On the topic of 'Self Realization'

[Guest guest]

Self Realization

 

Namaste Advaitins,

 

In the ongoing discussion on the above subject, the main theme is: 

the distinctness or otherwise, of the states, especially the dream

and waking.  A couple of days ago I got the following thoughts while

ruminating on the various views that have surfaced on the subject:

 

Sri Madathil ji put forward the view that it should not be lost sight

of that dreams do have an effect on the waking and gave examples like

seeing something dreadful or unpleasant in the dream can leave a

person moody in the waking.  Again, beholding a loveable person can

make the waking laced with pleasant moods.  This, Madathilji advanced

as a counter to Sri Srinivasa Murthy's view  that the two states are

mutually  independent in the sense that 'I am not affected by the

happiness of either the dream state or the waking state.'

 

What Sri Madathil ji states is a fact of life and can't be denied. 

After considering the two views what I concluded is this:

 

The view of Sri Madathilji is a fact recognised by the Shastra and it

makes an effort to 'correct' that view.  That view can be

termed 'avichaarita drishti' or a view that has not been enquired

into by using the shastra pramanam and therefore has to be subjected

to  enquiry.  Why should a fact of life be subjected to enquiry? 

Because, in the view of the Shastram, an 'avichaarita drishti' is

born of ajnanam and therefore binding in nature.  Let us look at the

larger picture and place the issue on hand in perspective:

 

The shastram draws the analogy of the dream that is generally

admitted to be false and of no substantial content and disregarded by

everyone on waking.  In most occasions, they are not even

remembered.  Even if some details remain in memory for a few minutes

on waking, slowly the entire dream goes out of memory.  Only those

dreams that have left a deep impression on the mind of the dreamer

last long,  are remembered and sometimes discussed also.  This has

both positive and negative results.

 

To explain the positive effect of a dream I quote below an excerpt

from the book 'Yoga, Enlightenment and Perfection' :

 

Acharyal later gave the following elucidation about guidance and

directives received in dreams. It is certain that all that is seen in

a dream is false.

 

There are no chariots, horses or paths there.

(Brihadàranyaka Upanishad IV.3.10)

 

But the dream creation is a mere illusion on account of its nature of

not being manifest with the totality of the attributes (found in the

waking state, such as adequate space, time and circumstances and not

being nullified). (Brahmasutra III.2.3)

 

Nevertheless, what is encountered in a dream may, uncommonly, form a

basis for spiritual practice. In the Yoga-Þàstra, it is said:

 

Svapna-nidrA-jnAnAlambanaM vA  

(Yogasutra I.38)

Alternatively, the mind reaches the state of steadiness by having as

its object of focus a perception had in dream or sleep.

 

Explaining this, Vàcaspati has said [in his gloss TattvavaishAradI]

that a person may see in a dream an exquisite, well-decorated image

of Shiva in a forest. After waking up, the concerned person can

recall that image and meditate upon it.

 

Rarely, a person may have a dream in which he receives initiation

from God or the Guru into a mantra. In the Mahàbhàrata [in chapters

80 and 81 of the DroNa-Parvan], there is an account of a dream in

which Arjuna received instructions from Shiva. Having vowed to slay

Jayadratha by sunset the next day, Arjuna was worried about how he

could achieve success. When he fell asleep, he had a dream in which

Krishna came to him and led him on an aerial journey to the summit of

the kailàsa mountain. There, they beheld Shiva and eulogised Him. In

response to Arjuna's prayer, the Lord directed them to fetch His bow,

pinàka, and His pAshupata-astra from a celestial lake. When they did

so, a brahmacàrin emerged from Shiva's side and taught Arjuna how to

discharge the pAshupata arrow. The Lord also taught Arjuna the mantra-

s for invoking the weapon. Arjuna's memory of the instructions about

the use of the pAshupata that he had received much earlier from Shiva

was thereby restored. On waking up, he was in a position to invoke

with mantra-s and employ the irresistible pAshupata, if needed.

