Guest guest Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: > > Srigurubhyo NamaH > > The Three States and their objects: > > In the Mandukya Upanishad, we have the analysis of the three states > of waking, dream and deep sleep. While discussing these three > states, the Upanishad, especially the Kaarikaas, embark upon this > scheme: Namaste Subhu-ji, Excellent post, it blows away the dependence of form and bliss. My original entry on wiki; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajativada Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > Subbu writes, > > In each of the three states there is a bhokta, subject, experiencer, > a bhoga, experience, and and bhogyam, object of experience. Also, > there is a bhoga, experience, in each state that the interaction > brings about. > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Namaste Subuji, > The state of deep dreamless sleep is a > mysterious one but > I think it is incorrect to characterise it as an > experience. Namaste Mike, Pardon my intrusion into the dialogue, but anything that can be described in some way is an experience. People arise feeling they had a good sleep, that is a memory of something, an experience of non sensory conditions associated with the 'lower' bliss of the Anandamayakosa. Therefore it is a form of experience, anything that is not beyond all as in Nirguna or Ajativada can only be experience for that it the nature of the mind and is the mind..........Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Namaste Subbuji, Rather than tussle point by point I have just put my understanding as clearly as I can. To put it schematically: In the waking state you have the predominance of the Subject and the Object with the experience of perception predominating. In that state you will also have the subject reflecting on the qualities of those experiences in a inward way that is known as introspection. In the dream state there is only the inner mental subject reviewing its inner mental objects which are self created. Cf. Brh.Up. IV,iii.10,13. In the state of deep sleep even this mental drama is set aside and there is neither experiencer nor experienced. As the Up. puts it dramatically: Brh.Up IV.iii.22 In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. Yet there is consciousness which cannot be sublated, the very blankness of deep sleep knows itself as blankness but not in the experiental mode of the other two states. As the Upanisas states: Brh.Up.IV.iii.30: That it does not know(*in the s/o way of experience) in that state is because, though knowing then, it does not know; for the knower's function of knowing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separable from it which it can know. The state of Deep Sleep acts as though it were an experiment to discover the nature of consciousness itself by isolating it from the distracting elements of experience and quasi-experience. As Shankara says in his commentary on IV.iii.32: "It is ignorance that separates a second etity, and that is at rest in the state of profound sleep; hence 'one'. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Namaste Neelakantan-ji. I see it this way: When I am alseep, I am one with sleep experience (muscular relaxation!?) When I am writing poetry, I am one with poetic thoughts. Right now, I am one with my finger movements on the keyboard as well as my fleeting thoughts. When I am annoyed, I am one with annoyanace. When I enjoy an enjoyment, I am one with enjoyment - I am enjoyment. I always am some thing - in full laya with something or the other. I am never the seer or experiencer or sufferer with any reason to feel separated from what I see, experience or suffer from. If we understand this basic fact of life, then phenomenal diversity will not afflict us. We are then always everything in full. It is actually some 'illusory something' in the middle that feels ignorance, enjoyment and annoyance. It is the one that suffers. That something can't stand enquiry.' Recently, I wrote to Dennisji about my observations on avastAtraya. It was with reference to his idea of lucid dreams. I am repeating what I wrote to him although I may face rough weather from the Mandukya angle: QUOTE > I had also thought on those lines - like this waking > might be a dream and I may just wake up one day, > just > as I wake from a lucid dream, to my real nature. > Apart from the ego and all that, there is a problem > with this type of thinking. Why should we at all > wake > to our real nature from waking? Can't we wake to > another wakefulness of a higher degree of clarity - > a > world which works on finer laws than our own, > another > world of more number of dimensions than ours? It > can > be our heaven too. Howsoever better that new world > would be, it can still have the potential of bondage > like our current samsAra. That would then be a > repetition of the same old story ad infinitum. > > To continue our exchange on avastAtraya, I feel we > should first of all arrive at some defining > characteristics for the three 'states'. Since, as > 'awareful' entities, we cannot be sure when we are > really awake, I would address the issue with caution > as follows: > > 1. We are always aware. We are a > present-continuous. > > 2. Waking is waking until it is proved otherwise. > Waking is where the present continuous operates. In > waking, both dream and sleep are recollected as > having > occurred in the past and, since they are remembered, > whatever is current becomes waking with reference to > them. > > 3. Dream is what is recollected as a past > experience > in waking in the present and its proceedings > recognized in waking are in past present continuous. > That past present had the quality of a waking > present > while the dream lasted. This conclusion is reached > in > the current waking. A dream is a dream only when it > is > recollected as having occurred in the past! > > 4. Sleep again is what is recollected as a past > experience in waking in the present. It has no > proceedings. Sleep can only be recollected. > ___ > Everything is in the present. There is only the > present - we all declare from our rooftops. But, when it comes to avastAtraya, we > conveniently forget this avowal and go to any extent > to grant the status of separate states to those > which > are only remembered in the present as things of the > past! > > I am awake. I am aware of what is happening around > me, all the things around me, my BMI, ego etc., I am > aware I had a dream, I am aware of the proceedings > of > the dream, I am aware I had slept, I am aware I did > not know anything when I slept. All these are > awareness lighting up in the present and can be > reduced to Awareness in final analysis. There is, > therefore, only an ocean of Awareness. The > individual > entity (I) which thinks that it is awake, that it > dreamt and slept, is just illusory without any > substance. The whole universe of waking and > dreaming > was the requirement of that flimsy non-entity. It > gives way easily like a clearing mist when the > magnificence of the shining ocean of Awareness is > recognized. Then, it is Awareness recognizing > Awareness - the flimsy "I" having gone with the > wind. UNQUOTE Now tell me, if I am Awareness always, where is the question of any ignorance in that Light? This is the sixty-four million dollar question I always keep asking myself and others. PraNAms. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka wrote: > > I think when the mind is single-pointed, we are oblivious to other > things. We experience this when we are deeply engaged in any > activity. We may not even notice the passage of time for this is > noticed only when the single thought/experience is interrupted. In > samadhi too, I would expect that the mind is single-pointed and > engaged in one unbroken experience(?). Of the nature of this > experience, I am not competent to comment, but it cannot be > ignorance. > > In deep sleep, the single, unbroken thought 'I do not know anything' > prevails until we awaken from it. Then we notice the passage of time > and recall the experience that was peace as well as ignorance (I > slept blissfully, I did not know anything, ). Now, this is my > experience. > > From the above, I can see why no one has ever prescribed deep sleep > as a sadhana. :-) I couldn't resist adding this in view of the > heated debate about samadhi and deep sleep :-) > > As for jnanis, who can say what their sleep is like? another jnani? > In this context, it is said that Sri Appaya Dikshita had his > disciples write down what he uttered when under the influence of a > powerful hallucinogen (dattura leaves). These utterings formed the > famous bhakti hymn, AtmArpaNa stuti consisting of fifty verses. The > mind of a jnani is clear as a crystal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Namaste Nair-ji. Thank you for your reply. Your words have brought a lot of clarity to me. I have not read Mandukya Upanishad. My only understanding of the three states comes from Tattva Bodha and Atma Bodha. I tend to agree with you. Everything stands illumined in Awareness. Every moment we are occupied with a thought - of recalled past or imagined future or perceived present, in whatever state. It is only Awareness, but we mistakenly believe that we are thinking, dreaming, sleeping and so on. The following verses from Atma Bodha came to my mind when I read your post. Atmanah saccidamshashca buddhEr vrittiriti dvayam | sanyOjya cAvivEkEna jAnAmIti pravartatE || (verse 25) (The notion 'I know' arises through the indiscriminate blending of the two, Existence-Awareness of Atman and the thought waves in the intellect) AtmanO vikriyO nAsti buddhEr bOdhO na jAtviti | jIvah sarvamalam jnAtva jnAta draShtEti muhyati || (verse 26) (There is no action for Atman and the intellect of its own has no capacity to experience 'I know'. But the individuality in us is deluded and thinks itself to be the knower and seer.) rajju-sarpavad AtmAnam jIvam jnAtvA bhayam vahet | nAham jIvah parAtmeti jnAtashcet nirbhayO bhavet || (As one mistaking a rope for a snake, one considering the Self to be the jIva is overcome with fear. 'I am not the jIva, but the Supreme Self' - if this is understood, fearlessness results) Now read what you wrote: > > I always am some thing - in full laya with something or the other. I > am never the seer or experiencer or sufferer with any reason to feel > separated from what I see, experience or suffer from. If we > understand this basic fact of life, then phenomenal diversity will > not afflict us. We are then always everything in full. > > It is actually some 'illusory something' in the middle that feels > ignorance, enjoyment and annoyance. It is the one that suffers. That > something can't stand enquiry.' > > > > > I am awake. I am aware of what is happening around > > me, all the things around me, my BMI, ego etc., I am > > aware I had a dream, I am aware of the proceedings > > of > > the dream, I am aware I had slept, I am aware I did > > not know anything when I slept. All these are > > awareness lighting up in the present and can be > > reduced to Awareness in final analysis. There is, > > therefore, only an ocean of Awareness. The > > individual > > entity (I) which thinks that it is awake, that it > > dreamt and slept, is just illusory without any > > substance. The whole universe of waking and > > dreaming > > was the requirement of that flimsy non-entity. It > > gives way easily like a clearing mist when the > > magnificence of the shining ocean of Awareness is > > recognized. Then, it is Awareness recognizing > > Awareness - the flimsy "I" having gone with the > > wind. > > UNQUOTE > > Now tell me, if I am Awareness always, where is the question of any > ignorance in that Light? This is the sixty-four million dollar > question I always keep asking myself and others. > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair Harih Om. Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 advaitin, "ombhurbhuva" <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > Namaste Subbuji, > >> The state of Deep Sleep acts as though it were an experiment > > to discover the nature of consciousness itself by isolating it from the > > distracting elements of experience and quasi-experience. As Shankara > > says in his commentary on IV.iii.32: "It is ignorance that separates a > > second etity, and that is at rest in the state of profound sleep; > > hence 'one'. > > Best Wishes, > > Michael. ShrIgurubhyo NamaH, Namaste Michael, Thanks for that clarification. Yes ! I was waiting to hear from you about that Brihadaranyaka quote, your favourite. I agree that what you have said above is the purpose of study of the deep sleep in that Upanishad. But, we do have this Mandukya commentary by the Acharya which looks like it is contradicting the above quote. What i am driving at is: the purpose of the study of deep sleep state in the Mandukya Upanishad (M.U.) is different from the Brihadaranyaka context. In the M.U. it is to show that the individual jiva exists in the deep sleep state ALSO as an experiencer of 'some' object just as in the other two states. After showing the subject-object duo in each of the three states, the M.U. sets forth to negate this duo (in all six) when it comes to knowing the Turiya by showing that after all it is the One Supreme Consciousness, the Turiya, that 'appears' as the divided subject-object duo in each of the three states. The purpose of first delineating the duo is to allude to the jiva's experiences and give it a certain temporary validity. Once the jiva is comfortably settled in this understanding, the next crucial step of negating the whole thing is undertaken. May i request you to take a look at these following posts: 1. Message No 32831 originating from you. You have shown there, by quoting appropriately the two positions: a. Deep sleep is free from ignorance-duality and b. Deep sleep is endowed with ignorance. 2. Message No. 32706 from me where i have tried to present my understanding of the apparently contradicting views. You may skip the last three para-s of this post as being irrelevant for the present study. Warm regards and thanking you for pursuing the subject for greater understanding, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 Namaste, all Deep Sleep, as we all know, is also a state, like the Waking and Dreaming States. Whatever one experiences during the deep sleep state, one is not aware of that experience while in that state, which is not the case during waking and dreaming states. There is total ignorance. Only on waking up one is able to recollect what happened during the deep sleep state. What is recollected is peace and it is total peace because total ignorance prevailed during the deep sleep. People say ignorance is bliss. Partial ignorance is a problem whereas total ignorance is bliss. It is that so called bliss, i.e. total peace, one appears to experience during the deep sleep. IMHO, (though I never had any experience of any type of Samadhi) Samadhi is also a state, as it has a beginning and end, like the three states. However, total knowledge, i.e. knowledge of Aham, Idam and Iswara may be prevailing during that state. Just like total ignorance is bliss, total knowledge also is bliss. During Waking and Dream States, there is partial ignorance or partial knowledge, and that is why there is absence of the peace or bliss one experience during these states. For a GnAni, again IMHO, this total knowledge shines always not necessarily during Samadhi only, and because of this, Ananda is natural or Swaroopa of that GnAni, though it is the same with agnAnis also, but they are ignorant about that. He revels in that during his wakeful state, as all his doubts and confusion/partial knowledge about Aham, Idam and Eswara got removed on the wake of Knowledge. In deep sleep I do not think and I cannot say, he, the gnAni, will have any special experience other than what even an agnAni has, and such a gnAni also may be dreaming, maybe the types of dreams may be different from the types of dreams an ordinary person or an agnAni goes through the dream state. What the Upanishads unfolds is, it is the same awareness or consciousness or Turiya, which is the substratum, adhishtAnam, for all the three states and also Samadhi whether NS or otherwise. This substratum, being Satyam, as it is there in and through all the states, and not beyond any states, is never subject to any negation, whereas the states, along with any knowledge/experience, being Mithya can be negated, physically and by knowledge. Such a negation is not possible when it comes to Satyam, as if it is done it will amount to negate the negator himself. When there is neither any particular knowledge of any particular objects/feelings etc., nor any particular ignorance, whether total or partial about any objects including the “I”, it is Ananda, as one experiences in deep sleep, though during that state total ignorance prevails. The Self has neither knowledge nor ignorance, and at the same time, it always shines itself, and also it illumines both knowledge and ignorance during the Waking and Dream states and only ignorance in Deep Sleep States. HOWEVER, any knowledge that takes place in “any state” which is Mithya, logically is also Mithya. So, what is possible is only to recognize and appreciate that Self Knowledge is not a Knowledge/Experience where any “object” to be known or being known is involved, as here the Knower is Knowing about his own Swaroopa. Here, as Swami Paramarthanandaji said in a lecture, Sadhanam(the tool used for the achievement of what is to be achieved) itself is Sadhyam (what is achieved). Any Sadhana can be followd, but it must remove the confusion between Sadhanam and Sadhyam. Since in this case, there is confusion, Knowledge alone is required to remove the confusion, because any confusion is the result of partial ignorance. Kindly help me in correcting my view on the subject. With warm regards Mani ------------- R. S. Mani Get your email and more, right on the new .com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Dear Subbuji and Michael-ji Pranams. I want to thank Subbu-ji for starting this beautiful and profound post and Micheal-ji, and others, for contributing to its discussion. In my humble opinion what Subbu-ji has beautifully explained is what is traditional advaitic teaching. This traditional teaching, as i humbly understand it, postulates that there is a very subtle vrtti operational in sushupti, which besides illumining the absence of a second, also reflects the bliss of Atman. The witnesser still retains its witnessing "function" though in a very subtle manner. For basic continuity of the knower/experiencer/jiva "principle", if we analyze it, we cannot have a situation of a "knower" without "something to be known" or a "witnesser" without "anything to be witnessed" as long as we are within the paradigm of Maya - there has to be duality at some primal level. This is expressed in a manner of speaking (or teaching) as the jiva experiencing as it were the bliss of Brahman. [Once we talk about jnana we have sublated Maya and then there is true Kaivalya or nonduality]. Hence it is that the waker can say "I did not know anything *and* I slept happily. As Michael-ji correctly pointed out, memory without experience is not possible. What Michael-ji has referenced so nicely from the Br.Up as well as the Up.S is also of course very valid based on that particular standpoint of what is being conveyed or stressed. Subbu-ji has explained this very well in referencing the Mandukya Up. The Kaivalya UP.(13) further clarifies in a similair vein Sushuptikaale sakale vileene tamobhibhaati sukharoopameti In dreamless sleep when everything is absorbed, the jiva, overpowered by ignorance, attains the state of happiness. In other words, the jiva does as though attain kaivalyam but being overpowered by Maya's avaranashakti ( or the veiling power) is not conscious of it. Also Ch. Up 6.8.1 as you would be well familiair with Uddalaka the son of Aruna said to his son Svetaketu: "Learn from me, my dear, the true nature of sleep. When a person has entered into deep sleep, as it is called, then, my dear, he becomes united with Pure Being (Sat), he has gone to his own Self. That is why they say he is in deep sleep (svapiti); it is because he has gone (apita) to his own (svam). [While the Sanskrit term used here is Svapnaantam (dream), Shankara clarifies that it is referring to its core or deep sleep alone.] This beautiful verse also explains that in deep sleep there is a reverting back on the part of the jiva or a merging back as it were into its Source for a temporary blissful state. Bhagwan Shankara: "Just as the reflection of a person in a mirror attains the person himself(!!) when the mirror is removed, in a similair way indeed, there is in deep sleep, when the mind etc cease functioning, the Supreme Deity, which, in the form of a conscious individual soul as Its reflection, had entered into the mind for the manifestation of name and form, attains its true nature, by giving up Its appearance as the individual soul, called the mind... ... In deep sleep a person becomes identified with Existence, i.e. he becomed united with the Deity under discussion referred to by the words Existence. Having discarded the nature of the individual soul which has entered into the mind and which is produced from contact with the mind etc he attains his own self, his nature as Existence, which is the Ultimate Reality." Why then does he get out of this blissful state? Avidya. Maya. The avarna shakti has effectively veiled him from any knowledge of this and his still-existent prarabdha karma will pull him out of this state to exhaust the fruits of his prior actions. More than the alarm clock, it is "karma" that drags you out of bed! Incidentally, from a medical standpoint, deep sleep occupies only 10-15% of our sleep, and dream sleep another 25% - most of our sleep is neither categorized as dream or deep - it is what is referred to as superficial sleep. Any disease state afflicting the physical body like a arthritic joint will result in the deep sleep acquiring the characteristics of superficial sleep and the patient does complain "I did not sleep restfully, I did not sleep peacefully" It is also interesting that the effect of lack of deep sleep even though occupying such a small portion of the total sleep architecture is almost as deletrious as the effect of a total lack of sleep, from a rejuvenation standpoint. Drugs we use to sedate patients (hypnotics) for example never seem to be able to increase the deep sleep component! Ultimately the only purport of avasthatraya prakriya is of course to understand that there is an absolute underlying changeless substratum which is the eternal nondual ATman, which allows the appreciation of the three everchanging states, which is none other than I, the everexisting Self. Hence - the only utility of the understanding of the three States is to get to the so-called Fourth ( - rather than dig deep into an analysis of technicalities associated with each, as they all three can be lumped into the one and same Maya basket!) As a Chinese philosopher (a Taoist?) put it Am I the human that dreamt I was a butterfly last night or AM i the butterfly that is dreaming I am human right now?! Humble pranams Shyam --- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: > advaitin, "ombhurbhuva" > <ombhurbhuva > wrote: > >> The state of Deep Sleep acts as though it were an > experiment > > > > to discover the nature of consciousness itself by > isolating it > from the > > > > distracting elements of experience and > quasi-experience. > > Subbu writes, > > > The Three States and their objects: > > In the Mandukya Upanishad, we have the analysis of the three states > of waking, dream and deep sleep. While discussing these three > states, the Upanishad, especially the Kaarikaas, embark upon this > scheme: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote: > > Namaste, all This substratum, being Satyam, as it is there in and through all the states, and not beyond any states, is never subject to any negation, whereas the states, along with any knowledge/experience, being Mithya can be negated, physically and by knowledge. Such a negation is not possible when it comes to Satyam, as if it is done it will amount to negate the negator himself. > Kindly help me in correcting my view on the subject. > With warm regards Mani ShrIgurubhyo NamaH, Namaste Shri Mani ji, This is just to say a few words about the above observation of yours. The point is about the particular understanding of yours: '...... Satyam ....is not beyond the states'. Actually, to say so will be discordant with the teaching of the Veda, the Mandukya in particular and Advaitic teaching as well. You would have noticed that Swami Paramarthanandaji while giving the bangle, chain and ring example, says that while these three cannot exist without gold, the substance, gold by itself is not dependent on these three. This is what is meant by the 'transcendence' of gold in the analogy. You might recall the Pususha SUktam: 'pAdo'sya vishvA bhUtAni, tripaadasyAmRRitam divi'. This means, the entire created universe (in the Mandukya language, the entire content of the first three pAda-s) constitute just 'one-fourth' of the Supreme. The three other parts remain transcending the created universe. Elsewhere, i think in the Panchadashi, it is clarified that the attribution of 'divisions, parts' to the Partless Truth is just to teach us Its transcendence. Again, in the Mandukya Upanishad itself, the very purpose of the crucial seventh mantra: nAntaH prajnam... is to teach the transcendental nature of the Turiya, the Absolute. On the practical side, there will arise this rather 'amusing' situation if the view expressed by you above is admitted: While the Satyam, Brahman, is in and through all the states, all of us jivas exist in Brahman all the time, even though not realizing that to be the ultimate truth. The Jnani knows it by experience. Till the fall of his body, since it is inevitable that he will have to go through the three states, the Jnani will also be in Brahman. But the tragedy is when his body dies. Since he has no karma to get another body, he has no chance at all to be in any of the three states and thereby be in Brahman. Since Brahman, the Satyam, 'is not beyond the three states', he, unfortunately, cannot be in Brahman even after the fall of the body. This is the 'amusing' situation. The above is not meant to be in any way derisive. Only because you asked for your understanding to be corrected, i mentioned just this one point. Warm Regards and humble Pranams Sir, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Shyamji wrote: Dear Subbuji and Michael-ji Pranams. I want to thank Subbu-ji for starting this beautiful and profound post and Micheal-ji, and others, for contributing to its discussion. In my humble opinion what Subbu-ji has beautifully explained is what is traditional advaitic teaching. This traditional teaching, as i humbly understand it, postulates that there is a very subtle vrtti operational in sushupti, which besides illumining the absence of a second, also reflects the bliss of Atman. The witnesser still retains its witnessing "function" though in a very subtle manner. ||||||||||||||||||||(Michael){my comments are within curly brackets} Namaste Shyamji and all followers of this thread, {Where do you locate the source of this traditional teaching about a subtle vritti? In what Upanishad I mean. Subbuji refers to the Mandukya Up. On looking at the commentary to Verse 5 I find quite the opposite. He differentiates the state of deep sleep from the others because in those consciousness is presented in the empirical or quasi-empirical manner (dream). The significant passage is or he is called conscious, since he alone is possessed of the peculiar characteristics of mere (undiversified) consciousness, whereas the other two (waking and dream) have diversified knowledge as well."} |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| For basic continuity of the knower/experiencer/jiva "principle", if we analyze it, we cannot have a situation of a "knower" without "something to be known" or a "witnesser" without "anything to be witnessed" as long as we are within the paradigm of Maya - there has to be duality at some primal level. This is expressed in a manner of speaking (or teaching) as the jiva experiencing as it were the bliss of Brahman. [Once we talk about jnana we have sublated Maya and then there is true Kaivalya or nonduality]. Hence it is that the waker can say "I did not know anything *and* I slept happily. As Michael-ji correctly pointed out, memory without experience is not possible. |||||||||||||||||||||||||(Michael) {Memory without experience is not possible, but knowledge without experience is. As Shankara points out in the preamble to the B.S.B. "The Self is not absolutely beyond apprehension, because it is apprehended as the content of the concept "I"; and because the Self, opposed to the non-Self, is well known in the world as an immediately perceived (i.e. self-revealing) entity.} ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| What Michael-ji has referenced so nicely from the Br.Up as well as the Up.S is also of course very valid based on that particular standpoint of what is being conveyed or stressed. Subbu-ji has explained this very well in referencing the Mandukya Up. The Kaivalya UP.(13) further clarifies in a similair vein Sushuptikaale sakale vileene tamobhibhaati sukharoopameti In dreamless sleep when everything is absorbed, the jiva, overpowered by ignorance, attains the state of happiness. In other words, the jiva does as though attain kaivalyam but being overpowered by Maya's avaranashakti ( or the veiling power) is not conscious of it. Also Ch. Up 6.8.1 as you would be well familiair with Uddalaka the son of Aruna said to his son Svetaketu: "Learn from me, my dear, the true nature of sleep. When a person has entered into deep sleep, as it is called, then, my dear, he becomes united with Pure Being (Sat), he has gone to his own Self. That is why they say he is in deep sleep (svapiti); it is because he has gone (apita) to his own (svam). [While the Sanskrit term used here is Svapnaantam (dream), Shankara clarifies that it is referring to its core or deep sleep alone.] This beautiful verse also explains that in deep sleep there is a reverting back on the part of the jiva or a merging back as it were into its Source for a temporary blissful state. Bhagwan Shankara: "Just as the reflection of a person in a mirror attains the person himself(!!) when the mirror is removed, in a similair way indeed, there is in deep sleep, when the mind etc cease functioning, the Supreme Deity, which, in the form of a conscious individual soul as Its reflection, had entered into the mind for the manifestation of name and form, attains its true nature, by giving up Its appearance as the individual soul, called the mind... ... In deep sleep a person becomes identified with Existence, i.e. he becomed united with the Deity under discussion referred to by the words Existence. Having discarded the nature of the individual soul which has entered into the mind and which is produced from contact with the mind etc he attains his own self, his nature as Existence, which is the Ultimate Reality." Why then does he get out of this blissful state? Avidya. Maya. The avarna shakti has effectively veiled him from any knowledge of this and his still-existent prarabdha karma will pull him out of this state to exhaust the fruits of his prior actions. More than the alarm clock, it is "karma" that drags you out of bed! Incidentally, from a medical standpoint, deep sleep occupies only 10-15% of our sleep, and dream sleep another 25% - most of our sleep is neither categorized as dream or deep - it is what is referred to as superficial sleep. Any disease state afflicting the physical body like a arthritic joint will result in the deep sleep acquiring the characteristics of superficial sleep and the patient does complain "I did not sleep restfully, I did not sleep peacefully" It is also interesting that the effect of lack of deep sleep even though occupying such a small portion of the total sleep architecture is almost as deletrious as the effect of a total lack of sleep, from a rejuvenation standpoint. Drugs we use to sedate patients (hypnotics) for example never seem to be able to increase the deep sleep component! Ultimately the only purport of avasthatraya prakriya is of course to understand that there is an absolute underlying changeless substratum which is the eternal nondual ATman, which allows the appreciation of the three everchanging states, which is none other than I, the everexisting Self. Hence - the only utility of the understanding of the three States is to get to the so-called Fourth ( - rather than dig deep into an analysis of technicalities associated with each, as they all three can be lumped into the one and same Maya basket!) As a Chinese philosopher (a Taoist?) put it Am I the human that dreamt I was a butterfly last night or AM i the butterfly that is dreaming I am human right now?! Humble pranams Shyam |||||||||||||||||||||(Michael) {As is said "since sleep, consisting in the unawareness of Reality is equally present in all the three states" it must further be asked why there is such focus by Sankara on deep sleep particularly when it is held that all states of consciousness or all states of being, are manifestations of pure consciousness. All phenomenality is but Consciousness sporting in different guises but the very fascinating aspects of the show make the identification of the ego and the Self a standard mistake. Deep Sleep offers us a state of which we have knowledge - "a mass of consciousness, since it is characterised by the absence of discrimination" - but the state itself lacks the subject/object division of the other two. We can only know it by being it.} |||||||||||||||||||||| Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Hence it is that the waker can say "I did not know anything *and* I slept happily. As Michael-ji correctly pointed out, memory without experience is not possible. praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna Here I have small doubt, Here waking memory of sleep, which is comfortably giving verdict that "in sleep I dont know anything & there in that state I slept happily" etc. is it not?? but how can this waking mind's memory can infer when its existence is conspicuous by its absence?? So, the waking mind's memory of sleep is no real memory from the transcedental view point is it not?? coz. of the simple fact that these three states are not actually happenings in any particular time series, and that time experienced in waking cannot be reasonably regarded as the substrate of all the three states...Hence, unless & until we have the belief that waking state is *more* real & authentic when compared to other two states, we cannot give any concluding remarks on other two states...As a matter of fact, the waking state & mind involved in it has restricted time & space boundary it can enter neither dream nor deep sleep states... Just few of my thoughts Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Shyam-ji quotes a CHINESE philosopher as saying " Am I the human that dreamt I was a butterfly last night or AM i the butterfly that is dreaming I am human right now?!" What an interesting quote from the Chinese Philosopher CHUANG TZU , FOURTH CENTURY B.C. ""I, Chuang Chou, once dreamt that I was a butterfly. I flitted about, from flower to flower, on a lazy summer day, drifting merrily around and about. I did as I pleased - and was ever so happy! I knew nothing about any Chuang Chou --- and didn't care a bit! Then, I awakened, a Chuang Chou with all his human trappings! Now, here is the real question: Did I, Chuang Chou, dream that I was a butterfly? Or am I a butterfly, dreaming that I am Chuang Chou?" Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung would put a whole new 'spin' while interpreting this dream! but why did Chuang TZU dream he was a Butterfly ? why not a 'fish' ? of course fishes never sleep - they never even close their eyes! so where is the question of their dreaming and sleeping ? if i dream i would like to be a butterfly or a bumblebee ! MORE SO A BUMBLEBEE FOR IN YOGA THERE IS A PRANAYAMA CALLED 'BHRAMARI PRANAYMA'! While doing this pranayama , you emit sound like a 'bhramar' or a bee - it has such a purifying effect on you ! For Bees ( BUTTERFLIES TOO) have a great connection to the Soul ! Having made those lighthearted comments , Shyamji's quote of the chinese philosopher reminded me of the 'Bhramara-Kita-Nyaya' in vedanta ! "The Bhramara or the wasp is said to sting the insects or the Kitas which it brings to its hive and through stinging them and poisoning them makes them feel its presence alone everywhere, at all times. The insects, so to say, meditate on the presence of the wasp, at all times, and in turn become wasps themselves thereby. This is to show that by meditating on the formula 'Aham Brahma Asmi' or 'I am Brahman' the Jiva becomes Brahman itself in the end. " (swami sivananda)! As you think (dream) so shall you become ! SO , always meditate 'i am brahman' then even a jiva like me can become brahman ! If King can become a beggar in a dream , a beggar can also become a king ! ( king Janaka's story from Ashtavakra gita ) The point is A real jnani is beyond all the three states ; in fact he is even beyond the fourth state - Turiyatita! Sri Ramana bhagwan says " There is only one state, that of consciousness or awareness or existence. The three states of waking, dream and deep sleep cannot be real. They simply come and go. The real will always exist. The "I" or existence that alone persists in all the three states is real. The other three are not real and so it is not possible to say they have such and such degree of reality. We may roughly put it like this, Existence or consciousness is the only reality. Consciousness plus waking, we call waking. Consciousness plus sleep, we call sleep. Consciousness plus dream, we call dream. Consciousness is the screen, on which all the pictures come and go. The screen is real, the pictures are mere shadows on it. Because by long habit, we have been regarding these three states as real, we call the state of mere awareness or consciousness the fourth. There is however, no fourth state, but only one state. There is no difference between dream and the waking state except that the dream is short and the waking long. Both are the result of the mind. Because the waking state is long, we imagine that it is our real state. But, as a matter of fact, our real state is Turiya or the fourth state which is always as it is and knows nothing of the three states of waking, dream or deep sleep. Because we call these three Avastha (states) we call the fourth state also Turiya Avastha. But it is not an Avastha, but the real and natural state of the Self. When this is realised, we know it is not a Turiya or fourth state, for a fourth state is only relative, but Turiyatita, the transcendent state." With warmest regards (ps - SHYAMJI ? here is a question ? what about Sleep Apnea studies and their relevance for many people with sleeping disorders.?) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Namaste, Dear Sri Subbuji, It is kind of you to respond to my post. May I say a few more words based only on my understanding of the subject of Satyam, Mithya, etc. You have kindly stated: <<< You might recall the Pususha SUktam: 'pAdo'sya vishvA bhUtAni, tripaadasyAmRRitam divi'. This means, the entire created universe (in the Mandukya language, the entire content of the first three pAda-s) constitute just 'one-fourth' of the Supreme. The three other parts remain transcending the created universe. ,,,,,>>>> Agreed. However, the remaining three other parts also must be that Brahman only or Satyam, or whatever one may call. Transcending, (if it means going beyond the limits) is a very confusing word. Is there any Sanskrit equivalent word for Transcending? Just for information only. Brahman is defined as Satyam GnaAnam Anantam (i.e. infinite with no beginning or end); and therefore there is no question of any going beyond the limits. Brahman being Consciousness or Awareness, as very clearly established by the Upanishads, I do not know how transcending of consciousness will be possible. If however, if it means, transcending the limited knowledge one has, about Idam and Eswara, i.e. whatever is there, or whatever appears to be there, other than “I”, i.e. recognizing the chain, as gold, being its substratum, though gold appears in a particular form of Chain, it becomes clear. Moreover, the question of “parts” etc., as we all know, is just for one’s understanding, as Consciousness or Brahman being homogenous, and one without a second, cannot have any parts. Even if there are parts what is the line or lines that separate one part from the other or others. When the Shruti says “Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma”, the Idam, i.e. anything other than I, i.e. any known or unknown, Eswara, etc., also must include the three other parts that remain outside the creation. <<< While the Satyam, Brahman, is in and through all the states, all of us jivas exist in Brahman all the time, even though not realizing that to be the ultimate truth.>>> The Upanishads unfold the Jivas are Brahman itself, like the chain is gold itself, and not that they, the jivas “exist” "in" Brahman. The Mahavakya says Aham Brahmasmi I am Brahman) and not Aham Brahmani Asmi (i.e. I exist in Brahman), (pardon me if my Sanskrit translation is wrong). <<<< unfortunately, cannot be in Brahman even after the fall of the body>>>> It seems my earlier post was not properly understood, maybe my language was confusing. There is no question for a GnAni, one who has the knowledge that Jeeva Brahma eva Na Apara or AgnAni, one who does not have this knowledge, to be “in” Brahman. The Shruty says both of them are Brahman itself, though the GnAni recognizes this fact as unfolded by the Upanishads, whereas the AgnAni being ignorant of this fact takes himself to be “in” Brahman i.e. than Brahman. Please do not think for a minute that I am trying to bring up some arguments or trying to debate on the issue. Whatever is stated by me reflects my understanding, may I say so, and only with the idea to get myself corrected.. With warm regards, Mani R. S. Mani Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Dear Bhaskar-ji Pranams. Unfortunately, for all of us, you self-censured your 1st post on this thread, (erroneously feeling that you had posted too much), and deprived us of your indepth understanding of the avasthatraya prakriya the other day. May I request you to please as time permits afford us the pleasure of reading your exposition esp as it regards to sushupti. ___________________ > Hence, unless & until we have the > belief that waking > state is *more* real & authentic when compared to > other two states, we > cannot give any concluding remarks on other two > states...As a matter of > fact, the waking state & mind involved in it has > restricted time & space > boundary it can enter neither dream nor deep sleep > states... _____________________ I agree with what you are saying Bhaskar-ji and that is what I meant when i said (in retrospect rather unsophisticatedly) by "all three are in the same Maya basket" - i.e. all three have the same degree of unreality. ______________________________ > coz. of the simple fact that these > three states are not > actually happenings in any particular time series, ________________________________ I am sorry I am not very clear what you mean? Any question of a time series can never be from a paramarthic viewpoint, as anything that has to do with paramarthic viewpoint, is ever outside the matrix of time/space, and from a vyavaharic viewpoint sushupti and the ensuing wakestate would be following a timeseries, relative to each other, as I understand it. Please do elaborate Bhaksar-ji. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam --- bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com wrote: > > Hence it is that the waker can say "I did not know > anything *and* I slept > happily. > As Michael-ji correctly pointed out, memory without > experience is not > possible. > > praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > Here I have small doubt, Here waking memory of > sleep, which is comfortably > giving verdict that "in sleep I dont know anything & > there in that state I > slept happily" etc. is it not?? but how can this > waking mind's memory can > infer when its existence is conspicuous by its > absence?? So, the waking > mind's memory of sleep is no real memory from the > transcedental view point > is it not?? coz. of the simple fact that these > three states are not > actually happenings in any particular time series, > and that time > experienced in waking cannot be reasonably regarded > as the substrate of all > the three states...Hence, unless & until we have the > belief that waking > state is *more* real & authentic when compared to > other two states, we > cannot give any concluding remarks on other two > states...As a matter of > fact, the waking state & mind involved in it has > restricted time & space > boundary it can enter neither dream nor deep sleep > states... > > Just few of my thoughts > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Namaste Bhaskarji. We have never agreed. So, this bit of disagreement is not going to add to the woes of either of us. I would define waking as follows: "Waking is where dreams and dreamless sleep are recollected." I don't know if any one of us can contradict the above definition. If not, then it should be accepted until such time a contradiction becomes possible. Now, about the second point that is being traded here ad nauseum. We are exhorted to look at the three states 'dispassionately from the point of view of the witness'. I have tried my best to do that and have always found that I am doing so very successfully but *right in this waking*. These two, i.e. the above definition of waking and my trying to be dispassionate only in waking, gives me a growing certainty that waking is always 'superior' to dreaming and deep slumber. I should have the liberty to hold on to this view till I am proved otherwise. Someone here said there are some traces of vritti even in deep sleep and some others objected. Well, if sleep is an experience of not experiencing anything, then there is a vritti of experiencing. If it is a state of no-mind, then there is no vritti possible. Our vociferous interpretations of the upanishads do not help us here. I am sorry to say so. I have written this to you in waking (unless of course I am proved otherwise!). Let us therefore be thankful to wakefulness. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _________________________ Theadvaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote: > > Here I have small doubt, Here waking memory of sleep, which is comfortably > giving verdict that "in sleep I dont know anything & there in that state I > slept happily" etc. is it not?? but how can this waking mind's memory can > infer when its existence is conspicuous by its absence?? So, the waking > mind's memory of sleep is no real memory from the transcedental view point > is it not?? coz. of the simple fact that these three states are not > actually happenings in any particular time series, and that time > experienced in waking cannot be reasonably regarded as the substrate of all > the three states...Hence, unless & until we have the belief that waking > state is *more* real & authentic when compared to other two states, we > cannot give any concluding remarks on other two states...As a matter of > fact, the waking state & mind involved in it has restricted time & space > boundary it can enter neither dream nor deep sleep states... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Namaste Nair-ji, advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Bhaskarji. > > We have never agreed. So, this bit of disagreement is not going to > add to the woes of either of us. > > I would define waking as follows: > > "Waking is where dreams and dreamless sleep are recollected." > > I don't know if any one of us can contradict the above definition. > If not, then it should be accepted until such time a contradiction > becomes possible. > I accept your definition. In fact, long time back I was arguing in the same line with Sri.Bhaskar-ji ( I can't recollect exact date and link). Anyway, here is my slightly modified definition again; "Waking is where knowledge about very existence of dreams and dreamless sleep is comprehended" Some explanation would clear the cloud: Following types of knowledge ; - "There is a state called Dream" - "There is a state called sushupti" - "I have experienced the dream" - "I have experienced sushupti" etc etc.. are all knowledge of this very waking state itself. Having said that, any devaluation of waking state knowledge of world based on tri-avasta prakriya will automatically devalues the prakriya itself and thus self nullifies. In order for prakriya to be valid, one need to acccept the experience and knowledge of this waking state is valid, at least as much as prakriya itself. Regards, Srinivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Pranams Michael-ji > Memory without experience is not possible, but > knowledge > without experience is. As Shankara points out in > the > preamble to the B.S.B. "The Self is not absolutely > beyond apprehension, because it is apprehended as > the > content of the concept "I"; and because the Self, > opposed > to the non-Self, is well known in the world as an > immediately perceived (i.e. self-revealing) entity. ________________________ I could not agree with you more! Knowledge with certitude does not presuppose an experience. And so it is with selfknowledge or atmajnana - esp so in this case as the vastu, Atman, is selfevident, and in fact is the only thing that is selfevident. [As I have also been pointing out anything in the realm of experience presupposes duality and is hence ever in the realm of avidya or Maya.] With regards to referencing this to sushupti - only thing is in deep sleep, knowledge is not gained - there is a persistent state of ignorance which is why a person in deep sleep does not get enlightened. Knowledge requires an available intellect - dormant of course in deep sleep. The jiva, though ignorant, however does experience a certain bliss, and for this bliss some physiologic basis needs to be ascribed, hence the basis for saying that there is still a subtle principle operational to make possible the experience. That the jiva lacks awareness of this process as it happens is due to the avarana shakti of Maya and the fact that he has a remembrance of the event upon waking up shows it certainly was experienced, in a manner of speaking. In terms of the Upanishadic context I again will refer you to this verse from the K.Up > The Kaivalya UP.(13) further clarifies in a similair > vein > > Sushuptikaale sakale vileene > tamobhibhaati sukharoopameti > > In dreamless sleep when everything is absorbed, the > jiva, overpowered by ignorance, attains the state of > happiness. > > In other words, the jiva does as though attain > kaivalyam but being > overpowered by Maya's avaranashakti ( or the veiling > power) is not > conscious of it. You also wrote... As is said "since sleep, consisting in the unawareness of Reality is equally present in all the three states" it must further be asked why there is such focus by Sankara on deep sleep particularly when it is held that all states of consciousness or all states of being, are manifestations of pure consciousness. __ Of all the prakriyas for understanding the basis for atmajnana, an analysis of the three states has no parallel. And in that, without an experience of deep sleep and the continuity of the Self that it establishes I dare suggest our understanding of atmajnana would be rendered mightily difficult. My point was only to suggest that an analysis of deep sleep or its exposition by Shankara is primarily to gain an appreciation of the turiya, and I think we share the same viewpoint here. Thank you for your thought-provoking comments. Humble pranams Hari OM Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Namaste, In message #33660 of 9th Oct, Shyam quoted from the Kaivalya Upanishad 13: Sushuptikaale sakale vileene tamobhibhaati sukharoopameti In dreamless sleep when everything is absorbed, the jiva, overpowered by ignorance, attains the state of happiness. And, by way of commentary, Shyam said: "In other words, the jiva does as though attain kaivalyam but being overpowered by Maya's avaranashakti (or the veiling power) is not conscious of it." Here, I am reminded of an observation made by Shri Atmananda. He said that 'unconscious' means 'unconscious of objects'. What's absent in deep sleep is not the continued knowing of consciousness itself. Without that knowing present there, we could not rightly speak of deep sleep at all. The absence we experience in deep sleep is not an absence of consciousness itself. Instead, it is the absence of all seeming consciousness of objects, which we imagine in the dream and waking states. When we speak of experiencing 'unconsciousness', we contradict ourselves. For, by the word 'consciousness', we essentially imply a knowing principle whose presence is shared in common by all states of experience that we undergo. So, if we speak of an 'unconscious' state, we are speaking illogically, of a knowing principle whose presence is somehow considered to know its own absence. This illogical consideration is self-contradicting and accordingly confused. To clarify it, we must ask what's meant by the word 'unconscious'. It's a word that is used in the waking and dream states, where the continued knowing of true consciousness is habitually confused with changing activities of perception, thought and feeling in our bodies and our minds. Through this waking and dream confusion, there appears a seeming consciousness of physical and mental objects, perceived through body and conceived by mind. It's only this apparent consciousness which disappears in depth of sleep. And this waking or dreaming appearance of consciousness is not in fact true knowing. True knowing is that consciousness which does not change, and never disappears. It does not change when different objects seem perceived by waking body or conceived by dreaming mind. Nor does it disappear when changing objects cease to be perceived by body or conceived by mind; so that an unconsciousness of objects seems to remain in depth of sleep or in the timeless interval between successive states of thought and feeling. If that 'unconsciousness' or 'ignorance' of objects is examined carefully, it turns out to be nothing else but consciousness itself, staying always unaffected through all its apparent veiling: by body's world of objects in the waking state, by dreaming mind's imaginings, and by the peace and happiness of dreamless sleep. The veiling is of course affected by duality, and so it can be seen two ways. At first, it seems an obstacle that somehow needs to be removed. But later on, as what has been obstructed gets more clearly understood, the obstructions in themselves are better seen as ways of showing what they previously appeared to hide. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 The absence we experience in deep sleep is not an absence of consciousness itself. Instead, it is the absence of all seeming consciousness of objects, which we imagine in the dream and waking states. praNAms Sri Ananda Wood prabhuji Hare Krishna That is beautifully said prabhuji...this is what shankara explicitly says in *ataH prabhOdOsmAt* vEdAnta sUtra. He says there is no time when jIva can experience an absence of consciousness...coz. this consciousness/brahman is one's own intrinsic nature which cannot be negated at any point of time..And he continues, only in view of the seeming foreign aspect which he assumes in dream & waking due to upAdhi-s (limited adjuncts) it is proposed to say that he attains his own form on the dissolution of that foreign aspect. Here it is also to be noted that shankara he is not mentioning anything about *root ignorance* (kAraNAvidya). Instead, he further confirms that jIva who is merged in pure being is not conscious ONLY coz. of absolute unity. Sureshwara's bruhad vArtika & saMbhanda vArtika too confirms this view according to shruti...but those references are not coming to my mind right away...I request Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji or Sri Subbu prabhuji to help us out with those references. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 ______________________________ > coz. of the simple fact that these > three states are not > actually happenings in any particular time series, ________________________________ I am sorry I am not very clear what you mean? Any question of a time series can never be from a paramarthic viewpoint, as anything that has to do with paramarthic viewpoint, is ever outside the matrix of time/space, and from a vyavaharic viewpoint sushupti and the ensuing wakestate would be following a timeseries, relative to each other, as I understand it. Humble praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna Thanks a lot for all your kind words prabhuji.... The topic avasthA traya is not a new subject to this list prabhuji. Earlier, we have had enough discussion on this very subject umpteen times in this list itself...Hence, I did not want to stretch my answer to Sri Subbu prabhuji. In short, the avasthAtraya prakriya is one of the most important methodology adopted by shankara & his parama guru Sri gaudapAdAchArya based on shruti prAmANya to show that our svarUpa is trikAla abhAdita & as you said above, waking & dream worlds have only relative existence with relative time & space frame. And hence there is a requirement of objective analysation of avasthA traya from sAkshi view point which is purely based on our day-to-day experience. In deep sleep state both waker (vishwa) & dreamer (taijasa) are absent & their related world (waking & dreaming world) too absent. Hence shruti says, there in that state even vEda is avEda, mAta is amAta etc.(ref.bruhadAraNyaka shruti) The existence of objects & its perceptions, experiences have time & space bound reality but our svarUpa is dEsha kAlAtIta prabhuji. Hence shruti figuratively says jIva embraces brahman in sushupti. Having said all the above, members may kindly note, I am not denying the practical utility of our socalled waker & his waking world. But in tattva nirNya we have to treat this waker him/herself as vishaya (object) from the sAkshyAnubhava drushti or shAstra drushti. If we do that exercise from this view point we will come to know that these three states are just super-impositions (adhyArOpita) on our true nature (state) (na antah prajna na bahiH prajna ..shivaM shAtaM advaitaM asserts shruti) & there is no difference between waking and dream state. (saptAnga yEkOna viMshati mukhaH attributes shruti to both vishva & taijasa). Apart from this, there are also various arguments which invalidate the seemingly more "continuous" & "stable" nature of waking world/universe which seems to make it more "real" in our perception. I have written my understanding on these states in a mail...I shall forward the same off the list directly to you coz. now it is a musty topic to the old members of this list:-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p wrote: > > > > I accept your definition. > > In fact, long time back I was arguing in the same line with > Sri.Bhaskar-ji ( I can't recollect exact date and link). Anyway, > here is my slightly modified definition again; > > "Waking is where knowledge about very existence of dreams and > dreamless sleep is comprehended" > > Some explanation would clear the cloud: > > Following types of knowledge ; > > - "There is a state called Dream" > - "There is a state called sushupti" > - "I have experienced the dream" > - "I have experienced sushupti" etc etc.. > > are all knowledge of this very waking state itself. > > Having said that, any devaluation of waking state knowledge of world > based on tri-avasta prakriya will automatically devalues the > prakriya itself and thus self nullifies. In order for prakriya to be > valid, one need to acccept the experience and knowledge of this > waking state is valid, at least as much as prakriya itself. > > Regards, > Srinivas. ShrIgurubhyo NamaH Namaste Srinivas ji, The following situation is perfectly possible; it could be a rare occurrance, nonetheless not an impossibility : I go to sleep. I get a dream. In that dream, i do some very hard labour throughout the 'day' and tired, go to bed. I get a dream (dream no.2). And have a sound sleep. I get up fresh, in the morning, to dream No.1. I recollect that dream (no.2). Finally, i wake up from this (original) dream (no.1), being jolted due to a 'fall' in this dream. Now, we have a situation where there is Dream no.1. Within this dream No.1, there is a waking, a dream no.2, and a deep sleep. Now, when i wake up from dream No.1 (the original dream), i can recollect the dream no.2, and the states of waking, and deep sleep of dream no. 1. (Dream no. 1 is a composite of a waking, a dream and a sleep.) With this recollection i can perfectly conclude: All the states namely the waking, dream and deep sleep occured in my dream No.1. I could recollect the dream no.2 and the deep sleep in the waking state of my dream no.1. Hence the triad of states can very well be mithya, despite my recollecting the dream/sleep during the waking. For, after all, in my dream no.1, i did recollect the dream 2 and the sound sleep. (I appeal to Shri Sundar Rajan ji to present the parable 'Illusoriness of the World' appearing on pages 287 to 293 from the book: Edifying Parables, maybe in two posts.) Thus, no extra premium need be given to this waking just because it is the platform where i recollect the dream and sleep states. In Advaita Vedanta, any prakriya is only a prati-kalpana, a counter- concoction. Its sole purpose is to free the aspirant from his original concoction. Once this is accomplished, the prakriya is no longer 'sacred'. It is mercilessly discarded. The Panchadashi says: palAlam iva dhAnyArthi tyajet granthAn ashEShataH = Just like the husk is discarded by the one who has secured the grain, all granthas (prakriyas) are discarded once the grain, the Atma jnanam, is secured. In the Adhyasa bhashya, the Acharya has said 'all pramana-prameya vyavahara including loukika, vaidika AND that pertaining to Moksha, is in the realm of avidya.' So, when the Atma SAkshAtkara is had, all the prakriyas, including the Vedanta which is also a prati- kalpana to remove our concoction, 'vanish' automatically, without one's effort. No one laments for that. Humble Pranams, subbu Om Tat Sat (Note: Swami Paramarthananda ji makes a reference to a situation like this in his Mandukya lectures and quips humourously: Are you getting confused between dream 1 and dream 2 ? That is Mandukya !!) Now, dear members, if i have confused you pl. pardon me and wait for Sundar Rajan's posts - hopefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.