so careful about *exactly* what is said by the

original

> Sanskrit. We cannot rely on loose translations.

>

> I would like to ask Stig (excellent post, incidentally

on 'avidya'!) what

> exactly is this word 'blja'? I assume it is in shankara's

commentary on V.

> 89 since it is not in any of gauDapAda's original material. I

cannot find it

> in Monier-Williams. Can you quote the Sanskrit sentence in which it

is used?

>

> Incidentally, a metaphor used by Francis Lucille regarding

the 'states of

> consciousness' is that of a rock out of which faces have been

carved.

> (Incidentally, I would add my commendations to those of Greg and

Warwick

> regarding his worth as a teacher.) We normally see only the faces

but, if we

> look carefully, we eventually realise that there is only the rock,

the faces

> are merely aspects of it. The faces are the three 'states of

consciousness';

> the rock itself is turIyA, the 'background' upon which the 'states'

are

> manifest and our true nature, the only real vantage point for the

witnessing

> of the 'three states'. As has been pointed out by others, all that

we are

> discussing, thinking, observing etc. now is from the vantage point

of a

> single state, itself as illusory as the other two.

>

> Sorry if this level of detail is too much for some. I appreciate

Warwick's

> point about these discussions often seeming to be too academic and

losing

> sight of practicality and the aims of advaita. However, there is a

danger of

> failing to appreciate the message of the great AchArya-s if we

totally

> misunderstand a key concept. Anyway, it's interesting isn't it? And

what the

> hell are we here for otherwise?

>

> sukhaM chara,

>

> Dennis

 

 

 

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]

Hi Warwick,

 

Thanks for sending the extract from Atma Darshan. I was going to do exactly

the same but obviously you're faster at typing than I am! I agree the

metaphor is effectively the same as gold/ring - clay/pot etc. I personally

prefer it though because it supports the fact there is nothing other than

the rock (Self). In the case of ring and gold for example, you have visions

of a ring on someone's finger, having to melt it down etc. i.e. the ring is

just one object among many others. In the rock metaphor, you can imagine

there is only rock with the faces sculpted out of it.

 

The rope-snake metaphor is, however, sublime when comprehensively analysed.

Sadananda gave a series of excellent posts on it from Shankara's analysis of

adhyAsa in the introduction to the Brahmasutra. If you have problems with

the Sanskrit terms however, as many do, I rewrote all of this with

Sadananda's permission and have now incorporated into my website at

www.advaita.org.uk if you fancy reading it. All will be explained (though

there is a fair bit to read).

 

Regards,

 

dennis

[Guest guest]

Hullo Dennis

 

You know, when I first read the sculpture-rock metaphor I visualised a sculpture

carved into the face of a rock - The carvings at Mount Rushmore would be a

larger example of the kind of thing that I have in mind. This makes it easier to

see how the attention could first be captivated by the form of the carving but,

if it returned to the substance of the carving, would see that the carving is

only rock.

 

I looked at your website. It is very good, congratulations, but I didn't find

more than a passing reference to the snake/rope metaphor.

 

Regards

Warwick

-

Dennis Waite

advaitin

Friday, March 08, 2002 7:05 AM

RE: Irony of Deep Sleep

 

 

 

Hi Warwick,

 

Thanks for sending the extract from Atma Darshan. I was going to do exactly

the same but obviously you're faster at typing than I am! I agree the

metaphor is effectively the same as gold/ring - clay/pot etc. I personally

prefer it though because it supports the fact there is nothing other than

the rock (Self). In the case of ring and gold for example, you have visions

of a ring on someone's finger, having to melt it down etc. i.e. the ring is

just one object among many others. In the rock metaphor, you can imagine

there is only rock with the faces sculpted out of it.

 

The rope-snake metaphor is, however, sublime when comprehensively analysed.

Sadananda gave a series of excellent posts on it from Shankara's analysis of

adhyAsa in the introduction to the Brahmasutra. If you have problems with

the Sanskrit terms however, as many do, I rewrote all of this with

Sadananda's permission and have now incorporated into my website at

www.advaita.org.uk if you fancy reading it. All will be explained (though

there is a fair bit to read).

 

Regards,

 

dennis

 

 

 

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]

Hullo Dennis

 

I went back to your website and I took the link to adhyAsa in The Real.

Wow! Great stuff! I will print it out and read it at my leisure. It is a bit

complicated but has tremendous promise.

 

You know, (please forgive me if I express myself clumsily or in illogical

fashion) I once "saw" that everything that we would ordinarily call "a separate

action" is connected with everything else, and that every action, no matter how

horrible it might be when viewed from the usual perspective, is in fact an

expression of love, is an act of "giving", yes, I think that's not a bad word,

"giving". Now, it is not something I can explain, or justify, but I don't doubt

that it was a true vision. Hence I'm a bit sceptical with political or

eco-fundamentalist plans to "save the world", and it strikes a chord when people

like Ramesh Balsekar and Francis Lucille say that we can relax, because

everything is exactly as it must be, is perfect in fact.

 

Do the scriptures, does Advaita, have anything to say about this?

 

Anything you have to say would be appreciated.

 

Regards

 

Warwick

-

Dennis Waite

advaitin

Friday, March 08, 2002 7:05 AM

RE: Irony of Deep Sleep

 

 

 

Hi Warwick,

 

Thanks for sending the extract from Atma Darshan. I was going to do exactly

the same but obviously you're faster at typing than I am!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

Sorry for my late reply to your question.

> what

> exactly is this word 'blja'? I assume it is in shankara's

commentary on V.

> 89 since it is not in any of gauDapAda's original material. I

cannot find it

> in Monier-Williams. Can you quote the Sanskrit sentence in

which it is used?

>

 

I believe that the meaning itself of the word bIja (biija) has

already been explained by Sri Madathil-ji: "seed, semen, germ,

element, primary cause or principle, source, origin, truth as

seed cause of being etc."

Yes, biija is mentioned in Shankara´s bhashya on Gaudapada´s

kArikA, namely in 1.11. Unfortunatley, I do not have access to

the Sanskrit edition of this bhashya. Maybe someone else could

help?

 

Very best wishes

Stig Lundgren