 

A dream in which one sees the Guru or God is good and can be viewed

as a sign of divine grace. However, one ought not to indiscriminately

assume that whatever instruction one has received in the dream is

indeed the directive of the Guru or God and blindly carry it out. For

instance, it would be a grave error for one to harm another because

of having dreamt of being commanded to do so. One should not

implement what is contrary to one's dharma nor give weight to a

teaching that is discordant with the actual position of the

scriptures and one's Sadguru.

 

Rare are the dreams in which one is actually blessed with the

instructions of God or the Sadguru. A sceptic who hears of a dream of

this kind would, perhaps, dismiss it as a fabrication of the narrator

or seek to explain it in some other way such as that the apparently

new information acquired is actually based on knowledge unwittingly

gained earlier. The extraordinary nature of such dreams and the

appropriateness and worth of the guidance received through them are,

however, generally unmistakable to the one who has them.} (End of the

quote)

 

This is a positive fallout of a good dream. But negative impact of

bad dreams is also a fact; one can imagine any number of instances.

 

Coming to the shastram drawing the dream analogy to teach the falsity

of the waking state, the idea is to teach that the samsara

(experience of joy and sorrow) experienced in the waking is also

false akin to the samsara  experienced in the dream.  It is with this

end in view that the shastram teaches that the waking does not spill

over to the dream and vice versa.  The exclusiveness of the two are

brought in clear relief by advancing various arguments like: the

person sleeping in town 'x' dreams that he is in town 'y'.  When he

gets up he does not find himself in town 'y' but in 'x' alone.  A

wealthy person in the waking can dream as finding himself in penury. 

The whole gamut of the discussion can be seen in the Mandukya karikas

for further details.  The karika concludes that just as a samsara

consisting of an experiencer, the experienced objects (events) and

the experience is concocted, created, projected, in the dream and

turns out  to be false upon waking, so too is the samsara projected

in the waking and it turns out to be false upon enquiry.  The reasons

to treat both the states as mithya are: 1. DRishtatvAt = because they

are experienced (seen) and 2. because both the states are found to

have a beginning and an end = before and after that state it did/will

not exist.  Therefore it is proper to conclude that during its

pendency also it is not existing and hence mithya. 

 

By teaching this sameness, sAmyam, between the states, the shastram

wants us to appreciate that the Seer of these states is left

untouched by the states.  It is this recognition that constitutes

experiencing of the 'asangatvam' of the Atman. This is

the 'Vichaarita dRishti', the 'considered view' of the shastram. It

is in this sense that the experience (ideal) 'I am not affected by

the happiness of the dream' was mentioned.  The I is essentially here

the Atman.  This is how anusandhanam as per the shastra  is to be

performed. 

 

Thus we have the prima-facie view: the avichaarita drishti, which is

regarded as a fact of life, that is recognised by the shastra on the

one hand and the final view, the vichaarita drishti that emerges upon

applying the shastra-given prakriya.  The avowed objective of the

shastra is: Give up the avichaarita drishti and get liberated from

samsara by taking the vichaarita drishti.

 

The Bhagavadgita sloka Chapter Two, verse 16 that we considered in

some detail only recently says:

The unreal has no true existence and the Real can never go out of

Existence. 

The Acharya taught in his unsurpassable commentary for this seminal

verse that: In conclusion, since this is the teaching of the

shastram, O Arjuna, bear with the dualities of sukham and duHkham,

happiness and sorrow, that present themselves in life, with

equanimity, samatvam.  Consider them as unreal, like the mirage-water

and be free from their onslaughts. 

 

Let me conclude by mentioning the example of 'The Discriminating

Householder':

 

A man had lost his son.  Seeing him sitting in all calmness and

composure, his wife asked him: 'What is this?  Our only son has died

and you are sitting like this as if nothing has happened.  Do you

have a stone for a mind?'

The bereaved father replied: Look, yesterday I dreamt that I was a

King with seven sons.  All of them were gems and I loved them

dearly.   In a war with a neighbouring King, all those boys died. 

Now tell me, for which of my dead sons must I grieve?

 

Will someone please say where the above parable occurs?

