[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

[Ryan Armstrong]

Namaste All
What an interesting thread.
These thoughts and questions  arise in the mind:
1. The आत्मन् in not known through logic or mental construction
2. Is the lack of avidya equivalent to Self Realisation? (I think not)
3. The openness and honesty of the members' postings is the real benefit of
such a discussion, not any logical conclusions

A verse from the अवधूत गीत kept returning to the forefront of the mind when
reading the new postings so it was looked up and it is presented here:
त्रितयतुरीयं नहि नहि यत्र विन्दति केवलमात्मनि तत्र ।
धर्माधर्मौ नहि नहि यत्र  बद्धो मुक्तः कथमिह तत्र ॥१ . ७४॥
Where there are neither the three states nor the fourth, there one attains
the Absolute in the Self.
How is it possible to be bound or free where there is neither virtue nor
vice?

In relation to advaita - knowing what turiya is and whether avidya is
experienced during deep sleep is secondary to knowing who I am.

Ryan



On 4 May 2018 at 07:53, Kalyan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>  Sorry, I think you have gone on a complete tangent. So let me explain
> this in greater detail.
> Denial of Avidya with qualifications = Weak denial or WDDenial of Avidya
> without qualifications = Strong denial or SD
> For example, a WD can be a statement like - "Jyothi Basu did not become PM
> of India in 1990s". Whereas, a SD can be be a statement like - "Jyothi Basu
> was never the PM of India". SD implies WD but WD does not imply SD. So if I
> have a book where I make a hundred statements indicating WD and just one
> statement indicating SD, the ultimate truth of the book is SD only.
> 10 WDs + 1SD is equivalent to SD.
> 100 WDs + 1SD is also equivalent to SD
> Hence, if there is one SD, then SD becomes the ultimate truth. So, if
> there is denial of avidya without qualifications at even one place, then
> that becomes the purport of the book.
> Hope this helps.
> RegardsKalyan
>     On Friday, May 4, 2018, 12:06:07 AM GMT+5:30, V Subrahmanian <
> v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  I think you did not get my point - If no adjective is used ***even at one
> place***, then logic demands that there is unqualified rejection of
> ignorance in deep sleep. There is no adjective used at 4.3,34, so it proves
> my point.
>
> Actually the logic works the other way. Even if something is not mentioned
> in one or some places and mentioned in other places, logic demands that it
> has to be supplied where it is absent.  This is called 'atidesha'.  One
> example is: the Chandogya 6th chapter mentions creation of only the last
> three elements while the Taittiriya mentions creation of all five elements.
> This apparent dichotomy is discussed and settled by supplying the
> unmentioned two elements and thereby evening out the dichotomy.  So too
> where the explicit mention of the presence of avidya is not encountered,
> one has to supply it on the strength of its specific mention in other
> places. That is the method of samanvaya of all Vedanta passages without
> contradiction. Rejection of avidya is illogical and unscriptural. The
> adhyaropa of avidya is with a purpose. It cannot be wished away. Its
> apavaada has to be done methodically and not whimsically. Its mention alone
> is in accordance with logic and scripture. This is how it has to be seen.
> So, your point is not proven.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>



-- 
Regards

Ryan Armstrong
+27 82 852 7787
ryanarm at gmail.com