Is there 'light' in Enlightenment? (Sept. 03 discussion topic)

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, V. Krishnamurthy wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> Interestingly, after all the pros and cons about 'light'

> in 'enlightenment' and all the discussions which I have been

> following with a 'jijnAsu's' attitude, Shri Gummulurumurthy's final

> sentence caught me. I thought I can 'play' with it as follows:

>

> "It cannot be seen as anything beyond an attribute of the SELF"

>

> Here the words "an attribute of" have to be taken out because the

> SELF has no attributes !

> So the sentence becomes

> "It cannot be seen as anything beyond the SELF"

>

> But the SELF cannot be seen ! So take the "seen as" out. And we get

>

> "It cannot be anything beyond the SELF"

>

> But the preposition "beyond" relates "The SELF" to something. The

> SELF cannot be 'related' !. So take the "anything beyond" out !

>

> Now we get

>

> "It cannot be the SELF"

>

> This is correct. The Light (that we 'see' or 'don't see') is not the

> SELF.

>

> praNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

 

namaste profvk-ji,

 

Your analysis is quite perfect as befitting a mathematician.

 

First, in my post, "beyond *attribute* of the SELF" is a mistaken

writing on my part. After I posted it, I realized "attribute" is

not the right word I meant. But I did not want to post a correction.

I meant to say upAdhi rather than attribute. I cannot think of the

right word in English for upAdhi.

 

Beyond that, I bow to both you and shri Sadananda-ji for pointing

out back to the Truth again.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

--- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

> Now we get

>

> "It cannot be the SELF"

>

> This is correct. The Light (that we 'see' or 'don't see') is not the

> SELF.

>

> praNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

 

Prof. VK - continue further - and remove 'not' also in the 'cannot' -

since there is nothing other than the self - the seer 'self and seen

light are within the self too. It can be the self also if one 'sees'

correctly!

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you sadananda and profvk:

 

I think that is why our acharya says in vivakchuuDaamaNi

 

"caantaH siddhaa svaanubhuutiH pramaaNam"

 

"Self" as you said can remain or become a "self limiter", because,

more one knows, more he realizes how little he had known.

 

Thus the light in realization is the self realization. Often Guru

helps you witness that "LIGHT" and floods the gates for you to attain

your own potential.

 

With best regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> --- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

>

> > Now we get

> >

> > "It cannot be the SELF"

> >

> > This is correct. The Light (that we 'see' or 'don't see') is not

the

> > SELF.

> >

> > praNAms to all advaitins.

> > profvk

> >

>

> Prof. VK - continue further - and remove 'not' also in

the 'cannot' -

> since there is nothing other than the self - the seer 'self and seen

> light are within the self too. It can be the self also if one 'sees'

> correctly!

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

>

> =====

> What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have

is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Very interesting point (the symbolism in kAshAya as the

> attire of the Self). Will have to do some research on the

> history of this.

>

> [Hope you are working on it and will be back soon with your

> findings. Others are also invited to join in with their

> understanding of the suggested symbolism.]

 

Namaste Madathilji,

 

The research was not as helpful as I wished. The tradition (of

the sannyasi's insignia) appears to be pre-historic (Mundaka, and

other upanishads).

 

The symbolism you mentioned corresponds roughly that given by

Sw. Abhishiktananda (b. Henry Le Saux, a Belgian Benedictine monk):

 

"...The new sannyasi then unties all the clothes he may be wearing and

lets them float away in the stream. Then the guru calls him back to

the bank and receives him in his arms, dripping with water and naked

as he was when he came forth from his mother's womb. He then covers

him with the fire-coloured cloth of the sannyasi, the flame-colour of

the Purusha, of the golden Hamsa (Br. Up., 4.3.11), All has been burnt

up; he is a new man-or rather, he is the unique Man, the unique

Purusha, the unique Spirit, whom no garment can ever again clothe,

other than the garment of fire, which consumes all other garments

superimposed on the essential nudity of the original Purusha, the

non-dual Spirit............."

 

[from: http://www.anandamayi.org/devotees/jv/english/km1.html ]

 

For more details about Sw. Abhishiktananda:

 

http://www.innerexplorations.com/catew/cru2.htm

-----------

 

The use of the color red has an interesting global history:

 

http://webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/color/reds2.html

-------

 

I am curious to know how the Buddhist monks also adopted the

same color for their garments!

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Most respected Madathil Nair avargal,

 

I salute your lotus heart and submit this to you!

 

My mother is 85 now. When she was a kid, Lord Siva in her

dreamless dream took her into his arms and gave the Rama Namam to

her for meditation - dream Upadesam ,if you like to call it so.

 

Ever since then,she has been doing the japam endlessly for all

these years.Whenever she sits for meditation, she sees the form of

God one way or the other. She bursts out into tears. She sings

well ,so melodiously that I also feel like bursting out.

 

BUT she is not able to gain vasana kshayam. After those moments

,she will be again a normal lady with her attachment to

children,etc.After 80 years , one day She heard about this going

back to the source - Please note, she knew Sri Lalitha Sahasra

Namam by heart but somehow the meaning of Antharmukha Samaradhya

is not understood because she is lost in tears all the time.Get

out of it!!!

 

when you get the emotional outburst.Just,Hold on a second. Ask who

is the weeper.Be the source from which the weeping bursts out.Then

only you will know what I am trying to submit to you,Sir.Otherwise

,life times will pass away weeping .

 

My mama sings

 

ve:chi ve:chi venna mudda vale karigi po:yera: na : bathuku

waiting waiting butterballlike melted my life

 

It is only now , she is actually trying to get to that AWARENESS

Sri Ramana Maharshi is talking about.

 

I love you sir! I have no intention of misunderstanding your

tears- I am also a victim of that.Let us get out of it and be in

the BLISS that I used to experience once in a way by getting back

to the source of the thoughts.

 

I told you I have a first hand experience of the I - the ego, the

first thought from which my other thoughts spring.It is through

Language, I got it. Glory be To Master Sri Adi Samkara

Bhagavatpujyapada!!!