 

The positive fallout of the current discussion is the above.  I thank

both Sri Murthy ji and Sri Madathil ji  for putting forward the

apparently divergent views.  This gives an opportunity to weigh both

the views and assess them accordingly.  The one cannot be appreciated

in the absence of contrasting it with the other.  That is the supreme

benefit of this discussion which took the scriptural shape

of 'purvapaksha and siddhanta', although unintended by anyone.

 

Pranams to all,

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:

>

> Self Realization

>

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

> In the ongoing discussion on the above subject, the main theme is: 

> the distinctness or otherwise, of the states, especially the dream

> and waking.  A couple of days ago I got the following thoughts while

> ruminating on the various views that have surfaced on the subject:

>

> From

      Sankarraman

 

Dear Subramanium,

                  Nobody denies that the view of Sri Nairji is a fact

of life. Advaita recogizes the validity of all the states at their

respective levels, and only transcendentally comes to the position

that only the Witness is reaal, which experience is the consummation

of this samsara, and towards which all are striving both consciously

and unconsciously. No doubt, waking state has superior validity, which

the dream state does not have, being falsified everyday. But to

realize the falsity of the dream experience, only the aid of the

detached witness is relevant, and not the waking state itself which

gives place to another waking state, not having the impartite nature

of the Self. It is only  in this context it is being said that the two

states are not related to each other, but only to the detached

witness. This is the metaphysical position that should be firmly

lodged in the mind of the seeker, lest he should mistake another

waking state to be self-realization. In practical life, everything

will be in accord with  the waking state, there being no clashing of

the orders of life. Suddenly, the Office will not disappear, or

magically some new world spring. Even the enlightened person will

continue to be as he was prior to enlightenment, no additional power

or talents having been acquaired. Ramana has somewhere in a jocular

vein said that just because the waking state is unreal one cannot

touch a live wire, and not expect a shock. No subtle insight is

necessary to know the distinctions of the two states. It is only the

philosophical insight that the witness is the source and the

illumining light of all the states alike, all the states being

insentient left to themselves with no intelligent principle being

there to muse on their glory, and to distinguish between the different

states, which power the states do not have, that has to be paid

attention to. They simply hang in the empty space.

with warm regards

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji.

 

Thanks for your long post # 31423.

 

If someone tells an audience that there are three states - waking,

dream and deep sleep, that view will be accepted without questioning

because that is the way it all appears.  Isn't that avicharita

drishti in the light of the fact that both sleep and dreaming can be

acknowledged from waking only?  What is known from a state cannot be

on par with that state.

 

How can you therefore refute me if I say ShAstra thus seems to base

its vichara on  the avichArita drishti that there are three states?

 

Subbuji – I have nothing against shAstra.  I have asked that question

above looking at the labour you have taken to reconcile opposite

views.  The prakriyAs are useful models to unravel the Truth.  But,

we seem to dwell too much on the prakriyAs at the cost of Truth. 

That is the pity.

 

I will close this issue with a short clarification on my thoughts. I

may sound repetitive.  Can't help it.  Kindly bear with me.

 

I know that they all talk about three states and some

call the turIya the 4th beyond the three.  Sw.

Dayanandaji, in contrast, doesn't talk about turIya as

something to which we have to transcend from the three

and his stand appealed to me very much from sarvaM

khalvidaM brahmaH view-point. 

 

Continuous honing on the above understanding then

began dissolving the apparent barriers between the

three states.  I even started feeling that there is no

boundary-line between our external and internal worlds.

They both looked like the same continuity.  There was

only the unending ocean of that continuity in which BMI,

its sense organs, experiences etc.  were just incidental floats.

 

It was then that a List Member began calling my attention to the

avastAtraya prakriya

and I sat down to analyzing my understanding of it.

 

Something then caught my attention.  I found that

waking can be defined as "that from which dream and

sleep are acknowledged and appreciated". The other two

states did not qualify for this definition as they were `within the

former'. I then

thought that if the three states are reduced to

one, then all that one has to take the final quantum

leap is to sublate that one single remaining `state' by understanding

it properly.  That one `state', when properly looked at, is akin to

or the same as the ocean of

continuity  I mentioned above and the true realization that I am that

ocean is

liberation.  The icebergs of BMI, ego, roles,

objectified experiences, separation, limitations,

time, space etc. will then slowly dissolve in that

understanding.  Isn't that sarvaM khalvidaM brahmaH or the Universal

Mind Sw. Krishnandaji speaks of?

