The three states of the soul

[Charles A. Hillig]

At 06:03 PM 8/5/96 -0230, you wrote:
>          There was discussion earlier in this Group about the three states of
>          the soul. I gather from that discussion as well as my readings from
>          other sources that
>
>          1. The Turiya is a silent witness to all the three states [Dream,
>          wake-up and deep-sleep).
>
>          2. The dream state and the wake-up state are both equally unreal.
>          No state is more real than the other. When we get to the wake-up
>          state from the dream state, we realize that the dream is after-all
>          unreal. Similarly, when we get to the gNana (Realized) state from
>          the wake-up state, we realize that the wake-up state is after-all
>          unreal.
>
>          3. In the deep-sleep state, the mind and the body are completely
>          subdued and retreat into the presence of paramAtma in the
>          HR^daya guhya. Consciousness remains. Ego is the experiencer of
>          the deep-sleep state.
>
>          Please correct me if my above concepts are wrong. Now, my
>          question is related to these concepts. Advances in medical
>          technology have created another state when the person is under full
>          anaesthesia and has lost "consciousness (?)".  In what way does that
>          state differ from the deep-sleep state?  Who is the experiencer of
>          this state?
>
>          I thank you for your patience.
>
>          Regards
>          Gummuluru Murthy
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Adau ante ca yan nAsti vartamAnepi tat tathA !
>                                GaudapAda in Mandukya kArika
>What did not exist at the beginning and what is not going to exist at the
> end is as good as non-existent even in the present.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
There's no "one" really "there" to realize anything
          because there's no "one" really "there" who is either "asleep" OR
"awake."

In other words, there's not a so-called  "problem-with-the-mind."

The ONLY so-called "problem" is believing that there IS a "problem."

But, of course, for WHOM is this a "problem," anyway?

(Then, again, who's asking??)

>From  Tue Aug  6 01:45:01 1996
Message-Id: <TUE.6.AUG.1996.014501.GMT.>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 01:45:01 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Query on writing style
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960805175333.10718A-100000 at plato.ucs.mun.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

I was just wondering if there were two different words:

maya and mAya
Sivananda and SivAnanda
Acarya and AcArya
stotras and stOtras
jivatma and jeevAtma

If not, then is it acceptable to everyone to not capitalize letters in
the middle of words?   I presume that the point of the capitalization
has to do with pronunciation, but I am not speaking the words, I am
reading them and it is a LOT harder to read with the capitalization in
the middle of words.

I can understand the capitalization in an ENTIRELY Sanskrit text, but
IMHO, it is awkward and unnecessary when occasional Sanskrit words
occur in an English sentence.


Thanks,

Ken                       <*>
kstuart at mail.telis.org

>From  Tue Aug  6 01:45:07 1996
Message-Id: <TUE.6.AUG.1996.014507.GMT.>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 01:45:07 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: Advaitic philosophy and the concept of personal God
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960805175333.10718A-100000 at plato.ucs.mun.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:58:37 -0230, Gummuluru Murthy
<gmurthy at MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA> wrote:
>          Now,  all the Universe is a creation of mAya. Also, jeevAtma, the
>          soul inside us, and the Saguna Brahman, the personal God are also
>          creation of mAya.

Can you provide me with a scriptural reference (or a statement of
Shankara or Ramana Maharshi) that says that Saguna Brahman is a
creation of maya?

My understanding is that Brahman is not created, whether Nirguna or
Saguna, and that this is the special characteristic of "personal God",
that it is the appearance of Brahman within maya.

But if authorities say otherwise, I'd be interested to read it.

> But in the ultimate Reality, there is no creation.

My understanding here is that there is creation, but it is illusory.
To use the famous example, if one sees a snake, but upon
investigation, one discovers only a coil of rope, the appearance of
the snake did exist  - as an appearance, but not as a reality.

In this latter point, I think the difference may just be semantics.


Namaskar,

Ken
kstuart at mail.telis.org

"The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of consciousness
reflected in the intellect and coloured by objectively perceived phenomena
is the true nature of the Self.  Thus, the personal ego falsely identifies
the Self with that which is not the Self and vice versa." - Mark Dyczkowski