Wake, Dream, Sleep

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

~~~~~~~

Namaste mumukshu.

 

There has been discussions on waking, dreaming and sleep and the

position of the SELF, awareness etc. and what transpires during this

time.

 

If one has further interests, you may consider the Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad, there is knowledge of this that can be found.

Looking to the Yajavalkya Kanda and its Jyotir Brahmana  the rishi

Yajnavalkya explains to king Janaka this knowledge.

 

The discucssions addresses  ' the source of light to the man while

dreaming or asleep'.   Yajnavalkya explains that the SELF is indeed

his light during sleep and dreams. He outlines the condition in this

Jyotir (light) Brahmana.

 

This forum has had the discussion as what goes on during this time,

where the continuity of consciousness resides, etc.

I did not read, but sure its been discussed on the forum where the

SELF resides during sleep, where the senses get absorbed

(into prana) etc.

 

Yet one must ponder the following:   There is a similarity between

deep sleep and the state of Liberation. How so?

In Liberation, some call turiya ( 4th) state of consciousness there

is no experience of subject-object; this is the same in deep sleep -

the senses absorbed, there is no duality, yet why do we wake up

ignorant again?

 

There is a slight difference here. In turiya, one is FULL  awareness

of the absence of duality, while in deep sleep one is UNAWARE of the

presence of duality. Yet the condition of no duality existed in both

cases. Quite interesting I may say.

 

Just like in samadhi ( transcending duality) one's senses become

absorbed, the consciousness becomes full, with no objectivity to one

thing, some call pure awareness, some call samvarga, fully absorbed.

When one stablizes this state, we can call it restful alertness. The

mind tranquil, beyound opposites, samprasada or composure of

Consciousness that occurs when freed from body consciusness - this

is paramjyoti (a light that does not require another).

 

 

Nalpe sukham asti - 'finite things do not contain happiness'  -

rishi Sanatkumara

 

pranams,

yajvan

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Namaste,

 

thank you for your message...

 

you write:

"Yet one must ponder the following:   There is a similarity between

> deep sleep and the state of Liberation. How so?

> In Liberation, some call turiya ( 4th) state of consciousness there

> is no experience of subject-object; this is the same in deep sleep -

> the senses absorbed, there is no duality, yet why do we wake up

> ignorant again?"

 

 

maybe only for an "ignorant" entity there is "falling asleep"....and

so also "waking up" appearently existing

 

Regards,

 

 

Marc

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dennis_travis33"

<dennis_travis33> wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> thank you for your message...

>

> you write:

> "Yet one must ponder the following:   There is a similarity

between

> > deep sleep and the state of Liberation. How so?

> > In Liberation, some call turiya ( 4th) state of consciousness

there

> > is no experience of subject-object; this is the same in deep

sleep -

> 

> > the senses absorbed, there is no duality, yet why do we wake up

> > ignorant again?"

>

>

> maybe only for an "ignorant" entity there is "falling

asleep"....and

> so also "waking up" appearently existing

>

> Regards,

>

>

> Marc

 

Dear Friends,

The position regarding deep sleep is this:

 

The non-appearance of duality (absence of dvaita-bhaanam) is common

to the ignorant and the Jnani during sleep.  That accounts for the

vikshepa shakti's (projecting power) absence then.  With regard to

the aavarana shakti, the concealing power of ignorance,  for the

Jnani, since the mula-avidya, basic ignorance, is no longer there,

he wakes up from sleep not into ignorance but continues as a Jnani. 

His waking up to another day of bodily existence is accounted for by

the persistence of 'avidya lesha', a residual ignorance, also known

by the terms prarabdha, samskara, etc.  For the ignorant person,

since the basic ignorance  continues, he wakes up as a samsari, a

bound person.  However, the experience 'I did not know anything'

pertaining to the sleep state is common to both the ignorant and the

wise.

 

Warm Regards,

subbu

 

    

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Friends,

> The position regarding deep sleep is this:

>

> The non-appearance of duality (absence of dvaita-bhaanam) is

common

> to the ignorant and the Jnani during sleep.  That accounts for the

> vikshepa shakti's (projecting power) absence then.  With regard to

> the aavarana shakti, the concealing power of ignorance,  for the

> Jnani, since the mula-avidya, basic ignorance, is no longer there,

> he wakes up from sleep not into ignorance but continues as a

Jnani. 

> His waking up to another day of bodily existence is accounted for

by

> the persistence of 'avidya lesha', a residual ignorance, also

known

> by the terms prarabdha, samskara, etc.  For the ignorant person,

> since the basic ignorance  continues, he wakes up as a samsari, a

> bound person.  However, the experience 'I did not know anything'

> pertaining to the sleep state is common to both the ignorant and

the

> wise.

>

> Warm Regards,

> subbu

>

Namaste,

 

I would beg to differ on this. A true Jnani is a Mukta, so there is

no ego to be ignorant or knowing. The Jnani according to Ramana is

awake in all three states..............It can be no other

way...ONS...Tony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v>

wrote:

>

> ---

>

>

>

> Dear Friends,

> The position regarding deep sleep is this:

>

> The non-appearance of duality (absence of dvaita-bhaanam) is common

> to the ignorant and the Jnani during sleep.  That accounts for the

> vikshepa shakti's (projecting power) absence then.  With regard to

> the aavarana shakti, the concealing power of ignorance,  for the

> Jnani, since the mula-avidya, basic ignorance, is no longer there,

> he wakes up from sleep not into ignorance but continues as a Jnani.

> His waking up to another day of bodily existence is accounted for by

> the persistence of 'avidya lesha', a residual ignorance, also known

> by the terms prarabdha, samskara, etc.  For the ignorant person,

> since the basic ignorance  continues, he wakes up as a samsari, a

> bound person.  However, the experience 'I did not know anything'

> pertaining to the sleep state is common to both the ignorant and the

> wise.

>

> Warm Regards,

> subbu

 

Dear subramanium,

                                            Ample discussion on this

subject has been made by you. Still, I am labouring under some doubts.

You have referred to mulavidya, the absence of the same in the jnani,

and its persistence in the anjani after the waking.

I think the term mulaavidya refers to the basic delusion that the self

does not shine, laboured under by the anjani; and that the term sthula

avidya refers to the absence of determination of the nature of objects

by the mind. That is when there is perception, in the immediate state

there is a sense of absence of determination of the nature of the object

till the interference by the intellect, which through its samskaras

brings into focus the identity of the object. But, if the intellect

alone were there, the perception of the object would  be fleeting;

hence, simultaneously, in order that the object is held in perception,

the light of the self, is a must; the intellect being an insentient

abstraction like  a pot cannot do it. That is how the nature of

perception is defined in advaita vedanta. But, in order that the Self be

known, the mere reverting back of the intellect towards the source is

sufficient, there being  no need for the further light of the self for

the perception to transpire, since the consummation in this case is not

an objective knwoledge, but the very self, which is not one of the

phenomenal objects. This is how the mulavidya is being removed.

Mulaavidya refers to the very basic notion that the self does not shine,

being entertained by the unreal intellect making one move towards the

channels of objectivity. With this mulaavidya being removed through the

vritti jnana, there is no question of the object being different from

the subject; every thing is an ocean of the light of the Self. With the

mulaavidya being extirpated, I think, the notion, "I did not know

anything,' pertaining to the state of sleep does not exist in the vision

of the jnani; nor the jnani is bothered about sthual avidya, since in

his vision there is no object to be seen. It is only in the vision of

the onlooker that the jnani is interacting in an objective world, this

being attributable to the basic avidya of the anjanis, in whose vision

there is a world of variegated objects, and various individuals.

                      Am I correct in my intellectual clarity, or my

question is somewhat confusing? Pray, please, clarify the above.

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramanna,

Sankarraman

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

>

> advaitin, "dennis_travis33"

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > thank you for your message...

> >

> > you write:

> > "Yet one must ponder the following:   There is a similarity

> between

> > > deep sleep and the state of Liberation. How so?

> > > In Liberation, some call turiya ( 4th) state of consciousness

> there

> > > is no experience of subject-object; this is the same in deep

> sleep -

> > 

> > > the senses absorbed, there is no duality, yet why do we wake up

> > > ignorant again?"

> >

> >

> > maybe only for an "ignorant" entity there is "falling

> asleep"....and

> > so also "waking up" appearently existing

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> >

> > Marc

>

> Dear Friends,

> The position regarding deep sleep is this:

>

> The non-appearance of duality (absence of dvaita-bhaanam) is common

> to the ignorant and the Jnani during sleep.  That accounts for the

> vikshepa shakti's (projecting power) absence then.  With regard to

> the aavarana shakti, the concealing power of ignorance,  for the

> Jnani, since the mula-avidya, basic ignorance, is no longer there,

> he wakes up from sleep not into ignorance but continues as a

Jnani. 

> His waking up to another day of bodily existence is accounted for

by

> the persistence of 'avidya lesha', a residual ignorance, also known

> by the terms prarabdha, samskara, etc.  For the ignorant person,

> since the basic ignorance  continues, he wakes up as a samsari, a

> bound person.  However, the experience 'I did not know anything'

> pertaining to the sleep state is common to both the ignorant and

the

> wise.

>

> Warm Regards,

> subbu

 

 

Namaste Subbu,

 

thank you for your explanations...

 

at least so...there is non-duality in "deep sleep".....

in deep sleep...there is no difference between the jnani and the

ignorant

 

when the jnani wake up.....there is still non-duality (at heart)

remaining....

the Jnani know that there is nothing "missing" until he/she fall

asleep again

 

when the ignorant wake up....there is duality

therefore, the ignorant is missing endless things....mainly

him/herSelf

during next deep sleep....this "things" are reached.....for the

duration of some time.....

but the ignorant don't know about it.....

 

 

Regards,

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste

  << would beg to differ on this. A true Jnani is a Mukta, so there is

no ego to be ignorant or knowing. The Jnani according to Ramana is awake in all three states..............It can be no other way...ONS...Tony>>

  I may be wrong, but even a Gnani cannot be awake in Deep Sleep state.. Gnanis also have all the three states, but what is the difference is they appreciate that they are just "states" and not real, and this appreciation is possible only in "waking state".

  Warm regards

  Mani

 

Tony OClery <aoclery > wrote:

  advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Friends,

> The position regarding deep sleep is this:

>

> The non-appearance of duality (absence of dvaita-bhaanam) is

common

> to the ignorant and the Jnani during sleep.  That accounts for the

> vikshepa shakti's (projecting power) absence then.  With regard to

> the aavarana shakti, the concealing power of ignorance,  for the

> Jnani, since the mula-avidya, basic ignorance, is no longer there,

> he wakes up from sleep not into ignorance but continues as a

Jnani. 

> His waking up to another day of bodily existence is accounted for

by

> the persistence of 'avidya lesha', a residual ignorance, also

known

> by the terms prarabdha, samskara, etc.  For the ignorant person,

> since the basic ignorance  continues, he wakes up as a samsari, a

> bound person.  However, the experience 'I did not know anything'

> pertaining to the sleep state is common to both the ignorant and

the

> wise.

>

> Warm Regards,

> subbu

>

Namaste,

 

I would beg to differ on this. A true Jnani is a Mukta, so there is

no ego to be ignorant or knowing. The Jnani according to Ramana is

awake in all three states..............It can be no other

way...ONS...Tony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Nairji,

  <<<say Bh.

Ramana Maharshi) as having sleep and wakefulness, eating and

walking.  However, he is TRUE WAKEFULNESS ALL THE TIME in which

sleep, dreaming, ordinary wakefulness and all other variegated

experiences have dissolved without any trace of apparent

individuality and separation.  I believe that is the real intent of

Tonyji's quote of Bh. Ramana Maharshi.>>>

  Thank you. I appreciate your kind response, and stand corrected.

  Warm Regards

  Mani

 

 

 

  > R. S. Mani

>

>            

>

> 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.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

This discussion has been going for long and has been under two different titles. And very surprisingly people are very much interested in this aspect of Vedanta. I wonder why? Is it because of a deep passion for psychology among all of us that we revere consciousness most of all? Why do we "aim" for a "state" called turIya? It is very surprising that people very well knowing that mokSha can never be described, that Brahman is beyond the horizon of our experiences, reduce it to a matter of consciousness and equate turIya with Brahman. I wonder if Sankara would make such a statement, especially since the concept that "Nibbana is a form of consciousness called turIya" is common even to vijnAnavAda Buddhism (everything is consciousness) and Sankara has verily rejected the idea.

 

In my [limited] understanding of the taittriya upaniShad, that talks of turIya, the three different forms of consciousness known generally are described and broadly classified as - wake, dream and sleep. The enlightened one is said to be beyond these forms of consciousness. To clarify that his state is not one of unconsciousness, a new state turIya is posited. I donot think this state of consciousness is called mokSha. If that were the case, then it would imply that mokSha is a result of meditative transmigration to another state of consciousness. But Sankara criticized this notion very strongly. mokSha is not a product or meditation. It is knowledge and is a product of knowledge alone.

 

Even in the Pali Canon, the Buddha explains that there are several (eight) states of consciousness. In Buddhism, there are other states like a state of waking, not withdrawn from senses, but still devoid of feelings etc. Some of these states may seems to be of no real relevance. The Buddha took 3 different things, wakefulness, sensual attachment, and feelings. He then took a permutation of all these three and described eight different forms of consciousness. For example, the state of being in anesthesia is one of wakefulness, sensual attachment, but absence of feeling. The usual wakeful state known to us is one of wakefulness, sensual attachement and presence of feeling. The dream state referred to in the upaniShad is of non-wakefulness, sensual attachement, and presence of feeling.

 

The Buddha said that the tathagata goes beyond all these states of consciousness. To this a monk asks if the tathagata is thus unconscious. To this the Buddha says that the tathagata is uncharacterized by senses and feelings and is always awake (in a different sense). Thus he said that the tathagata is not unconscious but conscious in an undescribable way [vinnanam anidassanam]. [This is different from the death of a tathagata, for which the Buddha says that nothing can be said, but here, surely the tathagata is not unconscious.]

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. From what I understand about the turIya of upaniShads:

1. It is not a state of consciousness

2. It is not an invocation of meditation

3. It is not describable using any similarities or dissimilarities

4. It cannot be characterized as an entity

5. One cannot reach it or aim at it. It just is. It is not something that is characterized by becoming.

 

A lot of my understanding is based on my understanding of the Buddha's teachings in the Pali Canon. So I may have got things in Vedanta wrong due to some inadvertent bias. Although I try to read Sankara's commentaries very objectively, still some bias is likely to appear. Only a completely enlightened man would have no bias.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

           

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "shnkaran" <shnkaran> wrote:

> >

> > Warm Regards,

> > subbu

>

> Dear subramanium,

>                                             Ample discussion on

this

> subject has been made by you. Still, I am labouring under some

doubts.

 

 

Dear Shankarraman ji,

 

Namaste.  Without going into the body of your post, i thought i will

place before you these veres from the Panchadashi II chapter:

 

105. In common parlance the expression `at the last moment' may

mean `at the last moment of life'. Even at that time, the illusion

that is gone does not return.

   106. A realised soul is not affected by delusion and it is the

same whether he dies healthy or in illness, sitting in meditation or

rolling on the ground, conscious or unconscious.

   107. The knowledge of the Veda acquired (during the waking

condition) is daily forgotten during dream and deep sleep states,

but it returns on the morrow. Similar is the case with the knowledge

(of Brahman) – it is never lost.

   108. The knowledge of Brahman, based on the evidence of the

Vedas, is not destroyed unless proved invalid by some stronger

evidence; but in fact there is no stronger evidence than the Vedas.

 

The above is only to show that a break in consciousness of the

Realised Self during deep sleep does no harm to the Jnani's

Realisation. 

 

Warm Regards,

Subbu

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

> Namaste.  Without going into the body of your post, i thought i

will

> place before you these veres from the Panchadashi II chapter:

>

> 105. In common parlance the expression `at the last moment' may

> mean `at the last moment of life'. Even at that time, the illusion

> that is gone does not return.

>    106. A realised soul is not affected by delusion and it is the

> same whether he dies healthy or in illness, sitting in meditation

or

> rolling on the ground, conscious or unconscious.

>    107. The knowledge of the Veda acquired (during the waking

> condition) is daily forgotten during dream and deep sleep states,

> but it returns on the morrow. Similar is the case with the

knowledge

> (of Brahman) – it is never lost.

>    108. The knowledge of Brahman, based on the evidence of the

> Vedas, is not destroyed unless proved invalid by some stronger

> evidence; but in fact there is no stronger evidence than the Vedas.

>

> The above is only to show that a break in consciousness of the

> Realised Self during deep sleep does no harm to the Jnani's

> Realisation. 

>

> Warm Regards,

> Subbu

 

Namaste,Subhu-ji

 

You are describing an aspiring Jnani. For if one was a Jnani/Mukta

there is nobody to sleep or awake! Just Prarabda Karma in the body

energised by the Sakti. If you are describing somebody that has had

Nirvikalpa Samadhi then perhaps you are right........How do you

describe a Jnani?..............ONS...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

> <subrahmanian_v@> wrote:

> > Namaste.  Without going into the body of your post, i thought i

> will

> > place before you these veres from the Panchadashi II chapter:

> >

> > 105. In common parlance the expression `at the last moment' may

> > mean `at the last moment of life'. Even at that time, the

illusion

> > that is gone does not return.

> >    106. A realised soul is not affected by delusion and it is

the

> > same whether he dies healthy or in illness, sitting in

meditation

> or

> > rolling on the ground, conscious or unconscious.

> >    107. The knowledge of the Veda acquired (during the waking

> > condition) is daily forgotten during dream and deep sleep

states,

> > but it returns on the morrow. Similar is the case with the

> knowledge

> > (of Brahman) – it is never lost.

> >    108. The knowledge of Brahman, based on the evidence of the

> > Vedas, is not destroyed unless proved invalid by some stronger

> > evidence; but in fact there is no stronger evidence than the

Vedas.

> >

> > The above is only to show that a break in consciousness of the

> > Realised Self during deep sleep does no harm to the Jnani's

> > Realisation. 

> >

> > Warm Regards,

> > Subbu

>

> Namaste,Subhu-ji

>

> You are describing an aspiring Jnani. For if one was a Jnani/Mukta

> there is nobody to sleep or awake! Just Prarabda Karma in the body

> energised by the Sakti. If you are describing somebody that has

had

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi then perhaps you are right........How do you

> describe a Jnani?..............ONS...

Namaste Tony ji,

 

Supposing you visit a jnani on an afternoon.  You find him asleep. 

As you are waiting, after an hour, he wakes up.  He asks you: When

did you come?  Have you been waiting for long?

Could we say that he was aware of everything during sleep? Could we

say that he is lying that he slept?

Bhagavan Ramana has replied: If a Jnani can have waking should he

not have the other states?

Just like other people, Jnanis have expressed having slept well and

also on occasions, that they did not get a good sleep.

If they were aware of anything else during sleep, it could not be

sleep at all. 

The Brahmasutra bhashya mentions, implicitly, about the Jnani being

able to know even in   dream that the objective world is false, just

as he would in the waking.  But regarding sleep i have not seen any

such statement.

The Panchadashi quoted above is quite clear about the position. It

is not about an aspiring Jnani.  Sage Vidyaranya is a very practical

Vedantin.  The verse 106 above is simply a marvel.  He reassures an

aspirant on these matters only to free him from any misconception

about the moment of death.

The overall negation of embodied experience has what has taken place

in their cases giving immensely great conviction about its falsity. 

This is my understandig based on observing and study.

 

Warm regards,

subbu        

>

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbu-ji;

 

My understanding on the matter is that the jnani maybe asleep to the exterior, transactional world, just as well as he is asleep in his waking state, with the difference that when he seems awake to the outsiders, outsiders see transactions occur. However, when outsiders see him sleeping, obviously no transactions can occur.

 

In the end, in both cases i believe the jnani to be awake to the truth of the self, disembodied ocean of consciousness, and that this does not means that he should be awake to the superimposed plane of imagined reality at all times. While his body is set to "transactional mode", so it happens. While his body is not, so it doesn't. However, inside he always "is".

 

And all this without forgetting that when a jnani expresses that he has slept, he has come down to our level of understanding in order for expression to occur, and embraced the finitude of words with which ajnanis relate.

 

My warmest regards to you and all...

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

  This is why my last message was not sent to the group?

  May I know the reason? Am I being impeded to expose my thoghts?

  Namaste,

  Frederico

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> List Moderator's Note: Members are once again reminded that they

should not include the previous poster's entire message while sending

their reply.

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Felipe <fcrema .br> wrote:

 

And all this without forgetting that when a jnani expresses that he has slept, he has come down to our level of understanding in order for expression to occur, and embraced the finitude of words with which ajnanis relate.

From

Sankarraman

Dear friends,

I am not able to accept the position that the experience of not knowing anything in deep sleep is common both to the jnanis and anjanis. I believe that the jnani is in full awareness in deep sleep, and that sleep is not one of swerving from this awareness in the case of jnani; which if it were so, one has to infer that the jnani is still in the pull of avarana-sakti. If one did not see anything in deep sleep, that is if one loses sight of the self, one would revert back to the world of multiplicity in the waking state. I think that in reality the true position should be the other way about. That is both for the jnanis and anjanis the question of not seeing anything in sleep, that is losing sight of the self, does not arise. It is so because the Knowledge of the natural state of Self is timeless. But the anjanis confound the state of absence of ego in deep sleep to be absence of any experience, in essence, the absence of the Self. The phenomenal absence is considered to be

the noumenal absence. That is because the anjanis attribute reality only to the ego, and think that the absence of the ego is tantamount to absence of oneself, which is not correct. That is why the waking state which is one of utter identification with the ego makes the pronouncement of absence of the Self in deep sleep, superimposing the characteristics of the ego on the true Self. The ego is not able to conceive the idea of its absence and the Presence of something which is true. That is why I am not able to accept the position  that the Saksi, bereft of the waking state, cannot exist. Even though I am not an erudite scholar on scriptures, my reading of the talks of great beings like Bhaghavan Ramana, has given me this intuition. After writing the previous sentence, an intuitive understanding arose in my mind, which has clarified my doubt. That is the absence of any experience in deep sleep alleged to be common to both jnanis and anjanis, has to be read with a caveat.

That is the absence of anything to see, though true in the case of jnani also, the jnani does not suffer from the notion of the absence of the true Self in deep sleep. For him it does not mean- in spite of absence of phenomenal objects in deep sleep unlike the waking and dream states- there is absence of consciousness in deep sleep. Does not the Upanishad make the following declaration to give clarity in regard to the absence of phenomena in deep sleep? “That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, yet it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.†This Mantra clarifies the position that the acknowledgement that one does not see anything in sleep, common to both the enlightened and the ignorant, is only as regards the externalized phenomena, and not the Self  perse. It is in this context only the position that  jnani’s experience

is also similar to that of the ajnani is not correct. As pointed out this is only as regards the absence of the illusory phenomena that the jnani and the ajnani alike perceive the so-called absence. But for the jnani, even the waking state’s experiences are only the Self, nothing alien to the Self existing. Pancadasi also strengthens this position. I am only articlulating  my understanding to you, and do not presume to contradict anybody. I would like to learn from you all  more.

  with kind regards,

yours ever in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

  

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Very interesting discussion. I would like to comment a couple of things. I

do not speak as someone who knows scriptures, in fact, I have read

relatively few things, some Krisnamurti, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta.

 

Still, I have lived in the "non dual existence" (to put it in words), and

one of the most shocking memories I have is that "THAT" is there all the

time (but there is no time). Yes, what we call the body is awake or goes to

sleep. While sleeping it has dreams and absense of dreams.

 

But THAT is always present. Watching (but the words cant describe it). I

feel there are new memories "imprinting" all the time, and the difference

between THAT and the normal, everyday experience is that the memories cease

to "imprint" when one ceases to be in the "non dual existence".

 

I hope this makes sense.

 

 

Manuel Delaflor

_____

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;

the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt

the world to himself. Therefore, all progress

depends on the unreasonable man.

 

-George Bernard Shaw

[Guest guest]

On 5/9/06, yajvan <agnimile (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> Hari Om

> ~~~~~~~~

>

>

> Namaste Manuel

>

 

Namaste Yajvan

 

 

> Thank you for your post, it is good to hear from someone possessed of

> SELF.  Is your experience all the time?  7x24x365?

>

> Was this a 'dawning' for you, or ahve you been blessed to be in SELF

> all of your life?

>

> I ask this for you have written 'lived' in past tense, vs. present

> condtion. DO you care to describe your experices?

>

 

I will explain my experience, with pleasure, but I hope you dont expect the

"normal" words of one who have reached the ultimate state (to put it in

words).

 

What is worst, I do not know the appropriate words (are they sanscrit?) to

express myself better.

 

Anyway. Indeed I wrote "lived" because I am no longer "there".

 

It happened suddenly, I was driving back home when I remembered the I am

That by Nisargadatta, and without advice I was "THERE". I realized that the

book were written just for me, but not me Manuel, but for "me" the non dual

reality. There are no others, and there is no I.

 

Now, for me, this was not about founding "the absolute bliss", all I reached

was an inconmensurable fear about not being a human being anymore.

 

I was there for four months, in constant and violent fear because my human

shape was just an idea, and nothing I knew was real. The world become,

strangely, completely different to what we normally see. It is impossible to

describe using words that state of "no being" that it is still, somehow,

inside this illusion about "being".

 

A bit of history. All I wanted, for all my life, was to understand what was

the world and what we were doing here. This is, of course, up to that

moment, in which I really didnt want to know anything else. There were

nothing else to know. I saw that all "knowledge" is a mental illusion,

merely tricks with words, without any content.

 

I returned to be a human among humans, because the fear was all that was

left of me. A zen master told me, years later, that it was the last resort

of my ego to "bring me back".

 

That happened 12 years ago. I still feel that I can go "there" if I want

(sometimes, discussing about philosophy or just "entering the moment" Im

almost there, for a few moments), but for now Im happy living my life as a

human being... Maybe when I feel Im ready.

 

(I understand perfectly the logical contradictions in here, but its a

problem of logic, not of being)

 

Now, regarding your specific question (sorry for the large post), yes. THAT

was there all the time, but again, words cant really grasp it. You are in a

completely different state; Walking life, Dreaming and Deep Sleep are just

"experiences" that happen, and "something" was there, all the time,

watching. It was not me, it is not human, it can be called Brahman??

 

I hope my answer is useful to you.

 

 

 

Manuel Delaflor

[Guest guest]

On 5/10/06, atmadarshanam <fsgss (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>

>   Namaste Manuel, Yajvan and everyone,

>

 

Namaste atmadarshanam

 

    Very interesting to read your experience Manuel. This reminds me

> of when I was doing what we (me and friends) called "vamachara

> tantric" practices to reach non-dual state of consciousness with the

> use of mantra´s, concentration and intoxicants such as LSD and MDMA.

>

 

It is interesting what you mention. When younger I tried several substances,

and you can reach some interesting states. Still, THAT is different. Very

different.

 

Thank you for your comment and wishes!

 

 

Manuel Delaflor

[Guest guest]

On 5/10/06, yajvan <agnimile (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> Hari Om

> ~~~~~~~

>

 

Yajvan,

 

You will not only have my permission (thans for asking) but I beg you to ask

whatever its in your mind. It was my desire, for more than 20 years. But the

result was unexpected, as it was not a state of "absolute peace" (so to

speak) but of this fear about not being a human anymore.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Manuel

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

On 5/10/06, adithya_comming <adithya_comming > wrote:

>

> Hi Manuel,

>

>

> May I have your kind permission

> to forward this post of yours

> to...

>

 

 

Thanks for asking. You can forward it. Im curious as the why, but have no

problems. In fact, thank you for doing it. Sharing surely helps to

appreciate and understand what happened to me.

 

Manuel

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

On 5/10/06, yajvan <agnimile (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> Namaste Manuel,

>

> - Its said one characteristic of being absorbed in THAT, or non-dual

> reality, is the experince of bliss. Your experiences was counter to

> that , as you mention fear - what's your thoughts on why fear was

> predominant - I read the Zen Master part, yet am puzzled. Are you

> familur with these two terms? Klesa's ( there are 5 in number)

> and this notion of lesh-avidya?

>

 

I dont know. And while I was THERE the last thing I wanted is to know. To

put it in words, it was too much too fast. I reason that I was not "ready"

for it, but I honestly dont know. Sadly Im not familiar with such terms, I

have not studied any scripture, Im just familiar with the I AM THAT by

Nisargadatta and some books about Zen.

 

 

We can leave this for later, but it points to some of

> the 'impurities' of the mind that is residue. Perhaps the fear was

> from there… [ Yogasutra's of Patanjali Chapt1.5, on Klesa's and

> Vipararyaya]

>

 

Thanks for pointing me to that reading. I will try to read it.

 

- Do you desire THAT today, or has your experience kept you at arms

> distance from going there again?

>

 

This is a good question. No. I dont desire it. A lot of things changed in me

when THAT happened. One of them is that I understood that there is nothing

to be understood. That THAT is beyond human knowledge and that I like to be

a human. I fell and I know I can "go there" (we are always there) anytime I

want. But when I was THERE all I wanted is to be "human" again, and when I

"returned" I learned that to be human is great! I know that all human

experience is temporal and illusory, and this makes our little lifes

precious.

 

- Its said in the Upanishads that when one is fully absorbed into

> THAT, fully integrated, the being enters

> into every thing, there is no-thing that is not this being on

> becoming Being. Was that an experience of yours?

>

 

You can put it in those words. I would phrase it different. There are not

"things" anymore, there are no "others" and there is not even an "I". It is

to see the nothing from no being, so to speak, and paradoxically (for words)

at the same time its to become the universe from being.

 

- This level of being is also has the experience of Ritam - that

> which only knows the Truth (satyam); said another way, Rtambhara

> Prajna - which literally means - filled unalloyed truth - or that

> which knows only perceive the Truth - was this your experience? [

> Yogasutra of Patanjali - Chapt 1.48]

>

 

Sorry, I dont think Im following. I will try to answer. All thinking about

any "truth" is destroyed against the overwhelming feeling of "being here and

now" in THAT.

 

Have you benefited from viveka or discriminative abilites from your

> experinces - has your mind sharpened?

>

 

Yes. I appreciate being a human, I see that the persistance of this world is

extremely volatil, and that it is wise to live every moment as if it were

the last one. I can "focus" my attention in seeing the world from within the

border of THAT and what I see wonders me because its so precious. Wll,

again, if I understood your question.

 

- Last question for today :>) - was there any experience or

> guidence from Isvara? Has your spiritual experiences or

> relationship, guidence, if any, been attuned to HIM? To the supreme?

> Some on this list may call HIM Saguna Brahman.

>

 

When I believed in a "personal god" yes, I could have said that. Now that Im

inmerse in this all impersonal all personal being-no being, things are more

simple... or maybe more complex? and so I do not see a separation of any

kind.

 

Thanks for asking. Im happy my experience is of some use for someone else.

 

Manuel

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------ Sponsor --------------------~-->

You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.

http://us.click./_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM

--~->

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at:http://www.advaitin.net/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

<*>

advaitin/

 

<*>

advaitin

 

<*> Your

[Guest guest]

*In Sanskrit, one of the terms to describe the Self is Sahaj. Sajaj is

That which is natural and easy and effortless. The things which are

experienced are experienced by the individual identity which views

itself as separate from the Supreme Identity. In fact, they are the

same. Upanishads say that as long as one sees the "other" there is fear.

Fear is an absolutely normal feeling in life and can happen even in deep

meditation or in the not yet fully ripe mind approaching the Self. Fear

stems from perceived loss or potential loss of what someone possesses.

Persons/Yogis can even feel sheer terror at the feeling that everything

will be lost in merging into the Self.

 

There is no antidote to that other than to be natural. Absolutely

natural without any burdens. Reflective, aware, and in the knowledge of

grace and with faith without judging, the mind becomes peaceful and clear.

 

Love to all

Harsha

*

[Guest guest]

I remember the colloquial Hindi saying, "Sahaj pake so meetha hoye". It means when we cook something slowly and naturally, it turns out sweet. The implication is when you turn the heat on too high and too quickly trying to get the results immediately, it can backfire. The Gazrella may get burned. The soup may not have the time to simmer and absorb all the flavors from the vegetables and spices.

 

"Sahaj pake so meetha hoye" is a cooking metaphor but can apply to many things, even the spiritual path. People ask for how they can hasten their spiritual progress. They want advice to move forward fast. But life is not a DVD or a VCR. The rush towards enlightenment makes an object of our Self-nature and expectations cloud the vision.

 

All advanced meditation and yoga practices finally come to the point where one becomes extraordinarily aware of the root instinct to survive not just as a physical human entity but as an identity. If we meditate deeply on our being, we will see that our actions and behavior are guided at gross and subtle levels by this root survival nature embedded in our psyche.

 

So the first principle of yoga, which is Ahimsa (nonviolence) seems very strange in this context. If our root instinct is to survive, it goes against our nature to embrace a philosophy that states that the highest principle of life is nonviolence or harmlessness to others.

 

It is only when we meditate deeply on the nature of our being, we see why the ancient sages have put Ahimsa at the top of the list. Ahimsa is the final antidote to fear at every level. Ahimsa means harmlessness. If we are cultivating Ahimsa, we are not holding on to things and we are not looking for higher states of consciousness. To look for Truth anywhere else other than where you are is not the straight path. Ahimsa in its finest essence implies absolute non-movement of the mind.

 

Without knowing that the Ahimsa is the Self-nature, fear will be there. Seeing the "other" separate from oneself is a subtle form of violence. As long as there is the "other", there is fear and the root instinct to survive dominates. When we understand that Self is One without a second, that is true Ahimsa. Without this deep cultivation of non-violence in fiber of ones being, fear will come up in meditation, and in Samadhi, and one may feel terror at the thought of losing everything along with one's identity.

 

Intellectually, we know that we will lose everything because nothing belongs to us. All things are transient and we part at the time of death from our loved ones. Yet, even knowing this truth, we cannot emotionally accept it and the deep rooted fear of loss still comes out. The whole of nature has programmed us to survive at every level. We have to respect this nature and not struggle with it. If fear comes, one has to reflect carefully as to why it has come. What are we afraid of losing? And if we are afraid of losing something (love, power, money, prestige, life, sanity, mind, etc.), we should take it in stride and not create an extra layer of judgment upon ourselves and cause more tension.

 

So it is at this point, one has to allow the soup of life to simmer with love and gratitude. When the soup is not ready, we have to let it simmer on low heat and capture all the flavors. The first principle of yoga, which is Ahimsa, or harmlessness, frees one from the fear of loss. It is the attitude of Ahimsa, that softens the tendency to hold on to things. Only through grace can one can surrender one's being to the Lord of the Heart and realize the Self as one's own being, the One without a second.

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/06, atmadarshanam <fsgss (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>

>   Namaskar Manuel and all Advaitin-s,

>

 

Then once he told

> me, "can´t you see that if you ingest a substance, even if you have

> a Samadhi, it is of no value because of the ingestion of the

> substance? what is valuable is only what you can naturally by

> yourself realize not what you can get from outer sources even if you

> have Samadhi."

>

 

Namaste Fred

 

I believe your guru is very right. The brain produces all our experiences,

and while its true that using drugs one can achieve interesting states, it

is also truth that the natural neurochemical balance of the brain has not be

transformed "from the inside" so to speak. It was an artificial state, not

the real thing. An example might come at hand. Suppose that taking MDMA

(extasy) you feel you love some other person. What happens when the

substance is not anymore in your system? Now, compare this to being in love

for years and years, with much stronger feelings I might add.

 

True, as every example is incomplete, but I believe it points you to what I

want to say.

 

Its good to know that you are no longer trying to get Enlightment with

external "tools" instead of your own sense of awareness.

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/06, yajvan <agnimile (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> Namaste Manuel,

>

> 1. Every thing seen is an extention of ones SELF which is grounded

> in satyam ( truth), and THAT is seen everywhere.

>

>

If I understand, I would say that number 1 is a better approach. But

remember that one stops to seeing the "difference" between what is called

"I" and what is called "the world". Such a boundary is simply not present at

all. Not at all, in any sense, one have trouble even trying to understand

such "separation", seems completely arbitriary and absolutely irrelevant.

 

And as I told you before, the very sense of having a "truth" is completely

eclipsed by the incomensurable force of "simply" being there.

 

 

Another question, if you care to address, do you have any guidence

> to others... the lessons learned  ( on two levels)

> A>  If one wanted to hasten their  progress and have a glimpse of

> THAT, consider doing the following:

>

 

Since I didnt reached the peace associated to THAT I would refrain myself as

for giving any guidance. Still, this would be my best:

 

Be attentive to the moment. Dont forget that you are being attentive. Be

even more attentive when you realice you are being attentive. Attention is

the key.

 

 

> B> If you prefer a 'smooth ride' and avoid bumps and experiences,

> from my experience avoid do the following:

>

 

This is the tricky part. In my case, I guess I was not ready to leave the

human form. I enjoy being here. Be ready to see something that goes well

beyond anything you can imagine. One thing is to think about non duality,

and another, VERY DIFFERENT is to actually see it.

 

I would say that its like have lived without sight for all your life and

then, because an advance treatment, begin to see for the first time.

Whatever you thought it was going to be the "light" it is not!

 

Thank you for reading.

 

Manuel

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.