Venkatraman.Chandrasekaran at NOKIA.COM Venkatraman.Chandrasekaran at NOKIA.COM
Fri Sep 6 12:30:46 CDT 2002

Dear Ashish,
Still I think there is an unclarity.
I think it can get subjective to one's experience. But only one opinion can 
be True in this matter. But anyway I will try again to present what I feel:

Since memory can't be independent of time, you can't have an imprint of 
timelessness in the antakaraNa. But how do we realise that we were blacked-out or 
in deep-sleep? It is because the intellect immediately comes to the fore upon 
waking up and recognising the situation being different now from what it was
before, it cognizes the fact through extrapolation. It is not due to any memory 
imprints. As I said in an earlier mail, antakaraNa is the medium on which imprints
are made. In its absence (as in deep-sleep or coma) there can't be imprints. Only
aid is intellect (aided by ever existing consciousness) upon waking.

But again, this doesn't in anyway disprove the presence of Brahman
in all states, in case you are holding on your opinion because
of the risk of refutation of this Truth.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Ashish Chandra [mailto:ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Questions
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:38:29 -0700, 
> Venkatraman.Chandrasekaran at NOKIA.COM
> wrote:
> >  What I was trying to tell is, in the absence of 
> antakaraNa, consciousness
> >alone cannot cause an imprint which is the case when in 
> deep-sleep or in
> >coma. In dream-state, mind is active and so we have the memory of our
> >experience. But in deep-sleep there is nothing to illumine 
> really. And so
> >no imprints can be left. Memory can't be independent of 
> time. Since in
> >deep-sleep and coma one plunges into a timeless space, there 
> is nothing
> >to imprint.
> >
> If I understand you correctly, then there would be no 
> rememberance of the
> deep sleep state - not even the affirmation that "I did not 
> know anything"
> or "I don't remember anything". I am not saying that this 
> happened to the
> consciousness; rather, mind percieved its own absence because 
> memory was
> absent. How did it percieve its absence (or dormancy)? How 
> did it know that
> its modifications were absent? That is the print that is left on the
> antahkarana that can (perhaps) tell us that the antahkarana 
> is not always
> around.
> Please do correct me if I have wrongly interpreted you.
> ashish

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list