I've been asking me the same question for years now, it's really messing with my mind that I cannot find an answer.
I thought of asking you about time spans in deep sleep, dream, and waking?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gaudapada and Nagarjuna
- Thread starter DanielR
- Start date
I thought of asking you about time spans in deep sleep, dream, and waking?
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Atanu,
The Brhadaranyaka is a large Upanishad. In this context, it would be useful to see how Yajnavalkya ends the instruction to his wife Maitreyi - before leaving her. Here are portions from the last three verses of the chapter.
---
As a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of taste, even so this Self, my dear, has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of Intelligence. This Self comes out as a separate entity from the elements and with their destruction this separate existence is also destroyed. After attaining this oneness it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya - BU 4.5.13
Maitreyi said 'You have led me into the midst of confusion; I do not at all comprehend this'. He said 'Certainly, I am not saying anything confusing. This Atman is immutable and indestructible' - BU 4.5.14
For when there is duality, as it were, then one sees another, one smells another, one tastes another, one speaks to another, one hears another, one thinks of another, one touches another, one knows another. But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should he see and through what, what should he smell and through what, what should he taste and through what, what should he speak and through what, what should he hear and through what, what should he think and through what, what should he touch and through what, what should he know and through what? Through what should one know That Owing to which all this is known? This Atman is that which is described as 'Not this; not this'. It is imperceptible for it is never perceived...Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower? So you have got the instruction Maitreyi. This much indeed is immortality. Saying this, Yajnavalkya left. - BU 4.5.15 (End of chapter)
---
So, practically all Upanishads say that the Atman is to be known for immortality. On the other hand, we have numerous statements like the following - all saying that the Atman is something that is beyond knowing.
1. No more consciousness - BU 4.5.13
2. neti, neti - meaning, it is beyond thought and description - BU
3. It is never perceived - Bu 4.5.15
4. It is above the known; it is also above the unknown (meaning, it can never be known) - Katha Upanishad
5. Intangible, Immutable.. - Katha Upanishad
6. Incomprehensible, beyond thought, indescribable - Mandukya Upanishad
According to Advaita, duality is false. So long as the world is perceived, so long as there is time, so long as there is the notion of self-realization, we have duality. It is impossible to be a witness or to be an experiencer without bringing in time and duality. This is why I say that such a concept is more compatible with other Vedanta doctrines which hold that the Atman is at once, the same as and also different from Brahman.
So, why do we have the other set of statements about knowing/realizing/witnessing? These statements are purely illustrative for the authors have the difficulty of trying to express something that is beyond expression (neti, neti). The Atman is beyond perception and time - and so, it cannot be known or witnessed or realized or experienced. It can only be intellectually inferred.
What about the claim of immortality? Mortality is predicated on the concept of time. When the understanding that time is a creation of the mind dawns, the realization that birth and death too are creations of the mind, follows. This has been expressed clearly by Gaudapada, but poorly understood by many Advaitins as they all make the mistake of seeing time as something *outside* Maya.
They key question in Advaita is - to whom is the self realization? And there is no answer to this question for the entity who seeks realization is unreal before realization (a product of Maya) and no such entity can exists after realization (non-duality). And without time (another product of Maya), there is no past and therefore no such phases as before realization and after realization. Please see the quote in my signature. Gaudapada makes a very similar statement too (no one seeking realization; no one realized).
The Brhadaranyaka is a large Upanishad. In this context, it would be useful to see how Yajnavalkya ends the instruction to his wife Maitreyi - before leaving her. Here are portions from the last three verses of the chapter.
---
As a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of taste, even so this Self, my dear, has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of Intelligence. This Self comes out as a separate entity from the elements and with their destruction this separate existence is also destroyed. After attaining this oneness it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya - BU 4.5.13
Maitreyi said 'You have led me into the midst of confusion; I do not at all comprehend this'. He said 'Certainly, I am not saying anything confusing. This Atman is immutable and indestructible' - BU 4.5.14
For when there is duality, as it were, then one sees another, one smells another, one tastes another, one speaks to another, one hears another, one thinks of another, one touches another, one knows another. But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should he see and through what, what should he smell and through what, what should he taste and through what, what should he speak and through what, what should he hear and through what, what should he think and through what, what should he touch and through what, what should he know and through what? Through what should one know That Owing to which all this is known? This Atman is that which is described as 'Not this; not this'. It is imperceptible for it is never perceived...Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower? So you have got the instruction Maitreyi. This much indeed is immortality. Saying this, Yajnavalkya left. - BU 4.5.15 (End of chapter)
---
So, practically all Upanishads say that the Atman is to be known for immortality. On the other hand, we have numerous statements like the following - all saying that the Atman is something that is beyond knowing.
1. No more consciousness - BU 4.5.13
2. neti, neti - meaning, it is beyond thought and description - BU
3. It is never perceived - Bu 4.5.15
4. It is above the known; it is also above the unknown (meaning, it can never be known) - Katha Upanishad
5. Intangible, Immutable.. - Katha Upanishad
6. Incomprehensible, beyond thought, indescribable - Mandukya Upanishad
According to Advaita, duality is false. So long as the world is perceived, so long as there is time, so long as there is the notion of self-realization, we have duality. It is impossible to be a witness or to be an experiencer without bringing in time and duality. This is why I say that such a concept is more compatible with other Vedanta doctrines which hold that the Atman is at once, the same as and also different from Brahman.
So, why do we have the other set of statements about knowing/realizing/witnessing? These statements are purely illustrative for the authors have the difficulty of trying to express something that is beyond expression (neti, neti). The Atman is beyond perception and time - and so, it cannot be known or witnessed or realized or experienced. It can only be intellectually inferred.
What about the claim of immortality? Mortality is predicated on the concept of time. When the understanding that time is a creation of the mind dawns, the realization that birth and death too are creations of the mind, follows. This has been expressed clearly by Gaudapada, but poorly understood by many Advaitins as they all make the mistake of seeing time as something *outside* Maya.
They key question in Advaita is - to whom is the self realization? And there is no answer to this question for the entity who seeks realization is unreal before realization (a product of Maya) and no such entity can exists after realization (non-duality). And without time (another product of Maya), there is no past and therefore no such phases as before realization and after realization. Please see the quote in my signature. Gaudapada makes a very similar statement too (no one seeking realization; no one realized).
Last edited:
Ekanta
om sai ram
Exactly how does he know that without realizing it? Is he guessing?
Ekanta
om sai ram
Quote from Shankara comment brihadaranyaka:
He who knows that the vision of the seer is eternal, does not wish to see It in any other way. This wish to see the seer automatically stops because of its very impossibility, for nobody hankers after a thing that does not exist.
It knew only Itself and thereby became all... The expression, ‘While realising this (self) as That’—Brahman—refers to the knowledge of Brahman. And the words, ‘I was Manu, and the sun/ refer to its result, identity with all.
http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117939.html
He who knows that the vision of the seer is eternal, does not wish to see It in any other way. This wish to see the seer automatically stops because of its very impossibility, for nobody hankers after a thing that does not exist.
It knew only Itself and thereby became all... The expression, ‘While realising this (self) as That’—Brahman—refers to the knowledge of Brahman. And the words, ‘I was Manu, and the sun/ refer to its result, identity with all.
http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117939.html
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
He is able to see it; he is able to see that time is created by the mind - as is everything else.
The objects that seem to be hidden in the mind and those that appear outside the mind – both are produced by imagination – Gaudapada in his Mandukya Karika 2.15
Everything is created by the mind, including the concept of Brahman. We reason that the mind is powered by something (we call it prajna); but what that is, is something we can never know, for that is the *only* thing that is outside the mind and anything outside the mind cannot be comprehended. And this is why, it can only be described in the negative (net, neti).
However, this is not some magical enlightenment accompanied by bells and whistles. It is an intellectual inference. This is also what is meant by the Advaitic statement that "knowledge alone liberates".
Ekanta
om sai ram
Erm... hold your horses. I or I am... i.e. atman, is self-evident. It doesnt need a mind.
Take the example of nirvikalpa samadhi. In that state the mind has stopped to function and the Self alone shines.
???
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Everything is created by the mind, except Brahman/physical energy. The mind/brain is because of what exists. Only that is independent of what mind thinks. 'Asti', 'Na asat'.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
The idea of self-evidence is only a thought in the mind. But this may not be easy to explain. Let us skip to the next point.
Who is in Nirvikalpa Samadhi?
Who observes that someone or something is in Samadhi?
Who observes that the mind that was functioning earlier (thus, introducing the concept of a past and therefore, time) has now stopped functioning?
Who observes that the self is shining?
Once you introduce time, it is no longer Advaita. So long as there is someone, something, anything that is observing something/anything...you have allowed duality and it is no longer Advaita. For, admitting the state of Samadhi is to admit the existence of other non-Samadhi states; allowing an attribute such as 'shining' also brings in its opposite/absence and hence, duality.
Last edited:
What? That means that mind is the father -mother of Self?
I think there is a confusion. Why are you talking of 'something', 'someone'? Dream state appears dual but do you have a second self in dream? An advaita realised jnani can be in samadhi or in world, abiding as non dual Self.
The Self is non dual, whether it is in Nirvikalpa samadhi or whether it enjoys a movie. There is nothing else for the Self. That is advaita darshana .. To be the non dual Self, irrespective of the coming and going of states.
Last edited:
It is said that "Who will know the knower?" There is no second to know the knower.
It is not said that the Knower will not KNOW Itself. When Shankara says "I am Shiva" or Shri Krishna says "Vasudeva is All", they are verbalising that the All is their own Self. Whether in Nirvikalpa samadhi or in mode of diversity, the jnani abides as non dual Self only. Jnani sees no second.
There seems to be a confusion that multiplicity of forms-names means that there are many. There is only the one without a second.
Advaita knowledge is that multiplicity of forms-names merely constitute a dream like layer that does nothing to the timeless non dual Self, which at its wish introverts the world into itself or manifests it as a dream city.
Advaita knowledge is that multiplicity of forms-names merely constitute a dream like layer that does nothing to the timeless non dual Self, which at its wish introverts the world into itself or manifests it as a dream city.
Ekanta
om sai ram
So by this definition, deep sleep is advaita, since you observe nothing?
Whereas the jnani who sees all as atman is deluded?
Actually your quote goes even further since you even deny the observer.
Last edited:
Ekanta
om sai ram
Shankara explains in his commentary on the Brahmasutra (2.3.7) how the Self is self-evident:
“Any idea of the possibility of denying the existence of the Self is illogical, just because it is the Self. The Self is not an adventitious effect of any cause, it being Self-established. For the Self of anyone does not require to be revealed to anyone with the help of any other means. For such means of knowledge as perception etc, that are taken up for proving the existence of other things that remain unknown, belong to this very Self. …And it is not possible to deny such a Self; for it is an adventitious thing alone that can be repudiated, but not so one’s own nature. The Self constitutes the very nature of the man who would deny it.”
http://www.advaita-vision.org/science-and-the-nature-of-absolute-reality-part-3/
“Any idea of the possibility of denying the existence of the Self is illogical, just because it is the Self. The Self is not an adventitious effect of any cause, it being Self-established. For the Self of anyone does not require to be revealed to anyone with the help of any other means. For such means of knowledge as perception etc, that are taken up for proving the existence of other things that remain unknown, belong to this very Self. …And it is not possible to deny such a Self; for it is an adventitious thing alone that can be repudiated, but not so one’s own nature. The Self constitutes the very nature of the man who would deny it.”
http://www.advaita-vision.org/science-and-the-nature-of-absolute-reality-part-3/
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
IMHO, It is still 'advaita'. See it from a Vyavaharika view-point or a Paramarthika view-point. Different perspectives.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
No. It means the self is outside the mind and therefore can never be directly recognized or experienced. We are limited by thought and we can only think about/infer its existence. This is why Yajnavalkya and a host of other Upanishad authors call it indescribable.
Don't know what you mean by non-dual self? I have not encountered the concept of a dual self.
And I am saying if there exist multiple states, coming and going of things - then it is not advaita, for you are introducing duality.
What is the Jnani seeing - according to you?
Deep sleep is only known from the past for you only infer sleep *after* you wake up. Never during sleep.
If you are seeing 'all', it is bedha-abedha - not advaita.
bedha-abedha (simultaneous oneness-difference) - The doctrine is, we witness differences and these differences are real; the world is real. Jnana is the realization that everything is one Brahman, in spite of the differences.
advaita - The doctrine is, everything is unreal (including time and space). Brahman alone is real. Therefore, it follows that you are Brahman and liberation is the knowledge of this - not because we heard it from someone or read it somewhere, but as a direct realization by you.
@atanu , @Ekanta, can you please explain your view of the difference between the three - advaita, bedha-abedha and vishishtadvaita wrt., to the relationship between jiva and Brahman?
And (per advaita) do you see space and time as within maya or outside?
Finally, what is your definition of eternal according to advaita?
But deep sleep condition is exactly the same state of your advaita. We are saying that no one gets enlightenment in deep sleep.
Is it a test or something? Ha. Ha. This is not required.
Except advaita, all other darsana ascribe some objective reality to forms-names (which you are also doing, without realising). Advaita admits of no second.
But that does not prohibit a jnani from seeing forms-names while abiding as non dual Self.
Last edited:
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Paramarthika can never be a perspective, for a perspective requires an observer and observed - and neither exist in Paramarthika. Because, without anything to observe, there can be no observer.
Your concept of Paramarthika is an idea that *only* exists within Vyavaharika. It is never a real state or perspective. That is, no one can say to himself that he is in Paramarthika or that he was - sometime in the past. Simply because, as long as there is an observer, it is still Vyavaharika.
Last edited: