[Advaita-l] Causal Body

[Nomadeva Sharma]

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
> --- Nomadeva Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > God I slept that long" - The time is measured in
> > 
> > Oh no, you are missing the point. The person feels
> > a mismatch between the time he thought he slept
for
> > and 'actual' (for the want of a better term) time.
> 
> I do not think I am missing the point Krishna.  
> 
> There is no time or place concept in the deep Sleep
> State and that is the universal experience.  The 

Is that a fact or assumption, Sadananda garu? The
universal testifiable experience re deep sleep says
nothing about Time and Space. That there is some
conception of Time is known from the after deep-sleep
experience.

> time he thought he slept and the time he 
> thought he really slept both come with the mind 
> and mind is the thoughts. 

That is an assumption. We have to be careful in
separating facts from assumptions.

The Universal experience or the fact is the
exclamation of time-mismatch. One can postulate
various reasons: one goes to some part of the
universe, where time runs faster and gets back, all
without one's knowledge. Or that the antaHkaraNa or
something like that starts ticking a clock at a
different pace and as soon as the Self is 'back' from
deep sleep, the wrong duration of its deep-sleep is
reported to it.... they are all assumptions.

> In the absence of the mind there is no
> concept of time or space.

That too is an assumption.

> Vidya has independently posed the same question -
> where are the indriyas of Saakshii to perceive 
> independent of the sense/mind/intellect -
> suukshma shariira complex? 

There are two reasons why this question comes up: (i)
presumption that indriyA is some kind of upAdhi, that
has to be necessarily made up of the body complex and
(ii) refusal to understand that sAkshi is itself the
svarUpa indriya, because of which, the question of
'Where are the indriyAs of sAkshi' is simply
inapplicable.

> > This mismatch can occur only if there is some idea
> > of time in deep sleep. If there is no such idea, 
> > the  reaction would be that of ignorance, as it 
> > appears in your statement: "Oh My God I slept that
> > long".
> 
> That is only misinterpretation of what actually
> happens. No mind, no concept of time and space. This
> is not inference but factual experience that need to

> be interpreted correctly. 

Factual experience? Does you experience your mind
coming in contact with the person who had deep sleep
and tell him that he slept for so long? Pls don't
change facts.

On the other hand, the fact is that nobody knows what
happens out in deep sleep. All reactions are post
waking. But since the mind cannot know what happened
in deep sleep (for it did not 'accompany' whatever to
suShupti), whatever experience is recounted later must
belong to 'whatever went to deep-sleep'.

> For Advaitin consciousness, illumines the intellect
> thus mind and thus indriyas etc.  What you call soul

> is just a notional I that is due to apparent 
> identification with the reflected consciousness in 
> the buddhi. 

Don't take it as sarcasm, but I am surprised that you
were talking about assumptions and facts. Anyway, hope
to understand some day, how Advaita gets there.

> > The mismatch is explained by Advaita as a reaction

> > of antaHkaraNa, I am told (I haven't checked any 
> > source on this). However, that would come under 
> > your assumptions category. Surely, when I go to 
> > deep-sleep, I don't see any antaHkaraNa playing 
> > around  using my consciousness. (That was meant as
> > pun)
> 
> You are absolutely right about that - which is
> exactly what I have been pointing out.  In deep 
> sleep there is no antaHkaraNa 'playing around'. 
> Since playing around involves 'time and space', they

> are also not there. Adviatins are self-consistent 
> with the universal experience and with your above 
> statement, as well. 

Is it? Universal experience never starts with the idea
that 'I' is notional or reflection of sun in a pond or
something like that. The point in involving
antaHkaraNa is that, according to you, it is supposed
to give the data to the soul after it comes out of
suShupti: hey, you are supposed to exclaim that you
thought you slept for n hours. tattu
anubhavAdatiriktakalpanA eva.

> Saakshii has no other equipments to measure time and
> space. You may invoke some swa indriya-s for 
> saakshii to justify your theory. That is a 
> postulation to support a theory.  

The problem is that you are postulating about
universal experience and not actually finding the
facts involved.

> That also leads to another axiomatic statement that
> 'Saakshii' validates the right and wrong knowledge 
> on basis of samanvaya.

Hello Sadananda Garu, can you tell me where in dvaita
literature, it is said that 'this also leads to
another axiomatic statement'? And secondly, what
'samanvaya' are you talking about?

> But if the indriya-s are defective and if one does
> not know that, the info provided by the indriya-s 
> are assumed to be right.  

Correct. That assumes that it is not at all possible
to know that indriyAs are defective.

> In what basis Saakshii-D will validate or invalidate

> the knowledge provided by the indriya-s. I need 
> separate pramaaNa for that. 
 
Just the gist here: Separate pramANa is needed only
for invalidating. prAmANyaM svataH, aprAmANyaM parataH


svataH prAmANya needs that the entity that grasps
knowledge is the same entity that grasps its prAmANya
also.

So, validity is grasped by sAkshi itself. Now,
aprAmANyaM parataH. It needs another pramANa to
invalidate a certain piece of knowledge.

I will answer your other questions tomorrow. Let me be
frank in submitting that I am neither qualified nor
competent to give a good deal of the subject. I'd
suggest that you study texts like pramANa-paddhati,
viShNu-tattva-vinirNaya with the TIkA for a more
professional treatment. nyAya-sudhA is another text.
I'll present my little understanding of them when I am
fully in the jAgratAvasthA. Btw, are you sure this
discussion can happen here? One more thing: it is nice
to note that you are actually trying to understand; I
had read K.Narain to some extent and wished that he
should have talked to a dvaita-scholar before
publicizing his misunderstanding.

Regards,
Krishna

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