An Interesting article - any response?
poulsen at DK-ONLINE.DK
Sat Dec 7 16:25:33 CST 1996
>> ....(without an umpire there may be little hope that
>> the cat be made to conform to the ancient rules - and become
>> a pigeon.)
> Or vice versa, unfortunately.
You would have to sharpen your perception a bit, this excercise
in simultaneous conducted discussions seems to be wearing
you down :-)
>> Anyway dear Shrisha Rao, we must
>> see if we can fend for ourselves, even with the prospect
>> of facing dualistic mathematicians (or vice versa?), and all sorts
>> of impressive entities.
>I beg your pardon? I don't understand.
I thought these mathematicians to be something out of the ordinary
in terms of mental capacity?
Forget it, the serious part begins now.
>...the "dvaitee" does not hold any state "in special regard,"
>and would in fact completely deny that there is a difference between
>the states as such (in being different states of reality rather than
>different states of cognition of a continuous reality).
>> A) From the standpoint of the human entity the dream state is
>> pervaded by the waking state, its creations are dependant on it
>> and is finally brought to a stop by the apparent reality of the
>> waking state - the last thought-forms of the dream may even
>> be caused directly by interference from the waking state (like
>> an alarm-clock.)
>Again, I'm sorry if I'm a little dense, but I don't gather your point
But the meaning hopefully? This was the simple part. Some people
would ascribe a higher reality to the waking state because of the
above, but. -
These four human states of consciousness are the
correspondences to four states of being which constitute the
framework of vedic thought. Furthermore they are associated
with four human principles or bodies. In philosophy the terms
macrocosmic and microcosmic are sometimes employed
to differ between the universal and human principles.
This correspondence is vital to the understanding of, at
least, advaita philosophers. When Sureshvara in his
commentary on the Dakshinamurti Stotra inserts the
nihilistic views of buddhists regarding nirvana and let
the shlokas treating of sushupti answer it, this is
employing the principle of analogy. Maybe Dvaita
philosophers works differently, I would not know.
>> B) From the standpoint of the ishvara the case is reversed,
>> it is the state of the logos, the maya prakriti, which form
>> the basis of our objective world, the nature of the 3 gunas.
>Ishvara is not subject to dreaming or deep sleep at all, is He? But
>perhaps you meant something else?
Is this a trap - subject and ishvara?
"Like the sun veiled by the cloud, parameshvara, the supreme
lord himself, quite deluded by maya, appears to be of
limited power and limited knowledge"
Dakshinamurti stotra 1.19
The subjects here are the jiivas, the jiivabhuutam.
We are dealing with the correspondences to the dream sleep, and
these jiivas are in their subjective state - between two incarnations.
These jiivas are essentially one on the plane above this - the real
plane of the ishvara. This is the prakriti of the ishvara, where the
maya shakti rules.
The two lower states, the subjective and objective (corresponding
to the dream and waking states of man) are the fields for one type
of cycle - the samsara, a self-exisiting, causal change between the
subjective and objective.
But there is a higher cycle, the evolutionary. In its beginning it is
the descent or creation from the higher planes to the lower. It is
also the differentiation of prakriti, including the jiivabhuutam. In its
end or ascending arc it is the path of the jiiva out of bondage and
back to - the one reality. These are the pravrittimarga and
The reason for the shruti to state that the sushupti is the path
to knowledge is that there is no samsara here, its correspondence
is the paramaarthika (and for that sake one of the buddhist states
Following one you will return, Shrisha Rao, following the other
you will not return, ityarthaH.
>> On the involutionary arc of the cycle the planes or states
>> are reversed compared to the evolutionary. The waking state
>> is merely the basis (neither must the three aspects be confused
>> with the unity behind them.)
>Sorry for sounding continually stupid, but we're clearly on different
>wavelengths here. I don't seem to catch what you're saying, and some
>of the terminology/paradigms used ("involutionary arc of the cycle"?)
>is completely unrelated to anything I've ever seen.
OK let's try some simpler stuff.
What am I saying is that not only the waking state but this physical world
and the physical body must be taken in account when deciding the degree of
Each higher plane is more subtle, its existences of longer duration -
and more real than its lower counterpart.
In the last analysis it is but the Absolute which is real, something
finite cannot be absolutely real. Being not absolutely real it can be at
best relatively real (and relatively unreal.) But the three other states
found to have varying degrees of reality, based on their more or less
The hardcore logician (like Nagarjuna) will find them all illusive,
the opposite view will find them real in a relative sense, at best real for
the time being (the latter a rather vague and inconsistent position -
the word "real" does not really fit in.)
>> When Krishna takes the standpoint of the ishvara he distinctly
>> states that his prakriti is higher than that of the gross elements -
>> the objective.
>...uhhh, and so?
Higher in this respect will mean more real (not a position in space!),
if not for other reasons then for its implication with the ishvara rather
than 3 material gunas. That the highest of the three is by far the most
real, aught to be beyond dispute. Please remember that deep sleep in
the average person is a vague image of what that state may as an
state of continual existence.
Your view of equal reality ,using the human consciousness as an
example, will make any confused, agnostic delusions as perceptive of
reality, as the ideas created by the spiritual consciousness
>> Such is the case viewed from both sides.
>-- which, rather unfortunately, is opaque from both to me.
I've made a second attempt, can do nothing more than try. I, being
somewhat acquainted with many systems of thought - but not the
dvaita - are searching for arguments blindfolded. I sincerely hope we
are working from roughly the same basis!
Furthermore you need not search for points of argument in all write,
the more you fail to understand, the more I feel the need to
illustrate the subjects with examples. If you still have no clue to
what I'm sayng, it may be best to end the debate,
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list