[Advaita-l] Causal Body

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- Nomadeva Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:
  
> > 
> > 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.

Krishna I get the feeling that we both are saying the same thing. There
is no time and space experience in deep sleep state and it is known only
after  waking up. 

> 
> > 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.

Krishna - How do you define the mind and intellect?
> 
> The Universal experience or the fact is the
> exclamation of time-mismatch. 

How can you say mismatch when there is no experience of time and space
for to match and to mis it? 

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.

That is what deep sleep is, where one has no experience of time and
space.  

> 
> > 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 is because it is assumed that swayam prakaasha also implies the
illumination of things other than itself. Swayam prakaashatvam is
self-illumination - swayam jyoti. It does not need any other pramaNa to
know itself. If you start with the presumption that time and space are
other than itself then they need to be illumined.  On the other hand if
you presume that they are not different from the self in the same sense
as pot is not different from the clay - then swayam prakaashatvam can
include its apparent projected self.  Advaita accepts that self is
swayam jyoti -it illumines others only becuase the others are only in
the self only - tasya baasaa sarvam idam vibhaati - since it is ekam eva
advitiiyam. Krishna,swaprakaasha has different connotation in adviata. 

> 
> > > 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.

No Krishna - I am not taking somebody's mind - it is the mind of the
sleeper. He has no knowledge of time and space - where  you Sri Krishna
if ask you where were you in during your deep sleep, all you can say is 
"I donot know" - Space and time are interrelated. There is a gap in the
memory tape since mind is not there in that state. 


> 
> 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'.

Precisely Krishna.  No body knows what happens out in deep sleep - Out
of mind out of sight! - that what happens when I start listening to
quantum mechanics - mind is somewhere and I can see what is being
written on the board - but during that class I know where the mind was
though. In deep sleep - nobody knows that happens only becuse nobody's
mind is there to know what happens. 


> 
> > 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.

This is what adhyaasa is all about.  Read above statement again Krishna,
I have stated clealy what adviata interprets as the jiiva. No mixing up
facts and interpretation. Even from adviata point it is only a model and
serves the purpose until one realizes there is  no need for any model.
Ignorance is also a model but is explicit in adviata but implicit in
other models just as adhyaasa.

> 
> > > 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. 

Universal experince is only notional i when one takes the body is I. I
am a mortal, I am unhappy and I am ignorant are there notional I
Universally occurs for any jiiva- that is adhyaasa. When I recognize who
I am, the notional I drops out. 

That I am this body, if it is not notional, it becomes factual and one
may end up becoming a Chaaravaakii! 


>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:

I did not say that way Krishana - it has no concept of time and space in
deep sleep state since antaHkarana was not there. That is my statement.
When you get up and look at the watch or the sun or lack of sun etc you
get the concept time and when you compare with that when went to sleep,
the difference between the two times gives you the amout of time you
slept - that is what Universal experience is - not how much I thought I
slept by comparing presumably some saakshii's time during sleep and
wakers time after getting from sleep, I donot think that is anybody's
experience.   

> hey, you are supposed to exclaim that you
> thought you slept for n hours. tattu
> anubhavAdatiriktakalpanA eva.

Of course you do since you had no idea how much time it passed as there
is no measure of that during the sleep. There is no inconsistency here. 

> 
> > 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.

Looks like we are getting into jalpa here. Let us agree to disagree. 

> 
> > 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?

This may be my understanding or misunderstanding of Jay's mail. I know
you are not responsible for it. Let me look at the Nyaayasudhaasaara of
Pejawar swami's book how really validation by saakshii is explained. 

> 
> > 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


Yes I remember reading that way although it is not clear to me how one
invalidates wrong knowledge - since invalidation invovles validation too
to know which passed the test and which did not. I will also look up.

Thanks Krishna. 

Hari oM!
Sadananda

 
> 
> 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
> 


=====
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