self realization

[Guest guest]

The most important objective is to realize the Atman within. The

means to attain it are chanting the names of God and self-control

that is the control of the activities of the five senses and of the

mind, and meditation. If you observe each thought as it arises in the

mind and subsides in its Source, the mind will come under control and

will become quiet. It is the duty of ideal men to live with mind

restrained in this manner.

 

What is that you should attain and where is it? (As you practice

control of the mind as stated above), you should turn your attention

to the Source itself from which thoughts arise and practice fixing

your mind there (that is to say, to bring the mind back to the point

of concentration, whenever it is distracted, reduce progressively the

frequency of such interruptions and focus the mind in the Source).

This practice is called (in yoga

terminology) "Dharana,Sthambanam," or concentration. Gradually the

distractions will be eliminated completely and the mind will stay

fixed at one point (i.e., flow uninterruptedly towards the object of

meditation viz., the Source of thought). When this is accomplished

and it extends continuously or unbrokenly, it is called "Dhyana" or

contemplation. When this practice becomes perfect (and reaches its

culmination when the mind is transcended, i.e., its subjective nature

of self awareness disappears as it were, and the subject-object

relationship dissolves resulting in their fusion in Consciousness,

whose content is only the Source which is object of meditation), it

is called "Samadhi". Every one should adopt this discipline of

Samadhi Yoga (if spiritual progress is to be achieved). Our aim is to

realize (in this way) the Supreme Being who is called "That" (in the

Vedanta texts) which is Pure Awareness. The goal of human birth is to

realize this Most High who is inside the body. So let us not waste

even a moment of our days, but devote all the time to the

enquiry "who am I" and in this way realize Him.

 

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS ENQUIRY? IT IS TO REALISE "I AM NOT THE

BODY, NOR THE Pranas (life breath), nor mind, Buddhi and other

internal organs". Intuition of that Knowledge (Pure Consciousness)

which is the Witness of even Buddhi (the discrimininative and

deciding faculty), that exists beyond the knowledge obtained through

the five senses (with which we cognise the physical world) is

Absolute Bliss. This is the Supreme Being. Let us try to realize it!

[Guest guest]

I missed out on the earlier discussion of prasthAna traya prakriyA -

hopefully I am not too late to put in an odd comment or two. I put these

questions via mail to D. B. Gangolli's publisher several months ago but have

not had any reply. (He wrote the book 'The Magic Jewel of Intuition' which

is specifically on this topic.) I have left the text unchanged, so that it

refers to the book, but this is precisely the subject now being discussed in

the group.

 

The first question relates to lucid dreams. The book claims that dream and

waking states are quite separate and counters the arguments put by a Dr.

Ramnarayan (in a book which I have been unable to locate). I have myself

experienced this however in the following manner:

 

Being interested in experiencing a lucid dream, I considered what were my

most frequent dreams containing elements unlikely to be experienced in the

waking state. I concluded that I often dreamt of travelling by train,

something that I very rarely do in waking life. Accordingly I decided that

the next time I had such a dream, I would realise (in the dream) that it was

a dream.

 

I did subsequently have a number of such dreams but failed to become lucid.

Eventually however, there came a dream in which this occurred and I did

recognise (in the dream) that "I must be dreaming." I was then able

(apparently) to take conscious control of the dream and decide what would

happen next, directing situations in ways that would be literally impossible

during waking and had never been possible previously in dreams. Also the

vividness of the dream was markedly greater than any normal dream. This

certainly seemed to be an example of the waking ego taking control of a

dream situation.

 

I have also experienced the situation (in the dream) where there was the

realisation that I was about to awaken. A lucid dream technique to

counteract this is to turn around on the spot (in the dream) like a whirling

dervish. I attempted this and succeeded, though the dream then ceased to be

lucid. Here, there seemed to be a clear dream memory of something I had read

in the waking state having an effect in the dream.

 

The other question relates to the mutual exclusivity of the three states

which is referred to in the book. It is supposed that the waking world

effectively ceases to exist in deep sleep (and is supplanted by the dream

world during the dream state). My question is: what would happen if I put a

time-bomb under my bed before I went to sleep, set to explode in two hours

and (from the waking point of view) went to sleep for four hours?

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

---

 

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

    Pranams to you all.

In advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite> wrote:

  

Dear Sri Dennis Waite,

         The word/letter " I " has appeared in quite a good number of

places.The "I" poses intersting questions, the "I" wants answers to

those questions, the "I" wants to place a time bomb below the cot and

sleep, etc., etc.

 

          Will it not be fruitful to know who that "I" is, ascertain

its true nature and then afterwards engage in all these activities?

       A SAGE, in one of the upanishads, proclaims : When the Brahman

           is realized, the knot of the heart is cut, all the doubts

           are completely removed without any trace, there will be

           the ending of the karmas.

      Many of your postings are very enjoyable and educative.

    With best wishes and warm regards,

          Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

You have company.  It is mostly in flying dreams that I realize that

I am dreaming. Then I have to fight back not to wake up.  Often, I

succeed and take conscious control over the dream enjoying the flying.

 

The other situation when I suspect I am dreaming occurs mostly during

afternoon siesta or early in the morning when there is light falling

on the eyes (perhaps half-open).  These dreams are gruesome.  I may

dream I am going blind and groping in darkness.  If there are noises

around, I would know that I am dreaming and yell out to those who are

around to wake me up from the nightmare calling their attention to me

by beating on the bed with my hands and legs. (The truth is that

actually there occurs no shouting or limb movement.).  Experts say

that the inability to wake up in such situations is due to motor

paralysis in sleep.

 

In such dreams, the head and body often become something akin to a

glowing Rontgen tube with loud ringing and clanking in the ears. 

Initially, such dreams used to cause panic.  But, I seem now to have

overgrown the fright.  My deity plus vedanta comes to my rescue here

and I am often able to convert such gruesome dreams into pleasant

experiences like prayer, advaitic contemplation, flying or levitating

etc.  I may  then either relapse into another peaceful dream or wake

up or even have a dream of waking up.

 

Now about your bomb question. I can't to that theory of

mutual exclusivity of 'states' as I tend to see sleep and dream as

experiences occurring in waking.  If you are able to sleep for four

hours with the knowledge of that thing underneath the bed, then the

bomb explosion at the end of the second hour, if it is really

effective, will not be your experience.  If vedanta is right, you

(Consciousness) will begin (or rather continue) ticking some place-

some point of time.  That pack of awareness may have entirely

different and imponderable contents. Thus, your continuity is a

certain scenario from a vedantin's viewpoint.  The bomb is

forgettable.

 

It is this continuity that avastAtraya teaches.  It is actually not

avastAtraya prakriya.  It is sarvAvastA prakriya.  Sankara lays

particular stress by using the term 'sarvAswavastAswapi' (meaning in

all stages, states, phases, experiences, conditions etc.) in

DakshinAmUrthi StotraM.

 

Sw. ChinmayAnandaji's translation of the verse in question is given

below:

 

"He, who, through the auspicious Sign of Knowledge (GnAnamudra)

reveals to his devotees His own Self - which persists in all stages

of age (childhood, boyhood, youth and old age), in all states

(waking, dreaming and deep sleep) and in all other conditions - and

who constantly manifests Himself inwardly as "I" .... to Him, the

Divine Teacher, Sri DakshinAmUrthi is this Prostration."

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite> wrote:

 

 

> Eventually however, there came a dream in which this occurred and I

did

> recognise (in the dream) that "I must be dreaming." I was then able

> (apparently) to take conscious control of the dream and decide what

would

> happen next, directing situations in ways that would be literally

impossible

> during waking and had never been possible previously in dreams.

 

..........>

> The other question relates to the mutual exclusivity of the three

states

> which is referred to in the book. It is supposed that the waking

world

> effectively ceases to exist in deep sleep (and is supplanted by the

dream

> world during the dream state). My question is: what would happen if

I put a

> time-bomb under my bed before I went to sleep, set to explode in

two hours

> and (from the waking point of view) went to sleep for four hours?

[Guest guest]

Dear Murthy-ji,

 

You commented:

 

"         The word/letter " I " has appeared in quite a good number of

places.The "I" poses intersting questions, the "I" wants answers to

those questions, the "I" wants to place a time bomb below the cot and

sleep, etc., etc.

 

          Will it not be fruitful to know who that "I" is, ascertain

its true nature and then afterwards engage in all these activities?"

 

Your point is noted but, if you don't mind my saying so, is presumptive and

not very constructive. We are all aware that language is limited and

necessarily dualistic. Most of us are also, I think, beyond the point where

we need to phrase our sentences in cumbersome and unnatural ways in order to

avoid the use of clearly dualistic terms. I could have said "this apparent

discursive mind considered" and "this intellect concluded" and indicated

that "all of this discussion is purely at the level of vyavahAra" but I

(this apparent ego) thought this unnecessary. If there is to be any dialogue

at all on this discussion group (which is what it is for, after all), then

language is a necessary evil. It is also one of the most valuable tools we

have for loosening the ignorance that (apparently) holds us in thrall.

 

A suspicious mind might conjecture that you were changing the subject so as

to avoid the question...

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Nair-ji,

 

I can appreciate your perception that we "see sleep and dream as experiences

occurring in waking." But this is not (as I understand it) how the prakriyA

argues. Rather, the idea is that we do not perceive the dream or deep sleep

with our waking senses so how can we claim that these states occur in

waking? By analogy, we seem to see a separate world in the dream but do not

claim (in the dream) that the waking state is part of that world (but might

equally well do so). Just as we do not think that a particular dream world

continues to exist once the related dream has ended, why should we believe

that the waking world continues once we are asleep?

 

The prakriyA states that there are separate waking, dreaming and sleeping

egos and each is applicable only to its own realm. It cannot be valid for

the waking ego to make statements about the world that is actually only

experienced by the dreaming ego. Whatever your waking mind might think about

the dream and sleep states is only supposition and imagination. The position

is that the three states are mutually independent and have no relationship

with each other. Thus, any reasoning about the nature of reality has to take

equal account of all three states.

 

Anyway, that is my understanding of the prakriyA - whether or not you

to it is another matter entirely! Though, of course, as Subbu-ji

pointed out, it is all just a teaching method anyway in the usual Advaita

style of adhyAropa apavAda.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite> wrote:

>

> Hi Nair-ji,

>

> I can appreciate your perception that we "see sleep and dream as

experiences

> occurring in waking." But this is not (as I understand it) how the

prakriyA

> argues. Rather, the idea is that we do not perceive the dream or

deep sleep

> with our waking senses so how can we claim that these states occur

in

> waking? By analogy, we seem to see a separate world in the dream

but do not

> claim (in the dream) that the waking state is part of that world

(but might

 

Namaste,

 

Just to continue;

IMHO, The 'I' believing the world exists while it sleeps is an

attachment a grasping mechanism. For the 'I' identifies strongly

with the world and is reinforced in its belief of its own existence.

By believing that which it is attached to exists in deep sleep. This

is an anchor for the ego and an impediment to realisation. For it is

the mind believing in the mind instead of using a thorn to remove a

thorn.............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

<<<  Just to continue;

IMHO, The 'I' believing the world exists while it sleeps is an

attachment a grasping mechanism. For the 'I' identifies strongly

with the world and is reinforced in its belief of its own existence.

By believing that which it is attached to exists in deep sleep. This

is an anchor for the ego and an impediment to realisation. For it is

the mind believing in the mind instead of using a thorn to remove a

thorn.............ONS...Tony.>>>

 

Thank you, Tony, but the purpose of discussing this topic (at least from my

point of view) is to understand the logic of the prakriyA, not to use it to

undermine the ego. And I think that the two go hand in hand to a large

degree. All of these various methods exist in order to help the mind remove

the ignorance (or the thorn to remove the thorn if you like) but unless we

understand the method correctly, we may be trying to remove the thorn with a

sledgehammer!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite> wrote:

>

> <<<  Just to continue;

> IMHO, The 'I' believing the world exists while it sleeps is an

> attachment a grasping mechanism. For the 'I' identifies strongly

> with the world and is reinforced in its belief of its own

existence.

> By believing that which it is attached to exists in deep sleep.

This

> is an anchor for the ego and an impediment to realisation. For it

is

> the mind believing in the mind instead of using a thorn to remove a

> thorn.............ONS...Tony.>>>

>

> Thank you, Tony, but the purpose of discussing this topic (at

least from my

> point of view) is to understand the logic of the prakriyA, not to

use it to

> undermine the ego. And I think that the two go hand in hand to a

large

> degree. All of these various methods exist in order to help the

mind remove

> the ignorance (or the thorn to remove the thorn if you like) but

unless we

> understand the method correctly, we may be trying to remove the

thorn with a

> sledgehammer!

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennis-ji,

 

Perhaps you are right, but one doesn't have to understand the

molecular structure of water to get out of the swimming pool. One

just climbs out with indifference to the water..'Who am I', is

stepping out...........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> Namaste Dennis-ji,

>

> Perhaps you are right, but one doesn't have to understand the

> molecular structure of water to get out of the swimming pool. One

> just climbs out with indifference to the water..'Who am I', is

> stepping out...........ONS..Tony.

 

Namaste Tony ji,

 

Your above post is nice indeed.  In my understanding, 'Who am I' is a

very pithy instruction, profound to the core that i would boldly say

that the entire literature available in the Upanishadic lore and that

available under the Sri Ramanasram umbrella is to help one understand

that all-important teaching 'Who am I'.  It is like the Mahavakya for

example, the Tat tvam asi.  Just three words.  The whole of the

prasthana traya bhashya has come to expound the meaning of those three

words.  An attempt to implement the 'Who am I' teaching will result in

the aspirant invariably walking the paths of the triad of states and

the pancha koshas.  It is inescapable.  It is not without this

understanding that the Upanishads gave out that volume of teaching and

the Acharyas laboured to expound the same.  Just three small words!!

And as a matter of fact, the need to and the mode of being indifferent

to the 'swimming pool' also is required to be instructed; it does not

come of its own.  If it appears to have come of its own, the

implication is that the foundation work has been undertaken much

earlier and what is now visible is just the 'ready' state.  

 

Warm regards,

subbu

 

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sankarraman,

 

<<<There is validity in your question how are we sure that the waking state

remains intact in deep-sleep, thereby questioning the validity of the

judgement of the waking state of dream and sleep. But, should not one come

to that understanding in the waking state itself, that is the waking state

is realized not to exist even in that state in that perception...>>>

 

I agree with your comment, as I agreed with Tony's but this is still

avoiding the questions. I agree that one can quite well do without the

avasthA traya prakriyA altogether - it is after all only a pointer, which is

discarded as irrelevant once the message has been understood. But the

questions were ABOUT the prakriyA and its validity as a pointer, not about

the truth to which it is pointing.

 

It seems that, if we follow this attitude to its logical conclusion, we

might as well dissolve this group altogether. What is the point in talking

about all of this illusory teaching according to Shankara et al? Why not

just 'step out of the water now' and have done with it, as Tony so

eloquently puts it? In my understanding, that is the attitude of the

neo-Advaitins, not that of traditional ones. We could answer in this way to

absolutely any question that anyone may ask on this group: "What are you

asking this question for? All questions are dualistic and relate only to the

illusory phenomenal realm. Stop asking and just realize your Self now!" End

of discussion.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji;

 

I am aware of the point of view stated, and i agree that all questions

must either have answers or the need for. Answering this is all

duality certainly does not do any good to anyone.

 

I thought over the paradox of the bomb you placed here. And i believe

the problem posed is not about avasthatraya. The issue is once again

time and the mind, in my point of view. Obviously i don't have the

answer either, but may be the reflection of the idea in my mind can be

another pointer.

 

The problem of the time-bomb and the alternance of states relates to

the nature of the mental process and the forming of the mind

accordingly. As i have been reading Nisargadatta's work for some time

recently, i shall interpret this in light of what i take to be his

stand, or at least to the measure it makes sense to me.

 

Time itself is presented as a mental mode, rising from the succession

of thoughts, in other words, as the causal link between one thought

and the other, which altogether constitute the mind. Summing it up,

one thought linked to the next constitutes time. The sum of the chains

of thought with the time produced creates mind. Mind understands time

and the world to be divided in three fundamental modes of

consciousness. The link between the modes, given that they alternate,

is not reality itself (this may sound contradictory), but the chain of

thoughts, since even before the (waking) ego rises, and after the

(waking) ego has gone to sleep, it is present.

 

In deep sleep, it is present in subtle form, since the time component

(as we perceive it, rather, as we don't perceive in deep sleep) is not

present. In other words, the chain remains, but there is no movement

between one link and the next. Mind appears frozen, sustained by the

chain of thoughts, but deprived of the time component. One might ask

"how is it possible to infer (that's the delicate issue with this

view) that the chain of thoughts is present even though time is not?",

and my answer is simple, according to my views on Ramana and

Nisargadatta. If the chain of thoughts had been cut, or terminated,

elightenment would be present, since mind rises only with the unending

series of thoughts. With the chain gone, there is no individual mind,

only existence, consciousness, bliss.

 

So answering your question, you would be blown sky-high, linking the

gap in time from waking ego-to dream ego-to deep sleep-to waking ego

understanding being blown to bits, unless you reached the source of

existence and broke the chain of thoughts right before going to bed.

Then, probably (this is as far as i can say) pure awareness would

witness an illusory explosion taking place with some character named

Dennis, while remaining forever free, as undiferentiated existence,

and understanding it all to be unreal.

 

My warmest regards...

 

PS: By the way, the link between the modes IS reality itself, but this

is obscured by the chain of unending thoughts.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite> wrote:

 

 

But the

> questions were ABOUT the prakriyA and its validity as a pointer, not

about

> the truth to which it is pointing.

> Best wishes,

> 

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

While I have not followed all of the posts of this

thread, it is my understanding that the purpose of

the avasthatraya sakshi prakriya is to point out

that the Self is the 'witness' of the mind in all

three states of mental experience, waking, dream

and deep sleep.

 

What is the purpose of that?  To show that the Self

that I am is present to all experience.

 

What are the experiences which each of us has in our

daily life?  Waking, dream and deep sleep.  These are

the three states of mental experience which each of us

passes through every day.

 

Each experience negates the other.  The waking state,

negates the dream state and the deep sleep state.

The dream state negates the waking state and the

deep sleep state. And the deep sleep negates the dream

state and the waking state.

 

If a certain experience can go, and I still am,

then I am not that experience.  This can be pointed

out very simply.  If I have a happy thought, and then

the happy thought goes and is replaced by a sad

thought, have I gone anywhere, or am I still present?

 

If the happy thought were `me' (who I really am), and

the happy thought went, then I'd be gone too.  But

that is not our experience. I am present to whatever

thought arises in the mind.  When one thought leaves

and is replaced by another, I haven't gone anywhere.

 

If waking, dream and deep sleep are the three states

of experience which the mind passes through every day,

and if each state negates the other, (while I am constantly

present to all three), then by clearly seeing that this is

true through the use of the avasthatraya sakshi prakriya,

I have effectively wiped out the possibility of my Self

being my mind.

 

So it is my understanding that this prakriya is used to

show that each state (waking, dream and deep sleep) negates

the other, and I am present unchanging to all of them.

 

Like a domino effect I've wiped out the possibility

of my Self being the mind. It seems almost mathematically

provable to me.  Each state negates the next, so how can

I be any one of them?  Yet, I still am.

 

Therefore who am I?  Am I that which comes and goes

and can be negated?  Or am I that which is ever present

and cannot be negated no matter what state the mind is

passing through?

 

So that is my understanding to the use of the prakriya.

 

The way it is meant to be used to compare the various

mental states is simple (but the amazingly profound).

It is not meant to be used to compare those states in

great detail from the point of view of the various states,

but rather to see that they all negate each other, while

I still am present to each as they change.

 

Pranams to all advaitins,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi Felipe,

 

<< I thought over the paradox of the bomb you placed here. And i believe

the problem posed is not about avasthatraya. The issue is once again

time and the mind, in my point of view...

 

So answering your question, you would be blown sky-high, linking the

gap in time from waking ego-to dream ego-to deep sleep-to waking ego.>>

 

You are right that time is of the essence in respect of this question.

However, it seems that you are attempting to use only waking time to answer

and this is effectively rephrasing the question that I was asking.

 

The problem is that, though the waking ego goes to sleep in waking time, the

dream ego then takes over and it is now dream time. The dream I have might

occupy years of dream time - I might grow from a child into an old man. If I

should then pass into deep sleep, the deep-sleep ego then takes over. As you

say, here there is effectively no time since there are no thoughts and no

mind.

 

The waking mind now will claim that, after four hours of waking time the

bomb will go off, regardless of the state of the sleeper. But that is

contravening the logic of the avasthA traya prakriyA. This is the point that

I was making.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108> wrote:

> Namaste Dennis,

>

> While I have not followed all of the posts of this

> thread, it is my understanding that the purpose of

> the avasthatraya sakshi prakriya is to point out

> that the Self is the 'witness' of the mind in all

> three states of mental experience, waking, dream

> and deep sleep.

>

> What is the purpose of that?  To show that the Self

> that I am is present to all experience.

 

Namaste,

 

Sakshin ultimately eliminates the concept of an Iswara 'doing'

anything also, by showing the three states are not what they appear

but not happening at all for there is no time and time is required

for this theory. So Iswara cannot be the Sakshin if Iswarea

acts...It brings one back again to Ajativada...........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga-ji.

 

Thank you very much for that brilliant analysis of yours in post #

31551.

 

In one shot, you have answered Dennis-ji, and Mahadevaadvaita-ji who

wondered aloud if the Witness (sAkSi) weren't in the mind!

 

Well, the bone of contention was not really the purpose of the

prakriyA, about which no one has any disagreement.  What really

caused the lengthy exchange of mails was my pointing out that both

dreaming and dreamless sleep are acknowledged and appreciated only in

waking and, as such, both are only akin to 'experiences' in waking

and not 'states' totally insulated from one another as made out to be

in certain posts here.

 

Your explanation resonates well with Sankara's elucidation of the

unchanging "I" in all avastAs (states, phases or conditions) which

are ephemeral and transient.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______

 

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

>

> While I have not followed all of the posts of this

> thread, it is my understanding that the purpose of

> the avasthatraya sakshi prakriya is to point out

> that the Self is the 'witness' of the mind in all

> three states of mental experience, waking, dream

> and deep sleep.

>

> What is the purpose of that?  To show that the Self

> that I am is present to all experience.

>

> > If waking, dream and deep sleep are the three states

> of experience which the mind passes through every day,

> and if each state negates the other, (while I am constantly

> present to all three), then by clearly seeing that this is

> true through the use of the avasthatraya sakshi prakriya,

> I have effectively wiped out the possibility of my Self

> being my mind.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite> wrote:

>

> The other question relates to the mutual exclusivity of the three

states

> which is referred to in the book. It is supposed that the waking world

> effectively ceases to exist in deep sleep (and is supplanted by the

dream

> world during the dream state). My question is: what would happen if I

put a

> time-bomb under my bed before I went to sleep, set to explode in two

hours

> and (from the waking point of view) went to sleep for four hours?

>

> Best wishes,

> 

> Dennis

>

Namaste Dennis ji,

Let me venture an answer to your above problem.  When the time-bomb

explodes, even if you are in 'deep deep' sleep, you will be jolted and

woken up from sleep.  The pain of the body shattering to smithereens

will be felt by you, even if the whole event lasts just one or a

fraction of a second.  And this experience will be that of the waking

state alone.  I say this on the basis of the Upanishadic testimony that

the time, rather the moment, of death is never an unsoncious one for

the jiva.  For, the Upanishad teaches that at that moment the jiva sees

before his screen of the mind what kind of life (read: body) he is

going to take next.  For this to happen, he has to be in a state that

allows him to comprehend.  That the others around him will not be able

to know this is another matter.  Even if a person is in long coma

clinically, still when the patient passes out, that moment is a

conscious one for him.  The Bhagavad Gita says: Whatever has been a

person's object of predominant contemplation, that he attains to after

death.  And the shastram says that this predominant thing comes up at

the time of death and presents itself to that person.  The Upanishadic

teaching is the basis for this Gita teaching.  The Upanishad gives the

example of a leech grasping the other leaf before leaving its foothold

of the earlier leaf.  The upshot of the teaching is: Make the best as

the object of contemplation in life and you will attain it.

 

However, this rule is applicable to the one in bondage.  For the one

liberated in life, there is no such thing called transmigrating.  For

him, irrespective of the nature of the  final thought, he does not

attain to any other state, for there is no leaving any state for him.

 

The above reply, it goes without saying, is based on my understanding

of your question. 

 

Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbji.

 

Your reply # 31557 to Dennis-ji.

 

Whatever the authority you quote, death logically cannot be an

experience.

 

An experience has a beginning and an end.  What can the end of the

experience of death be?

 

Secondly, does anybody remember the experience of falling asleep?

No.  Falling into or beginning of 'not experiencing' cannot be an

experience.  This applies to death too.

 

Death exists not for the subject.  It plagues only the objects.

 

Upanishads and BG in this case might be talking about just the last

thing that occupied the mind of the dying person.  If he were in a

coma, it could be the last thought before losing consciousness.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

 

.....  When the time-bomb

> explodes, even if you are in 'deep deep' sleep, you will be jolted

and

> woken up from sleep.  The pain of the body shattering to

smithereens

> will be felt by you, even if the whole event lasts just one or a

> fraction of a second.  And this experience will be that of the

waking

> state alone.  I say this on the basis of the Upanishadic testimony

that

> the time, rather the moment, of death is never an unsoncious one

for

> the jiva.  .................

[Guest guest]

Shri Madathil Nairji wrote:

 

Namaste Subbji.

 

Your reply # 31557 to Dennis-ji.

 

Whatever the authority you quote, death logically cannot be an

experience.

 

An experience has a beginning and an end.  What can the end of the

experience of death be?

 

Secondly, does anybody remember the experience of falling asleep?

No.  Falling into or beginning of 'not experiencing' cannot be an

experience.  This applies to death too.

 

Death exists not for the subject.  It plagues only the objects.

 

Upanishads and BG in this case might be talking about just the last

thing that occupied the mind of the dying person.  If he were in a

coma, it could be the last thought before losing consciousness.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

My Response:

 

Namaste Madathil ji,

 

First, let me clarify that I based my reply to Dennis ji on the

scriptural authority as the issue on hand happens to be super-

sensuous in nature.  In all such matters, we are taught, the only

pramana is the Veda and the Smriti.  Logic is not a deciding factor

in such matters.  This is because, logic, anumAna, depends on data

which has to be sensory only.  Since the matter of what happens

during  death and the hereafter are not available for the senses to

collect data and then infer, we have to rely on the scriptural

authority alone.

 

Coming to the question of death not being an experience, we have in

the Bhagavadgita, quoted below, Bhagavan teaching:

    

THE FOURFOLD NOBLE TRUTH AS MEANS OF NIRVANA

   Humility, modesty, nonviolence, forgiveness, honesty, service to

guru, purity of thought, word, and deed, steadfastness, self-control;

and aversion towards sense objects, absence of ego, CONSTANT

REFLECTION ON PAIN AND SUFFEREING INHERENT IN BIRTH, OLD AGE, DISEASE

AND DEATH. (13.07-08)

   Detachment, non-fondness with son, wife, and home; unfailing

equanimity upon attainment of the desirable and the undesirable; and

unswerving devotion to Me through single-minded contemplation, taste

for solitude, distaste for social gatherings and gossips;

steadfastness in acquiring the knowledge of Spirit, and seeing the

omnipresent Supreme Being everywhere this is said to be knowledge.

That which is contrary to this is ignorance. (13.09-11) (unquote)

 

 

In the gloss named 'BhAShyotkarShadIpikA' for the above verse, an

elaborate quotation is given from the VishNu Puraana detailing the

pain and suffering at the time of death.  It would be nice if someone

provides the translation here to benefit all.

 

  

Thus we find that if Bhagavan should be teaching that one should

contemplate on the pain and suffering inherent in death, it has to be

an experience.  Otherwise He would not be instructing us to do the

impossible. Further, it cannot be said that Bhagavan is indulging in

some eulogy, arthavada; He is teaching the MEANS for Nirvana.  Thus,

death has to be admitted to be a valid experience of embodied

existence.

 

Coming to your next question: An experience has a beginning and an

end.  What can the end of the experience of death be?

 

To the above, we have the scriptural authority again.  In the above

mentioned Vishnupurana, it is said that the jiva takes up and exists

in, with great difficulty, a 'yaatanaa shariram', an intermediary

body, before being given an appropriate body on long term.  Since

this is recorded as a part of death experience, we can take it that

the death experience comes to an end with the assuming of the next

body.

 

As a reply to the rest of your observations, let me quote the

appropriate portion of the Upanishad.  The Acharya's brilliant

bhashya on the death experience is not quoted by me, for want of a

good translation online. It is urged that one reads the Bhashya on

this portion; it contains some invaluable information on death.

 

Before you go on to read the quoted material, let me add that not

remembering an experience had is not a proof for not having had that

experience itself.  There is this verse of Bhagavan in the Gita:

I am seated in the inner psyche of all beings. Wherefore from Me,

the Self of all sentient beings, are memory, knowledge, AS WELL AS

THEIR LOSS. (15.15)(unquote)

 

The authoritative gloss on the Acharya's bhashya, by Anandagiri,

says: Memory of what was experienced in the past births, and

knowledge of things transcending the oridinary limits of space, time,

and visible nature.(unquote)

 

Now, continuing, we have all gone through the experience of birth in

this life.  We have observed that the pain of the Mother in labor is

great.  We little appreciate the baby's pain; we just hear its

crying.  Nevertheless, the Shastra teaches that there is much pain

involved in birth.  We do not remember it in our own cases.  Yet the

Acharya writes in His Shivaaparaadhakshamaapana stotram and various

other works about the pain and suffering of birth.  I took this up

only to show that our not remembering the experience is not

categorical proof of not having gone through that experience. 

 

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.

Chapter IV—Death and the Hereafter 

 

1.    Yajnavalkya continued: "Now, when that self becomes weak  and

unconscious, as it were, the organs gather around it.  Having wholly

seized these particles of light, the self comes to  the heart. When

the presiding deity of the eye turns back from  all sides, the dying

man fails to notice colour. 

 

2.    "The eye becomes united with the subtle body; then people

say:  `He does not see.' The nose becomes united with the subtle 

body; then they say: `He does not smell.' The tongue becomes  united

with the subtle body; then they say: `He does not taste.'  The vocal

organ becomes united with the subtle body; then they  say: `He does

not speak.' The ear becomes united with the  subtle body; then they

say: `He does not hear.' The mind  becomes united with the subtle

body; then they say: `He does  not think.' The skin becomes united

with the subtle body; then  they say: `He does not touch.' The

intellect becomes united  with the subtle body; then they say: `He

does not know.'  "The upper end of the heart lights up and by that

light the self  departs, either through the eye or through the head

or through  any other part (aperture) of the body.  "And when the

self departs, the vital breath follows and when  the vital breath

departs, all the organs follow.

 

"Then the self becomes endowed with a particular  consciousness and

passes on to the body to be attained by that

consciousness.  "Knowledge, work and past experience follow the

self. 

 

3.    "And just as a leech moving on a blade of grass reaches its

end,  takes hold of another and draws itself together towards it, so 

does the self, after throwing off this body, that is to say, after 

making it unconscious, take hold of another support and draw  itself

together towards it.  

 

4.    "And just as a goldsmith takes a small quantity of gold and 

fashions out of it another—a newer and better—form, so does  the

self, after throwing off this body, that is to say, after making  it

unconscious, fashion another—a newer and better—form,  suited to the

Manes, or the gandharvas, or the gods, or Viraj, or  Hiranyagarbha,

or other beings. 

 

5.    "That self is indeed Brahman; it is also identified with the 

intellect, the mind and the vital breath, with the eyes and ears, 

with earth, water, air and akasa, with fire and with what is other 

than fire, with desire and with absence of desire, with anger and 

with absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness,  with

all—it is identified, as is well known, with this (i.e. what  is

perceived) and with that (i.e. what is inferred). According as  it

acts and according as it behaves, so it becomes: by doing  good it

becomes good and by doing evil it becomes evil. It  becomes virtuous

through virtuous action and evil through evil  action.  "Others,

however, say that the self is identified with desire  alone. As is

its desire, so is its resolution; and as is its  resolution, so is

its deed; and whatever deed it does, that it  reaps. 

 

6.    "Regarding this there is the following verse:  "Because of

attachment, the transmigrating self, together with  its work, attains

that result to which its subtle body or mind  clings. Having

exhausted in the other world the results of  whatever work it did in

this life, it returns from that world to  this world for fresh

work.'  "Thus does the man who desires transmigrate. But as to the 

man who does not desire—who is without desire, who is freed  from

desire, whose desire is satisfied, whose only object of  desire is

the Self—his organs do not depart. Being Brahman, he  merges in

Brahman. (unquote)

 

We have the incident in our Acharya's life when He came to Mother

Aryamba at the time of her death and enabled her to have the vision

of Lord Narayana at the last moment.  The practice of uttering

the 'Taraka mantra' in the ears of the dying person or creating a

divine ambience when a death is expected, all this show that the

person dying should ideally think of the Divine at the last moment.

The story of Ajamila in the Srimadbhagavatam is another instance.

 

 

To conclude, some details were given in excess of what was just

needed for this discussion, only to give a  somewhat complete picture

of the 'death' experience to such of those who might not have had the

occasion to see the Upanishad.

 

Pranams Madathilji, and thanks for providing an opportunity to

revisit the scriptures.

 

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji.

 

Your message 31561 refers.

 

Thanks for all the quotes and all that you said.  Your post was very

informative.

 

However, I have a feeling that we are getting mixed up between two

things, i.e. the suffering one undergoes before death and the 'event'

called death itself.

 

No one denies the suffering.  However, death need not follow

suffering as often one can recover from it.  In most cases, the dying

man hopes to recover.

 

To go by your leech quote, death could be a tranmigration from one

grass blade to another without any remembrance of the previous

blade.  It is all a matter of continuity.  To me, it looks like we

are erecting a phantom called death in the middle and losing our

nerves unnecessarily.

 

Our ancient texts have details of how it is in Hell.  Do we have to

accept them also verbatim?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote:    Namaste Subbuji.

Your message 31561 refers.

Thanks for all the quotes and all that you said.  Your post was very

informative.

However, I have a feeling that we are getting mixed up between two

things, i.e. the suffering one undergoes before death and the 'event'

called death itself.

          Dear Sir,

                          I am inclined to feel that death in itself is free from fear, but the anticipations of it by seeing others dead, brings in this fear. We do not fear to go to deep sleep, fearing that our continuty may be lost, but are happy to enter into the arms of sleep. Sometimes the extreme sufferings before death might usher in death as a relief, as continuous onslaughts of thought in dream give place ultimately to their abscence bringing in deep sleep. All the experiences of yathanasarira etc are relatable only to dream states, and may not be radically different from dream experiences. In essence, the suffering of disembodied state is available to us even in dream state, in which all fears are experienced in a heightened state, as in that state we have no coordinator who is able to fight with the problem, seeking a solution, which the waking state provides us. The dream states constitute a private hell in which the others do not come to our rescue. So the

experience of after death state should be similar to dream, this dream coming to an end with the next waking state being ushered in. The knowledge of transition from one state to another state, waking to dream, dream to deep sleep, deep sleep to waking, death to birth, will be available to an individual only if he is able to be anchored to the position of the witness. I think the question of last thoughts is not relevant to enlightened persons, as once avidya is destroyed, no psychological thought ( sanchita karmas manifesting as an individual ) can be entertained  by an enlightened person, the prarabdha karmas being exhausted through bhoka-hetu. The unenlightened person alone suffers from this. Even in his case, I doubt whether this idea can be arbitrarily applied, as by virtue of the pranas being debilitated any bizzare thoughts can spring. Only the essence of indiviuality will continue till the explosive phenomenon called enlightenment takes place.

 

with warm regards

Sankarraman

 

           

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

Dear All and the Dearest 'ONE'  in All

 

i have not been following this thread that closely?

 

which 'death' are we talking about ?

 

the E-go death Or the biological death ? 

 

Ego death is an experience and biological death is an event! 

 

"To himself everyone is an immortal. He may know that he is going to

die, but he can never know that he is dead. "

 

on another note , ON QUOTING SCRIPTURES

 

The efforts of man are stated to be of two kinds, those that

transcend scriptures and those that are according to scriptures.

Those that transcend scriptures tend to harm, while those that are

according to scriptures tend to Reality.

(MUKTI UPANISHAD)

 

now i do not want to sound like the Devil QUOTING SCRIPTURES!

 

LOVE

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

>

>

>

> Shri Madathil Nairji wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbji.

>

> Your reply # 31557 to Dennis-ji.

>

> Whatever the authority you quote, death logically cannot be an

> experience.

>

> An experience has a beginning and an end.  What can the end of the

> experience of death be?

>

> Secondly, does anybody remember the experience of falling asleep?

> No.  Falling into or beginning of 'not experiencing' cannot be an

> experience.  This applies to death too.

>

> Death exists not for the subject.  It plagues only the objects.

>

> Upanishads and BG in this case might be talking about just the last

> thing that occupied the mind of the dying person.  If he were in a

> coma, it could be the last thought before losing consciousness.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> My Response:

>

> Namaste Madathil ji,

>

> First, let me clarify that I based my reply to Dennis ji on the

> scriptural authority as the issue on hand happens to be super-

> sensuous in nature.  In all such matters, we are taught, the only

> pramana is the Veda and the Smriti.  Logic is not a deciding factor

> in such matters.  This is because, logic, anumAna, depends on data

> which has to be sensory only.  Since the matter of what happens

> during  death and the hereafter are not available for the senses to

> collect data and then infer, we have to rely on the scriptural

> authority alone.

>

> Coming to the question of death not being an experience, we have in

> the Bhagavadgita, quoted below, Bhagavan teaching:

>     

> THE FOURFOLD NOBLE TRUTH AS MEANS OF NIRVANA

>    Humility, modesty, nonviolence, forgiveness, honesty, service to

> guru, purity of thought, word, and deed, steadfastness, self-

control;

> and aversion towards sense objects, absence of ego, CONSTANT

> REFLECTION ON PAIN AND SUFFEREING INHERENT IN BIRTH, OLD AGE,

DISEASE

> AND DEATH. (13.07-08)

>    Detachment, non-fondness with son, wife, and home; unfailing

> equanimity upon attainment of the desirable and the undesirable;

and

> unswerving devotion to Me through single-minded contemplation,

taste

> for solitude, distaste for social gatherings and gossips;

> steadfastness in acquiring the knowledge of Spirit, and seeing the

> omnipresent Supreme Being everywhere this is said to be knowledge.

> That which is contrary to this is ignorance. (13.09-11) (unquote)

>

>

> In the gloss named 'BhAShyotkarShadIpikA' for the above verse, an

> elaborate quotation is given from the VishNu Puraana detailing the

> pain and suffering at the time of death.  It would be nice if

someone

> provides the translation here to benefit all.

>

>   

> Thus we find that if Bhagavan should be teaching that one should

> contemplate on the pain and suffering inherent in death, it has to

be

> an experience.  Otherwise He would not be instructing us to do the

> impossible. Further, it cannot be said that Bhagavan is indulging

in

> some eulogy, arthavada; He is teaching the MEANS for Nirvana. 

Thus,

> death has to be admitted to be a valid experience of embodied

> existence.

>

> Coming to your next question: An experience has a beginning and an

> end.  What can the end of the experience of death be?

>

> To the above, we have the scriptural authority again.  In the above

> mentioned Vishnupurana, it is said that the jiva takes up and

exists

> in, with great difficulty, a 'yaatanaa shariram', an intermediary

> body, before being given an appropriate body on long term.  Since

> this is recorded as a part of death experience, we can take it that

> the death experience comes to an end with the assuming of the next

> body.

>

> As a reply to the rest of your observations, let me quote the

> appropriate portion of the Upanishad.  The Acharya's brilliant

> bhashya on the death experience is not quoted by me, for want of a

> good translation online. It is urged that one reads the Bhashya on

> this portion; it contains some invaluable information on death.

>

>  Before you go on to read the quoted material, let me add that not

> remembering an experience had is not a proof for not having had

that

> experience itself.  There is this verse of Bhagavan in the Gita:

>  I am seated in the inner psyche of all beings. Wherefore from Me,

> the Self of all sentient beings, are memory, knowledge, AS WELL AS

> THEIR LOSS. (15.15)(unquote)

>

> The authoritative gloss on the Acharya's bhashya, by Anandagiri,

> says: Memory of what was experienced in the past births, and

> knowledge of things transcending the oridinary limits of space,

time,

> and visible nature.(unquote)

>

> Now, continuing, we have all gone through the experience of birth

in

> this life.  We have observed that the pain of the Mother in labor

is

> great.  We little appreciate the baby's pain; we just hear its

> crying.  Nevertheless, the Shastra teaches that there is much pain

> involved in birth.  We do not remember it in our own cases.  Yet

the

> Acharya writes in His Shivaaparaadhakshamaapana stotram and various

> other works about the pain and suffering of birth.  I took this up

> only to show that our not remembering the experience is not

> categorical proof of not having gone through that experience. 

>

>

> Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.

> Chapter IV—Death and the Hereafter 

>

> 1.    Yajnavalkya continued: "Now, when that self becomes weak  and

> unconscious, as it were, the organs gather around it.  Having

wholly

> seized these particles of light, the self comes to  the heart. When

> the presiding deity of the eye turns back from  all sides, the

dying

> man fails to notice colour. 

>

> 2.    "The eye becomes united with the subtle body; then people

> say:  `He does not see.' The nose becomes united with the subtle 

> body; then they say: `He does not smell.' The tongue becomes 

united

> with the subtle body; then they say: `He does not taste.'  The

vocal

> organ becomes united with the subtle body; then they  say: `He does

> not speak.' The ear becomes united with the  subtle body; then they

> say: `He does not hear.' The mind  becomes united with the subtle

> body; then they say: `He does  not think.' The skin becomes united

> with the subtle body; then  they say: `He does not touch.' The

> intellect becomes united  with the subtle body; then they say: `He

> does not know.'  "The upper end of the heart lights up and by that

> light the self  departs, either through the eye or through the head

> or through  any other part (aperture) of the body.  "And when the

> self departs, the vital breath follows and when  the vital breath

> departs, all the organs follow.

>

>  "Then the self becomes endowed with a particular  consciousness

and

> passes on to the body to be attained by that

> consciousness.  "Knowledge, work and past experience follow the

> self. 

>

> 3.    "And just as a leech moving on a blade of grass reaches its

> end,  takes hold of another and draws itself together towards it,

so 

> does the self, after throwing off this body, that is to say, after 

> making it unconscious, take hold of another support and draw 

itself

> together towards it.  

>

> 4.    "And just as a goldsmith takes a small quantity of gold and 

> fashions out of it another—a newer and better—form, so does  the

> self, after throwing off this body, that is to say, after making 

it

> unconscious, fashion another—a newer and better—form,  suited to

the

> Manes, or the gandharvas, or the gods, or Viraj, or  Hiranyagarbha,

> or other beings. 

>

> 5.    "That self is indeed Brahman; it is also identified with the 

> intellect, the mind and the vital breath, with the eyes and ears, 

> with earth, water, air and akasa, with fire and with what is other 

> than fire, with desire and with absence of desire, with anger and 

> with absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, 

with

> all—it is identified, as is well known, with this (i.e. what  is

> perceived) and with that (i.e. what is inferred). According as  it

> acts and according as it behaves, so it becomes: by doing  good it

> becomes good and by doing evil it becomes evil. It  becomes

virtuous

> through virtuous action and evil through evil  action.  "Others,

> however, say that the self is identified with desire  alone. As is

> its desire, so is its resolution; and as is its  resolution, so is

> its deed; and whatever deed it does, that it  reaps. 

>

> 6.    "Regarding this there is the following verse:  "Because of

> attachment, the transmigrating self, together with  its work,

attains

> that result to which its subtle body or mind  clings. Having

> exhausted in the other world the results of  whatever work it did

in

> this life, it returns from that world to  this world for fresh

> work.'  "Thus does the man who desires transmigrate. But as to the 

> man who does not desire—who is without desire, who is freed  from

> desire, whose desire is satisfied, whose only object of  desire is

> the Self—his organs do not depart. Being Brahman, he  merges in

> Brahman. (unquote)

>

> We have the incident in our Acharya's life when He came to Mother

> Aryamba at the time of her death and enabled her to have the vision

> of Lord Narayana at the last moment.  The practice of uttering

> the 'Taraka mantra' in the ears of the dying person or creating a

> divine ambience when a death is expected, all this show that the

> person dying should ideally think of the Divine at the last moment.

> The story of Ajamila in the Srimadbhagavatam is another instance.

>

>

> To conclude, some details were given in excess of what was just

> needed for this discussion, only to give a  somewhat complete

picture

> of the 'death' experience to such of those who might not have had

the

> occasion to see the Upanishad.

>

> Pranams Madathilji, and thanks for providing an opportunity to

> revisit the scriptures.

>

> subbu

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga,

 

Your explanation of fundamental aspects of the avasthA traya prakriyA was

very well expressed and clearly showed the essential import of its message -

thank you.

 

However, the book to which I referred in my original post ('The Magic Jewel

of Intuition: The tri-basic method of cognizing the Self' by D. B. Gangolli)

is a book of nearly 500 pages analysing the prakriyA exhaustively to address

a number of different aspects of the philosophy. My question related to an

aspect of this analysis.

 

Since this seems to have caused a lot of discussion and yet not addressed

the actual question at all, I am reproducing the actual sentence that

triggered the question about the bomb:

 

"Thus because in the dream the waking world does not exist at all, because

in the deep sleep neither the waking and dream states nor their respective

worlds exist at all, it becomes evident that apart from the states or devoid

of the states a separate world does not exist at all; what is called 'the

world' or the phenomenon of the world is nothing but an appearance that is

seen or observed within a state alone." (P. 438 Adyhatma Prakasha Karyalaya,

1986.)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Avastha triya sakshi

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite> wrote:

>

> Namaste Durga,

>

> Your explanation of fundamental aspects of the avasthA traya

prakriyA was

> very well expressed and clearly showed the essential import of its

message -

> thank you.

>

> However, the book to which I referred in my original post ('The

Magic Jewel

> of Intuition: The tri-basic method of cognizing the Self' by D. B.

Gangolli)

> is a book of nearly 500 pages analysing the prakriyA exhaustively to

address

> a number of different aspects of the philosophy. My question related

to an

> aspect of this analysis.

>

> Since this seems to have caused a lot of discussion and yet not

addressed

> the actual question at all, I am reproducing the actual sentence that

> triggered the question about the bomb:

>

> "Thus because in the dream the waking world does not exist at all,

because

> in the deep sleep neither the waking and dream states nor their

respective

> worlds exist at all, it becomes evident that apart from the states

or devoid

> of the states a separate world does not exist at all; what is called

'the

> world' or the phenomenon of the world is nothing but an appearance

that is

> seen or observed within a state alone." (P. 438 Adyhatma Prakasha

Karyalaya,

> 1986.)

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

Well, I would question the conclusion that

D.B. Gangoli has come to. I don't think that

his logic is correct.   I don't know who he is,

although I see that there is a lot of information

about him on the internet.  However it doesn't

seem to me that some of the ideas which he is

putting forth are correct.

 

He seems to be saying that the emperical

waking world (or the creation) is the creation

of the individual's mind in the waking state, and

I would say that is not true. 

 

The individual's mind passes through the three mental states

waking,  dream, and deep sleep, but from the POV of Ishwara

those three states are taking place within the creation,

within time and space, within duality, while the Self

is that which is untouched by, and illumines it all.

 

The world which is perceived in the waking state through

the awake mind of the individual is not a creation of that

individual's mind (if this indeed is what Mr. Gangoli is

putting forth).   (This was discussed previously in

another thread). 

 

The world which the individual's mind perceives in

the waking state is Ishwara's world.  It is empirical

reality and the individual's mind is part to the whole.

 

In fact, IMO the individual's mind is part to the whole

in all states, although the perceptions are different

in the different states.  All of duality takes place

within, and according to, the laws of Ishwara, which

would include the three mental states, waking,

dream and deep sleep which the individual's mind

passes through each day.

 

Perhaps Mr. Gangolli is very scholarly (and perhaps

he is correct in what he has said), or perhaps he has

some theories of his own, which aren't exactly in

keeping with the teachings of Vedanta.  I don't know.

(And of course, perhaps I am wrong).

 

There is one other point which I wanted to address.

Somewhere else in this thread I believe you put forth

that Mr. Gangolli holds that there is a deep sleep

ahamkara.

 

It is my understanding that there is no deep sleep

ahamkara.  In order to have a deep sleep ahamkara

the mind would need to be able to make a comment such as,

"I am deep sleeping," which is not the case in the deep

sleep state. 

 

In deep sleep the mind is resolved.  There are no thoughts,

no ahamkara (which is itself a thought).  So, IMO if

Mr. Gangolli has concluded that there is a deep sleep ahamkara

this conclusion of his is also not correct.

 

What I would question about Mr. Gangolli's

ideas is are they correct or not, rather than accepting

that they are correct, and then building a hypothesis

upon them.

 

Here is something which my teacher once said

about incorrect logic:

 

"In logical syllogisms, if what was is called,

the pratigna, the initial statement, is false,

and one does not know that, like a bouncing ball

of logical steps, one will logically come

up with very valid conclusions based upon the

false initial statement. 

 

If that initial statement is wrong, one's conclusion

can be correct in reference to the initial statement,

but it is totally incorrect in reference to what is."

 

So the question in my mind would be is what Mr. Gangolli

saying correct in reference to what is?  Is what

he saying correct according to the teachings of Vedanta? 

It does not appear to me (at least from my level of

understanding)that he is correct.

 

Best wishes,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108> wrote:

>

> Avastha triya sakshi

>

>

 

> >

> > "Thus because in the dream the waking world does not exist at

all,

> because

> > in the deep sleep neither the waking and dream states nor their

> respective

> > worlds exist at all, it becomes evident that apart from the

states

> or devoid

> > of the states a separate world does not exist at all; what is

called

> 'the

> > world' or the phenomenon of the world is nothing but an

appearance

> that is

> > seen or observed within a state alone." (P. 438 Adyhatma Prakasha

> Karyalaya,

> > 1986.)

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Dennis

>

>

> Namaste Dennis,

>

> Well, I would question the conclusion that

> D.B. Gangoli has come to. I don't think that

> his logic is correct. 

>

> He seems to be saying that the emperical

> waking world (or the creation) is the creation

> of the individual's mind in the waking state, and

> I would say that is not true. 

>

> The individual's mind passes through the three mental states

> waking,  dream, and deep sleep, but from the POV of Ishwara

> those three states are taking place within the creation,

> within time and space, within duality, while the Self

> is that which is untouched by, and illumines it all.

>

> The world which is perceived in the waking state through

> the awake mind of the individual is not a creation of that

> individual's mind (if this indeed is what Mr. Gangoli is

> putting forth).   (This was discussed previously in

> another thread). 

>

> The world which the individual's mind perceives in

> the waking state is Ishwara's world.  It is empirical

> reality and the individual's mind is part to the whole.

>

Namaste Durga,

 

Isvara is the sum total of all the Jivas. Hence an illusion.

 

To give some  validity to it all for argument's sake, we are left

with the three theories of creation.

 

1. Some God created it--Isvara.

 

2. It arises as we perceive it.

 

3. Ajativada-it never happened at all.

 

Ramana says that #3 is the Truth, but that most people cannot

process that mentally, so  he suggests using #2 as workable

hypothesis. So taking #1 is not near the ultimate truth.

 

The problem is in not taking into account that even in illusion the

mind is in fact universal. It is the 'I' that is totally unreal,

even though it appears to exist in all three states. In the deep

sleep states it exists only as a thought of nothingness, but the

memory of relaxation does survive when one returns to the 'waking

state'. When there is no 'I' there is no Isvara--no Jiva no Isvara.

 

What remains is the Saguna Brahman or Self.,,,and even that is

illusion.............ONS...Tony.