The Three States and their objects

October 10, 2006

Ananda wrote:

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

|||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Anandaji,

That would be the core position. In the sort

of

philosophical cooking that I do the 'vegetables' can be diced ever

so finely but not much more is added to their nutritional value. One may

go

so far as to puree them and stuff hollowed out marrows and

egg-plants. As the woman said once 'life is too short for stuffing

mushrooms'

Best Wishes,

Michael.

October 10, 2006

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.

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I am pleased to note that there is a rare agreement between us :-)) yes,

the triad states are mithya ..Hence shruti says tasya traya avasathA trayi

svapnAH....

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

October 11, 2006

Namaste Subbuji.

Your message 33714 refers.

There is a danger in your logic. You are using a double-edged

knife. It can cut either way.

1. Waking, dream and sleep are universally recognized facts.

The three are not the invention of any one of us.

2. So, there is waking, dream and sleep (period).

3. Anywhere, where one recalls having dreamt and slept, is

waking. That is the hall-mark definition for waking.

4. Dream-dreaming as illustrated in your example is possible.

It happens to me very often. The relative waking in that dream (dream-

waking) is waking because dream and sleep are recollected in it.

5. Thus, waking is waking till it is proved a dream.

6. Your example raises the possibility of infinite regress, i.e.

there can be wakings and wakings within dreams and dreams, sleep and

sleep within wakings and wakings and dreams and dreams.

7. An infinite regress is a non-situation. We, therefore, have

to clinch the issue by recognizing what is universally recognized,

i.e. there is waking, dream and sleep (period).

8. In an infinite regress, there cannot be any serial order like

1, 2, 3 etc. So, it is foolish to designate this waking of ours as

No. 1. It can be the `n'th.

An infinite regress is an anarchic no-man's land without any

recognizable milestones or frames of reference which would be really

dangerous for those who very dearly advocate pure advaita,

prastAnatraya, avastAtraya etc. to enter into. How? I will

illustrate it.

You are in this waking where you are reading this, which can be a

dream according to your example. Normally, when we wake from a

dream, our usual tendency is to ignore what happened in the dream as

illogical because the dream contents usually have no validity with

reference to the reality of the waking into which we awake. If you

doubt the validity of this waking, then you are surmising the

possibility of this whole scenario, where we take recourse to

scriptures, turning into a dream in another wakefulness in which we

may have to discard the same scriptures as irrelevant and illogical.

God forbid such a happening. I am only pointing out that your

example, which Sw. Paramarthananda endorses, holds that possibility –

a possibility, which, those who hunt for the scalp of other advaitins

in the name of pure Shankara Vedanta will shudder to accept. Just

imagine a hardened Shankara vedantin suddenly waking to find that all

his enormous labour on the Advaitin List was afterall irrelevant and

illogical with reference to his new wakefulness. How would he like

that? It is not a question of liking then. He will most certainly

exclaim: "Oh, that was all so silly of me!".

So, since we don't seem to wake from this wakefulness (into another

waking in which this waking turns out be a dream), and till such

time we wake (if at all), let us accept the universally recognized

fact – that there is waking, dream and sleep (period). Once we do

that, we can also be thankful to this waking where we have our

scriptures, Shankara and what not to help and guide us. Yes, this

waking, though miThyA vedantically, is really superior to anything.

It is simply supreme, Sir.

Now, before concluding, personally, as a Devi bhakta, I don't mind

the anarchy of infinite regress. Dream, waking or sleep – I

recognize everything as Her (Awareness). I don't then need any

milestones or frames of reference, not even avastAtraya prakriya.

What better refuge is there than Her Lotus Feet where I permanently

home. Let avastAs, worlds, planes of realities and dimensions crash

with all their infinite contents. It would be fun to watch from the

safety and comfort of Her drawing room window.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_____________________________

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>> 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.

................>

> (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 !!)

October 11, 2006

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji.

>

> Your message 33714 refers.

>

> There is a danger in your logic. You are using a double-edged

> knife. It can cut either way.

Namaste Dear Nair ji,

Please find my replies in

>

> 1. Waking, dream and sleep are universally recognized facts.

> The three are not the invention of any one of us.

[This above is certainly not Advaita prakriya Sir. According to

Vedanta that there is a universe and i am one among many and that i

share a world of waking, etc. with them is all not an 'invention'

but an imagination of every one of us.]

> 2. So, there is waking, dream and sleep (period).

[Yes. As long as one is in the throes of ignorance.]

> 3. Anywhere, where one recalls having dreamt and slept, is

> waking. That is the hall-mark definition for waking.

[This is not disputed at all. What is questioned is the 'truth'

of that 'waking'. One can go through the II Chapter of the Mandukya

Upanishad, Vaithatya prakaranam, Kaarikas from no. 4 onwards up to

no.19, along with the Acharya's Bhashya. This has to be done with

patience. This will clear many points not understood properly.]

> 4. Dream-dreaming as illustrated in your example is possible.

> It happens to me very often. The relative waking in that dream

(dream- waking) is waking because dream and sleep are recollected

in it.

[Actually i recalled, while penning my post, your experiences that

you had mentioned on this List about your dream-dreaming. Let it be

the waking because there is the recollection. But that waking's

truth, reality, is what is questioned by the core Vedanta.]

5. Thus, waking is waking till it is proved a dream.

[True. But to question it's truth is what all sadhana is about. In

fact while teaching vairagya, the Acharya says in the Gita bhashya,

that one should discriminate on these lines: the objects are

defective because of their anityatvam, mithyaatvam, etc. Remember,

these are the objects of the waking state. In his Vivekachudamani

bhashyam, the commenting Swamgial says: There could be a person who

says, 'even if an object is very short-lasting, still i would like

to have it and enjoy it. But none would crave to have a dream-

kingdom'. Thus compared to anityatvam, mithyaatvam is a stronger

hetu for vairagyam. One should constantly remember that the waking

that deludes us into thinking that it is real, is no better than the

swapnam. The 'proving' that you have said above will be largely

hastened and facilitated by the sadhaka's effort in that direction

(of considering the waking to be a dream.]

> 6. Your example raises the possibility of infinite regress,

i.e. there can be wakings and wakings within dreams and dreams,

sleep and sleep within wakings and wakings and dreams and dreams.

[Yes. That possibility i too thought of. But that does not deter

the vedantic scriptures from giving that example. In fact, what i

gave is a very mild dose. Even that, as i rightly anticipated, is

difficult to bear for some (or many ?). Swami Parmarthananda

actually goes one step further and says: 'It is not over, you have

just woken from dream no.1 to dream no.3.' What he means is

this 'waking' in which this analysis is being done, where the class

is being taken, where sadhana is being carried out, is another dream

(no.3)alone. I stopped short of adding that dimension. There are

stories in the Yoga Vasishtha which will prove a real 'brain

teaser'. One is lead from a waking to a dream and from there to

several such wakings and dreams telescopically. To prove my point,

i thought this much will do.]

[On another note, talking of infinite regress, there is the teaching

of the sakshi, the witness of the antahkaranam, the mind. Now, one

might demand a sakshi of that sakshi and go on infinitely. The

shastra, wisely, puts an end to that and teaches: accept one sakshi

and stop with that. That will save you of problems and keep the

framework free from prolixity. This is called laghu-kalpana. The

other is guru-kalpana (gaurava-kalpana). What is always preferred

is a prakriya with the least complications.]

> 7. An infinite regress is a non-situation. We, therefore,

have to clinch the issue by recognizing what is universally

recognized, i.e. there is waking, dream and sleep (period).

[it could be 'period' for an individual; that depends on his

capacity to take the teaching. For someone who is ready for a

bigger take, there is always an 'advanced' teaching.]

> 8. In an infinite regress, there cannot be any serial order

like 1, 2, 3 etc. So, it is foolish to designate this waking of

ours as No. 1. It can be the `n'th.

[ An example is devised by an individual. So, he can perfectly

designate serial numbers. He knows where he starts and where he

ends the example. It is for the intelligent student to 'imagine'

the profundity of the situation and accordingly do the necessary

extrapolation. An extremely complicated problem too can be made

easily graspable by advancing appropriate examples.]

>

> An infinite regress is an anarchic no-man's land without any

> recognizable milestones or frames of reference which would be

really dangerous for those who very dearly advocate pure advaita,

> prastAnatraya, avastAtraya etc. to enter into. How? I will

> illustrate it.

>

> You are in this waking where you are reading this, which can be a

> dream according to your example. Normally, when we wake from a

> dream, our usual tendency is to ignore what happened in the dream

as illogical because the dream contents usually have no validity

with reference to the reality of the waking into which we awake.

If you doubt the validity of this waking, then you are surmising

the possibility of this whole scenario, where we take recourse to

> scriptures, turning into a dream in another wakefulness in which

we may have to discard the same scriptures as irrelevant and

illogical.

God forbid such a happening. I am only pointing out that your

> example, which Sw. Paramarthananda endorses, holds that

possibility – a possibility, which, those who hunt for the scalp of

other advaitins in the name of pure Shankara Vedanta will shudder

to accept. Just imagine a hardened Shankara vedantin suddenly

waking to find that all his enormous labour on the Advaitin List

was afterall irrelevant and illogical with reference to his new

wakefulness. How would he like that? It is not a question of

liking then. He will most certainly exclaim: "Oh, that was all so

silly of me!".

[Respected Sir, such apprehensions have been considered by early

Acharyas and enough built-in measures have been put in place to

effectively ward off such dangers that you have expressed. First of

all the shraddha that an aspirant has will not permit him to go off-

limits. More than anything, he will be under the guidance of a

Master. It is only surprising to me that this concept of 'the

waking not to be regarded as different from dream' appears new to

you. A student of Vedanta in the traditional way is exposed to

these teachings at an early stage itself. Foolish handling of a

prakriya can happen in any scenario. That does not prove that the

prakriya is wrong. Only that it has been given to an an-adhikari;

or rather 'taken' by an an-adhikari. There is a common complaint

that i have heard about, for example, the neo-advaitins. It is said

that their thinking is thus: The world is mithya. We are Brahman.

Brahman has no karma. Brahman is ever pure. We do not need any

sadhana to purify ourselves. For, we are already Brahman. so on

and so forth. Now, would you blame the any of the first four

statements here? Evidently the blame is on the individual and, if

they have one, their guru.

The illustration is neither illogical nor irrelevant. Only that it

is hard to swallow to some unprepared intellects. Shankaracharya's

very first teaching in the Sutra bhashya commences with the

description of 'adhyasa'. He traces every one of our activity,

whether secular, religious or even spiritual to the basic adhyasa

caused by avidya. He does not spare even the Moksha shastra, the

Vedanta, from being in this realm of avidya. His entire

prasthanatraya bhashya is built upon this foundation of the basic

ignorance of the jiva and giving a solution to it. There is ample

evidence to this throughtout His bhashyas. Let me conclude the

Advaitic, Vedantic, Paaramaarthic view as declared by the

Amritabindu Upanishad and as mentioned by the Gaudapada kaarika and

commented upon by Shankaracharya:

na nirodho, na cha utppattiH, na baddho, na cha saadhakaH,

na mumukshur na vai muktaH ityeShaa paramArthatA

There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none

striving or aspiring for salvation, and none liberated. This is the

highest Truth.

The first two declarations demolish any imagination regarding a

waking, dream and deep sleep cycle. When even these are not there,

where is the question of a 'person' and his being in bondage? When

there is no saadhaka even, where is the question of scriptures to

teach him and lead him to liberation. Hence, there is no one

aspiring for moksha. Even a 'liberated' individual is a

misconception according to this Upanishadic Highest Truth.

Now, this teaching is expounded to the sadhaka alone. This teaching

is not 'hidden' from him just because of the apprehension that he

might neglect his sadhana. Eough care is taken in the Guru-sishya,

satsangha set-up. Just because acid can cause harm to a person, its

use in experiments in high schools is not avoided.

So, in the wake of the above, i have no problem with that teaching

Sir. I have always cherished it as the greatest and profoundest

teaching of Advaita that i have received, due to the infinite grace

of the Lord and the Guru. In fact the truth that the waking is

illusory even while one is experiencing it is the hallmark of

Advaita Vedanta which no other school can even grasp intellectually,

let alone produce Jnanis who realize it and live the truth of it. I

would not be wrong if i say that it is this unique feature of

Advaita is what makes it attractive to thinking minds of all

nationalities.]

> So, since we don't seem to wake from this wakefulness (into

another waking in which this waking turns out be a dream), and till

such time we wake (if at all), let us accept the universally

recognized fact – that there is waking, dream and sleep (period).

Once we do that, we can also be thankful to this waking where we

have our scriptures, Shankara and what not to help and guide us.

Yes, this waking, though miThyA vedantically, is really superior to

anything. It is simply supreme, Sir.

[The above is given. Vedanta accepts a vyavaharika sattaa, a

parlance reality to the vyavahara where all the worldly, religious

and scriptural activity takes place. It demands that one respect it

duly and accordingly proceed in sadhana. Any mixing up of the

parlance and absolute reality levels alone will lead to problems. I

had nowhere suggested that we should disregard sadhana, etc. on the

grounds of the unreality of the waking. In fact, the truth of this

teaching will be actually realized only upon the culmination of

sadhana.]

> Now, before concluding, personally, as a Devi bhakta, I don't mind

> the anarchy of infinite regress. Dream, waking or sleep – I

> recognize everything as Her (Awareness). I don't then need any

> milestones or frames of reference, not even avastAtraya prakriya.

> What better refuge is there than Her Lotus Feet where I

permanently home. Let avastAs, worlds, planes of realities and

dimensions crash with all their infinite contents. It would be fun

to watch from the safety and comfort of Her drawing room window.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

[That is very well said Sir. If this last para had occurred at the

beginning of this essay and, in that order, in the thinking that

brought forth this essay, much labour, not just for you, but for me

as well could have been saved.

Humble pranams and thanks for letting me go through my most

favourite Vedanta prakriya.

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

October 11, 2006

Dear Sri. Nair,

....

> his enormous labour on the Advaitin List was afterall irrelevant and

> illogical with reference to his new wakefulness. How would he like

> that? It is not a question of liking then. He will most certainly

> exclaim: "Oh, that was all so silly of me!".

....

Many times one doesn't even have to wake up to a higher state to figure

out that what one did was all so silly :-)

Best regards,

Ramachandra

October 11, 2006

[This is not disputed at all. What is questioned is the 'truth'

of that 'waking'. One can go through the II Chapter of the Mandukya

Upanishad, Vaithatya prakaranam, Kaarikas from no. 4 onwards up to

no.19, along with the Acharya's Bhashya. This has to be done with

patience. This will clear many points not understood properly.]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

No, prabhuji, those who are sitting comfortably in devi's drawing room &

witnessing infinite regress of avasthAtraya, need not required to do that

exercise & they dont want any references from any of the works even it

exclusively pertains to avasthAtraya, ...that is what Sri Nair prabhuji

confirmed at the end of his logical deduction of avasthAtraya...But most of

the people often forget that logic without the basis of shAstra & anubhava

is mere dry logic (shushka tarka) & does not hold water in vEdAnta

prakriya...Anyway, I am not able to understand *why* & what purpose this

intellectual gymnastics required for those who have *ananya bhakti*

towards their IstadEvata, those who have firm conviction that their

IshtadEvata is there to grant them *everything*...Just curious

yA dEvi sarvabhutEshu *buddhi* rUpENa saMstita...

perhaps dEvi bhakta-s worshipping this *buddhi rUpa* of dEvi through

exercising their *buddhi*:-)) ofcourse without depending on shAstra :-))

No offence intended...just on the lighter note :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

October 11, 2006

Namaste Subbuji.

Your reply 33732 refers.

I am totally disappointed. Reading through all the unwarranted

vedanta you have poured in, I am left with a feeling that you have

avoided answering my simple observations.

About numbering waking/dreaming serially, I would like to tell you

that your example was one of infinite regress. Infinite regress

being 'infinite', there is no serial numbering like 1,2,3 ...

possible was my contention. You seem to have chosen to misunderstand

that and held to the right of freedom of the example's proponent to

number it the way he likes.

Besides, when I said waking, dream and sleep are universally

recognized facts, I didn't mean to look at them from the advaitic

angle. I only meant that they are everyone's anubhava.

We can talk about advaita later. Let us first of all thrash out the

preliminaries at the transactional. All the advaita you talked about

is already known to me. There was no need to take to it at the level

I was talking.

I have nothing to add as my observations have not been logically

met. I would like to continue this discussion only if any one else

is prepared to go with me without unnecessarily mixing between

paramArtha and vyAvahArika.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

October 11, 2006

Namaste Bhaskarji.

Your post 33734.

Your comments are unwarranted. Anyway no offence felt because you

clarified they were made in a lighter vein.

You know a lot of Sankara vedanta. Accepted. I also know at least

something. I don't have to prove that. Yet, I have to tell you

that advaita and bhakti are one and the same. If you have any doubt,

please ask any advaitin whose capacity you trust. You can consider

Subbuji.

My mail to Subbuji contained only very simple observations. They

were what you call anubhava common to all. I have a feeling he

hasn't addressed them well. If you can address them with your

immense knowledge, I shall be most grateful. Kindly give a try.

And, please make it a point not to include too much Sanskrit and to

avoid asking me to read this and that bhAshya because I can't

possibly understand them like you do.

If you do not want to answer my observations, at least explain to us

in a very simple manner how objective evaluation of avastAtraya as a

dispassionate witness is possible from waking which is one of the

three states. The audience whom I have to address always counter me

on this issue by pointing out that one cannot be dispassionately

objective to the other states from the waking state. I think they

are right. I cannot ask them to read Shankara from this chapter to

that chapter. We have to depend on knowledgeable persons like you.

PraNAms and my prayers to the Devi.

Madathil Nair

October 11, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

>

> > Namaste Subbuji.

> >

> > Your message 33714 refers.

> >

> > There is a danger in your logic. You are using a double-edged

> > knife. It can cut either way.

>

> Namaste Dear Nair ji,

> Please find my replies in

>

Namaste Subbu-ji and Nair-ji

I suddenly switched into this thread and read some posts of you

both. When I read Subbuji's post, I think he is right. When I read

Nair-ji's post I think he is very right. I am sure some other

readers of your posts must have had the same feeling.

Maybe I am looking absurd. But here is a challenging exercise for

both Subbuji and Nairji -- if they don't mind my intervention. This

exercise is mostly for the education of me and similar ones on this

list who are just confused by this never-ending debate about the

three states.

I would like a one paragraph presentation of each side of the debate

that is going on. Also I would like this to be done by each of you,

Nair and Subbu by presenting the other's case without your rebuttal.

You know our Adi Shankara does such presentations of the pUrva-

paksha so well, that very often, we forget the word 'nanu' in the

beginning of the paragraph and almost tend to wonder whether it is

Shankara siddhAnta!

I think such an exercise would possibly bring a finite end to this

infinite regress of points and counter-points!

And don't bring in some more points of view presented by other

participants. Only Subbu and Nair, please!

Am I asking for too much?

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

October 11, 2006

Dear Madathil ji,

With regards your earlier comment, ""Waking is where dreams and dreamless

sleep are recollected.", you probably know there is support for this in

Gaudapa's Karika, No2.

"Visva is he who cognises in the right eye, Taijasa is he who cognises in

the mind within and Prajna is he who constitues the Akasha in the heart.

Thus the one Atman is (conceived as) threefold in the (one) body."

(my apologies to you and others for not being able to show accents on

letters, or the appropriate way to indicate them - avidya!)

In the commentary to this, Shankara says:

"This verse is intended to show that the threefold experience of Visva etc

(Taijasa and Prajna) is realised in the waking state alone." Later in the

commentary, Shankara gives the example of perceiving gross objects through

the eye (Visva); then, closing the eyes and recollecting the impressions of

objects (Taijasa). "With the cessation of the activity known as memory" and

with a cessation of mental activity, the perceiver, who is the same in both

waking and dream states, merges with Prajna in the Akasha of the heart "and

becomes verily a mass of consciousness."

My current understanding is along the lines that its not that the mind is

absent in deep sleep, but that it is present in a latent form. What is

absent is the apparent differentiation of 'objects' (whether of thought of

of gross bodies) and the differentiation of 'subject and object'. (In a

way, the three states could just be called states [modifications] of mind

through which the one witness pervceives, so to speak.) By the way, I'm not

suggesting you think the mind is absent - I'm just sharing a view.

With regards your other comments (linked to Subbu-ji's) about a dream within

a dream. I too have had that experience. The waking up from the dream

appeared 'very real' and was *extremely* vivid. So it came as a surprise to

find that it too was a dream, when I awoke again into daily life! But also,

in this 'waking state' of normal life (so called) I feel that I have woken

up a number of times from one dream (illusion) or another. Gurdjieff said

that our dreams during night time sleep were relatively harmless because the

physical body is passive and we can't act out our phantasies. The most

harmful dreams, he said, are those we have while we are awake (normal

consciousness) because we can, and do, act out these phantasies. And what's

worse everyone seems to be having the same dream!! .. so we just reinforce

each others illusions of separateness and conflict.

You also say,

"3. Anywhere, where one recalls having dreamt and slept, is waking. That is

the hall-mark definition for waking."

I wonder whether we might distinguish between the term "waking", which seem

more like a verb, and "the waking state" which seems more like a noun? Is

one difference between the 'waking state' and 'dream' state' that the former

contains physical objects, whereas the latter is made up solely of mental

impressions. Yes, I realise we could now have a discussion as to whether

there is any such thing as 'physical objects'!

The other point you bring out has to do with 'study of scripture' & so on

and discovering this was also a part of the dream. Well, I sort of feel it

is - full stop. People have recently expressed appropriate concerns about

the validity of 'time bound' states, I also have concerns about 'word bound'

states. Having said that, my sense is that 'illumination' of one degree or

another can arise in either waking or dream state. As the Self pervades

All, its Grace can 'appear' to appear to us in any form in any state.

Sri Ramana Maharshi stated:

"A man might have an experience such as getting anugraha (grace) in his

dream, and the effects and influence of it on his entire subsequent life may

be so profound and abiding, that one cannot call it unreal, whilst calling

real some trifling incident in the waking life that just flits by, which

casual, of no consequence and is soon forgotten.

(Gems from Bhagavan, ch.vi, selected by A. Devaraja Mudaliar)

When a devotee asked Sri Ramana Maharshi if initiation, diksha, was possible

in the dream state, Bhagavan gave the following reply:

"Jagrat and swapna are states that come and go. If these states are real

they must be unchanging, permanent. Our real nature is constant being. It

never changes. Be it upadesa or diksha, the efficacy of the Guru's influence

or God's grace is not conditioned by the different states. The influence is

an experience being itself. Guru, God and Self are one and the same. So long

as the Guru, God or the Self are deemed external, all upadesa, initiation

and the several dikshas mentioned have a relative meaning and significance.

But 'Guru' is external and internal, and is the very Self. Such influence is

efficacious whether the experience is in the jagrat or swapna states"

(The Maharshi MAY/JUN 2001 VOL.11, NO. 3)

Best wishes,

Peter

________________________________

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

11 October 2006 09:29

advaitin

Re: The Three States and their objects

Namaste Subbuji.

Your message 33714 refers.

There is a danger in your logic. You are using a double-edged

knife. It can cut either way.

1. Waking, dream and sleep are universally recognized facts.

The three are not the invention of any one of us.

2. So, there is waking, dream and sleep (period).

3. Anywhere, where one recalls having dreamt and slept, is

waking. That is the hall-mark definition for waking.

4. Dream-dreaming as illustrated in your example is possible.

It happens to me very often. The relative waking in that dream (dream-

waking) is waking because dream and sleep are recollected in it.

5. Thus, waking is waking till it is proved a dream.

6. Your example raises the possibility of infinite regress, i.e.

there can be wakings and wakings within dreams and dreams, sleep and

sleep within wakings and wakings and dreams and dreams.

7. An infinite regress is a non-situation. We, therefore, have

to clinch the issue by recognizing what is universally recognized,

i.e. there is waking, dream and sleep (period).

8. In an infinite regress, there cannot be any serial order like

1, 2, 3 etc. So, it is foolish to designate this waking of ours as

No. 1. It can be the `n'th.

<snip>

October 11, 2006

Namaste Professor Saab!

I didn't congratulate you on your recent feat. I was just waiting

for the avalanche of accolades to cease so that I will be noticed!

Have they ceased yet?

We will talk about that later. I am reading your translation post

by post and will revert to you with my bouquets later.

About your advice on this avastAtraya debate - sure I am going to

give my short presentation shortly. I have always obeyed you

Professor Saab, the good boy that I am. Don't you recall you asked

me to apologize to our dear Sunderji and I obeyed instantly? Looked

like you were asking me to present my understanding of Subbuji's

explanation as well. Well, that would be difficult. Because he has

always been hiding under the shadow of GaudapAda, Shankara or

Paramarthananada. I have only my shadow to worry about and that is

not much imposing.

I am having my week-end here (Thursday/Friday). My wife is leaving

for India next week. Though fiercely quarrelsome, she needs some

time with me. So, kindly let me play the dutiful husband

Thursday/Friday. As an advaitin, I am good at role-playing. I will

be back with my short presentation Saturday.

May Ma bless you, Professor Saab for all the enlightenment that you

bringing us.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_____________________

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

> I would like a one paragraph presentation of each side of the

debate

> that is going on. Also I would like this to be done by each of

you,

> Nair and Subbu by presenting the other's case without your

rebuttal.

> You know our Adi Shankara does such presentations of the pUrva-

> paksha so well, that very often, we forget the word 'nanu' in the

> beginning of the paragraph and almost tend to wonder whether it is

> Shankara siddhAnta!

>

> I think such an exercise would possibly bring a finite end to this

> infinite regress of points and counter-points!

>

> And don't bring in some more points of view presented by other

> participants. Only Subbu and Nair, please!

October 11, 2006