 

Can you say I have attached any extra importance to any state in the

above analysis?  The spontaneous sublation dissolves all the floating

icebergs alike – the sense of waking or dreaming or sleeping –

leaving one ever-Wakeful.   We needn't then attach either comparative

reality or falsity to them.  There have never been any states.

 

So, unless we have an unshakable avicharita fixation with

avastAtraya, for which I find no justification, why we

should at all labour with an avoidable trichotomy

instead of taking a direct plunge into the ocean of

wakefulness, swim in it and understand its reality as

that Unsleeping Wakefulness, which we are?  I think

sarvaM khalvidaM brahmaH demands that of us instead of looking for

the falsity of things that don't demand any bother from our side. 

There is no need then for us to contrive.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbuji.

>

> Thanks for your long post # 31423.

 

Namaste Madathil ji,

Many thanks for your kind reply.  Despite your explicitly mentioning

that you would like to  close this discussion, i thought i will offer

some responses for there are some points that are likely to cause

confusion in the minds of those who are trying to learn Advaita from

the discussions on the List.  Solely with this in mind I proceed: 

 

In the opening remarks of yours:

> If someone tells an audience that there are three states - waking,

> dream and deep sleep, that view will be accepted without

questioning

> because that is the way it all appears.  Isn't that avicharita

> drishti in the light of the fact that both sleep and dreaming can

be

> acknowledged from waking only?  What is known from a state cannot

be

> on par with that state.

>

> How can you therefore refute me if I say ShAstra thus seems to base

> its vichara on  the avichArita drishti that there are three states?

>

My response:

The burden of refuting the above is borne by the Shastram itself. The

Shastram takes the avicharita drishti as adhyaropa because it is the

shastram that teaches that there are these states based on everyone's

experience.  By way of 'apavada' it negates the avasthas.

By the way, when you say above that 'both dreaming and sleep are

acknowledged from waking only', and as you have stated elsewhere

below that that is your definition of waking, let me point out that

the very 'acknowledging' is 'admitting the truth' of those states. 

That is the meaning of 'ackowledging'.  The shastra knows that these

states are recollected in the waking only.  For example, the Sri

Dakshinamurtistotram says: Paagasvaapsam iti brabodha samaye yaH

pratyabhijnAyate : The one who recollects upon waking 'I slept

hitherto'.  The Shastram nevertheless calls these as separate states

having been experienced, in the light of the logic: that which has

been experienced alone can be recollected.  Therefore, the fact of

their being acknowledged in the waking does not take away their

status of being  different states; it only confirms that.      

 

You continue:

> Subbuji – I have nothing against shAstra.  I have asked that

question

> above looking at the labour you have taken to reconcile opposite

> views.  The prakriyAs are useful models to unravel the Truth.  But,

> we seem to dwell too much on the prakriyAs at the cost of Truth. 

> That is the pity.

>

> I will close this issue with a short clarification on my thoughts.

I

> may sound repetitive.  Can't help it.  Kindly bear with me.

>

> I know that they all talk about three states and some

> call the turIya the 4th beyond the three.  Sw.

> Dayanandaji, in contrast, doesn't talk about turIya as

> something to which we have to transcend from the three

> and his stand appealed to me very much from sarvaM

> khalvidaM brahmaH view-point.

 

My response:

Let me point out just one example: The Mandukya Upanishad has the

unique status of being eulogised: MAndukyam ekam eva alam,

mumukshUNAm vimuktaye: Another Upanishad says aboout the Mandukya:

This one Upanishad alone is sufficient to secure liberation to a

seeker.  This is the shortest of all the Upanishads with just twelve

mantras.  But the only prakriya used in this upanishad is the

Avasthatraya.  Sri Gaudapadacharya went on to write over 250 karikas

just on this small upanishad. 

About Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma that occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad

(III.14.2)upon which you have stated that you have built up your own

prakriya, let me state this, a rather startling revelation: 

The very next word that occurs after Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma is:

TajjalAn.. This means, as per the commentary of Shankara: For this

(idam) jagat, world, that is manifest with names and forms and is

available for pratyaksha etc., the cause is Brahman.  How is it

established that sarvam is Brahman?  Because sarvam has originated

from Brahman.  Then the world resolves into Brahman alone, in the

reverse order of its manifestation and remains over as Brahman. Then

in the intervening period of sustenance too the world remains active

in Brahman alone.  Thus during the three periods (of srishti, sthiti

and laya) the world is non-different from Brahman because it is not

known as apart from Brahman.  Therefore this world is Brahman alone. 

We shall take up the elaboration of this in a subsequent portion

(Chapter VI..where the famous 'vaachArambhaNa' sruti occurs). Unquote.

 

What i wanted to say by quoting the above is: The 'srishti, sthiti,

laya' that is spoken of above is nothing but the avasthatraya in the

macrocosm.  In the Mandukya Upanishad, the avasthatraya of both

the macro as well as the microcosm is elaborately delineated. What is

established by the upanishad is that the macrocosm is non different

from the microcosm. Only when taught this way, the aspirant can

appreciate his identity with the Absolute.       

 

Then your experience:

> Continuous honing on the above understanding then

> began dissolving the apparent barriers between the

> three states.  I even started feeling that there is no

> boundary-line between our external and internal worlds.

> They both looked like the same continuity.  There was

> only the unending ocean of that continuity in which BMI,

> its sense organs, experiences etc.  were just incidental floats.

>

> It was then that a List Member began calling my attention to the

> avastAtraya prakriya

> and I sat down to analyzing my understanding of it.

>

> Something then caught my attention.  I found that

> waking can be defined as "that from which dream and

> sleep are acknowledged and appreciated". The other two

> states did not qualify for this definition as they were `within the

> former'. I then

> thought that if the three states are reduced to

> one, then all that one has to take the final quantum

> leap is to sublate that one single remaining `state' by

understanding

> it properly.  That one `state', when properly looked at, is akin to

> or the same as the ocean of

> continuity  I mentioned above and the true realization that I am

that

> ocean is

> liberation.  The icebergs of BMI, ego, roles,

> objectified experiences, separation, limitations,

> time, space etc. will then slowly dissolve in that

> understanding.  Isn't that sarvaM khalvidaM brahmaH or the

Universal

> Mind Sw. Krishnandaji speaks of?

>

> Can you say I have attached any extra importance to any state in

the

> above analysis?  The spontaneous sublation dissolves all the

floating

> icebergs alike – the sense of waking or dreaming or sleeping –

> leaving one ever-Wakeful.   We needn't then attach either

comparative

> reality or falsity to them.  There have never been any states.

 

My response to the above is: Your above analysis is quite ok; my only

problem is in understading what you say: the other two states are

within the waking.  I pointed out the logical flaw in saying that. 

In an earlier post i had questioned this logical soundness by

suggesting that 'if you name the 'umbrella'as the Witness or

Consciousness it would not have that flaw.' In my understanding

waking can contain only the acknowledgement of the other states but

not the other states themselves.  An acknowledgement presupposes

something had or received earlier.   

 

You conclude: 

> So, unless we have an unshakable avicharita fixation with

> avastAtraya, for which I find no justification, why we

> should at all labour with an avoidable trichotomy

> instead of taking a direct plunge into the ocean of

> wakefulness, swim in it and understand its reality as

> that Unsleeping Wakefulness, which we are?  I think

> sarvaM khalvidaM brahmaH demands that of us instead of looking for

> the falsity of things that don't demand any bother from our side. 

> There is no need then for us to contrive.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

My response in conclusion:

The above statement is rather sweeping.  It is my understanding as a

result of exposure to Vedantic study that it is impossible to teach

Vedanta without resorting to the avasthatraya, explicitly or

implicitly.  That is the reason we find it being employed in all the

upanishads in one way or the other.  I recently pointed out how even

the panchakosha prakriya encompasses this.  The Acharya's stotrams

are replete with the avasthatraya prakriya.  And this is because in

the wisdom of the Upanishads and the Acharyas it is impossible to

understand Vedanta without passing through this prakriya at some

stage or the other in some form or the other.  It is quite possible

for one to transcend the need for the prakriya.  But that does not

empower him to question the justification of its employment.  For, as

i pointed out in the case of the very Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma

declaration, the very arriving at the state where the prakriya is not

needed any longer is  only by having first passed through it.

It is not due to any fascination to the prakriya that i say this;

every prakriya is meant to be transcended; it is only a tool, as you

said above.  Its presence is because the Seers know that it is

impossible for one to get established in Brahman by giving out just

the teaching 'Tat tvam asi' and reduce their labour. It is to enable

one  to understand the meaning of Tat and tvam that the shrishti

prakriya and the avasthatraya prakriya are employed at the two

levels. 

 

Let me conclude by quoting from the Advaita makaranda, said to be a

favourite of Swami Dayananda:

 

Maiyeva udeti chidvyomni jagad gandharvapattanam

ato'ham na katham Brahma, sarvajnam sarvakAraNam?

This world, a fantom-city, springs up from me alone.  Therefore I am

Brahman ideed, the Omniscient and the Supreme Cause.

When Causehood is spoken of, the avasthatraya of the macrocosm is

implied.

Let me reiterate that the above response was only to avoid a possible

impression that the Avasthatraya prakriya is a needless imposition by

the Upanishads and the Acharyas of the Vedanta parampara. 

 

Pranams,

Subbu  

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji.

 

Thanks for your long scholarly response (#  31437).

 

I suspect a charge of emotion in it  and that is reason enough that

we conclude this debate here and now. 

 

I only hope my questions have helped the spirit of debate and helped

those, who have taken pains to read our lengthy exchanges, understand

avastAtraya better.  There is, therefore, no reason to believe that

they will be misled.

 

As I said before umpteen number of times, I have not questioned the

prakriya.  I only expressed my two logical doubts, which are (a)

stamping the three as separate states and (b) their mutual

exclusivity (to borrow a term from Dennisji).  I don't think these

doubts have been answered satisfactorily yet.

 

I don't think the word `pratyabhigna' grants dreaming and sleep the

status of exclusive `statehood' akin to waking where they are

recollected or recognized.   I  haven't seen Acharya say so anywhere

although many teachers might have propagated such an understanding.  

If he has, I don't know where I will place hallucinations – induced

or otherwise -, daydreaming, memory-recall, why even amnesia,  etc. 

An acknowledgement presupposes something  that had been had or

received earlier.  You are right.  But, that doesn't make the

acknowledged thing a `state'.  Then, all our experiences should

be 'states'.

 

I have great respect for the great Mandukya.   Entertaining the above

doubts does not diminish that respect in any way, for inspite of

those doubts the logic of Mandukya is fully acceptable to me.

 

I am aware of tajjalAn at the end of sarvam khalvidam brahma.  Your

revelation, therefore, is not startling to me.  In fact, Shri Jay

Nelamangala has questioned me several times off list as to why I 

(and others) omit that word whenever I quote the Upanishidic

statement.  Even yesterday, I received two mails from him.  I

understand the srishti, sthiti, laya connotation of avastAtraya

prakriya.  Who would question that?  Expressing doubts about

the 'statehood' of the trichotomy doesn't  amount to discarding

Mandukya.

 

I am sorry the concluding paragraph of my previous message gave the

impression that I was discarding the avastAtraya prakriya and

MandUkya.  When I wrote it, I didn't suspect that it would.  Having

re-read it in the light of your response, I feel that I should have

been more careful in the selection of my words and that you are

justified in taking it the way you did.

 

To conclude, I am with the prakriya, with Mandukya, and above all

with Advaita, notwithstanding my doubts concerning (a) and (b) above,

which remain. I don't hope to find answers to them here or ever.

 

Sorry if I hurt you or any other Members' feelings here.  Well,

someone had to ask the questions I asked.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair