[Advaita-l] Causal Body

[Nomadeva Sharma]

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada 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.

We are not saying the same thing, Sadananda garu. It
is perhaps illustrative of my communication abilities,
but this idea that we are talking of the same thing,
is seen in rest of the mail.

I said: Universal Testifiable experience says nothing
about Time and Space. In other words, it does NOT say
'S and T existed'. It does NOT say 'S and T did not
exist in suShupti'. We just don't have ANY sort of
information.

You interpreted that I am saying 'S and T do not exist
in suShupti'.

Hope you see the difference. 

Another thing I noticed that you are refusing to
acknowledge the fact that people do exclaim about
'mismatch'. Unless you accept this observation, there
is hardly any point in continuing our fact-based
analysis.

Just for sake of clarification, this experience of
mismatch is different from that of ignorance. In the
former, one says after waking up, 'I thought I slept
for hours-together, it is not even 10 mins since I
slept'. In the latter, 'Alright, I had a good sleep.
Now, what's the time'?

While I don't deny the latter, the former is what is
important to our analysis. If you deny that, I have
nothing to say but that you are not taking all facts
before theorizing. 

> > > 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?

Since all this started on an analysis of segregating
facts from assumptions, and since shruti is not yet in
the picture, I'd say that the fact is that people know
only one processing machine: call it mind or intellect
or brain.

The assumption is that space and time are associated
_only_ with brain/intellect/mind/senses.

> > > 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. 

There are two things again: (i) I don't see the
relevance of what you said to my reply; kindly explain
and (ii) svayaM prakAshatva as in advaita. Thanks for
the information (though I don't see how that fits with
my reply). 

But it appears to me that you are using 'svayaM
prakAsha' and 'svaprakAsha' interchangeably. There is
a thin yet significant difference between the two (esp
in the context we are in). Pls clarify. For example,
sun is svayaM prakAsha. That it is so, is not
'svaprakAsha' to some. Or do they mean same in
advaita?

I will not comment on the shruti you have quoted.

> > 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

Sorry for wording the passage so horribly. Let me
reframe: 

A person has a nice good suShupti. We agree that mind
is absent in suShupti. I think we also agree that it
is the jIva that goes to suShupti.

He wakes up and makes an observation: I thought I
slept for hours-together, but it is such a short
while.

If you disagree that such an observation is never
possible, there is no further discussion possible. 

You say, mind is responsible and data-provider for "I
thought I slept for hours-together" part. I ask(ed):
Does the jIva experience coming in contact with his
mind and receiving that data?

If yes, you are violating the universal
experience-base (UE). If no, there are two
possibilities: 

(a) This event /experience of "jIva coming in contact
with his mind or antaHkaraNa" is not registered (for
whatever reasons). OR
(b) jIva himself had some idea of time.

I was saying that (a) is an assumption and has no
proof. Your objection to (b) is the consequence of
another assumption that there can be no conception of
time without the aid of mind. 

> 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.

There are many many assumptions in adhyAsa (Just like
the one about mind and space/time). To me, it is
nearly impossible to start from facts and derive the
inescapability of adhyAsa. Au contraire, one starts
with adhyAsa and tries to defend it. You are welcome
to prove me wrong! Unless you can afford to show that,
the talk of 'implicit ignorance' you see in other
models is 'adhyasta'.

Pls give me some more time to answer the thing on
validation and invalidation of sAkshi.

Regards,
Krishna

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