Glory be to Sri Ramana Maharshi !!!

 

The point is to take it to the real source.I will succeed one

day.Till then please ,let me know if you want to test whether my

experience is fake or worth the trial.The test of truth is

experiment.

 

LOve,

Bhuvaneswar

 

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote :

>Namaste Bhuvaneswarji.

>

>Thanks for your comments.

>

>However, you seem to have misinterpreted my post.

>

>I look at my experiences most dispassionately and am not prepared

>to

>be fooled into believing that whatever is happening is the end I

>am

>seeking. I mentioned my experieces in order to enthuse others

>to

>share theirs and find out how widely prevalent such experiences

>are

>among seekers. I thought such an attempt will help in

>understanding

>the role sensory stimuli plays in spiritual development. Why

>decry

>experiences even if they are mere hallucinations as long as

>they

>inspire the seeker in the right manner and direction.

>

>Incidentally, I am not a Professor.

>

>PraNAms.

>

>Madathil Nair

>______________

>

>

>advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

><bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

> > My cousin also used to hear this kind of a sound.

> > another cousin's daughter was actually escorted in the

>U.S.A.

> > I used to hear different music sometime ago.Also,in the

>morning's

> > I was gently tapped on my back and asked to get up,probably to

>say

> > my prayers.

> > Millions of people,I think ,get such experiences.

> > All this is simply MAYA !!!

> > My Mama was actually one day saw Sri Laalitamba standing at

>the

> > doorstep and asking her permission to come in.If you ask her

>she

> > will tell you unbelievable experiences in her life!!!

> > All this is onething,conquering mind - vasana kshayam - is

>another

> > thing,Sir!

> > Lord Siva Himself,verily Lord Siva in the form of Nataraja

> > appeared in my wakeful dream state once and asked me

>something. I

> > saw Ramana maharshi in wakeful dreams a number of times. These

>are

> > all dreams.Full stop.>

> > i forgot to tell you. When I went to Arunanachala , I told

>you

> > that I could not hold myself until I reach the top. I saluted

>the

> > footrints at the top. There I saw a PIPAL Tree on the

>EESANYAM

> > SIDE of the mountain and I wanted to sit there and meditate.

>Thank

> > God ,I did not go there.

> > I saw a European sitting away from the tree on the other side

>of

> > the ridge - it is away from the tree.It is youngish.later on i

>was

> > told that there is no such tree there. Probably,hallucinations

>of

> > the mental order!!!

> > Any how the point is that these are all not the crux.The crux

>of

> > the issue,my dear Prof. nair, is did you identify the jiva

>at

> > least.Any body with a little practice can do it.Then,the

>real

> > story of your spiritual journey takes a different turn- voyage

>of

> > antharmkha vikshana starts.

> >

> > Since ,you are a devotee of Sri Lalithamba,she will surely

>take

> > you there.First,let us stop crying and start keeping

>quiet!!!

> >

> > in a hurry

> >

> > Love,

> > Bhuvaneswar

> >

> >

> >

> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote :

> > >I haven't said all that I experience for fear of digressing

>out

> > >of

> > >the parameters of this discussion. Frankly speaking, as a

>Devi

> > >upasaka, I hear the sounds of anklets and music in my ears

>most

> > >of

> > >the time. Even if I close my ears tight, these very

>pleasant

> > >sounds

> > >persist. Some spiritually knowledgable persons suggest that

>it

> > >may

> > >be due to kundalini awakening. They advise me not to

>divulge

> > >the

> > >matter to others. ...............> >I am not superstitious.

>I

>confess I have slight hearing

> > >impairment

> > >on both my ears.

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

>advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

_

Interior meets Software; Rani Weds Gaurav.

Rediff Matchmaker strikes another interesting match

Visit http://matchmaker.rediff.com?1

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhuvaneswarji,

 

Who am I to sit in judgement of your mother and yourself? With Lord

Rama always in her thoughts, she is far far ahead of me. It would be

imprudent on our part, therefore, to conclude that she has not been

able to gain vAsana kshayam when she is so exemplary.

 

Tears in bhakti are a pleasure when we understand the why of them.

They have a cleansing effect in spirituality and I don't want to

forsake my ability to cry for the sake of 'going back to any

source'. With my eyes welled up, I am able to appreciate the meaning

of antarmukhasamAradhyA. Then why decry spiritual weeping?

 

I have never doubted your capabilities. The last para of your post,

therefore, baffles me.

 

(I will be replying your offlist post directly soon. I haven't been

able to do that since I am pretty badly preoccupied at the moment.

Appreciate your understanding.)

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

 

advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

<bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

> My mother is 85 now. When she was a kid, Lord Siva in her

> dreamless dream took her into his arms and gave the Rama Namam to

> her for meditation - dream Upadesam ,if you like to call it so.

>

> Ever since then,she has been doing the japam endlessly for all

> these years.Whenever she sits for meditation, she sees the form of

> God one way or the other. She bursts out into tears. She sings

> well ,so melodiously that I also feel like bursting out.

>

> BUT she is not able to gain vasana kshayam. After those moments

> ,she will be again a normal lady with her attachment to

> children,etc.After 80 years , one day She heard about this going

> back to the source - Please note, she knew Sri Lalitha Sahasra

> Namam by heart but somehow the meaning of Antharmukha Samaradhya

> is not understood because she is lost in tears all the time.Get

> out of it!!!

.......

> The point is to take it to the real source.I will succeed one

> day.Till then please ,let me know if you want to test whether my

> experience is fake or worth the trial.The test of truth is

> experiment.

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

There has been a lull for a couple of days now. Let us pause to

ponder our conclusions so far.

 

If Consciousness is one without a second, there cannot be any place

for a dwanda (pair of opposites) like light and darkness in

Enlightenment. Let us accept that as far as the paramArtha

(Absolute) is concerned.

 

Since our discussion and progress towards self-realization are

apparently taking place in the apparent vyAvahArikA, we are

apparently compelled to visualize. The essential ingredient of that

visualization is no doubt light which is the revealer. The revealing

nature of light is thus the soul of all visual metaphors that try to

describe the Absolute. We cannot thus do away with light in our

understanding of the Absolute in the vyAvahArikA.

 

Meditation on Om and mantrAs apparently begins with the auditory.

However, it can be easily seen that the auditory transforms itself

synesthetically into visual thought and imagery when light

predominates and the auditory is pushed to the invisible background.

 

This applies to meditation on chakrAs too as in Kundalini practice.

The imagery of blazing, beautiful charkas are superimposed on tactile

centres of the body in a very systematic manner leading to Kundalini

arousing. Here again, it is the visual (light) that ultimately

predominates over the tactile.

 

Thus, light (visual) appears to be the main stimulus into which,

during spiritual practice and progress, the rest of the stimuli

coalesce and evanesce. Let us understand that `visual', where the

rest of the stimuli exist in `unmanifest' form as the

Sanskrit `prakAshA', the soul of which is `kash' which means `to

shine'. (Ref: Shri Ananda Wood's earlier post on this topic).

 

This prakAshA is the soul of our space-time continuum (AkAshA) – the

subtlest and most pervasive building block of creation. AkAshA

cannot be without this prakAshA. In other words, prakAshA is the

revealer of AkAshA.

 

In my lead post on this topic, a supposition was made about the

possible existence of worlds without light plunged in total

darkness. Darkness being the absence of light, it looks like my

supposition has no validity because no world can operate without

dwandAs. The very existence of darkness would necessarily demand the

existence of its absence, i.e. light. Besides, if our above

understanding of prakAshA is right, such a supposition would mean

universes without the space-time continuum. Is that ever possible?

Well, I can't think of a replacement for the space-time continuum

known as AkAshA.

 

It, therefore, looks like space-time continuum has an irrevocable

exclusivity to creation (of any universe whatsoever) in as much as

creation cannot be without space-time continuum. Thus, prakAshA, as

the essence of space-time continuum and mother of all sensory

stimuli, triumphs ultimately. It may be logical here to think that

this prakAshA, perhaps, is the very light meant in the Biblical

statement "God said: "Let there be light!"".

 

This prakAshA keeps us company till total Enlightenment when we

become none other than "the prakAshA itself without a second". Such

a "prakAshA without a second" is not part of mundane dwanda (pairs of

opposites). It is the Absolute unafflicted in any manner.

 

In simple words, we meditate on conditioned prakAshA and verily

become Absolute PrakAshA. Isn't this what happens with

Gayatri/Savitri? Isn't this what is implied in Verse 30 of Soundarya

Lahari approximately translated as under?

 

"Oh, beginningless and endless Devi, he who constantly visualizes and

reminds himself that "You - surrounded and served by deities like

aNima et al, who are the very rays that emit forth from Your own

body – are verily me", no wonder he excels the excellence of the

three-eyed Siva and, therefore, the fires of ultimate dissolution

performs dIpArAdhanA (waving of lights in worship) for him?"

 

Here, through his visualization of himself as the Devi, the devotee

becomes the Devi Herself. All fires and lights, including the ones of

ultimate dissolution, then offers prayers to him – the light of all

lights. PrakAshOham!

 

Can we have some thoughts on this please in order to build on from

here?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Most respected sir,

 

Please understand me!!!

 

My brother also said the same thing which you said.He always tells

me that I am wrong!!!

 

If Meera Bai,Rama Das, and others wept and wept,it is a different

story!!!That ball game is not for me.

 

I did not agree with him.Who am I to insist on others .

 

Only Mother Lalithamba will show you the way.

 

The way , in my own vasanaic thinking, is to get out of these

things and be still.Still the mind....that is all my master tells

me.It does not mean that you should not have devotion and be

wooden. It means,hold on to the Bliss which is beyond tears and

smiles!!!Then a new awareness dawns which gives the sadhaka a

different sense of joy. It is bliss of minute order.I experienced

this, sir.so I am telling u.Try this for experiment.

 

Please forgive me if I have got into your personal life.

 

I only wanted to share the anguish of a seeker!!!

 

God bless you!!!

 

In the oceanic love of Sri Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada,

 

Yours

 

Bhuvaneswar

 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote :

>Namaste Bhuvaneswarji,

>

>Who am I to sit in judgement of your mother and yourself? With

>Lord

>Rama always in her thoughts, she is far far ahead of me. It

>would be

>imprudent on our part, therefore, to conclude that she has not

>been

>able to gain vAsana kshayam when she is so exemplary.

>

>Tears in bhakti are a pleasure when we understand the why of

>them.

>They have a cleansing effect in spirituality and I don't want

>to

>forsake my ability to cry for the sake of 'going back to any

>source'. With my eyes welled up, I am able to appreciate the

>meaning

>of antarmukhasamAradhyA. Then why decry spiritual weeping?

>

>I have never doubted your capabilities. The last para of your

>post,

>therefore, baffles me.

>

>(I will be replying your offlist post directly soon. I haven't

>been

>able to do that since I am pretty badly preoccupied at the

>moment.

>Appreciate your understanding.)

>

>PraNAms.

>

>Madathil Nair

>______________________

>

>

>advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

><bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

>

> > My mother is 85 now. When she was a kid, Lord Siva in her

> > dreamless dream took her into his arms and gave the Rama Namam

>to

> > her for meditation - dream Upadesam ,if you like to call it

>so.

> >

> > Ever since then,she has been doing the japam endlessly for

>all

> > these years.Whenever she sits for meditation, she sees the

>form of

> > God one way or the other. She bursts out into tears. She

>sings

> > well ,so melodiously that I also feel like bursting out.

> >

> > BUT she is not able to gain vasana kshayam. After those

>moments

> > ,she will be again a normal lady with her attachment to

> > children,etc.After 80 years , one day She heard about this

>going

> > back to the source - Please note, she knew Sri Lalitha

>Sahasra

> > Namam by heart but somehow the meaning of Antharmukha

>Samaradhya

> > is not understood because she is lost in tears all the

>time.Get

> > out of it!!!

>......

> > The point is to take it to the real source.I will succeed

>one

> > day.Till then please ,let me know if you want to test whether

>my

> > experience is fake or worth the trial.The test of truth is

> > experiment.

>

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

>advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

_

Interior meets Software; Rani Weds Gaurav.

Rediff Matchmaker strikes another interesting match

Visit http://matchmaker.rediff.com?1

[Guest guest]

Most respected sir,

 

Please understand me!!!

 

My brother also said the same thing which you said.He always tells

me that I am wrong!!!

 

If Meera Bai,Rama Das, and others wept and wept,it is a different

story!!!That ball game is not for me.

 

I did not agree with him.Who am I to insist on others .

 

Only Mother Lalithamba will show you the way.

 

The way , in my own vasanaic thinking, is to get out of these

things and be still.Still the mind....that is all my master tells

me.It does not mean that you should not have devotion and be

wooden. It means,hold on to the Bliss which is beyond tears and

smiles!!!Then a new awareness dawns which gives the sadhaka a

different sense of joy. It is bliss of minute order.I experienced

this, sir.so I am telling u.Try this for experiment.

 

Please forgive me if I have got into your personal life.

 

I only wanted to share the anguish of a seeker!!!

 

God bless you!!!

 

In the oceanic love of Sri Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada,

 

Yours

 

Bhuvaneswar

 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote :

>Namaste Bhuvaneswarji,

>

>Who am I to sit in judgement of your mother and yourself? With

>Lord

>Rama always in her thoughts, she is far far ahead of me. It

>would be

>imprudent on our part, therefore, to conclude that she has not

>been

>able to gain vAsana kshayam when she is so exemplary.

>

>Tears in bhakti are a pleasure when we understand the why of

>them.

>They have a cleansing effect in spirituality and I don't want

>to

>forsake my ability to cry for the sake of 'going back to any

>source'. With my eyes welled up, I am able to appreciate the

>meaning

>of antarmukhasamAradhyA. Then why decry spiritual weeping?

>

>I have never doubted your capabilities. The last para of your

>post,

>therefore, baffles me.

>

>(I will be replying your offlist post directly soon. I haven't

>been

>able to do that since I am pretty badly preoccupied at the

>moment.

>Appreciate your understanding.)

>

>PraNAms.

>

>Madathil Nair

>______________________

>

>

>advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

><bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

>

> > My mother is 85 now. When she was a kid, Lord Siva in her

> > dreamless dream took her into his arms and gave the Rama Namam

>to

> > her for meditation - dream Upadesam ,if you like to call it

>so.

> >

> > Ever since then,she has been doing the japam endlessly for

>all

> > these years.Whenever she sits for meditation, she sees the

>form of

> > God one way or the other. She bursts out into tears. She

>sings

> > well ,so melodiously that I also feel like bursting out.

> >

> > BUT she is not able to gain vasana kshayam. After those

>moments

> > ,she will be again a normal lady with her attachment to

> > children,etc.After 80 years , one day She heard about this

>going

> > back to the source - Please note, she knew Sri Lalitha

>Sahasra

> > Namam by heart but somehow the meaning of Antharmukha

>Samaradhya

> > is not understood because she is lost in tears all the

>time.Get

> > out of it!!!

>......

> > The point is to take it to the real source.I will succeed

>one

> > day.Till then please ,let me know if you want to test whether

>my

> > experience is fake or worth the trial.The test of truth is

> > experiment.

>

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

>advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

_

Interior meets Software; Rani Weds Gaurav.

Rediff Matchmaker strikes another interesting match

Visit http://matchmaker.rediff.com?1

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair,

 

Your message was an intelligent and articulate summary:

>There has been a lull for a couple of days now. Let us pause to

>ponder our conclusions so far.

>

>If Consciousness is one without a second, there cannot be any place

>for a dwanda (pair of opposites) like light and darkness in

>Enlightenment. Let us accept that as far as the paramArtha

>(Absolute) is concerned.

>

>Since our discussion and progress towards self-realization are

>apparently taking place in the apparent vyAvahArikA, we are

>apparently compelled to visualize. The essential ingredient of that

>visualization is no doubt light which is the revealer. The

>revealing >nature of light is thus the soul of all visual metaphors

>that try to

>describe the Absolute. We cannot thus do away with light in our

>understanding of the Absolute in the vyAvahArikA.

 

 

I would like to add my humble opinion on this, for what it is worth.

I am not necessarily arguing with you, even though it may seem that

way.

 

I think that sometimes we get too 'formal' and 'robotic' about the

difference between paramartha and vyavaharika. For example, a kind

of elementary logic says that since we 'see' things in the

vyavaharika then we do not see things in the paramartha. I think

this kind of logic is much too simplistic and naive.

 

Stated otherwise, the Jnana does not go blind! Ramana saw all the

people around him, as well as his beloved Arunachala mountain, and

perhaps now he sees every detail of every universe. (Imagine that!)

 

I think the key point is that he does not see the 'things' of the

universe(s) as other than his Self. It is HOW he sees things, not

WHETHER he sees things. He sees it all as Consciousness, not as

matter or something else.

 

Also, the Jivanmukti, especially after death, may no longer need eyes

of flesh. As consciousness expands, certain latent faculties of

knowledge may be aroused. Various Near Death experiences suggest

this to me. Beings after death can sometimes see anything they wish

without eyes, know each others thoughts immediately without speaking,

can assume and discard 'bodies' at will, can be anywhere

instantaneously just by thinking of it, etc. This may seem a bit

speculative, but I feel that there is some truth to these stories.

It is really part and parcel of the basic idea that we are spiritual

entities, not limited to the body, and sharing in Divinity.

Otherwise, we indeed disappear forever at death.

 

At any rate, the point is that there is nothing wrong with vision and

the 'light' that must accompany it. There is nothing wrong with the

glorious spectacle of maya, as long as we recognize it as such.

There is nothing wrong with a beautiful flower, and how will you see

it without some kind of light?

 

The occasional Advaitin desire to turn light and vision into

something 'bad' reminds me of the Buddhist over-emphasis on

'emptiness', to the point where it was mistakenly thought of as

'nothing'. We must avoid blind formalities in our spiritual quest.

Please rejoice in vision, Sir, and may it become purified into the

vision that sees all as the Self!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benji.

 

Reference your post # 18949.

 

I am making another attempt at this vexing problem of paramArthA and

vyAvahArikA.

 

First of all, let us accept the following:

 

(a) ParamArthA is not the opposite of vyAvahArika as often

misunderstood. In fact, it encompasses vyAvahArika or, in other

words, is verily the vyAvahArika fully resolved.

 

(b) In advaita, the enquirer is the focal point (subject). The rest

(objects) do not enjoy the *self-evident* validity of the subject as

THEY ARE simply because the SUBJECT IS.

 

I am confronted with a world that is in continuous flux. There is

nothing changeless around me. How do I perceive the changes?

Surely, against something that is changeless. The impermanence of a

tree is understood against the relative permanence of a mountain.

The impermanence of the latter is then appreciated against the

relative permanence of the stars. Thus, we go on forever from one

relative impermanence to another relative permanence and so on.

That, in fact, is the essence of the flux. Against what then is this

unending flux of the `relatives' is appreciated? That, as per

advaita, is the Absolute Permanence against which all `relatives'

become evident to us. By the logic of (a) above, the seemingly

unending chain of `relatives' is in fact Absolute Permanence

misunderstood. It gets resolved in this Absolute Permanence when

Truth is discovered. It is not the opposite of Absolute Permanence

as Absolute Permanence cannot have anything outside of itself posited

against It.

 

This Absolute Permanence is Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda. As

Advaitins, we infer and know that IT IS and we are IT really. How

can we describe it? Our problems begin here. We have a habit of

seeing permanence as eternal existence, i.e. something that continues

through all times. Our concept of immortality is an ever-living

without death in our crumbling mortal fabric! How sadly

unimaginative we are with all our poets singing about eternal

embraces and kisses! Changes become evident in time. Absolute

Changelessness (Absolute Permanence) should therefore be beyond

time. In other words, it is Timelessness (not eternity) and cannot

be described with the limited tools of mortality like the sense

organs, mind or intellect, which all are subject to the tyranny of

time.

 

Thus, we *know* that (1) WE ARE ABSOLUTE PERMANENCE AND (2) WE CANNOT

DESCRIBE IT.

 

Now let us bring in Nairji. He is the subject of (b) above as he

experiences an objectified world. Benji is also in the same boat

with him (from Benji's point of view). They both see a jIvanmuktA

traveling with them. If our advaitic logic is correct, he is not in

the boat as he no longer is the subject of (b) experiencing an

objectified world. As far as he is concerned, Nairji, Benji, the boat

etc. have already resolved into himself. However, both Nairji and

Benji are happily surprised to see him sitting with them, talking to

them, advising them and also sharing a Coke with them! Both also

wonder at his `lIlA' and unendingly conjecture how the jIvanmuktA

should be `feeling' about the boat journey and about their company!

Isn't that like trying to describe the Absolute Permanence mentioned

above?

 

And now to Scene 2. Enters another jIvanmuktA who greets both the

Jies, sits opposite jIvanmuktA # 1 and begins a dialogue on Vedanta.

Both Jies listen with rapturous attention. This scene has validity

only from the point of view of the two deluded Jies. As for the

JivanmuktAs, there cannot simply be two of them. Not even `one' in

the oridinary sense of that number. In fact, they cannot even have a

Nairji or Benji or a boat journey! The journey and dialogues are

things happening in time. As timelessness, how can they ever have

events?

 

So, what is the conclusion? Absolute Permanence / Jivanmukti is all

there is. Conjecture about IT in the sweetest manner possible when

you are on the boat but, be sure, you won't get any closer to IT

simply because you have never been other than IT! Objectified

jIvanmuktAs are no better than Benji and Nairji. In fact, it is

Benji and Nairji who put all the wisdom in their mouths!

 

Well. That is the logic of it and it definitely looks `rigid'

and `robotic', if not inane, like the Buddhist's `emptiness'. But,

then all these complaints are also on the boat. Jivanmukti is not an

event. So, there is no point saying it will take place or it has

taken place or it has `happened' to somebody. Let us therefore enjoy

the boat ride in the company of objectified jIvanmuktAs (see we are

not happy with just one!) beholding the light of Enlightenment

shining bright over our heads. That is the LIGHT OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

The boat, its cargo including the objectified jIvanmuktAs and the

mind and intellect that enquire after them and their `state' are

already in the LIGHT in as much they are made of the very fabric of

that LIGHT. There is only that LIGHT. Then, why worry about whens

and wheres? Why write descriptions?

 

In my last post, I wrote about the impossibility of creation without

space-time continuum (AkAshA). Applying the logic of prakAshA as

the `shiner' of space-time continuum, I am tempted to think further

that there cannot be any finer dimensions than AkAshA in creation.

I believe researchers have hypothesized the possibility of additional

dimensions. The existence of a sixth sense unconnected with any

physical organ has also been suspected. Can someone please throw

light on these areas to enrich our discussion on L.I.E.?

 

About near-death experiences (NDEs), I am a little wary although I

would much like to be assured that I can transcend my physical

limitations after death and enjoy some blissful flying as a mass of

consciousness. In fact, Dennisji had suggested some websites where

most down-to-earth explanations for NDEs exist. I seem to have lost

that information. Dennisji, please help if you can.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair,

 

You put a lot of thoughtful effort into your reply to me that begins:

>I am making another attempt at this vexing problem of

>paramArthA and vyAvahArikA.

>

>First of all, let us accept the following:

>

>(a) ParamArthA is not the opposite of vyAvahArika as often

>misunderstood. In fact, it encompasses vyAvahArika or, in other

>words, is verily the vyAvahArika fully resolved.

>

>(b) In advaita, the enquirer is the focal point (subject). The

>rest (objects) do not enjoy the *self-evident* validity of the

>subject as THEY ARE simply because the SUBJECT IS.

 

 

I think I basically agree with you, though I might express it a bit

differently. Let me make a few brief notes:

 

(1) I do like what you say in point (a). I fully agree, and since

you are not making the simplistic opposition that I implied in my

last post, then it appears that I was mistaken and misunderstood you.

I think we can all agree that the Jivanmukti does not go blind, just

because he doesn't 'see things' dualistically as we do. We need some

common sense when discussing this subject. So the question then

becomes, 'How DOES the Jivanmukti see things?'

 

 

(2) Regarding (b), I would simply reiterate what I have always said,

namely, that there is nothing outside of consciousness, such as a

material world. Hence, all 'objects' are really the 'subject' by

default, as it were.

 

Indeed, any kind of objectification is false, even the more subtle

kind, such as when we say, 'I see a perception.' In this case,

nothing is being said about the 'outside' world, but the perception

itself is being treated as an object. In other words, the mind is so

addicted to objectifying everything that it even does this in a

subtle way with entities that clearly are in consciousness, such as

the perceptions themselves. This leads to ego-consciousness and all

other problems, since with the false positing of an object (in any

sense) the illusion of ego springs into being as a kind of Newtonian

reaction.

 

However, note that with the opposition of subject and object, a more

subtle problem becomes evident, namely, that even the 'subject' is an

erroneous concept, since it implies an object. At the ultimate

level, even the subject is dissolved, as the stick to stir the fire

is burned by the fire, to use Ramana's analogy. (I am sure you know

this, but people do get confused using the word 'subject'.)

 

 

(3) You use the standard Advaitin argument for the Self as the

unchanging backdrop to the changing phenomena. In fact, I cannot

distinguish between Self and phenomena; they are all just

'consciousness' to me when I introspect. Now this does raise a

paradox. The phenomena are clearly changing. But the Self or 'seer'

does in fact seem to be eternal, unchanging, without parts, etc. It

is like an eternal, infinitesimal point that is the witness of

everything. And everything that it is the witness of is not

different from it.

 

So there IS a profound paradox here, which transcends intellectual

understanding. The seen is changing, the seer is unchanging, and the

seer and seen are ultimately the same. These statements all seem

true to me, taken separately, but their union obviously transcends

logic. I do accept this paradox. We must realize that logic only

applies to the seen, when seen as just the seen. (!) But standing

back and bringing the seer in raises us to a new level.

 

And yes, I agree that time is within consciousness, and consciousness

is not within time. So space and time are as illusory as my enemy

the material world! Space, time and matter are all different aspects

of the same illusion. None of them really 'exist' independently of

consciousness. Which is to say that they are illusions.

 

If I differ with you, it is only that you seem to be making some kind

of sharp distinction between mind and consciousness. I agree that

mind produces illusion, but I think that even mind is ultimately

swallowed up in consciousness. Anything we are aware of is, almost

as a tautology. (In fact, it IS a tautology.)

 

I could say much more but this is enough. I only wanted to verify

that you don't think that Jivanmuktis are going blind, just because

they do not see things as we do! The shapes and colors (and flowers

and children) do NOT disappear! They are simply reinterpreted, i.e.

seen as they are. Perhaps I should say 'non-interpreted'...

 

Yes, Dennis-ji, please give us those Near Death websites. I have a

childish fascination with this topic. Not fear of death but laziness

.... the wish for instant and effortless enlightenment, which Ramana,

Nisargadatta and Nairji say is already mine!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

You said:

 

"Also, the Jivanmukti, especially after death, may no longer need eyes

of flesh. As consciousness expands, certain latent faculties of

knowledge may be aroused. Various Near Death experiences suggest

this to me. Beings after death can sometimes see anything they wish

without eyes, know each others thoughts immediately without speaking,

can assume and discard 'bodies' at will, can be anywhere

instantaneously just by thinking of it, etc. This may seem a bit

speculative, but I feel that there is some truth to these stories.

It is really part and parcel of the basic idea that we are spiritual

entities, not limited to the body, and sharing in Divinity.

Otherwise, we indeed disappear forever at death."

 

I know that you began your post here talking about paramArtha and vyavahAra

and I, too, had made the point about jIvanmukti-s still being able to see

the 'world' and communicate, but your statements above seem recklessly

unconsidered (if you will pardon my attempt not to be rude!). How can you

claim (let alone think) that 'beings after death can sometimes see...'?

Surely only misguided spiritualists talk like this? For an Advaitin, there

are no beings after death. There are not even beings in life. The Self was

never born so cannot die. It is the mistaken vyAvahArika 'things' that

appear to be born and appear to die but all of the 'things' that are subject

to change are not real - the real does not change, by definition. Only

something that initially appears can disappear. We are not anything that

falls in the realm of 'appearances'. What we truly are is not in the realm

of vyavahAra. So, basically, what you are saying is nonsense (again no

personal insult intended!).

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji

 

You said:

>I know that you began your post here talking about

>paramArtha and vyavahAra and I, too, had made the

>point about jIvanmukti-s still being able to see the

>'world' and communicate, but your statements above seem

>recklessly unconsidered (if you will pardon my attempt

>not to be rude!). How can you claim (let alone think)

>that 'beings after death can sometimes see...'? Surely

>only misguided spiritualists talk like this? For an

>Advaitin, there are no beings after death. There are

>not even beings in life. The Self was never born so cannot

>die. It is the mistaken vyAvahArika 'things' that appear

>to be born and appear to die but all of the 'things' that

>are subject to change are not real - the real does not

>change, by definition. Only something that initially

>appears can disappear. We are not anything that falls

>in the realm of 'appearances'. What we truly are is not

>in the realm of vyavahAra. So, basically, what you are

>saying is nonsense (again no personal insult intended!).

 

 

Yes, what you say is true at the paramarthika level, where 'life' and

'death' are but successive dreams, or successive phases of a long

dream.

 

The Near Death Experiences (NDEs) fascinate me as possible peeks into

how the dream may continue ... until we reach Moksha. It's kind of

like eating junk food ... I indulge from time to time.

 

It seems to me that the paramarthika vs. vyavahirka distinction

causes most of the confusion on these advaitin lists. Perhaps we all

need to get a licence verifying our technical knowledge, before we

are permitted to discuss advaita. Also, we need some way of

informing readers which level we are at when speaking. Perhaps

colored text. Blue would be paramarthika and red vyavahirka. Or

maybe I am being too patriotic.

 

Still, I'd like to see your links to Near Death websites, mentioned

by Sri Nair ... even if these sites try to debunk the NDEs.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Nairji,

>

> I liked your response to Benji's last post - it was a bit more polite than

> mine. Apologies, again, Ben!

>

 

That OK Dennis. With a nice website like yours,

you couldn't be all bad! :-)

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

If you want to read the counter argument to Susan

Blackmore then track down the work of the widely

respected Consultant Neuroscientist, Peter Fenwick:

eg. 'The Truth in the Light' written with his wife

Elizabeth and published by Headline, London in 1995.

He frequently travels to the US to lecture. This is an

NDE study.

Proceeding down the science/philosophy track you may

be able to find both sides of various consciousness

and light debates at:

http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/home.htm

The Scientific and Medical Network arose out of the

need for some intelligent multi-disciplinary debate to

expand upon opinions such as Blackmore's rather

limited view. The site will lead ( I hope, have not

time to check today) to more recent publications by a

wide range of contributers.

 

More from the theological side is the work of Dr Paul

Badham, again writing with his wife Linda,

'Immortality or Extinction' published by SPCK 1984.

This is an early work on NDEs but clearly written. If

any members of this site live in Japan then try to

catch Paul Badham lecturing in Tokyo in November this

year.

 

But then of course The Tibetan Book of the Dead had

something to say on this as well. I will try to find

the relevant section later on,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ken,

>If you want to read the counter argument to Susan

>Blackmore then track down the work of the widely

>respected Consultant Neuroscientist, Peter Fenwick:

>eg. 'The Truth in the Light'

 

For whatever it might be worth, I am an engineer with a serious

understanding of physics, and I believe that there is something to

these Near Death Experiences, at least in some cases.

 

I do believe I can distinguish pure bunk from intriguing

possibilities. For example, I don't think much of astrology, and I

realize that most 'supernatural' stuff is a hoax, especially when

there is any money involved. But some of those NDE accounts seem

credible to me.

 

What also needs to be understood is the curious antipathy in Western

universities towards anything spiritual or metaphysical. We Advatins

would all be fools to the typical Western professor. It seems that

the materialistic philosophy still reigns supreme, i.e. you are

nothing but your brain chemicals and your consciousness is just an

illusion. I mean REALLY an illusion, i.e. it is simply not there,

appearances notwithstanding! Yes, they are a little silly...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

> But some of those NDE

> accounts seem

> credible to me.

 

They certainly are and my own field of study tries to

get behind the account of the 'event' to the knowledge

that finds expression through the account.

In the light of this discussion topic I do not want to

suggest that they are indications of 'realisation'. I

would suggest however that they are the natural

process of the light which has been absorbed in

attachment to ideas and name and form, being released

through the withdrawal of the elements of mind from

coarse to fine, as it were.

Some years ago, when the hospice movement was being

established in the UK, a friend of mine sat with the

patients as they died. She became used to the change

in 'light' in the room, inasmuch as it appeared to be

brighter as the person died. On one occasion she found

herself lifted up above the bodies of the dying person

and her own; 'borne by this light' was the only way

she could describe it. This occured on other occasions

afterwards and inspired her own spiritual enquiry.

>From an advaitin viewpoint such a statement has no

value but from a starting point of duality it has a

use.

Personally I am not interested in the 'Wow, wonderful'

aspect of this because it all seems totally in

accordance with traditional teaching about the human

psyche.

What is important is that there are strong

implications in such events to suggest science looks

more carefully at its popular supposition that mind

equals brain. Once a crack is opened in this barrier

then the knowledge of Vedanta, and quantum theory

maybe, can come in and explain more.

What we have needed is evidence that these experiences

actually occur when the brain is to all intents and

purposes 'dead'. We now have that evidence although

Blackmore is still pressing her high-heels deep into

the earth.

Excellent work is going on in Southampton in the UK as

well as university hospitals in Holland and the US and

the next few years will refine our understanding.

 

However, this research will only give us information;

the scriptures, enlightened by direct experience, will

open doors to the 'Big House'..samashti away from the

vyashti.

 

>

> What also needs to be understood is the curious

> antipathy in Western

> universities towards anything spiritual or

> metaphysical.

 

I still think that you are much more enlightened in

some US universities than here in the UK.....if my

friends who have known me for years heard me say that

they would choke on their cornflakes but this is the

one area of American culture in which I think there

are seeds for hope.

 

Best wishes

 

 

ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Ken,

>

>

>

> For whatever it might be worth, I am an engineer with a serious

> understanding of physics, and I believe that there is something to

> these Near Death Experiences, at least in some cases.

>

> I do believe I can distinguish pure bunk from intriguing

> possibilities. For example, I don't think much of astrology, and

I

> realize that most 'supernatural' stuff is a hoax, especially when

> there is any money involved. But some of those NDE accounts seem

> credible to me.

>

 

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

Namaste

 

It appears the discussion on 'Light in Enlightenment' has slowly

veered to a discussion on 'Near-Death Experience'. On an earlier

occasion I happen to have collected a small bibliography on NDE,

which I present below for those who may be interested. But let me

confess that I have not 'read' any of them! Just browsed, that is

all!

Bibliography on `Near Death Experience'

 

1. Raymond A. Moody, Jr. `Life After Life' . New York: Bantam,

1976. This is one of the earliest books compiling first hand

accounts of a world beyond death.

2. Michael B. Sabom. `Recollections of Death: A Medical

Investigation'. New York: Harper & Row, 1982. Sabom, a cardiologist

researched the subject in two Florida hospitals. Sabom conducted

detailed interviews with ten patients who had extensive

recollections.

3. Kenneth Ring. `Life at Death: A Scientific investigation of

the Near-Death Experience. New York: Coward, McCann &Geogheghan,

1980. Extensive scientifically structured study of 102 people who

had had close brushes with death. Kenneth Ring is a psychologist.

4. Susan Blackmore. Dying to Live. Buffalo, NY, Prometheus,

1993. Lecturer in Psychology at University of Bristol. Proponent of

a purely psychological explanation of the NDE.

5. Susan Blackmore. `In Search of the Light'. Amherst, NY:

Prometheus, 1996. In this the author backs off from her position in

the earlier book.

6. Melvin Morse. `Closer to the Light: Learning from the NDE's

of children'. New York, Ivy Books, 1990.

7. Bruce Greyson and Charles P. Flynn. (ed.) `The Near-Death

Experience'. Springfield, Il.Thomas, 1984.

8. Karlis Osis and E. Haraldsson. `At the Hour of Death'. New

York: Avon, 1977. This is an extensive cross-cultural survey of near-

death apparitions and experiences in the United States and India and

talks of similar patterns across individuals and across cultures.

9. Melvin Morse and Paul Perry. `Transformed by the Light' :

New York, Ballantine, 1992.

10. Melvin Morse and Kenneth Ring. `Heading Toward Omega. New

York: Morrow, 1985. In these two books, it is reported that there is

a heightened sense of spirituality and purpose, often reflected in

major lifestyle changes, after the experience.

 

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

> wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

As there has been no reference to Gita so far, I thought some

key verses may bring the focus back to enlightenment:

 

GYaanena tu tadaGYaanaM yeshhaa.n naashitamaatmanaH .

teshhaamaadityavajGYaanaM prakaashayati tatparam.h .. 5\-16..

 

na tu maa.n shakyase drashhTumanenaiva svachakShushhaa .

divya.n dadaami te chakShuH pashya me yogamaishvaram.h .. 11\-8..

 

yathaa prakaashayatyekaH kR^itsna.n lokamimaM raviH .

kShetra.n kShetrii tathaa kR^itsnaM prakaashayati bhaarata .. 13\-34..

 

sarvadvaareshhu dehe.asminprakaasha upajaayate .

GYaanaM yadaa tadaa vidyaadvivR^iddha.n sattvamityuta .. 14\-11..

__________________

 

yaa nishaa sarvabhuutaanaaM tasyaa.n jaagarti sa.nyamii .

yasyaa.n jaagrati bhuutaani saa nishaa pashyato muneH .. 2\-69..

 

yatroparamate chittaM niruddhaM yogasevayaa .

yatra chaivaatmanaatmaanaM pashyannaatmani tushhyati .. 6\-20..

 

sarvabhuutasthamaatmaanaM sarvabhuutaani chaatmani .

iikShate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshanaH .. 6\-29..

yo maaM pashyati sarvatra sarva.n cha mayi pashyati .

tasyaahaM na praNashyaami sa cha me na praNashyati .. 6\-30..

 

pashya me paartha ruupaaNi shatasho.atha sahasrashaH .

naanaavidhaani divyaani naanaavarNaakR^itiini cha .. 11\-5..

 

dhyaanenaatmani pashyanti kechidaatmaanamaatmanaa .

anye saaN^khyena yogena karmayogena chaapare .. 13\-25..

 

yatanto yoginashchainaM pashyantyaatmanyavasthitam.h .

yatanto.apyakR^itaatmaano nainaM pashyantyachetasaH .. 15\-11..

 

naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH .

ubhayorapi dR^ishhTo.antastvanayostattvadarshibhiH .. 2\-16..

 

mayaa prasannena tavaarjunedaM

ruupaM paraM darshitamaatmayogaat.h .

tejomayaM vishvamanantamaadya.n

yanme tvadanyena na dR^ishhTapuurvam.h .. 11\-47..

 

naahaM prakaashaH sarvasya yogamaayaasamaavR^itaH .

muuDho.ayaM naabhijaanaati loko maamajamavyayam.h .. 7\-25..

 

There are many more verses that explore the use of

the word seeing, light, etc.

 

It is interesting that Rishis are known as

Mantra-Drashta, but what they conveyed was through Shruti!

 

On the neurophysiological side, the optic 'nerve' is

is the only one which is a direct extension of the brain.

 

[For translations of the verses, please refer to the files section, or

to one's own copy at home. Hope readers will excuse me for trying to

save the 'band-width'!]

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Regarding NDE's, physiological versus spiritual versus any other aspect that

you care to think about:

 

No matter in what detail my dreaming ego investigates the nature of the

dream that it is currently having, irrespective of whether it involves the

experience of 'waking up' and meeting 'waking characters in an imaginary

waking dimension of reality', is it going to tell me anything whatsoever of

value with regard to the actual nature of the waking state? Even if I become

a world expert (in the dream) about a purported waking state, what good will

this be? And what about if I 'almost' wake up, but not quite, is any

explanation that I can now give to my dream associates likely to be of any

value (to myself or anyone else)?

 

But then this is not quite a valid metaphor is it? Because, in the

discussion that we are actually having, the world in which the NDE person

almost wakes up is not actually turiiya, is it? It is only another alleged

part of vyavahAra. In the metaphor we would have to say that the dreaming

person almost 'wakes up' into another dream - a dream in which dead

dream-people are alive again. It all becomes too silly for words!

 

(That should stir things up a bit!)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis