[Advaita-l] Causal Body

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- Srikrishna Ghadiyaram <srikrishna_ghadiyaram at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> > 
> 
> > Yes. The vaasana-s constitue the kaaraNa shariira -
> > causal body- cause
> > for suukshma and sthuula shariira-s.  
> > 
> 
> If vasanas constitute the KaraNa Sareera, and the
> karana sareera is propelling all the time the other
> two sareeras, accounting for  the waking behaviour, it
> should apply to dream behaviour as well.  But, we seem
> to be saying all the time that the dreams are based on
> the experiences of waking state, implying without
> explicit mention, of this life alone. And vasanas
> themselves do not have an independent locus other than
> what is called mind. So, mind should exist in sleep.

Srikrishna - here is my understanding.

1. KaraNa being causal - it is cause for both sthuula and sukshma
shariira-s- hence it accounts for waking, dream and deep sleeps states
too.  When performing actions (including thinking process) in the waking
with the egocentric notions of doer-ship, new vasana-s (agaami) are
accumulated. The dreams are fields provided just to exhaust some of
these vasana-s that cannot be exhausted in the waking state- it is the
same meaning when we say the suppressions and oppressions (which are
essential unfulfilled desires) are exhausted in the Dream State.  Hence
the dreams could be result of both praarabda and agaami vasana-s. 

2. Mind is the flow of thoughts - vasana-s, one can think of as river
bed where the thoughts flow - since flow involves direction - vasana-s
provide the directions for the thoughts flow. one can have riverbed with
out water - as you can see many in Rayalaseema. This is just an example.
Vasana-s are cause for the mind or one can think of mind is
grossification of the vasana-s.  In western psychology, one can think of
it  as sub-conscious or perhaps even below the subconscious mind.
Conscious mind is the thought flow. 


> > There lies the difference - In deep sleep - there is
> > no recognition of
> > the experience either.  
> 
> This is not a sufficient argument, because on waking
> up we say, "I dreamt", assuming that the dreamer is no
> different from the waker, because if it was not my
> dream, I should not have known it, just like I do not
> know your dream. Similarly, I say, "I slept". If it is
> someone else who slept, I can not say, "I slept".

You are right.  But now let us go little deeper.  Who is that 'I' that
slept. When you say I am recollecting the experience - but question now
who is recollecting that experience. Is the waking mind with 'I notion'
or 'I' that conscious entity that existed as 'I am' in the deep sleep
state? Notional mind 'I' is not there in the deep sleep state - if it is
there then you will be aware of your deep sleep state, in the deep sleep
state-(just as you are aware of the waking in the waking state and dream
in the dream state) If you are aware of the deep sleep state in the deep
sleep you have not slept yet! - The 'I' conscious entity does not sleep
unless you are Buddhist! Then whose experience is that? Now you provide
the answer.  


> You seem to accept that there is recognition of the
> dreamer in that experience. Factually, the dreamer
> does not know himself as a dreamer. He knows himself
> as a karta or WAKER of that state only. 

Yes. During the dream the dreamer does not know that he is a waker – he
feels that is only one subject in the vast dream universe that someone
has created - Hence Shankara says in atmabodha - sakaale satyavad
bhaati, prabodhe satyasat bhavet| - in the dream it is felt that it is
real and only when awakened to the higher state one recognizes that it
is all unreal and only a dream.  Thank God!  I don’t have to worry about
my dream wives and dream children in the waking state. But sometimes
with the shock of the dream we get up suddenly from the dream and then
realize that it was a bad dream. Vedanta  uses this example that
although Vedanta itself is part of the apara vidya- it can wake us up to
the higher state like a lion in the dream. 

> 
> Similarly the "Sleeper" is no different from the
> waker. 
>


Not really - in the dream the subtle mind is there - in the deep Sleep
State even that is folded. There is no kartRitva bhaava and bhoktRitva
bhaava in the deep Sleep State - those are notions in the mind. 

> In dream state I join 'myself' with the objects of
> that state and express myself as a dreamer, in
> relation to the dream world. Similarly,  I join myself
> with the 'objects of the sleep world and express
> myself as a sleepeer. 

The second part is only a hypothesis.  Experience of every one about the
deep sleep state is "I don’t know any thing' - - there concept of space
and time are not there -only in the waking and dream state the spatial
and temporal relationships exists along with object-subject notions -
they come with the mind. 


>But, the waker is not able to
> understand that state because he can not now imagine
> that 'objectless' sleep world, just as the waker would
> imagine the same 'dream objects' in this waking state
> and comprehend the nature of that dreamer. 

'Objectless sleep' is the same as the lack of the mind.  'Out of mind is
out of sight' meaning no mind no objects. I am seriously thinking of
writing a note on the epistemological issues involved in perception'
since questions keep coming about reality of the world and whether
'Brahman has attributes etc. Particularly Jay's is putting persistent
posts on his version of adhyaasa in both lists confusing everybody.  

>If the
> waker can comprehend that objectless state in this
> waking state, then he would recognize the sleeper as
> well. This does not mean that there is no sleeper or
> no experience of sleep. 

Srikrishna - your question is beautiful.  Please think more what does
comprehension  of objectless state mean - or better yet - what does
comprehension means and who comprehends what. That needs to be resolved
clearly before you go to the next sentence. 'Objectless awareness' are
the words used but one needs to 'see' what that means. - Jay was asking
question in his posts- what is upaasana of 'nirguna Brahman' involves
-how does one do it? - How can I explain to him? Now is it not that what
you are indicating by your words. Please contemplate along with me. Is
it not that when the comprehension and 'comprehender' merge into one
since there is no object to be aware of and awarer and object of
awareness merge to unity without a duality. Is it that some thing words
can explain - when duality gets created in the very explanation? 


>We know and recognize the
> dream by reliving or remembering the experiences of
> the dream state only. Similarly, now in this wakeful
> state, we remember  the happiness of sleep state and
>say I was happy in sleep. 

Yes that is the statement we normally make – just the same way as ‘I did
this or that’ etc.  From ‘ego’ point – the statement - I slept well - is
good enough.  – but as vedantin you know that ‘ego or ahankaara is also
chitta vRitti. That is not there in the deep sleep state.  Hence answer
to the question of ‘who slept well’ is not in the deterministic field.


>So, sleep happiness need not
> be 'swarupa ananda' alone. Probably that is where
> Priya, Moda, Pramoda, vrittis come into picture, along
> with accounting for the happiness of the waking and
> dream states. These three words have no other
> understandable meaning  than the quantity of
> joy/happiness they can give (leave aside the anology
> of thinking , gaining and enjoying the object of
ÿ desire).

Priya, moda and pramoda are intensities of the happiness – depends on
the intensity of quietude one achieves in the fulfillment of agitated
mind – Essentially how intensity of the aatma reflecting in the
upaadhi-s. Vidhyaranya says – vishhayaanande brahmaanandaH – the
happiness one gains even in the fulfillment of desires is due to the
ananda swaruupa of Brahman only. The happiness in the deep sleep also is
the intensity of longingness to sleep.  If that gives the highest
happiness all the time – then everybody will strive for that only.  But
after enough sleep, one wants to go sensuous enjoyments since that give
more happiness than just sleeping around.  After enough of fooling
around one want to sleep again.

But the greatest happiness is unconditional happiness – that is
independent of state.  Hence Vidyaaranya says in Panchadasi:
iyam aatma paraanandaH parama premaaspadam yataH|
This aatma is source of supreme happiness because it is that we like
most. – Hence it comes under the category of pramoda – prakarshhayena
moda – since the love for oneself is the unconditional love. I love
anything because .. – that become comes where as I love myself – no
because there. 


>Also, we know the the happiness is caused by
> Punya. 

