Waking & Dream - an objective outlook

[Guest guest]

All words arise with relative meanings. Realm of time and space too are

different because of Avidya. Hence waking state and dream state appear as our

state

of existence.

"OUR WAKING STATE" carries a word "our" which is ASMITA (ie a mode of

avidya). We all keep saying waking state as "our" experience because of clinging

to

"our" waking state. All such words arise in mind because mind is Avidya's

playground. Awareness of this Avidya and its various modes--- asmita, raga ,

Dvesha, Abhinivesha is a happening. When this understanding happens, then there

is

no need of a reference point as "my" waking state. The (universal)

consciousness attains the waking state as a thought.

All individual waking or dream states are in minds.That Oneness Awareness

continues to exist regardless of all states of mind yet mind does not realize

it.

When mind becomes calm (zero), there is no individual or seperate reference

state such as waking state or dream state.

Caution:

All words written here are relative and hence they carry relative meanings to

all who think they are living.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

> But atleast we know being the students of shAstra, the true

> nature of ours ultimately something which transcends all

> these three states.

 

Bhaskarji, obviously we are coming from different directions, but I

have one question...

 

When you see a cow in a dream and in the waking state, you recognize

that it is the same animal. In deep sleep, you do not see anything.

Yet when you wake up and see a cow you are able to recognize it as

the same animal that you'd seen before you had had the deep sleep.

What is it that persists through the deep sleep state that makes you

recognize a cow as a cow? What is it that is not effaced in the

nirguna state of deep sleep, and by means of which you recognise cows

as cows always?

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

> But atleast we know being the students of shAstra,

> the true nature of ours ultimately something which transcends

> all these three states. shankara beautifully explains

> this in Itareya shruti bhashya. He says, though we are in

> waking state & doing shAstra & loukika vyavahAra it is still

> in the realm of avidya. Hence we've to treat jAgrat

> also as good as dream.

 

> prabhuji, to validate pramANa, first we need to sit in the

> seat of pramAtrutva & have to keep something for pramEya

> to know it.. is it not??

> But shankara says pramAna, pramEya vyavahAra itself is

> in avidyA kshEtra. Pls. note we are not after Atman's

> pramAtrutva here, we are doing jignAsa about sAkshi to

> even this pramAtrutva in us.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Bhaskarji, obviously we are coming from different directions,

 

bhaskar :

 

Hope there is a meeting point somewhere :-))

 

 

CN prabhuji:

 

but I have one question...

 

When you see a cow in a dream and in the waking state, you recognize

that it is the same animal. In deep sleep, you do not see anything.

Yet when you wake up and see a cow you are able to recognize it as

the same animal that you'd seen before you had had the deep sleep.

What is it that persists through the deep sleep state that makes you

recognize a cow as a cow? What is it that is not effaced in the

nirguna state of deep sleep, and by means of which you recognise cows

as cows always?

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, basically your question boils down to smruti & continuity of

recognition of objects in waking world inspite of its absence in deep sleep

state. Obviously the answer is our ever present chaitanya which is witness

to all the three pAdAs of self i.e. vishva, taijasa & praAjna giving the

knowledge of continuity. This is applicable not only to waking world, it

is equally applicable to our dream world as well. In dream, as a dreamer

we dont say the object we are perceiving is *created* first time in that

particular time & space...we recognise cows as cows & never doubt its

previous existence is it not?? Further, you are telling based on previous

waking recognition we are perceiving objects as it is in subsequent waking

state of ours..so you are agreeing smruti of our previous waking states are

the cause of *correct recognition of objects* in subsequent waking states

inspite of no mind state of deep sleep...likewise can you explain me on

which previous smruti dreamer correctly recognising his dream cow?? it

cannot be waking vAsana-s coz. I've already explained the problems in

accepting it. do you agree these smruti-s of dreamer gained from his/her

previous dream smruti-s?? pls. clarify.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> CN:

> When you see a cow in a dream and in the waking state, you recognize

> that it is the same animal. In deep sleep, you do not see anything.

> Yet when you wake up and see a cow you are able to recognize it as

> the same animal that you'd seen before you had had the deep sleep.

> What is it that persists through the deep sleep state that makes you

> recognize a cow as a cow? What is it that is not effaced in the

> nirguna state of deep sleep, and by means of which you recognise

> cows as cows always?

>

> Bhaskarji :

>

> prabhuji, basically your question boils down to smruti &

> continuity of recognition of objects in waking world inspite

> of its absence in deep sleep state. Obviously the answer is

> our ever present chaitanya which is witness to all the three

> pAdAs of self i.e. vishva, taijasa & praAjna giving the

> knowledge of continuity.

 

CN:

 

Bhaskarji, I agree with you so far... there is a meeting point after

all! :-)

 

Bhaskarji:

> In dream, as a dreamer we dont say the object we are perceiving

> is *created* first time in that particular time & space...we

> recognise cows as cows & never doubt its previous existence

> is it not?? Further, you are telling based on previous

> waking recognition we are perceiving objects as it is in

> subsequent waking state of ours..so you are agreeing smruti

> of our previous waking states are the cause of *correct

> recognition of objects* in subsequent waking states

> inspite of no mind state of deep sleep...

 

CN:

 

I was not asking about the generative causes for seeing cows in dream

and waking states; I was asking about the structure of cognition, and

the entity in this structure that makes us recognize things. When you

say that it is the ever-present chaitanya that makes us recognize

cows in both the dream and waking states, you are in effect saying

that this chaitanya has something in it that is not obliterated in

the state of deep sleep and which is the means by which we recognise

cows. What is the name for this 'thing' in chaitanya by means of

which we recognize cows?

 

 

Bhaskarji:

> ... likewise can you

> explain me on which previous smruti dreamer correctly

> recognising his dream cow?? it cannot be waking vAsana-s

> coz. I've already explained the problems in accepting it.

> do you agree these smruti-s of dreamer gained from his/her

> previous dream smruti-s?? pls. clarify.

 

It is recognised by that 'thing' which I have asked you to name above.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

praNAm CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Do you play chess prabhuji?? your attacking is very good :-))

 

CN prabhuji:

 

I was not asking about the generative causes for seeing cows in dream

and waking states; I was asking about the structure of cognition, and

the entity in this structure that makes us recognize things. When you

say that it is the ever-present chaitanya that makes us recognize

cows in both the dream and waking states, you are in effect saying

that this chaitanya has something in it that is not obliterated in

the state of deep sleep and which is the means by which we recognise

cows. What is the name for this 'thing' in chaitanya by means of

which we recognize cows?

 

bhaskar:

 

it was only rhetorical statement which I made in my last mail...you were

asking me the continuity of smruti-s in a waker, for that I said it is

Atman in whose presence all these things happening. prabhuji, it does not

mean Atman carrying a separate 2 different memory boxes to give feed the

information to vishva & taijasa. Its been said just to show the Adhidaivic

aspects of Atman in order to just negate his restricted reality to only

waking nature of jIvAtman. Our true svarUpa is neither waker nor dreamer

in the ultimate reality, we can see this in mundaka shruti itself where it

says not of inward consciousness, not of outward consciousness, not of

consciousness in either direction, (kindly refer Sri Jay prabhuji's mail on

this) not a mass of consciousness, neither consciousness nor

unconsciousness which clearly negates all contact of states of

consciousness and declares that Atman is free from all specific features.

Shankara while commenting on this 12th mantra of mAndukya shruti points out

that Atman as being essentially the pure OmkAra devoid of the distinction

of the name & the named.

 

So prabhuji, bottom line is nothing line *thing* in chaitanya...it is only

from adhyArOpa drushti we are giving avasthA to Atman.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

we can see this in mundaka shruti itself where it

says not of inward consciousness

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Sorry, its not mundaka it is *mAndukya shruti*

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> Do you play chess prabhuji??

 

No, I never felt an attraction for that game.

 

> your attacking is very good :-))

 

Thank you, I am a rainbow warrior! :-)

 

> it was only rhetorical statement which I made in my last mail...

> you were asking me the continuity of smruti-s in a waker, for

> that I said it is Atman in whose presence all these things

> happening. prabhuji, it does not mean Atman carrying a

> separate 2 different memory boxes to give feed the information

> to vishva & taijasa.

 

You mean that it is has only one memory chip? :-)

 

> Its been said just to show the Adhidaivic aspects of Atman

> in order to just negate his restricted reality to only

> waking nature of jIvAtman. Our true svarUpa is neither

> waker nor dreamer in the ultimate reality, we can see

> this in mundaka shruti itself where it says not of inward

> consciousness, not of outward consciousness, not of

> consciousness in either direction, (kindly refer Sri Jay

> prabhuji's mail on this) not a mass of consciousness,

> neither consciousness nor unconsciousness which clearly

> negates all contact of states of consciousness and declares

> that Atman is free from all specific features.

 

If you are speaking of the Supreme Self, then we agree on this. :-)

 

> Shankara while commenting on this 12th mantra of mAndukya

> shruti points out that Atman as being essentially the pure

> OmkAra devoid of the distinction of the name & the named.

 

We agree on this too. :-)

 

> So prabhuji, bottom line is nothing line *thing* in chaitanya..

> .it is only from adhyArOpa drushti we are giving avasthA to

> Atman.

 

Now you have lost me. I know you have been repeating this many times,

but I am unable to see how we can negate something and still say that

Advaita is non-duality.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste to All,

 

Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji has articulated very well on avasthA traya

prakriya of Advaita vedAnta. I am making my humble attempt to

understand it better and thus these queries. Any help in clarifying

them is appreciated.

 

I understand that avasthA traya prakriya forms the basic platform to

understand shruti pratipAdya siddhAnta of Atmaikattva. This is

because, as mentioned, these avastha traya is *anubhava gamya* and

thus we have to take this prakriya into consideration for final

nirNaya.

 

As Sri Bhaskar-ji says "Waking, sleep & dream states are different

from each other, this is in our experience" ;

 

Another way of looking at them is, not as different states per se.,

but, rather as different experiences of current state (if we can call

this as 'state') only. Obviously, from this state only we have real

experience of dream and sleep and that's why we can talk about them

and hold that there is such thing as 'dream' or 'sleep'. If they were

to be different states of reality partitioned from each other, then

how can we talk about other two "states" only from this 'waking

state' and not other way around? What is so special about this Waking

state? Bhaskar-ji wrote "continuity of smruti-s in a waker is due to

Atman in whose presence all these things happening". Even saying so

is nothing but object of another experience only (this knowledge is

possible because Sri.Bhaskar-ji's experience with his learning from

his master).

 

Even shruti itself is not saying that swapna and sushhupti are states

of existence/reality. When BU says 'na tu dvitiiyamasti tato.anyad.h

vibhaktiM yat.h pashyet.h' it is talking about mOksha and should not

be confused with sushhupti. Nobody takes sushhupti and mOksha to be

identical or alike, for doing so would make mOksha reversible, which

is not accepted. This difference in interpretation in different

school is lengthy one and has to do with the different readings of

the sUtra "OM jagadvyApAravarjam.h OM" (which is clubbed by Sri

Shankara with the next, "OM prakaraNAsannihitattvAchcha OM") and

we'll not go into those details here.

 

So also, when kaivalya upanishhad.h says 'sushhupti kaale sakale

viliine' is not saying that sushhupti is a state of reality.

 

Experience (& knowledge and memory) of dream and sleep are belongs to

current state only and we just labeled them as 'dream state'

or 'sleep state'. So also, we simply named our other daily

experiences (other than dream and sleep) with another label

called 'Waking' or 'illusion' etc. Nevertheless they are experiences

only.

 

The point is, those three states we think they are separate, are not

so, but three distinct type of experiences of current reality only.

Difference among them lies only in content (and along with operation

of mind/senses etc) and not in their ontological status as such.

 

Now coming to reality/unreality of our experiences;

 

Upon closer examination, it is evident that all of our experiences

have two components of reality.

1)Reality of experiences itself and 2)(un)reality of objects of such

experiences. In these two components, the former is the ontological

status and always *real* while later may or may not. If former is not

real, there wouldn't be any event of talking about such experiences

at all. Also, by implication, if former is not accepted as real, the

objects seen in waking will became unreal and objects of illusion

will became real! This is due to 'unreality of reals' and 'unreality

of unreals'.

 

For example, when we say 'I had a dream last night', what does it

mean?. First component is the very experience of seeing dream itself

and it is real and actually experienced by the dreamer in time (last

night) and space (on the bed). If this itself is unreal, it is futile

to decide anything based on that experience. Second component, the

objects of such dream may or may not be real (that depends on whom

you ask and that is not important here).

 

Further example will clarify the point. In snake-rope illusion

experience, experiencing the illusion itself is real as such while

the object/content of such experience, which is snake, is not.

Otherwise, if we deny the experience of illusion itself as unreal

while holding the snake is also unreal at the same time, that would

make the snake real, because unreality of unreal (double negation)

would be real.

 

In the case of our normal daily experiences such as experience of

perception of a pot in a broad day light, both the components of

experience are real.

 

Having said this, it is to be noted the contention regarding kArika's

stand on mithyattava of this world based on the dream. The contention

being, if the dream objects are to be claimed as unreal, the

experience of dream itself has to be real in the first place,

otherwise dream objects will become real as we have seen above. But,

if the dream experience is real, other worldly experience may as well

be real and thus world would be real. On the other hand, if reality

of world is denied, the very dream experience is also denied by

implication and thus the dream objects will become real and that

beats the non-dual objective too at the end.

 

This also applies to vyavahArika-pAramArthika levels of reality. Is

experience of vyavahArika itself real (absolutely) or not on the part

of Self (irrespective of anirvAchaniattva of objects in V)? If real,

non-dual is not met, for duality of experiencer-experienced is

preserved in final pAramArthika. If not, objects of V will become

real and so also non-dual is not achieved.

 

Any synthesis on this issue from learned members is appreciated.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

> So prabhuji, bottom line is nothing line *thing* in chaitanya..

> .it is only from adhyArOpa drushti we are giving avasthA to

> Atman.

 

Now you have lost me. I know you have been repeating this many times,

but I am unable to see how we can negate something and still say that

Advaita is non-duality.

 

bhaskar:

 

This negation of something is coz. of its time & space bound reality. But

our real svarUpa is na antah prajnA, na bahih prajnA. So to establish

non-duality of Atman, we have to negate the anAtma vastu jnAna accrued

through upAdhi-s.

When it is said Atman is distinct from the name & named, I dont see any

problem in negating the name & named in paramArtha siddhAnta prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

[Guest guest]

Namaste to All,

 

praNAms Sri Srinivas prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Srinivas prabhuji, your objections as regards to vyAvahArika satya just

reminds me Sri mAtarishvan prabhuji from vAdAvali list. He has raised same

type of objections when we were discussing about loukika & pAramArtika

drushti bhEda.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

Another way of looking at them is, not as different states per se.,

but, rather as different experiences of current state (if we can call

this as 'state') only. Obviously, from this state only we have real

experience of dream and sleep and that's why we can talk about them and

hold that there is such thing as 'dream' or 'sleep'.

 

bhaskar:

 

we cannot take it for granted that the experiences of dream & sleep are

derived from waking state only. Please note, in whichever state we see

duality & we have the distinct knowledge of knower & known, we treat that

state as waking only even though we are in dream!!. Shankara explains this

as darshana vrutti in bhAshya. This is quite evident in dream. We, as a

dreamer never think that we are going to wake up to the waking world after

dreaming!!

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

If they were to be different states of reality partitioned from each other,

then

how can we talk about other two "states" only from this 'waking state' and

not other way around?

 

bhaskar :

 

The verdict passing here about the reality of the waking is not waker per

se prabhuji, that which common to all the three states & that which

treating the all avasthA-s as vishaya jnAna (objective knowledge) cannot be

waker alone..that is the reason why I stressed my point on objective

outlook of all the three states from sAkshi view point. This sAkshi has

been described as 'asanga', 'advitIya' in shruti-s. Hence cannot be

interlinked with any particular state.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

What is so special about this Waking state? Bhaskar-ji wrote "continuity

of smruti-s in a waker is due to Atman in whose presence all these things

happening". Even saying so is nothing but object of another experience only

(this knowledge is

possible because Sri.Bhaskar-ji's experience with his learning from

his master).

 

bhaskar :

 

Ofcourse I do agree this is object of another *experience* & this

experiential knowledge (anubhavAtmaka jnAna) in waking state do telling me

that this waking experience & knowledge gained through within itself cannot

suffice & all the three avastha-s to be taken into consideration for

svarUpa nirNaya...you can see how unselfish our waking state is :-))

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

Even shruti itself is not saying that swapna and sushhupti are states

of existence/reality.

 

bhaskar :

 

but shruti asking us to treat both jAgrat & svapna with equal vision...is

it not?? see kaTha shruti.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

When BU says 'na tu dvitiiyamasti tato.anyad.h vibhaktiM yat.h pashyet.h'

it is talking about mOksha and should not be confused with sushhupti.

Nobody takes sushhupti and mOksha to be identical or alike, for doing so

would make mOksha reversible, which

is not accepted.

 

bhaskar :

 

but yAgnAvalkya, the bruhAdAraNyaka seer gives sushupti as drushtAnta for

mOksha state. I hope you know those maNtra-s.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

This difference in interpretation in different school is lengthy one and

has to do with the different readings of the sUtra "OM jagadvyApAravarjam.h

OM" (which is clubbed by Sri Shankara with the next, "OM

prakaraNAsannihitattvAchcha OM") and we'll not go into those details here.

 

bhaskar :

 

If members interested, we can take it up with kArika bhAshya for further

discussion prabhuji.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

So also, when kaivalya upanishhad.h says 'sushhupti kaale sakale viliine'

is not saying that sushhupti is a state of reality.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly refer kArika which explains about prAjna state of Atman.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

Experience (& knowledge and memory) of dream and sleep are belongs to

current state only and we just labeled them as 'dream state'

or 'sleep state'. So also, we simply named our other daily experiences

(other than dream and sleep) with another label called 'Waking' or

'illusion' etc. Nevertheless they are experiences only.

 

bhaskar :

 

Please note prabhuji, we are calling anubhavAtmaka jnAna in all the three

states as avasthA. Whole of mAndukya shruti talks about it in detail. In

kArika's Agama prakaraNa Sri gaudapAdAchArya explains beautifully how it is

illogical to hold only waker & his waking experience is real & passing

judgement on other two states i.e. svapna & nidra standing on waker's

platform. In bruhadAraNyaka vArtika Sri sureshwara says when we are in

sushupti there is no time nor space & the waker too. Then how can waker say

sushupti is his *past experience* & under which time & space frame he is

telling sushupti or nidra is his past experience ??

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

The point is, those three states we think they are separate, are not

so, but three distinct type of experiences of current reality only.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, both waking & dream states are distinct type of experience when Atman

vyAvahArically sits in the seat of waker & dreamer.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

Difference among them lies only in content (and along with operation

of mind/senses etc) and not in their ontological status as such.

 

Now coming to reality/unreality of our experiences;

 

Upon closer examination, it is evident that all of our experiences

have two components of reality.

1)Reality of experiences itself and 2)(un)reality of objects of such

experiences. In these two components, the former is the ontological

status and always *real* while later may or may not. If former is not

real, there wouldn't be any event of talking about such experiences

at all. Also, by implication, if former is not accepted as real, the

objects seen in waking will became unreal and objects of illusion

will became real! This is due to 'unreality of reals' and 'unreality

of unreals'.

 

bhaskar :

 

I am not able to get your point here prabhuji...can you elaborate...

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

For example, when we say 'I had a dream last night', what does it

mean?. First component is the very experience of seeing dream itself

and it is real and actually experienced by the dreamer in time (last

night) and space (on the bed). If this itself is unreal, it is futile

to decide anything based on that experience.

 

bhaskar :

 

you missed the subtle point here prabhuji...for a dreamer, the time of

dreaming is not precisely *last night* it may be either night or day or

whichever time he is witnessing at the time of dream is it not?? & so is

the case with your space example..dreamer never ever thinks that he is

perceiving dreaming world & doing all the actions by sleeping on the

bed...he (dreamer) is as active as waker when he is in thick of action in

dream. So, the time (last night) & space (on the bed)what you are telling

is from waker's point of view & it has reality as long as you are waker &

by any stretch of your imagination you cannot drag this waker's time &

space to the dreamer & his dreaming world.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

Second component, the objects of such dream may or may not be real (that

depends on whom you ask and that is not important here).

 

bhaskar :

 

this is very important prabhuji...for a dreamer his dreaming world's

objects are real..he cannot appease his dreaming hungry by eating the

waking world's delicacies :-)) He needs food of dream to satisfy his dream

hungry. So both states are real & equally important in its own realm.

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

Further example will clarify the point. In snake-rope illusion

experience, experiencing the illusion itself is real as such while

the object/content of such experience, which is snake, is not.

 

bhaskar :

 

again this statement is obfuscating...without snake illusion in the object

how can you gain the *real* experience of snake.. which is the motivating

factor here for your real experience either it should be snake or rope is

it not??

 

srinivas prabhuji:

 

Otherwise, if we deny the experience of illusion itself as unreal

while holding the snake is also unreal at the same time, that would

make the snake real, because unreality of unreal (double negation)

would be real.

 

bhaskar:

 

so in vEdAnta asat + asat = satya... this is what you are telling here

prabhuji??

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

In the case of our normal daily experiences such as experience of

perception of a pot in a broad day light, both the components of

experience are real.

 

bhaskar:

 

In broad sun light we see mirage on dry land we should treat it as real, in

broad sun light we *see* the blueness of the sky we should treat it as

real, sun rise & set we see it & pratyaksha gOchara so we should accept

that sun is travelling every day..this is what you want to say about

reality prabhuji??

 

Srinivas prabhuji:

 

Having said this, it is to be noted the contention regarding kArika's

stand on mithyattava of this world based on the dream. The contention

being, if the dream objects are to be claimed as unreal, the

experience of dream itself has to be real in the first place,

otherwise dream objects will become real as we have seen above. But,

if the dream experience is real, other worldly experience may as well

be real and thus world would be real. On the other hand, if reality

of world is denied, the very dream experience is also denied by

implication and thus the dream objects will become real and that

beats the non-dual objective too at the end.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, first of all I want you to explain what is *reality* according to

your vEdAntic terminology. After getting your *idea* of reality, it would

be easier for us to understand your suffixes of reality to various terms

:-))

 

Further, it has been already said that avasthAtraya prakriya's sole

interest is not just to analyse the states as IT IS..but to realise our

svarUpa which is sAkshi to all the avasthA.

 

Srinivasa prabhuji:

 

This also applies to vyavahArika-pAramArthika levels of reality. Is

experience of vyavahArika itself real (absolutely) or not on the part

of Self (irrespective of anirvAchaniattva of objects in V)? If real,

non-dual is not met, for duality of experiencer-experienced is

preserved in final pAramArthika. If not, objects of V will become

real and so also non-dual is not achieved.

 

bhaskar :

 

Non duality is not an achievable state.. it is self evident & self

established..it is true that we cannot achieve the ultimate reality through

mundane tarka without shrutyanugrahIta sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava.

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskar-ji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> This negation of something is coz. of its time & space

> bound reality. But our real svarUpa is na antah prajnA,

> na bahih prajnA. So to establish non-duality of Atman,

> we have to negate the anAtma vastu jnAna accrued through

> upAdhi-s. When it is said Atman is distinct from the

> name & named, I dont see any problem in negating the

> name & named in paramArtha siddhAnta prabhuji.

 

 

As I see it Prabhuji, the upadhi-ness brought about by name and form

is what is really negated when you negate the upadhi-s, and then the

name and form gains identity with Brahman. You will have to excuse me

for this short reply as I have to leave for Chennai soon.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan