Avasthatraya viveka - a clarification

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subrahmanianji.

 

Appreciate your position and decision.  I will follow suit now that

the originator of the thread himself feels that  factual observations

are arguments and counter-arguments.  Hopefully, we can take this up

some other time or even off-list if time permits and if you are

interested.  Some of the contents of your post elicited certain

responses in my head, which I am now fighting back.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

> To sum up, I have no disagreement with your scheme of bringing in

> all the states of experiences under one umbrella.  I just wanted to

> point out, humbly, that the name of the umbrella would have to

> be 'Sakshi' 'Witness' or Pure Consciousness that I am.  The word

> wakefulness (if it means 'waking state') to connote this umbrella

> causes some confusion for the reasons specified by me above.  Your

> scheme is not alien to the avasthatraya viveka; it is the

> culmination of that viveka.  This is the pre-eminent position of

> Vedanta that you have so nicely explained and practiced over the

> years.  This is what is dear to me as well.  What Sri Shankararaman

> ji has pointed out is also not in disagreement with the

Avasthatraya

> viveka.  To say that the avasthatraya viveka is not needed to

arrive

> at the unfailing consciousness that persists in all states would

> amount to saying:' I want to be in such and such place.  Don't ask

> me to travel.'  I mentioned this just to show how indispensable

this

> viveka is for discerning the one unchanging consciousness. With

this

> conciliatory note I end this discussion.

>

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai

<pairamblr> wrote:

>

> namaskaram

>   

>   I read this and other articles on this subject several times and

i can assure u i have not been lucky to understand anything.

>   

>   however Shri Ganesan's this article possibly would have helped a

person like me to understand a little bit, if only he had spared a

few seconds to break his sentences and paragraphs.  when i think i

am getting some where, i see that i am pulled back into the same

whirpool of not knowing what is being said.  i was glad to come

across ' druk'  viveka etc...but i feel the mix up is too much for

an ordinary student like me to understand.

>   

>   is there any other posting on this subject which helps us to

understand step by step?

>   

>   namaskaram

>

 

Namaste Sri Pai ji,

 

Yesterday, just before the commencement of the discourse, i had a

few words with Swami Paramarthanandaji.  I asked him about the above

enquiry of yours and mentioned that i had listened to the Swami's

excellent exposition of the subject in (1) his Panchadashi I chapter

classes and (2)His Mandukyopanishad classes, the first 6 classes. 

He concurred with the above and suggested that one can listen to

them and benefit.  The cassettes/CDs are available with

Shastraprakashika Trust, Chennai. 

 

In case you are residing in Bangalore, you can contact me by email

and arrange for a meeting when i can help you with these tapes.

 

Warm regards

subbu    

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Subrahmanianji,

  

  I understand u are attending the programme of Sw Paramarthanandaji at RV Teachers college.  I am also coming there.  only think i do not know how to recognice you.

  my mob nr is 9448048876 and i u let me know, then sure, i will meet u.

  but the mobile is switched off from may be 5.30 till 8.45 or 9 pm ( i forget to switch it on..) .

  thanks and pranams

  ram mohan

 

 

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

  advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai

<pairamblr> wrote:

>

> namaskaram

>   

>   I read this and other articles on this subject several times and

i can assure u i have not been lucky to understand anything.

>   

>   however Shri Ganesan's this article possibly would have helped a

person like me to understand a little bit, if only he had spared a

few seconds to break his sentences and paragraphs.  when i think i

am getting some where, i see that i am pulled back into the same

whirpool of not knowing what is being said.  i was glad to come

across ' druk'  viveka etc...but i feel the mix up is too much for

an ordinary student like me to understand.

>   

>   is there any other posting on this subject which helps us to

understand step by step?

>   

>   namaskaram

>

 

Namaste Sri Pai ji,

 

Yesterday, just before the commencement of the discourse, i had a

few words with Swami Paramarthanandaji.  I asked him about the above

enquiry of yours and mentioned that i had listened to the Swami's

excellent exposition of the subject in (1) his Panchadashi I chapter

classes and (2)His Mandukyopanishad classes, the first 6 classes. 

He concurred with the above and suggested that one can listen to

them and benefit.  The cassettes/CDs are available with

Shastraprakashika Trust, Chennai. 

 

In case you are residing in Bangalore, you can contact me by email

and arrange for a meeting when i can help you with these tapes.

 

Warm regards

subbu    

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Ram Mohan,

 

In your message 31102 of April 29, you asked for a simple account of

the 'Avasta-traya' or the 'three states'. In essence, this is a

simple way of analysing our experience of the world. But it uncovers

confusions in our understanding, and it is those confusions which

make us discuss it in our complicated ways.

 

In what we call the 'waking state', we think of our bodies as

'awake'. We think that they are awake to an outside world, which is

made up of objects. Our bodies perceive these objects, in various

different parts of space. So we think that these objects co-exist in

space; and we describe the world as a composite structure, in which

these differing objects are related together.

 

But how is it that we describe the world? We describe it in the

course of time. And there is an essential difference between space

and time. Space is made up of co-existing points. The different

points of space can exist together, in relation to each other, at

the same moment of time. But time is made up in quite a different

way, of moments that pass by.

 

As time is experienced by each one of us, moments do not co-exist.

Two different moments are never present together. When any moment

occurs, other moments are not there. Previous moments are now

absent; future moments have not yet occurred. As each moment occurs,

it replaces previous moments; and it is in turn replaced, in the

stream of passing time.

 

As time goes by in mind, it is experienced as a stream of

perceptions, thoughts and feelings that keep on passing by. At each

passing moment, some perception, thought or feeling appears, taking

part in a process of conception that displays a changing world to

each one of us.

 

In what we call the 'dream state', we experience this conceiving

process in our minds. And here, by using the word 'dream', we imply

that the world conceived does not exist outside the mind. A mind

that's caught in dreams has only an inside.

 

When the world is thought known by a body, in the waking state, we

often speak of a world outside the body and the mind. And that

outside world is thought different from the mind inside.

 

But this difference does not apply to the dream state. A dreaming

mind has only an inside. Its dreamt-up world is not outside its own

internal process of conception. The dreaming mind has only an

inside, with no outside, despite the world it dreams about.

 

But how can there be an inside, if there is no outside to contrast

it with? What sense can we make of our conceiving minds and their

capacity for dreaming within themselves?

 

These are delicate questions. To examine them properly, we have to

look at our minds from their own point of view. We have to leave

behind the co-existing objects and the structured space of the

waking state; as we consider our minds as they are in themselves, in

their own replacing process of conception.

 

In that replacing process, time alone is present. There are no

co-existing objects, in the structured space of an external world.

There is only a process of conception, made up of passing moments

that can never co-exist. But then, how can one moment be related to

another? How can one passing moment be contrasted and compared to

another, so as to know that change has taken place?

 

As time passes in the mind, something must continue through the

change, so as to know the different moments that occur. There must

be a knowing something which stays present in our minds, while

perceptions, thoughts and feelings come and go.

 

That knowing something is called 'consciousness'. It is a knowing

principle that's somehow shared in common, by the differing

perceptions, thoughts and feelings we experience in our minds. As we

experience change, consciousness is that which knows.

 

But what is the 'knowing' of that consciousness, as it stays present

through the changes in our minds? That knowing is no changing

action, of body, sense or mind. For all such bodily and sensual and

mental actions change, from one moment to the next.

 

In fact, no bodily or sensual or mental acts can ever know anything

themselves. They can only function to produce their bodily and

sensual and mental appearances, which are all known by

consciousness. In this sense, consciousness is a subjective or

knowing light, by which all appearances are lit, through all our

differing and changing experiences.

 

That consciousness illuminates itself. Its knowing is no changing

act, but its own being in itself. Its very being is to shine,

without the need for any physical or sensual or mental appearances.

 

In the waking state, consciousness seems mixed, with physical and

sensual and mental appearances. In the dream state, exactly the same

consciousness seems mixed with mental appearances alone. But then,

is there a state where consciousness shines purely by itself, so

that we may discern its unchanging light from all the changing show

that it illuminates?

 

Yes, there is such a state, where consciousness is found all alone.

This state is called 'deep sleep', but it is highly paradoxical.

 

The trouble comes from our habitual way of looking at deep sleep. As

a matter of ingrained habit, we see deep sleep from the viewpoint of

the waking or the dream states. Then it appears that deep sleep is

an 'unconscious' state, where consciousness is absent or has

disappeared.

 

But in this habitual view of deep sleep, we utterly confuse what's

really meant by the word 'consciousness'. The word refers to just

that knowing principle which is shared in common by all states of

experience. It is the one principle which is always present in all

states. No matter what may disappear, the disappearance must be lit

by consciousness. So consciousness stays present there, through all

appearances and disappearances. The words 'appear' and 'disappear'

do not apply to it.

 

What we experience in deep sleep is that all waking and dream

appearances have disappeared. The waking body and its differentiated

objects have all disappeared. So have the dreaming mind and all its

changing perceptions, thoughts and feelings. All space and time, all

world outside and mind inside have disappeared. There is no physical

or sensual or mental content in deep sleep. There is no space, no

time, no difference, no change, no outside, no inside.

 

There's only consciousness itself: completely unperceived,

unthought, unfelt, beyond all space and time, beyond all difference

and change, beyond all outside and inside. The content of deep sleep

is only consciousness, shining on its own.

 

When the experience of deep sleep is thus examined in itself, it

gives up its appearance as a changing state. It thereby points

beyond this appearance, to an unchanging background of

consciousness, which is common to all states.

 

In the Mandukya Upanishad, that background is called 'caturtha' or

the 'fourth'. The waking state is called 'jagarita-sthana'; the

dream state is called 'svapna-sthana'; and the deep sleep state is

called 'sushupta-sthana'. The word 'sthana' or 'state' is applied

specifically to the three states. The changeless background is

called simply 'caturtha' or the 'fourth'. The word 'sthana' or

'state' is not applied to it. This, I would say, is the Advaita

view, specifically described as such in the Mandukya Upanishad.

 

 

For those who practice yoga, the state of nirvikalpa samadhi is

sometimes called 'turiya', which also means the 'fourth'. But this,

I would say, is a yogic description, explicitly describing 'turiya'

as a fourth state. This yogic description is quite different from

the Mandukya description of 'caturtha' as a changeless background,

beyond all states that come and go. A great deal of confusion is

caused by indiscriminately mixing up these two different

descriptions.

 

Sorry that this post has got rather long. Perhaps it might help to

summarize the basic argument.

 

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

 

In the 'waking' state, a body is assumed to know a world of

structured space. This 'waking' body has an inside and an outside.

 

In the 'dream' state, a mind is thought to undergo a changing

process of conception, in the course of passing time. This

'dreaming' mind has an inside, but no outside.

 

In the 'deep sleep' state, all 'waking' and 'dream' appearances have

disappeared. The content of deep sleep is just consciousness, which

is shared in common by all changing states. That consciousness is

always present, throughout all experience. It does not appear or

disappear. It has no inside, no outside.

 

Thus, 'deep sleep' points to a changeless background of true

knowing, which continues through all states that come and go. That

background is sometimes described as the 'fourth', beyond the three

states of 'waking', 'dream' and 'deep sleep'.

 

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

 

But I must warn you that the above description is made only from one

particular point of view. There are, of course, many other points of

view, which will not quite agree with it.

 

Ananda

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Anandaji.

 

I thought we closed our discussion on this topic.

 

I very much appreciate and welcome your interesting analysis of

avastAtraya.  Will you now permit me to ask a few questions?  I will

straight go to your summary.  My questions/comments are in .

 

You wrote:

 

> In the 'waking' state, a body is assumed to know a world of

> structured space. This 'waking' body has an inside and an outside.

 

[The 'body which is assumed to know' is also known as a part of

structured space.  So, it is clear in the waking state that it is not

the body that knows, although there is an identification with the

body.  Besides, it is not the body that is thought of as having an

inside and an outside.  It is the 'waking' individual, be it

whatever.  I assume you meant it that way.]

 

You said about the dream state:

 

> In the 'dream' state, a mind is thought to undergo a changing

> process of conception, in the course of passing time. This

> 'dreaming' mind has an inside, but no outside.

 

[A dream is a world in itself structured in time and space like the

waking world.  The dreamer is wakeful to his world and he also has

inside and outside worlds.  Example:  I, as a dreamer can do dream-

thinking (inside world) while transacting with the dream world

(outside world).  That 'the mind is thought to undergo a changing

process of conception in the course of passing time' is a conclusion

that we arrive at in waking and not during dreaming.  Dreaming is

understood as dreaming only in waking.]

 

You wrote about deep sleep:

>

> In the 'deep sleep' state, all 'waking' and 'dream' appearances have

> disappeared. The content of deep sleep is just consciousness, which

> is shared in common by all changing states. That consciousness is

> always present, throughout all experience. It does not appear or

> disappear. It has no inside, no outside.

 

[No problem here.  However, here again, the conclusion that the

content of deep sleep is just consciousness is arrived at only in the

waking state.  Well, we may talk advaita and do avastAtraya prakriya

in a dream.  However, on waking, we will admit that what happened in

the dream was just an echo or reflection of what had been assimilated

in waking.]

 

You continued to say:

 

> Thus, 'deep sleep' points to a changeless background of true

> knowing, which continues through all states that come and go. That

> background is sometimes described as the 'fourth', beyond the three

> states of 'waking', 'dream' and 'deep sleep'.

 

[May I say that the 'fourth' is not beyond the three?  The three are

verily the fourth like bangle, ring and chain are essentially gold. 

I am sure you meant it that way.]

 

[Thus, the two so-called states of sleep and dreaming, including the

knowledge that I existed during their sway, are

appreciated only in waking.  A person can say I am a

boy when he is ten, I am a youth when twenty and I am

on old man when sixty.  Thus, childhood, youth and old

age are three independently testified states, testified during their

occurrence.  That

type of facility is lacking with regard to the

avastAtraya.  And that, in my eyes, is a big

difference and reason enough to stop me short of calling them

states.  I would rather that they are experiences in waking - a

factual observation which had earlier faced rough weather here.]

 

Thank you very much, Anandaji, for your very thought-provoking

analysis.

 

PraNAms and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shree Anandaji, PraNAms

 

Beautiful article.  I need to study again to comprehend it fully.

 

However, I like make couple of points - just a way of clarification from

my own understanding.

 

 

While the concept of time arises with movement in space, it looses even

the objectivity, since the movement is movement of concept or a thought

in the mind.  The mind enters into picture since the movement itself is

measured with reference to past (position) which is memory in the mind.

Hence, to define we need two the past and the present - and the gap

between the two is concept of time.  Thought itself is a movement and

thus a definition of time arises with its arrival and exist as two

sequential events observed by the mind that is illuminated by the

consciousness.  It is the mind that recognizes the time in the light of

consciousness.  Hence, without the mind there is no concept of time as

in deep sleep state. 

 

In addition, the imaginary nature of time becomes evident since it is a

gap - time gap arises where past meets the future.  That is where the

present is - meeting ground for past and future.  However, both are

imaginary or concepts in the mind.  The gap reduces to zero in the

absolute present where the very concept of time disappears.  What is

there is only the observer of the present - the conscious mind (mind

supported by consciousness.

We can live only in present, while ego is related to past and future.

Recognition of that is the recognition of the absolute truth and that is

turiiyam, where all concepts arise, sustained and go back into,

including the concept of time.

 

 

Another point I would like to make is in the dream, there is no outside,

only from the point of the waking mind.  In the dream, I dream as a

subject, with the objective world outside me (all of course supported by

the waking mind).  Hence from the point of I (the dreamer) there is both

outside and inside, just as in the waking state.  I see the building on

fire in my dream with all the spectators watching.  That building and

the conscious observers are outside me the dreamer subject, I.  Only

when I am awakened to the so-called waking state, I recognize that all

were inside my waking mind. Hence the statement that dream is inside is

only relatively true from the point of a waking mind and not from

dreamer's mind. 

 

Hence inside and outside are relative too. 

 

The waking world is the projection of the total mind; and from that

mind's point, the waking world is only inside total mind, supported by

Iswara - all again are supported by the conscious entity - turiiyam.

Hence the analaysis of microcosmic world and macrocosmic world.  

 

The analogy of waking and dream therfore exact; and that I hope to

clarify this in the Mandukya series, when I get to the comparisons.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

--- Ananda Wood <awood (AT) vsnl (DOT) com> wrote:

................

> But this difference does not apply to the dream state. A dreaming

> mind has only an inside. Its dreamt-up world is not outside its own

> internal process of conception. The dreaming mind has only an

> inside, with no outside, despite the world it dreams about.

>

> But how can there be an inside, if there is no outside to contrast

> it with? What sense can we make of our conceiving minds and their

> capacity for dreaming within themselves?

>

> These are delicate questions. To examine them properly, we have to

> look at our minds from their own point of view. We have to leave

> behind the co-existing objects and the structured space of the

> waking state; as we consider our minds as they are in themselves, in

> their own replacing process of conception.

..............

............

> -----------------

>

> But I must warn you that the above description is made only from one

> particular point of view. There are, of course, many other points of

> view, which will not quite agree with it.

>

> Ananda

>

>

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Madathil,

 

Yes indeed, I agree with your message 31183 of 3rd May that when we

analyse the three states of waking, dream and sleep, this raises

questions in the waking state. I would even say that such questions

are essential to this prakriya.

 

Whenever we think that our bodies are 'awake', we take it for

granted that they know a world outside themselves, a world in which

each body is contained. It's in this sense that the body has an

inside and an outside. The inside of each body is its internal

structure, made up of smaller parts. The outside of each body is the

rest of the world, made up of other bodies and objects.

 

When we think in this way, we imply that our knowing is a structured

mimicry. Through our bodily senses, our nerves and brains, our

breathing lungs, our speaking mouths, our writing and drawing and

moulding hands, and through other bodily organs and instruments, we

reproduce the structures of the world at large, in cultural and

personal microcosms which we find more convenient to control.

 

The natural world is thus mimicked symbolically, through cultural

and personal conventions that bring in a degree of artificiality. To

describe this compromised imitation, we sometimes use the word

'information'. And when we think that our bodies are 'awake', we

implicitly identify this compromised imitation with our knowing.

 

But if our knowing is thus compromised, this makes us ask how it may

be improved. We do indeed make attempts to improve it; and they

involve our capacity to dream. We use our minds to dream up better

pictures of the world, thus leading us to truer knowledge.

 

But our minds are quite different from our bodies. A body can exist

at rest, as a structure of co-existing parts. Each mind exists in

passing only, as a stream of replacing moments in the process of

conception. The mind cannot exist at rest. If its moments stop their

change, it completely disappears.

 

At each moment in the mind, some picture of the world appears. But

this picture is no structure that is formed from different parts,

like the pictures that are formed by our bodies in the waking state.

Instead, each picture in the mind is a momentary appearance,

appearing in relation to what went before and in relation to what is

anticipated in the future.

 

It is quite true, as you say, that "The dreamer is wakeful to his

world and he also has inside and outside worlds." But when you say

this, you are speaking from the dreamer's identification with the

waking body that his mind has dreamed. You are here treating the

dream state as a waking state.

 

When it is said that "the dreaming mind has an inside, but no

outside", then we are speaking from a different point of view. That

is the dreaming mind's own point of view, as examined from the

waking state. In considering the dream state, through a waking

examination, a habitual identifying with the outward body is

removed, by falling back upon a deeper and more inward

identification with the conceiving mind. That conceiving mind is

there in the waking state as well as in dreams. It is simply

uncovered by an examination of the dream state and its admittedly

dreamt-up world. (With the admission coming, somewhat paradoxically,

from the waking state!)

 

But having fallen back upon the conceiving mind, a further problem

arises. What are the moments of conception that flash by in our

minds? At each present moment, it alone appears, in the absence of

all past and future moments. How then can different moments be

related, when each appears entirely alone? Since past and future

moments are all absent now, in the present moment, how can the

present ever be related to the past and the future?

 

How can we ever know any causal relationship, between two different

moments, when they are never known together, as co-existing parts of

some common structure? The mind may dream that it experiences a

world of space and structure; but all such dreams of mind turn out

to be mistaken, when the mind's experience is investigated in

itself. There is in fact no space or structure in our conceiving

minds. There is only time and process. All thoughts of space and

structure are mistaken dreams of mind.

 

When space and structure are thus shown as mistaken dreams, what

truth can be left in the time and process of our conceiving minds?

The only truth that can be left is consciousness, which carries on

unchanged through changing time. At each moment in the mind, that

consciousness appears expressed, in some momentary perception,

thought or feeling that is passing by.

 

Thus consciousness appears mixed up, with a changing and

differentiated variety of its expressions. It is the common source

of all differentiated space, all changing time and all continued

causality. In the waking state, it is outwardly perceived, through

the differentiated points of external space. In the dream state, it

is inwardly conceived, through the changing moments of inner time.

And in the state of deep sleep, consciousness appears by itself, in

the absence of all differing and changing things.

 

As you point out, the state of deep sleep can't be considered in

itself, for there is no mind in deep sleep to do the considering. To

understand deep sleep, our minds must be reflected back to it, in

the waking state. Our minds must be reflected back to a depth of

experience where all mental activity has disappeared. That depth is

unmixed consciousness, which knows itself in identity.

 

Deep sleep is sometimes called the 'causal state', in the sense that

it points to the underlying cause of all phenomena. But it needs to

be understood that in this pointing to a final cause, all language

must be shown up as inadequate and all expression must break down.

 

As you point out, the "so-called states of sleep and dreaming,

including the knowledge that I existed during their sway, are

appreciated only in waking". And you say that you would rather call

them "experiences in waking". Yes I agree that one could usefully do

that.

 

But to make the description truly useful, the  investigation would

have to deepen what is meant by the word 'waking'. It would have to

go beyond the so-called 'waking' of the body, which is never truly

'awake'. And it would thus have to approach the awareness of

consciousness itself, which alone is in truth 'awake'. In that

approach, all words -- like 'state' or 'waking' or 'dream' or

'sleep' or 'cause' or 'consciousness' -- would somehow have to be

left behind.

 

Ananda

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sadananda,

 

Thanks for your kind comments (message 31196, 3rd May).

 

Yes indeed, I am very much in sympathy with you, when you say:

"Thought itself is a movement ..." and "It is the mind that

recognizes the time in the light of consciousness".

 

I also agree about the "imaginary nature of time", because both

"past and future ... are imaginary or concepts in the mind." And I

am interested by your description of "a gap - time gap arises where

past meets the future."

 

I've heard a similar description of a gap in time, a gap which

occurs whenever a preceding thought is replaced by a succeeding one.

That gap is an experience which each of us must have --immediately

after a preceding thought has disappeared and immediately before

another thought has appeared in mind.

 

What is our experience in that gap? There is no changing thought in

it, and thus there is no time. So, our experience there is timeless

in itself. What we experience there is just the living present,

unmixed with any thought of change and time. The content of

experience there is exactly the same as in the state of deep sleep.

Deep sleep thus points to our timeless experience in the living

present.

 

In that timeless experience, all sense of 'outside' and 'inside'

have completely disappeared. So as you say, all "inside and outside

are relative". It's only in relation to some waking body or some

dreaming mind that we can speak of an 'inside' or an 'outside'.

Depending on the particular perspective, we use these words in

different ways, which often get confused and thus need to be

clarified.

 

I thank you and Shri Madathil for helping with the clarification.

 

Ananda