Happiness is causeless – since I am the source of that happiness and I
am is causeless.  But if I understand it truly then the seeking for
happiness is also dissolved.  That is what scriptures says – you are
what you are seeking – tat tvam asi or ayam aatma brahma. Punya provides
an environment conducive enjoyments – like swarga.  But one can be
unhappy even in swarga too – like Indra is worried all the time who is
trying to take his seat. 

>I do not remember the Sanskrit sloka now, which
> says that the happiness of the Punya purushas is
> because of their punya phala etc. If it were Svarupa
> Ananda it can not be described or limited by Priya,
> Moda, pramoda etc.

Limitation is by the notional mind which assumes I have moda or pramoda
due to fulfillment of this desire or that desire.  That is conclusion of
the mind without realizing that the happiness that was experienced is
from oneself alone. 


> Ofcourse, we can not quantify the
> happiness of sleep; neither it is different from day
> to day, it is incomparable to happiness of waking
> state. The results of the Punya are experienced even
> in waking state as joy etc. We know those moments
> where we are happ> for no reason.
> 
> Since we know that 'Waker' and Dreamer are not the
> same, we postulate a common-er. Hence the same
> common-er should be the Sleep-er as well. So we say
> Wake+er, Dream+er, Sleep+er make the three states, and
>we say wake, dream, sleep is for the mind.

Yes in a way – the states are experience of the notional mind.  But what
is this notional mind should be the enquiry. That is the whole analysis
of Mandukya Upanishad and karika. 



> 
> May be if I can simulate sleep in this waking state,
> just like I simulate my dream in this waking state, I
>will be 'Realised' !!!

Yes the simulation is nothing but experience of that state that pervades
all the state – for lack of words it is called ‘turiiya’.

> 
> Similar is the case about the dream state. It is
ÿ described as 'dream' only in the waking state.

Yes – one is analyzing that is that state.  The intellect in its fully
glory is available only in the waking state – hence any analysis can be
done only in this states about all the three states.


> 
> It is not a conclusion of mind. How can I conclude
> that I did not exist ?? So, the conclusion has to be
> about the mind by the one who knows all the states of
> the observed. Otherwise, we may become a Buddhist of
>flicker consciousness theory.

It is the conclusion of the mind that there are three different states
by identification with the waker, dreamer and deep sleeper. I am is
present all the states hence independent of states. From ‘I am’ point
there are no states. 

mana eva manushyaanaam karanam bandha mokshayoH|

Mind is the cause for both bondage and liberation. 



> 
> > you. If the mind is not there - there is no ego
> > either, since that is
> > part of the suukshma shariira.  
> 
> Your above statement may not hold good. Mind itself is
> EGO-ness vritti (ahamkara) behind EGO. So, you can not
ÿ say if Mind is not there ....

ahankara is vRitti – and that is the ‘ego’ – 
antaH karaNa involves four types depending functions – manas, buddhi,
ahankaara and chitta. – all together is also referred as mind just as
all praaNa-s are referred just as praaNa. 

vRitti without ego arises in the objective mind – when you deeply doing
objective analysis – then there is no ego at those seconds. Objective
mind is separate from a notional mind.  Jivan mukta has objective mind
but not the notional mind. 

> 
> >  In the pure kaaraNa shariira happiness is only the
> > absence of all
> > duality - and the duality arises with vRitti-s.
> 
> I am familiar with this view/proposition. But, the
> Punya purushas natural happiness is not because of any
> absence of duality. We know happy people in the world
> and none of them are in any non-dual state in common
> life. KaaraNa Sareera 'functions' in all the three
> states.

Srikrishna what one concludes from experience can be different from
facts.  That is the reason why experience by itself is not a means of
knowledge.  Knowledge has to be analyzed what one experiences using a
pramaaNa.  Even the happiness one attains in the world is also due to
non-dual state but what one concludes is different – the happiness I get
from good hot Madras coffee is from the swaruupa of aatma and not from
coffee.  Having coffee is punya or paapa – well depends on how much
blood pressure I have!  Let me go one step further – the oneness
(Advaita) that one experience only the cause of happiness even in desire
propelled happiness – this is the essence of the statement of
yaaj~navalkya – aatmanastu kaamaaya sarvam priyam bhavati – only for the
sake of oneself all objects become priyam (source of pramoda). 

 
> > Even in jnaani's mind
> > there is duality - but there is no misunderstanding
> > that the duality is
> > reality.  His identification has shifted from the
> > name and form of
> > vRitti to substantive - consciousness that I am. 
> > 
> 
> This is what I was saying jnani's happiness is not
> based on Priya. Moda, pramoda vrittis. So, the
> happiness of sleep need not be svarupa ananda. It
ÿ might just be vrittigata punya phala.

No. All happiness is from the same source – that is my self.  Only
difference between j~naani and aj~naani is one knows that and the other
thinks that happiness is coming from fulfilling of desires – including
the fulfillment of desire to sleep!

> 
> > 
> > It also
> > > gives me an idea that though Aham Vritti is the
> > first
> > > vritti arising before idam vrittis, bhoktritva
> > vritti
> > > may exist without Aham vritti or even in deep
> > sleep
> > > aham vritti is not gone (all confusing).
> > 
> > VRitti is nothiing but a thought and thoughts
> > constitute the mind.  As
> > along as I am thinking, I have not slept.  Hence
> > there is no VRitti that
> > we know of in deep sleep state. 'aham vRitti' - aham
> > vRitti is nothiing
> > but locus of the idam vRitti - both constitute the
> > mind that split into
> > seer and seen duality.  
> >There is no seer when there
> > is no seen.  
> 
ÿ Did you say it reverse ?

I corrected my typo in my next mail. I am not a good typist nor a good
speller – I am just I am. 

> 
> >I donot
> > take the role of seer any more - I am - I am - it is
> > not a thought but
> > it is inspite of presence or absence of a thought.
> > It is non-duality in
> > spite of duality. Hence presence or absence of
> > duality is not opposite
> > to non-duality. One should be clear about this.  
> > 
> 
> By the above statements it can only mean 'Witness'
> attitude. It does not mean 'I am'; It would mean 'I am
> witness' of presence or absence of vrittis. Probably,
ÿ 'I am' is beyond that.

It means "I am’ exists in all the states – in the waking in the dream
and in the dream and hence it is independent of any state.  I am a
witness is also a notion – I am there in the subject witness and the
object witnessed. That I am.  
Beyond words and all words exist in me – since words are nothing but
thoughts and thoughts are nothing but consciousness. 

> 
> > 
> >  The
> > > difficulty is it does not explain 'Unhappiness'.
> > One
> > > possibility is that 'Unhappiness' is not a mental
> > > Vritti at all !!! ??? 
> > 
> > Yes you hit on the nail.  Unhappiness is the absence
> > of vRitti - absence
> > of duality. Happiness that I am is inspite of
> > presence or absence of
> > vRitti; and that is the knowledge too since sat is
> > chit and chit is
> > ananda. There is indentity and these not are
> > attibutes of I.  
> > 
> 
> I meant may be "Unhappiness" is not a vritti, but
> "Happiness" is a vritti, becasue Swami D, said
> bhoktrutva of Sukha is KaraNa Sareera.
> 

I don’t think Swami Dayananda Saraswati means what you have stated. 
Happiness is also a state of understanding that ‘I am’ as "I am’ not as
I am ‘this’ or that including karaNa shariira – even in vishhayaananda –
that happiness that experience is also from the same source but
conclusion of the ignorant is that it is due to fulfillment of desire.
vRitti-s are in me but I am beyond the vRitti-s.  In that sense I am
there with or without vRitti-s. 

Hari OM!
Sadananda


> Om Namo Narayanaya !!!
> 
> Srikrishna
> 
> 


=====
What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com