headers
kuntimaddi sadananda | 1 Apr 2009 03:12
Picon
Favicon

Re: Waking and Dream States - II


Michaelji - PraNAms

Here is my understanding.

Waker is bahiH prajnaH - It is the consciousness 'that I am' identified with local entity (I am avoiding use
of the BMI) that becomes conscious of the external objects as Shree Pranipataji pointed out. Since the
external objects are perceived through the senses and since senses function and bringing the
information about the objects when several other factors such as external light etc are all favorable.
Since starting objects and perception of the objects along with external conducive environments -  it is
rightly termed as bahiH prajnaH - obviously with reference to the wakers mind that perceives the external
world.  

In contrast, the dreamer is creating the dream world in his own mind only - Now looking at the dream world we
can say consciousness identified with the dream subject in the dream is conscious of the all the objects
not by any external light but light as though from his own consciousness. Hence scripture is calling as
taijasa. Here it is the internal to the mind, with reference to the waker's mind. However looking at the
mind of the tiny subject in the dream, it is external. The tiny dream subject may need an external light to
study a text and he will see it is all dark when all the lights are turned off -All that can be in the dream. Even
those lights that are needed for a dream subject is also created by the waker's mind only. In Mantra 4, the
discussion is done from the point of the waki
 ng mind. But when the next statement of the Upanishad that defines the antaH prajnaH with nineteen gateways
and saptaangaH - we are defining with reference to the local
 guy inside the dream. The reference points should be clear.

Not to complicate further, but for as a thought exercise, if that tiny subject in the dream goes to sleep (in
the dream) and dreams in his sleep we have a second order dream and gets up from his sleep and attends
ManDukya Up. class studying the mantras 3 and 4 in the dream, he will understand that he is a waker and when he
went to that (second order) dream, he created himself as a sub-tiny guy; and the perceptions will be inside
while as a waker in the dream the perceptions are outside. These illustrate that from what reference these
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Antharyami | 1 Apr 2009 03:26
Picon

Pancikarana vs. Trivrtkarana (was Re: Dr Mani Dravid)

Hari OM~

Shri Vidyasankar Sundaresan ji,

The main points pertaining to the issue of Trivrtkarana vs Pancikarana as
found in Sankara’s Brahma Sutra bhasya and the Chandogya bhasya in my
reading do not stand in conflict with each other. Sankara in the Brahma
Sutra bhasya II.iv.22 insists that the three elements Teja, Ap and Prthvi
mutually co-exist with each other as they preponder over one another [cf.
pp552; Gambhirananda; 2004].  This view is exactly replicated in the
Chandogya bhasya VI.iii.3-4, where Sankara says that the elements follow a
three-fold turn according to the predominance and secondariness of their
qualities [cf. pp433, Gambhirananda; 2006]. Further augmenting the issues on
authorship over the topic under discussion is a desperate mismatch.

While commenting to B.S. II.iv.21, Sankara mentions the method of
triplication where he cites that ‘food when eaten becomes three parts
grossest becoming excreta; medium, the flesh; subtlest as the mind’ as
mentioned in the Ch.Up VI.v.1. Turning to the Bhasya of the cited portion,
Sankara reiterates exactly the above three-fold division. In the B.S.
II.iv.20, ‘Samjnamurtiklrptistu trivrtkurvata upadesat’; the point that
ought to be observed is that, where Sankara speaks mainly about the elements
involved in the process of triplication. This Sutra is very crucial in
delineating the process of triplication where the commencement of fire,
water and earth is explained. Since Akasa and Vayu are not included in the
process of triplication there arises a doubt whether they remain without
being triplicated. Sankara in the voice of Purvapaksin laments this point
and establishes the siddhanta position clear. He says, elements like Akasa
and Vayu which are devoid of form are intrinsically present in the elements
which innately possess the quality (form) like that of fire. Fire has colour
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pranipata | 1 Apr 2009 05:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: Waking and Dream States - II

>>Here it is the internal to the mind, with reference to the waker's mind. 
>>However looking at the mind of the tiny subject in the dream, it is 
>>external. The tiny dream subject may need an external light to study a 
>>text and he will see it is all dark when all the lights are turned 
>>off -All that can be in the dream. Even those lights that are needed for a 
>>dream subject is also created by the waker's mind only. In Mantra 4, the 
>>discussion is done from the point of the waking mind. But when the next 
>>statement of the Upanishad that defines the antaH prajnaH with nineteen 
>>gateways and saptaangaH - we are defining with reference to the local guy 
>>inside the dream. The reference points should be clear.

Hari Om Shri Sadanandaji,  Pranaams!

Simply put, this is anavasthA doSha.  Positing a mind internal to a mind and 
a mind internal to it...  To avoid this only AcAryaji declares the reference 
point for internality of dream objects is indriyAs (indriya apekShayA 
antasthaH).

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

>>And I confess to the urge to explain the world in terms of my waking dream 
>>!

Hari Om Shri Michaelji, Pranaams!

Yes. That is also explained by AcAryaji.  yathA jAgare svapiti; tathA eva 
svapne. (as is dreamt in waking state, so also in the dream)

akShi gataH rUpaM drShTvA nimIlita-akShaH tad eva smaran manasi antaH
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Shrinivas Gadkari | 1 Apr 2009 06:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: Three models for worship


Namaste Mahesh,

Here is the reasoning in brief: (based on my understanding)

Consider the famous rope-snake analogy - rope appears as snake.
Similarly, aspects of brahma under influence of mAyA appear as
constituents of the universe. Let us denote by Sm, entities in this
world of mAyA. Denote by Sb, aspects of brahma. Every element
in Sm is derived from an element in Sb under the influence of mAyA.

You may ask what is the nature of elements in Sb. 
Is it like element "A" in Sm ?
The answer is not like "A" (neti).
Is it like element "B" in Sm ?
The answer is not like "B" (neti).
For every possible question, the answer will be neti.
.... because elements in Sm is our vyavahArika universe, and
all that we can talk of is in terms of elements in Sm.

There however are some things that we can talk of that transcend Sm. 
Example: concept of numbers, concept of sequence, ...

Regards,
Shrinivas

 

------------------------------------------------------
Pranams Sri Gadkari:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Shrinivas Gadkari | 1 Apr 2009 07:37
Picon
Favicon

Time


Resending with subject header corrected ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Namaste Mahesh,

Here is the reasoning in brief: (based on my understanding)

Consider the famous rope-snake analogy - rope appears as snake.
Similarly, aspects of brahma under influence of mAyA appear as
constituents of the universe. Let us denote by Sm, entities in this
world of mAyA. Denote by Sb, aspects of brahma. Every element
in Sm is derived from an element in Sb under the influence of mAyA.

You may ask what is the nature of elements in Sb. 
Is it like element "A" in Sm ?
The answer is not like "A" (neti).
Is it like element "B" in Sm ?
The answer is not like "B" (neti).
For every possible question, the answer will be neti.
.... because elements in Sm is our vyavahArika universe, and
all that we can talk of is in terms of elements in Sm.

There however are some things that we can talk of that transcend Sm. 
Example: concept of numbers, concept of sequence, ...

Regards,
Shrinivas

 
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
vijaya1.kambhampati-IWqWACnzNjwqdlJmJB21zg@public.gmane.org | 1 Apr 2009 18:00
Picon

Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 56, Issue 31

Pranaams Shyamji,

Thank you for the clear elucidation of the difference between love and 
attachment. It is clear one must rise out of dehatmabuddhi.

Vijaya.

>Message: 8
>Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Shyam <shyam_md@...>
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] family love
>To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>	<advaita-l@...>
>Message-ID: <790252.32462.qm@...>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>PranAms.
>I would like to?add a small note?here.
>?
>There is no question that any love felt for ones children is not for 
their sake but for ones own sake -?even a parents love?is not strictly 
selfless in that sense - as the Br. Up famously declares - na vaare 
putraanaam kaamaaya putraah priya bhavanti atmanastu kamaaya putraah 
priyaa bhavanti It is not for the sake of the sons my dear that the 
sons are loved but for ones own sake that they are loved.....
>?
>The goal for a seeker is always to get rid of the notional 
dehatmabuddhi - any attachment one feels towards any relation, however 
exalted - is only a sign that our dehatmabuddhi is extremely strong....
after all any relation of mother/father/etc is only in relation to the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
kuntimaddi sadananda | 1 Apr 2009 12:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: Waking and Dream States - II


--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Pranipata <pranipata@...> wrote:

Simply put, this is anavasthA doSha.  Positing a mind internal to a mind and a mind internal to it...  To
avoid this only AcAryaji declares the reference point for internality of dream objects is indriyAs
(indriya apekShayA antasthaH).

Pranipataji - PraNAms

Yes - agreed.Thanks for the input and persistence.

Hari Om!
Sadananda
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Shepherd | 1 Apr 2009 11:59
Picon

Re: Waking and Dream States - II

Sri Sadanandaji, pranams --

Thank you again. This is a 'small' matter; but one that raises questions in
myself..

It is clear that we are only dealing with a situation where there appears to
be little consciousness available -- no chidaabhaasa -- yet a 'by-product'
which remains for a short time in awareness. What is watched, passively
(though some allege they can be trained to 'participate' in the dream), is
constructed from memories, which by definition are in chitta -- leftovers
from the feast !

Given this, and the situation which you have pointed out, that any
'analysis' takes place in a different state of being, I revert to my
original question : may we learn anything from our dreams? Or is their
playing-out, itself a psychotherapy which we may happily leave to itself, as
a film playing to an empty cinema...

As I say -- this is small matter in regard to Brahman and maya; but the
question persists... a strange phenomenon !

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces@...
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces@...]On
Behalf Of
kuntimaddi sadananda
Sent: 01 April 2009 02:13
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water | 1 Apr 2009 20:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Pancikarana vs. Trivrtkarana (was Re: Dr Mani Dravid)

Dear Sri Devanathan,

>The main points pertaining to the issue of Trivrtkarana vs Pancikarana
as
>found in Sankara's Brahma Sutra bhasya and the Chandogya bhasya in my
>reading do not stand in conflict with each other.

That is precisely my point too. However, you and I take home different
messages from the "non-conflict" in the two texts. I am not committed
to seeing trivRtkaraNa and pancIkaraNa in opposition to each other,
so I see the "no conflict" as implying other things than what you infer.

>Further augmenting the issues on
>authorship over the topic under discussion is a desperate mismatch. 

Please refer to my earlier cited paper for the full discussion, when it
reaches you in the mail soon, and do not prejudge the mismatch or
the desperation of it! All I am saying is, for me, a priori,
sUtrabhAshya
is authentic and chAndogya bhAshya is equally authentic. If you want
to talk about trivRtkaraNa and pancIkaraNa, you should not ignore the
latter text and what the bhAshyakAra says there. This applies to the
sAmpradAyika authors. Coming to modern academic scholars, if you
want to further discuss what text is authentic and what is not, you
again have to take the chAndogya bhAshya into account, instead
of basing all your arguments on sUtrabhAshya alone. This applies
to Ingalls, Nakamura, Hacker, Mayeda, Mahadevan etc.

>You are not wrong in saying that Sankara is not against
>'Pancikarana process' but Sankara delineates at length only
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
vijaya1.kambhampati-IWqWACnzNjwqdlJmJB21zg@public.gmane.org | 1 Apr 2009 17:48
Picon

Kaaladi Sri Aadhi Sankarar

Nice article. Well worth reading.

Vijaya.

>Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:48:14 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@...>
>Subject: [Advaita-l] Kaaladi Sri Aadhi Sankarar (fwd)
>To: Advaita-L <advaita-l@...>
>Cc: Saravanan Iyer <as.saravanan@...>
>Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903310241040.26044 <at> jaldhar-laptop>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>I found this interesting article about the birthplace of 
Shankaracharya at 
>Kaladi (Kerala) on another list and thought Advaita-l readers might 
be 
>interested.
>
>http://dharsanam.blogspot.com/2009/03/kaaladi-sri-aadhi-sankarar.html
>
>The rest of Shri Sarvanan Iyers blog is well worth a look at.  It has 
many 
>wonderful articles about various tirths and mandirs the author has 
>visited all acommpanied by photos.
>
>-- 
>Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...>
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane