Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to you all. This is the second posting on the above subject. The following are the principal steps of reasoning in arriving at the truth of REALITY by the methodology of Avasthatraya : a) There are three and only three distinct states of Consciousness which every one of us experiences. b) These states , Viz. waking, dream and deep sleep, are neither successive events in the same time-series nor three different entities or things occupying the same space; for while waking and dream present their own world charecterized by different orders of time and space there is no one time or space common to both, and all notion of time or space is abolished in deep sleep. c) Hence it is wrong to imagine that the ego of the waking state really remembers sleep or dream as having been experienced in the past. There is a distinct eho for each of the dreams as well as for waking, and no ego experiences sleep. d) The world appearing in the waking state is a concomitant of waking-consciousness just as the world appearing in the dream state is bound up with dream-consciousness. Each one of the states, therefore, whether waking or dream, includes its own world, and so the latter can never overpass its state. e) While ideas, feelings and other properties of the mind do change their basis, the Witnessing Consciousness which testifies to the changes of the eho cannot change, for if it did we could not be aware of the change at all. It must be granted therefore that the WITNESS is the same for all the states. Only, while the witness of waking and dream has for its object a world made up of the ego and the non-ego which thrive there in a subject-object relation, it ceases to have any such object in deep sleep. We therefore intuit it only as Pure consciousness in the latter state. f) Memory of sleep or dream is possible only because of this Pure Consciousness persisting throuh all states. g) Sleep and dream are known to us only through intuition, and the knowledge thus acquired is afterwards thrown into the forms of the intellect so that we naturally conclude that it originates from the waking intellect. h) Waking and dream are distinguished only from the waking point of view, but they can never be identified as such while they last, for dream exhibits all the elements of waking, and possesses no charecteristic mark by which it could be recognized or distinguished from waking. i) We have therefore to conclude that Pure Consciousness has only two modes, the dynamic mode (waking or dream) when it seems to be split up into the ego and the non-ego in subject-object relation, and the static (sleep). j) Strictly speaking, sleep is not a state at all. We call it an unconscious state because we are insensible then to the ego or non-ego, but that is only from the waking point of view. But sleep in itself is really Pure Consciousness and nothing else; we as Pure Consciousness are not aware of anything else then, because there is nothing else to be aware of. k)From this correct thought-position, we see that Pure Consciousness is the only Reality. It is neither dynamic nor static, and since we experience that both waking and dream with all their seeming distinctions of the ego and the non-ego are completely merged in sleep or Pure Consciousness, all the so-called states are really one with this Pure Consciousness. All talk of change or changelessness in the latter is meaningless. l) Pure Consciousness is Pure Being and Pure Bliss all in one. It is pure in the sense that it has no second beside it. --Extract from the book " VEDANTA or The Science Of Reality" The above stated points can be called as ' Avasthatraya Sutras'. They are anubhavapradhAna and the mumukshu has to verify these by himself within himself referring to his own anubhava of waking, dream and deep sleep states. May the Divine Reality bless us us with the vision of Pure Consciousness which is The Divine Reality Itself. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Jiyo cricket on India cricket Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Dear Sri Sreenivasa, At the outset, let me congratulate you for having composed a very interesting post on the three forms of consciousness and for having touched upon Turiya. May I be allowed to make a few comments and request members to throw more light on certain aspects? You wrote: "c) Hence it is wrong to imagine that the ego of the waking state really remembers sleep or dream as having been experienced in the past. There is a distinct eho for each of the dreams as well as for waking, and no ego experiences sleep." "e) While ideas, feelings and other properties of the mind do change their basis, the Witnessing Consciousness which testifies to the changes of the eho cannot change, for if it did we could not be aware of the change at all. It must be granted therefore that the WITNESS is the same for all the states. Only, while the witness of waking and dream has for its object a world made up of the ego and the non-ego which thrive there in a subject-object relation, it ceases to have any such object in deep sleep. We therefore intuit it only as Pure consciousness in the latter state." "f) Memory of sleep or dream is possible only because of this Pure Consciousness persisting throuh all states." Is memory an constituent of the Pure Consciousness? Am I to understand that this pure consciousness is the Supreme Self of Advaita Vedanta? Is it said to be characterized by memory as well? This is new to me. If this "Pure Consciousness" is not the Supreme Self, then how do we understand point e in the context of f? Let me at the outset itself avoid any misunderstanding and admit that this question of mine does not have any real value from the standpoint of Dharma and Nibbana/Moksha. We are simply specualting the unknown. Yet, since you write, my curiosity is kindled [i wish I didn't have this curiousity]. As far as I know the scriptures, whether Upanishads or the Pali Canon donot try tp posit the contents of this Pure Consciousness in as much as it being consisting of memory as well. I would want to clarify if such a point exists in the scriptures that I might have missed. Thankyou, -Bhikku Yogi -Bhikku Yogi sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to you all. This is the second posting on the above subject. The following are the principal steps of reasoning in arriving at the truth of REALITY by the methodology of Avasthatraya : a) There are three and only three distinct states of Consciousness which every one of us experiences. b) These states , Viz. waking, dream and deep sleep, are neither successive events in the same time-series nor three different entities or things occupying the same space; for while waking and dream present their own world charecterized by different orders of time and space there is no one time or space common to both, and all notion of time or space is abolished in deep sleep. c) Hence it is wrong to imagine that the ego of the waking state really remembers sleep or dream as having been experienced in the past. There is a distinct eho for each of the dreams as well as for waking, and no ego experiences sleep. d) The world appearing in the waking state is a concomitant of waking-consciousness just as the world appearing in the dream state is bound up with dream-consciousness. Each one of the states, therefore, whether waking or dream, includes its own world, and so the latter can never overpass its state. e) While ideas, feelings and other properties of the mind do change their basis, the Witnessing Consciousness which testifies to the changes of the eho cannot change, for if it did we could not be aware of the change at all. It must be granted therefore that the WITNESS is the same for all the states. Only, while the witness of waking and dream has for its object a world made up of the ego and the non-ego which thrive there in a subject-object relation, it ceases to have any such object in deep sleep. We therefore intuit it only as Pure consciousness in the latter state. f) Memory of sleep or dream is possible only because of this Pure Consciousness persisting throuh all states. g) Sleep and dream are known to us only through intuition, and the knowledge thus acquired is afterwards thrown into the forms of the intellect so that we naturally conclude that it originates from the waking intellect. h) Waking and dream are distinguished only from the waking point of view, but they can never be identified as such while they last, for dream exhibits all the elements of waking, and possesses no charecteristic mark by which it could be recognized or distinguished from waking. i) We have therefore to conclude that Pure Consciousness has only two modes, the dynamic mode (waking or dream) when it seems to be split up into the ego and the non-ego in subject-object relation, and the static (sleep). j) Strictly speaking, sleep is not a state at all. We call it an unconscious state because we are insensible then to the ego or non-ego, but that is only from the waking point of view. But sleep in itself is really Pure Consciousness and nothing else; we as Pure Consciousness are not aware of anything else then, because there is nothing else to be aware of. k)From this correct thought-position, we see that Pure Consciousness is the only Reality. It is neither dynamic nor static, and since we experience that both waking and dream with all their seeming distinctions of the ego and the non-ego are completely merged in sleep or Pure Consciousness, all the so-called states are really one with this Pure Consciousness. All talk of change or changelessness in the latter is meaningless. l) Pure Consciousness is Pure Being and Pure Bliss all in one. It is pure in the sense that it has no second beside it. --Extract from the book " VEDANTA or The Science Of Reality" The above stated points can be called as ' Avasthatraya Sutras'. They are anubhavapradhAna and the mumukshu has to verify these by himself within himself referring to his own anubhava of waking, dream and deep sleep states. May the Divine Reality bless us us with the vision of Pure Consciousness which is The Divine Reality Itself. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Jiyo cricket on India cricket Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Dear Shri Murthy, With reference to your exposition of avastAtraya, I would like to excerpt from an old post of mine here. I can't trace that post. I am quoting from a back-copy in my files: QUOTE The following outlines my anubhava of avastatraya. It is based on pure personal experience. It has nothing to do with any masters or their works. Dreamless Deep Sleep: A1. My sleep is a "state" that others reportedly see. I don't see me sleeping. A2. I am aware of the fact that I slept only when I awake. A3. I don't say `I am sleeping' while sleeping. A4. I awake from sleep to wakefulness Dreaming: B1. Dreaming is a "state" I "enter" often. B2. I don't question my dreams while I am dreaming* B3. I realize that I was dreaming only in wakefulness*. B4. I don't say `I am dreaming' while dreaming.* B5. My dream stuff has impressive relevance to the happenings in wakefulness. B6. I am `wakeful' to the contents of my dreams while dreaming. B6. I awake from dreaming to wakefulness. (*Of course, on rare occasions, during dreams, I have suspected that I am dreaming. Others have also felt the same way judging from their accounts.) Wakefulness: C1. I am writing this in waking state because I now know that I am awake. I don't say I am sleeping or dreaming now by the strength of A3 and B2 above. C2. When something out of the way happens, I do ask the question whether I am awake or dreaming. But, I invariably reach the conclusion that I am awake due to the fact that I don't awake from wakefulness. C2. I have only lapsed into sleep or dreaming from wakefulness. I have never woken up from wakefulness. Conclusion: SLEEP AND DREAMING ARE THUS ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPRECIATED BY ME – THE SUBJECT (NOT BY OTHERS, WHO ARE MY OBJECTS!) IN WAKEFULNESS AND *NOT WHILE THEY OCCUR*. IN STARK CONTRAST, WAKEFULNESS IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY ME IN WAKING ITSELF. BESIDES, I AM NOT AWARE OF A WAKING STATE WHILE DREAMING OR IN DEEP SLEEP. This is my anubhava. I would, therefore, like to bring in both sleep and dreaming under the umbrella of wakefulness because they are regular events recognized by me in wakefulness. All that are recognized and acknowledged during this wakefulness constitute the world. Wakefulness, therefore, is the world. Sleep and dreaming are just two of its contents. Thus, to make matters outrageously simple, I would say there is only one state – the state of wakefulness – where I am aware of my experience of not experiencing anything (sleep) and dreaming. Sleep and dreaming are thus *experiences* lighted up in wakefulness like the rest of the worldly objects and events. UNQUOTE I request you to kindly subject the above understanding to your avastAtraya logic. Probably, I have made a mistake somewhere. I would like that to be pointed out and I think you are the best person around to do that considering your long familiarity with avastAtraya reasoning. Others are also welcome to put in their understanding. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________________ advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145> wrote: > > H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > > g) Sleep and dream are known to us only through intuition, and the knowledge thus acquired is afterwards thrown into the forms of the intellect so that we naturally conclude that it originates from the waking intellect. > h) Waking and dream are distinguished only from the waking point of view, but they can never be identified as such while they last, for dream exhibits all the elements of waking, and possesses no charecteristic mark by which it could be recognized or distinguished from waking. > i) We have therefore to conclude that Pure Consciousness has only two modes, the dynamic mode (waking or dream) when it seems to be split up into the ego and the non-ego in subject-object relation, and the static (sleep). > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote: Dear Shri Murthy, Wakefulness: C1. I am writing this in waking state because I now know that I am awake. I don't say I am sleeping or dreaming now by the strength of A3 and B2 above. C2. When something out of the way happens, I do ask the question whether I am awake or dreaming. But, I invariably reach the conclusion that I am awake due to the fact that I don't awake from wakefulness. C2. I have only lapsed into sleep or dreaming from wakefulness. I have never woken up from wakefulness. Conclusion: SLEEP AND DREAMING ARE THUS ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPRECIATED BY ME – THE SUBJECT (NOT BY OTHERS, WHO ARE MY OBJECTS!) IN WAKEFULNESS AND *NOT WHILE THEY OCCUR*. IN STARK CONTRAST, WAKEFULNESS IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY ME IN WAKING ITSELF. BESIDES, I AM NOT AWARE OF A WAKING STATE WHILE DREAMING OR IN DEEP SLEEP. Dear sir, I have got here a doubt about the veracity of our waking state. Is one actually awake, not awake in the sense of being aware of the Self, which is a different matter; but in the sense of actually being aware of what is happening? To me, the waking state seems to be one of continuous interpretation by the mind through the raw materials of the past. One is not aware that one is interpreting, not being actually in contact with things. I think only when the mechanism of superimposition on, ' what is,' things of the past, trying to change the, ' what is,' real waking state transpires. Till then every thing is only either dreaming, waking, deep sleep, amnesia, and swoon, etc, etc, the real Witness being lost sight of. with warm regards, Sankarraman Celebrate Earth Day everyday! Discover 10 things you can do to help slow climate change. Earth Day Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Hold your guns, my dear Sankarramanji. I am fully with you. We will come to the Witness later. I don't deny the Witness. My worry is why we pine about the three states when all of them are acknowledged and appreciated in one - i.e. the so-called wakefulness of ours in which you have obviously replied me and am writing this to you. Again, I may be wrong in my conclusion. But, I want someoner to tell me how and why. Perhaps, I hope our Murthyji can do just that with his familiarity with the avastAtraya logic. PrtaNAms. Madathil nAIR _________________ advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote: > > > > I have got here a doubt about the veracity of our waking state. Is one actually awake, not awake in the sense of being aware of the Self, which is a different matter; but in the sense of actually being aware of what is happening? To me, the waking state seems to be one of continuous interpretation by the mind through the raw materials of the past. One is not aware that one is interpreting, not being actually in contact with things. I think only when the mechanism of superimposition on, ' what is,' things of the past, trying to change the, ' what is,' real waking state transpires. Till then every thing is only either dreaming, waking, deep sleep, amnesia, and swoon, etc, etc, the real Witness being lost sight of. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > I don't deny the Witness. My > worry is why we pine about the three states when all of them are > acknowledged and appreciated in one - i.e. the so-called wakefulness > of ours in which you have obviously replied me and am writing this to > you. Again, I may be wrong in my conclusion. But, I want someoner to > tell me how and why. Perhaps, I hope our Murthyji can do just that > with his familiarity with the avastAtraya logic. > > PrtaNAms. > > Madathil nAIR > Namaste Nair ji, It was very interesting to read your post detailing the ABC. There is always some originality to your posts. Coming to the conclusion about the dream and sleep being part of the waking, let us question how, in what mode, do we experience the dream and sleep in the waking: After waking from a dream in which you participated in a Kerala Temple procession with the Elephant seeveli, you recollect: 'i saw an elephant, the crowd, the vaadyam, etc.' Note that the recollection is articulated in the past tense. One might ask so what? When i recall to mind at 6 pm what i did between 8 and 9 AM that day, i still recall it as past. But there is a difference. In the Gulf, in your waking home, the elephant episode could not have happened. But the 8 to 9 am episode did happen and your family people are there to agree with you when you so recall the pre-noon experience in the evening 'that payasam you prepared was wonderful, is it not?'. Thus, one is verifiable and the other is not. So, by default one has to admit an experience that was private to oneself which is not shared by others. It is this experience that the shastram specifies as one avastha in which 'I' the experiencer cannot be denied. So also the sleep. The joy, the relaxation, and the freshness that you experience out of your sleep is not shared by the others with you. It is subjective. Your cheerful waking up to a new day could be accompanied by your spouse's waking up with a nagging migraine. We say, 'i slept happily' (again, in the past tense) and not 'we slept happily'. It is this private experience that can't be denied that is specified by the shastra as another avastha perculiar to oneself. It is to you that all these avasthas happen and you cannot opt to be out of one and retain the rest. How can we deny having slept (and dreamt) for eight hours and escape accounting for those eight hours after waking up? The most important Reasoning is this: It is possible for one to recollect (to quote your words above: 'acknowledge and appreciate') only what one has experienced before; that is the characteristic of a re-collection. And recollection only proves a past experience; it does not disprove a past experience. That the sleep and dream states do not afford occasion to experience them as objects even as they happen is no fault of ours; it is just their nature. What is part of the waking is just their re-collection. It is like you attended a music performance in the evening and recollect certain numbers just before falling asleep. The 'show' precedes the recollection. I suddenly recall (!) a statement of Acharya Shankara: dRshTameva pratibuddhaH pratyAchashTe, na tu tad-darshanam: The one who has woken up (from dream) denies only WHAT was seen but NOT THAT HE SAW. (How compassionate is our Acharya that he teaches us how to see even this everyday experience!! Only after He teaches us this, it appeals to us.) That is enough reason to accept the three states. As you have specified that the two are just part of the waking, a question would arise: What distinguishes the 'waking' from sleep and dream in your scheme? In other words, why do you name that state 'waking'? As you have admitted in C category that you are writing this post in the waking, obviously, 'unconsciously' you have distinguished, whether you like it or not, the waking state from the other two states where this writing the post is not possible. Thus, there is no way one can deny the three distinctive states. It is this universal phenomenon that the shastram has recognised and prepared this prakriya. Again, while all your waking activities can be witnessed by you even as they happen, sleep and dream (you have already specified some rare occasions as exceptions) are a recollection no doubt but how can one deny one's having gone through them? The shastram recognises the fact of our 'going through' these states in a cyclical manner and endeavours to point out the unchanging I that is present in all of them - anusyootam. The presence of just one and the absence of the other two when the one is experienced is also another reason why each is labelled as an avasthaa. In fact, every activity of the waking itself can be seen as an avastha (inasmuch as each activity is exclusive of the others) and the unchanging i can be identified. But the shastram seeks to specify three avasthas only because of their distinct characteristics and bring out the 'unchanging i' in those distinct avasthaas. I think i have addressed your question: 'My worry is why we pine about the three states when all of them are acknowledged and appreciated in one - i.e. the so-called wakefulness of ours in which you have obviously replied me and am writing this to you.' Pranams, subbu Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Namaste all; This analysis is indeed very interesting, no doubt one route to trace back the "I" consciousness. Yesterday i was reading excerpts from an interview with Papaji, and certainly a good deal of what he tried to explain about self-knowledge relates to avasthatraya, which fact has raised my awareness about the importance of this view. However, i have one basic problem with it... I am a conscious dreamer, i am aware of my own sleep, and have to make a strong, conscious effort not to interfere with my dreams. In other words, i have to play along the dream scenes as if i was unaware of my dreaming status, for the sake of preserving my tenuous grip on sleep. When i discovered i could retain consciousness while sleeping, some years ago, i also discovered that whenever i got too excited about the possibilities of manipulating my dream world, i would snap out of sleep back to the waking world, so i always struggle to find balance between the "conscious strain" i put on the dream world. It takes me constant effort to pretend not being aware of dream situations, and the black circles under my eyes are a proof of this... I do have periods of deep sleep, but somehow i always feel slightly aware of being asleep, with the exception of the transitory states. The days when i can sleep through the whole night like a log are days that i cherish, and they are rare enough to the point of my being able to physically feel the difference in the subsequent wakeful period. Maybe i have a sleeping disorder, maybe it is something else. However, i would be grateful if some learned member or Sri Murhtyji himself could perhaps help me relate my experience with avasthatraya, so that i can better understand the way in which i myself perceive the three states. By the way, i am certainly not in the fourth state, or else i would recommend everyone in the list to stop looking, since it certainly is not blissful or peaceful here... My warmest regards to all... Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 advaitin, "fcrema" <fcrema> wrote: > >It takes me constant > effort to pretend not being aware of dream situations, and the black > circles under my eyes are a proof of this... > > I do have periods of deep sleep, but somehow i always feel slightly > aware of being asleep, with the exception of the transitory states. > The days when i can sleep through the whole night like a log are days > that i cherish, and they are rare enough to the point of my being able > to physically feel the difference in the subsequent wakeful period. > > Maybe i have a sleeping disorder, maybe it is something else. Namaste Felipe, When i see these lines of yours, i feel an urge to state what i very recently heard from a very knowledgeable source: Certain hormones secrete only during our dream states. Certain cells regenerate only during our sleep states. Hence in the interest of our own physical well-being it is not advisable to deny ourselves either of these states. Only this much i am able to say in this regard; no details are available with me. Regards, subbu Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote: Hold your guns, my dear Sankarramanji. I am fully with you. We will come to the Witness later. I don't deny the Witness. My worry is why we pine about the three states when all of them are acknowledged and appreciated in one - i.e. the so-called wakefulness of ours in which you have obviously replied me and am writing this to you. Again, I may be wrong in my conclusion. But, I want someoner to tell me how and why. Perhaps, I hope our Murthyji can do just that with his familiarity with the avastAtraya logic. PrtaNAms. Madathil nAIR _________________ - Dear sir, Now, I think, I am able to understand what you are driving at. Your concern, it seems to me, is as to why we bother about the states, the reality of which are experienced only in the waking state, the waking state recalling those experiences in the form: ' Oh! What a nightmare! I had a sound sleep in which I did not have any experience, either objective experience or the presence of my true being." Further, the problem seems to weigh in your mind that the waking state is the only datum of experience, the others being only relatable to a vanished past, which is being resuscitate. This position seems to be very relevant from the viewpoint of the quest of the Self, which can happen only in the waking state in which alone the facts of experience and absence of experience are being experienced. I think one has to take a giant leap even from the waking state by being aware of the position that the so-called waking state is one of continuous moving along the channels of objectivity in the form of interpretation of thoughts. One has to cry a halt to this mechanism by raising the question, " To whom all these happen?" In the process one can move to the position that one should not pine about the three states when all of them are acknowledged and appreciated in one - not the so-called waking state, but the light of the Self, the intuition of which is had in recalling the experiences of dream and sleep in the waking state, according to Sri Murthy. This position has to be further amplified to bring into clear relief that even the waking experiences are understood only by the intuition of the Self, which is not one of the passing states, but the abiding Witness. Apropos the clarification given by Sri Subramanium, driving home the point that the dream experiences are one's private fantasies as against waking experiences, which are shared by the others, may Mr Subramanium be so kind enough as to clarify the further position: " The fact that the others are sharing the waking experience, is only in the vision of the individual who sees others; the others' assertion have any relevance only by virtue of the individual existing as an I." I have a doubt that giving a higher reality to the waking state distinguishing it from dream experience, in the traditional advaita, is only with a view to averting the solipsistic, nihilistic, positions of the yogachara and madhyamika buddhistic schools; and that ultimately both the states suffer from the same error of unreality, the one not being superior to the other. Why I am dilating on this point is that Bhaghavan Ramna does not make this distinction. with warm regards, sankarraman Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Messenger with Voice. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy f) Memory of sleep or dream is possible only because of this Pure Consciousness persisting throuh all states. g) Sleep and dream are known to us only through intuition, and the knowledge thus acquired is afterwards thrown into the forms of the intellect so that we naturally conclude that it originates from the waking intellect. h) Waking and dream are distinguished only from the waking point of view, but they can never be identified as such while they last, for dream exhibits all the elements of waking, and possesses no charecteristic mark by which it could be recognized or distinguished from waking. i) We have therefore to conclude that Pure Consciousness has only two modes, the dynamic mode (waking or dream) when it seems to be split up into the ego and the non-ego in subject-object relation, and the static (sleep). j) Strictly speaking, sleep is not a state at all. We call it an unconscious state because we are insensible then to the ego or non-ego, but that is only from the waking point of view. But sleep in itself is really Pure Consciousness and nothing else; we as Pure Consciousness are not aware of anything else then, because there is nothing else to be aware of. k)From this correct thought-position, we see that Pure Consciousness is the only Reality. It is neither dynamic nor static, and since we experience that both waking and dream with all their seeming distinctions of the ego and the non-ego are completely merged in sleep or Pure Consciousness, all the so-called states are really one with this Pure Consciousness. All talk of change or changelessness in the latter is meaningless. l) Pure Consciousness is Pure Being and Pure Bliss all in one. It is pure in the sense that it has no second beside it. Dear Mr Murthy, If we were aware that deep sleep is one of unconsciousness only from the perspective of the waking state, we would steer clear of all the three states. This is unfortunately only a knowledge again of the waking state, not a direct unmediated perception of the Self. Not only sleep and dream are known to us through intuition thrown into intellect of the waking state; even the waking experiences are known to us only through this intuition, thrown into the form of the intellect. This intuition is the unbroken light of the Witness, the Witness being sundered into a subject-object dichotomy in the waking and dream states, the deep sleep state being free from this bondage, but containing the potentiality of it. In fact our waking experiences are continuous conceptualizations, interpretations of thoughts, reviewing them. The real waking state should be one of remaining in the present psychologically, being aware that any movement from the psychological present is a step towards the strengthening of the dualistic consciousness. Bhaghavan Ramana equates this position with the famous sadhana taught by him: "Only on the rising the I, the objectivity rises. Hence, one has to enquire, ' To whom this experience arises,' thereby tracing the source of the I, not allowing any moving along the channels of objectivity or conceptualizing what is actually happening." Further, the Knowledge of the Witness is not incompatible with ignorance, the Witness being aware of both knowledge and ignorance. Since the bondage arises only to the psychological individual, the pramatar, the individual through akhandakara vritti should direct his attention towards the Self, the consummation of which is the dissolution of the individuality in the Self, the intellect enquiring after the Self being burnt by the fire of the Self, similar to the stick moving the embers of the body being burnt in the cremation ground, itself ultimately being burnt, an analogy referred to by Ramana. with kind regards, Sankarraman Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Learned friends, I have a question in this regard, with regard to out of normal experiences. During a surgery, for a short while, I was absolutely awake but with no body, no memory, no senses, nothing -- just blank. It was like waking deep sleep, but for some reason was very scary. We read about several out-of-body / near-death experiences. Are there any explanations for such experiences in avasthAtraya? Best regards, Ramachandra Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Namaste Subrahmanyanji. Thank you for your tremendous input. I am really enjoying this and, to tell you frankly, you are the first man ever who bothered to answer me on this issue. My comments are in as usual in the body of your text. ______________________ > Coming to the conclusion about the dream and sleep being part of the > waking, let us question how, in what mode, do we experience the dream > and sleep in the waking: > > After waking from a dream in which you participated in a Kerala Temple > procession with the Elephant seeveli, you recollect: 'i saw an > elephant, the crowd, the vaadyam, etc.' Note that the recollection is > articulated in the past tense. ____________________________ [Well, for that matter, all our experiences are only recollected after their occurrence. Let us take the pAyasam enjoyment you mentioned. When the enjoyment takes place, you are literally the enjoyment without any separation between pAyasam, its sweetness and you. It is only a while after (this can vary from case to case) the unifying experience that you exclaim: "I enjoyed the pAyasam". Even if one says "I am enjoying the pAyasam", it will be seen on analysis that one is only referring to an enjoyment that has already occurred.] [in fact, I didn't quote my old post completely because I thought that was not necessary. If you read the rest of it, which I am quoting below, my point of view will be clear to you:] [quote: The recognition that apparently there was no world during sleep doesn't matter. The world as an outside is never there even during wakefulness when we are really engrossed and when the doer and the done fuse together like in the height of creativity – say writing exalted poetry or sculpting right out of the heart. It happened to me several times even in the process of writing this when the world was not literally there! This fusion takes place even with our various physical enjoyments. Think about the most sublime physical enjoyment that you have ever had (I don't want to use words that make puritans raise their eyebrows.). My point will be clear. As about sleep, the division between the enjoyer and enjoyed pops up only after the fusion has ended. The world therefore should "exist" even during sleep because sleep is an event acknowledged in wakefulness like my engrossed writing of poetry or sculpting. To say that I had the experience of not experiencing anything is quite a worldly thing, isn't it? It is a problem for us to accept this just because we see the world apart from ourselves and think that it vanishes when we go to sleep. The problem resolves if the world including the waker is seen as a totality. That totality is the sAkshi who is always wakeful to both experience and the experience of not experiencing. Thus, my mundane analogy of the umbrella's folding and unfolding. Then, the question "Where does the world go during sleep?" has no validity, because if the sAkshi was there, the world also was inevitably there. There is no question of the Sakshi existing alone without the world – or rather WAKEFULNESS. The Sakshi is WAKEFULNESS. Thus, as Sakshi, I am ETERNAL WAKEFULNESS in which everything exists – sleep and dreaming included. Only the sense of separation has vanished. To the one who knows this, who is firmly rooted in this knowledge, even the separation is not a matter of concern when and if at all it apparently appears. He is called a stitaprajna. What does it matter to the placid water of the pond if the blue sky and the puffy clouds floating in the sky are reflected on its surface? Mind you, this is just another mundane analogy. Don't apply it verbatim! Thus, to ask the question, whether the world exists in sleep in `seed' form is also illogical. What seed? IT EXISTS BECAUSE I EXIST AND I AM THE WHOLE IS THE ONLY ANSWER THAT CAN BE GIVEN. Our quest should therefore address the question of what lights up this wakefulness that has in it the experiences of sleep and dreaming, because I am totally aware of my wakefulness unlike a camera which has no awareness of its own mechanics. The sAkshi comes in here – the sAkshi in me who is always awake to the fact that I am aware of all my experiences including sleep and dreaming. That sAkshi is the totality I mentioned above. Without that sAkshi none of the things that I acknowledge can be. I am that sAkshi who pervades and witnesses everything – both experiences and the experience of not experiencing. My original status as that sAkshi is deduced in my wakefulness. Even in wakefulness, as the sAkshi, I am the WHOLE without separation. This is the TRUTH. It is only when I falter on this understanding that the world becomes an external botheration demanding total elimination. This is the education and realization that experiences like sleep, moments of heightened creativity and divisionless enjoyments grant us. There is happiness in all these because I – the source of all happiness - is very much there as the Ananda of Advaita. It is upto to us to extend this understanding to all those `things of the world' from which we feel unfortunately and falsely separate. Then advaita has achieved its objective without the `aid of samAdhi' and unnecessary talk about Nirguna Brahman and all that. You are then LOVE – just another word for Ananda. This is my anubhava and the education it has imparted through my continuous contemplation and reflection on it – of course aided by the scriptures and the words of all those whom I have listened to in this enlightened Group and outside. UNQUOTE ] _______________________ >One might ask so what? When i recall > to mind at 6 pm what i did between 8 and 9 AM that day, i still recall > it as past. But there is a difference. In the Gulf, in your waking > home, the elephant episode could not have happened. But the 8 to 9 > am episode did happen and your family people are there to agree with > you when you so recall the pre-noon experience in the evening 'that > payasam you prepared was wonderful, is it not?'. Thus, one is > verifiable and the other is not. ________________________ [You are bringing in here the issue of consensus. As a fundamental of advaita, I have been taught a very logical classification of this world. It is that there are only two fundamental ingredients to this world: (a) I, the subject and (b) everything other than me (objects). The elephant sheeveli dream is an object as also the lack of consensus on it. This applies to my pAyasam enjoyment and the availability of consensus on it - both are objects. That I awoke this morning in my Gulf home to the company of my wife and daughter is not my choice any way. It just happened without my asking for it. It is an unravelling of Consciousness. To such a one who awaits Her blossoming in various different hues at every turn of a micro-micro second, tell me Subrahmanianji, what is verifiability and non- verifiability? They are simply Her on manifestation in an unending wakefulness.] ____________________________ So, by default one has to admit an > experience that was private to oneself which is not shared by others. > It is this experience that the shastram specifies as one avastha in > which 'I' the experiencer cannot be denied. > ______________ [Well, despite my questioning avastAtraya, I have not denied "I" the experiencer. I only asked is it at all necessary to labour so much to arrive at that "I".] _________________ > That the sleep and dream states do > not afford occasion to experience them as objects even as they happen > is no fault of ours; it is just their nature. What is part of the > waking is just their re-collection. _______________ [After reading my quote above, I am sure you would have realized that what I mean is that thre is only re-collection and recall of unifying experiences, which may be sukha suSupti, swapna, or pAyasam enjoyment. It is the recall that brings in a feeling of separation. Even that recall can then be analyzed as diffrent unifying experiences, thus proving that the haunting feeling of separation and alienation associated with them is ultimately a non-existent ghost.] _____________________ >I suddenly > recall (!) a statement of Acharya Shankara: dRshTameva pratibuddhaH > pratyAchashTe, na tu tad-darshanam: The one who has woken up (from > dream) denies only WHAT was seen but NOT THAT HE SAW. (How > compassionate is our Acharya that he teaches us how to see even this > everyday experience!! Only after He teaches us this, it appeals to > us.) That is enough reason to accept the three states. ________________ [Well, one may deny the contents of a dream on the basis of consensus in wakefulness but not the dream as such. I have already dealt with the relevance of this consensus to advaita. Will I accept it if my wife asserts that I didn't dream simply because she didn't dream my dream?] _________________ > > As you have specified that the two are just part of the waking, a > question would arise: What distinguishes the 'waking' from sleep and > dream in your scheme? In other words, why do you name that > state 'waking'? As you have admitted in C category that you are > writing this post in the waking, obviously, 'unconsciously' you have > distinguished, whether you like it or not, the waking state from the > other two states where this writing the post is not possible. Thus, > there is no way one can deny the three distinctive states. It is this > universal phenomenon that the shastram has recognised and prepared > this prakriya. _________________________ [Well, if you can accept that there is only wakefulness as I explained, I wouldn't need any more categorization. Are we here substantiating avastAtraya just because it has been unshakably thrust on us? I am just requesting a clarification and not questioning the sanctity of any authorities. Our Sankararamanji has already hinted at several states like coma, swooning, anaesthesia etc. - hasn't he?] ____________________ > > > The presence of just one and the absence of the other two when the one > is experienced is also another reason why each is labelled as an > avasthaa. In fact, every activity of the waking itself can be seen as > an avastha (inasmuch as each activity is exclusive of the others) and > the unchanging i can be identified. But the shastram seeks to specify > three avasthas only because of their distinct characteristics and > bring out the 'unchanging i' in those distinct avasthaas. ______________________ [Accepted if what you mean is that shAstram has selected dream and deep sleep as two distinct examples to arrive at the 'unchanging I'. The question is why they should be called avastAs akin to wakefulness when logically they can be brought under the umbrella of wakefulness.] PraNAms. Madathil Nair Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 All the three states "swakale asthi vad bhati" i.e. at that given time of experience they appear as real, but on "vichara" analysis, they all get resolved to the same footing. The story of one of the Zen masters may be of interest: He was having disussion with his disciplies. Suddenly he started laughing and when the disciples questioned what was the matter, he said that he dreamt himself as a buttefly last night. The disciples said, "what is so strange, we all have similar dreams." The master said, "that is not the point, now, when I am sitting before you all, I just wonder, whether I the Zen master or I am a character in the dream of the butterfly," I am quite confused about the dream and waking state and what is real, what is unreal, etc. Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran > wrote: Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote: Hold your guns, my dear Sankarramanji. I am fully with you. We will come to the Witness later. I don't deny the Witness. My worry is why we pine about the three states when all of them are acknowledged and appreciated in one - i.e. the so-called wakefulness of ours in which you have obviously replied me and am writing this to you. Again, I may be wrong in my conclusion. But, I want someoner to tell me how and why. Perhaps, I hope our Murthyji can do just that with his familiarity with the avastAtraya logic. PrtaNAms. Madathil nAIR _________________ - Dear sir, Now, I think, I am able to understand what you are driving at. Your concern, it seems to me, is as to why we bother about the states, the reality of which are experienced only in the waking state, the waking state recalling those experiences in the form: ' Oh! What a nightmare! I had a sound sleep in which I did not have any experience, either objective experience or the presence of my true being." Further, the problem seems to weigh in your mind that the waking state is the only datum of experience, the others being only relatable to a vanished past, which is being resuscitate. This position seems to be very relevant from the viewpoint of the quest of the Self, which can happen only in the waking state in which alone the facts of experience and absence of experience are being experienced. I think one has to take a giant leap even from the waking state by being aware of the position that the so-called waking state is one of continuous moving along the channels of objectivity in the form of interpretation of thoughts. One has to cry a halt to this mechanism by raising the question, " To whom all these happen?" In the process one can move to the position that one should not pine about the three states when all of them are acknowledged and appreciated in one - not the so-called waking state, but the light of the Self, the intuition of which is had in recalling the experiences of dream and sleep in the waking state, according to Sri Murthy. This position has to be further amplified to bring into clear relief that even the waking experiences are understood only by the intuition of the Self, which is not one of the passing states, but the abiding Witness. Apropos the clarification given by Sri Subramanium, driving home the point that the dream experiences are one's private fantasies as against waking experiences, which are shared by the others, may Mr Subramanium be so kind enough as to clarify the further position: " The fact that the others are sharing the waking experience, is only in the vision of the individual who sees others; the others' assertion have any relevance only by virtue of the individual existing as an I." I have a doubt that giving a higher reality to the waking state distinguishing it from dream experience, in the traditional advaita, is only with a view to averting the solipsistic, nihilistic, positions of the yogachara and madhyamika buddhistic schools; and that ultimately both the states suffer from the same error of unreality, the one not being superior to the other. Why I am dilating on this point is that Bhaghavan Ramna does not make this distinction. with warm regards, sankarraman Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Messenger with Voice. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 KBS Ramachandra <ram (AT) meritsystems (DOT) com> wrote: Learned friends, I have a question in this regard, with regard to out of normal experiences. During a surgery, for a short while, I was absolutely awake but with no body, no memory, no senses, nothing -- just blank. It was like waking deep sleep, but for some reason was very scary. We read about several out-of-body / near-death experiences. Are there any explanations for such experiences in avasthAtraya? Best regards, Ramachandra Dear sir, During the operation, if it is a case of local anesthesia, the particular sensory nerve is rendered insensitive, so that you are not feeling the pain; but definitely there is a psychological feeling of being scared about the pain. If there is full anesthesia, the knowledge, external, of the event, is also being blocked. Perhaps, in the deeper recesses of the mind there will be some dialog going on. All these states are synonymous only with dream and sleep states. Brahmasutra makes a distinction between swoon and sleep, in the former there being the feeling of anguish experienced by the body in spite of absence of the recording mechanism-perhaps the recording goes on subconsciously- the latter state being one of tranquility. Normally, we understand that after the state of sleep one comes back refreshed, whatever problem existing prior to that being mitigated. But in cases of patients suffering from schizophrenia and some forms of phobia, even though the patient is given total rest through sedatives, as soon as they wake up, the suppressed problems manifest with more fury. Avasthathriya makes only broad classification, but does not go into the various peculiar contents of the mind which, apparently, have no rational basis. Normally, we think only the dream contents are bizarre, and there is order in the waking state. But people suffering from delusion have strange imaginations of voices being heard, threatening them, which are not surely experienced by others. Ultimately, waking or dream, both are fundamental delusions which lead to further delusions. If one can manipulate the mind by auto-suggestions, many of the mental problems can be tackled. But practically such a thing is not found to take place. The knowledge of the Self alone calling the bluff to the dualistic states can liberate us. But the strange and sorrowful irony is that the notion is stubbornly lodged in the psyche that we can exist as individuals musing on our freedom. with warm regards, Sankarraman How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 I have heard in a lecture on "Avastha Thraya" by Swami Paramarthananda, that very rarely, the physical body and the subtle body (psychological side) do not respond to serious pain etc. and therefore one does not get pain/show any suffering. However, response to such severe pain etc. gets stored in the unconscious/subconscious side of the memory, and at some other time, sooner or later, such response can come out in a quite big way. This happens very rarely. Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran > wrote: KBS Ramachandra <ram (AT) meritsystems (DOT) com> wrote: Learned friends, I have a question in this regard, with regard to out of normal experiences. During a surgery, for a short while, I was absolutely awake but with no body, no memory, no senses, nothing -- just blank. It was like waking How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > .. > Apropos the clarification given by Sri Subramanium, driving home the point that the dream experiences are one's private fantasies as against waking experiences, which are shared by the others, may Mr Subramanium be so kind enough as to clarify the further position: " The fact that the others are sharing the waking experience, is only in the vision of the individual who sees others; the others' assertion have any relevance only by virtue of the individual existing as an I." I have a doubt that giving a higher reality to the waking state distinguishing it from dream experience, in the traditional advaita, is only with a view to averting the solipsistic, nihilistic, positions of the yogachara and madhyamika buddhistic schools; and that ultimately both the states suffer from the same error of unreality, the one not being superior to the other. Why I am dilating on this point is that Bhaghavan Ramna does not make this distinction. > with warm regards, > sankarraman > Namaste All, Dreams it seems can be personal and shared. If one is meeting with other dream situations whilst out of body so to speak, astral travelling whilst asleep etc. So really it isn't that much different from the waking state where we have apparent personal experiences and shared experiences of the illusion.................ONS..Tony. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Swami Paramarthananda discusses Avasthatrya Prakriya in Vyasti inquiry. The method of teaching is very logical in the way steps are followed. 1. vyasti vicaar (Atma and Anatma enquiry) by doing enquiry into avasthatrya, sharir trya and pacakosha. 2. samsti vicar ( Brahman and Maya) by doing enquiry into three states of world. 3. Jiva Iswara ekyam. If this is assimilated then following portion from your post will seem very natural conclusion ....... Thus, as Sakshi, I am ETERNAL WAKEFULNESS in which everything exists - sleep and dreaming included. Only the sense of separation has vanished. To the one who knows this, who is firmly rooted in this knowledge, even the separation is not a matter of concern when and if at all it apparently appears. He is called a stitaprajna. What does it matter to the placid water of the pond if the blue sky and the puffy clouds floating in the sky are reflected on its surface? .......... - "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair > <advaitin> Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:14 PM Re: AVASTHATRAYA Or TRI-BASIC VIEW OF LIFE Namaste Subrahmanyanji. Thank you for your tremendous input. I am really enjoying this and, to tell you frankly, you are the first man ever who bothered to answer me on this issue. My comments are in as usual in the body of your text. ______________________ Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.