Unreality of the world: a further analogy

Srinivas Sista sista at ECN.PURDUE.EDU
Fri Jun 20 23:50:23 CDT 1997

I apologize to the list members for the way in which I present my
non-advaita kind of arguments. I am not knowledgeable enough to quote
any of the great teachers of advaita. I am trying to throw in my
impressions which seem pretty intuitive to me(no doubt based on what
I have seen and read).

Allan Curry writes:

>Sure, the mind can create a dream world from its own resources but
>that does not prove it does not draw on something "out there" to
>create its representation of the waking state world. Does it?

Who decides? And I wonder what kind of "proof" you are expecting.
Either you believe yourself(perception,inference) or somebody else
(including books,people,shruti,..etc) or a combination of both. There
is no proof beyond these. The point here is, as long as you choose to
believe, it doesn't matter which one it is. You are still in the realm
of beliefs :-)

>I used the word "state" in quotation marks because I don't know how to
>think of it. I doubt if you are in any position to judge the veracity
>of the non-dual awareness referred to Srinivas, but perhaps you meant
>well by offering your opinion anyway.

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I am judging the veracity
of your experiences. I am sure you would've noticed the "IF" I put in
front of my statement. I cannot say whether you had a headache or not,
leave alone non-dual awareness. I take it that you had the experiences
you reported that you had. I am merely trying to make a few observations
based on what you said.

>This "state" is no more created by thought than a punch in the nose is.

See that is the problem I have with your statements. How come a punch in
the nose is NOT created by thought? If I may draw an analogy to the
computer, you seem to equate the hardware representation(when none of
the software is running) to the non-dual awareness(please excuse me if
this is not the case, I am merely verbalizing my impressions about your
statements).  But the hardware representation is a function of the
hardware! Have you heard of the phenomenon called "phantom limb" which is
pretty popular in medical parlance? Soldiers who got their limbs amputated
in the hospitals still feel that they have those limbs. They do feel
itching/pain etc of the amputated limb(long after amputation) and try to
scratch/soothe etc while they are wide awake.

>As a matter of fact, far from being created by thought,it appears to be
>what remains precisely after thoughts subside. There is no apparent object
>or subject, just simple awareness without boundary.  It is certainly more
>basic than thought because it seems to persist beneath it and it has most
>definitely occured during dreamless sleep. Never the less, this  might just
>be the most basic psychological state and reside on the same ontological
>level as other modes of the brain/mind. Whether or not true non-dual
>awareness has occured, it is a mere belief to say that non-dual awareness
>is the ontological foundation of the universe. The view from *being*
>non-dual awareness reveals no "other" of any kind. That does not prove
>there is no other. It may just *seem* that way and the whole thing might be
>cooked up by the mundane meat of the brain. Sorry. If you've got any proof
>to the contrary, I'd be happy to hear it.

As I said, you are free to postulate the "other" when you are not *being*
non-dual awareness. It is upto you again to "believe" or not whether the
whole thing is cooked up by the meat of the brain. Again, I wonder what
you mean by "proof". If you are looking for additional beliefs, I have
nothing to offer.

>I am intrigued by what you refer to as "recognizing the futility of
>pursuing experiences".  Can you please elaborate on that further?

Sure. Experiences are used to construct beliefs(logic,reason,theories).
Beliefs are used to explain experiences. Looking for a proof, however
exalted it may sound is just a pursuit of an experience. Which is why
I was refering to it as futile(by saying futile I do not imply the
existence of some worthwhile activity).

>A great Zen master (Bankei) doubted his own enlightenment for years
>because he could not find anyone enlightened enough to verify it. He
>toured Japan for decades saying that he wanted to spare anyone else a
>similar discomfort. The record of his teaching is delightful and highly
>recommended. It has the ring of truth for sure... (IMO)(and does not
>contradict anything important in Advaita Vedanta either... :-)

:-) looking for somebody to certify his enlightenment? As though that
is not sufficient he did not find anyone "enlightened enough" to verify
his own. This is some kind of a joke. I really enjoy this. Did he
succeed in establishing a certification procedure to spare others
a similar discomfort?

Srinivas Sista.
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Sat Jun 21 08:28:13 1997
Message-Id: <SAT.21.JUN.1997.082813.PDT.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 08:28:13 PDT
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Maadhavan Srinivasan <maadhavan at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: DOUBTS
Comments: To: ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain


I have some doubts. If u can, please clear them.

What's the difference between Jeevan Muktha and rest of the persons.

Does Jeevan Muktha experience Sorrow.

If a Jeevan Muktha experienced a physical pain in his body , how come he
identify himself with Brahman. (That is, while experiencing physical
pain he identify himself with his physical body.)

What's the difference between Jeevan Muktha and Vidhega Muktha.

With Regards

Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list