Summary (of "Question", "braHmavid=Krishna?" series of mails)
Jaldhar H. Vyas
jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM
Tue Sep 10 23:33:26 CDT 2002
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Kiran B R wrote:
> > In both there is a subject-object relationship.
> > In both there is a superimposition of the unreal
> > upon the real.
> > In both there is impermanence.
> But in only one state can water freeze on boiling. In
> only one state can I run 100m in 2s. That is called
> the dream-state. So isn't there a difference?
Perhaps but it does answer your original request. If you're going to
change the rules midstream it's not my fault.
> cannot negate this difference. Negating this
> difference will be equivalent to claiming that
> everything the mind conjures up is necessarily
> possible in the world. I mean the world we see in the
> waking state.
You are tailoring your definitions to fit the answer you want to receive.
That will not do.
I mean the world in the waking dream, and deep sleep states. Anyone of
them will do to answer your request. Btw, how you are not asking the
hypothetical Brahmavid to be able to freeze boiling water during deep
> This is strange! I cannot believe you yourself are
> postulating a difference between the dream and waking
Sorry I fell prey to the same mistake I tell others not to make--confusing
the scale at which I am describing. I meant these are the differences in
the vyavaharic state (i.e. for a non-jnani.) For a jnani they are not
different. And you are asking from the viewpoint of a jnani are you not?
> > The Brahmavid sees no difference between God, other
> > selves and himself so
> > from his point of view these differences in state
> > are not relevant. So if
> > he wants to run 100m in 2 seconds or freeze boiling
> > water the dream state
> > is as good a place as any.
> What adherence to the dream state! If indeed the two
> states are equivalent, I want him to do it - run 100m
> in 2s or whatever - in the waking state! Since the
> waking state is as good as the dream state, why talk
> about the dream state so specifically? Why? Why cling
> to the dream-state in this argument?
Because that's where your request can be fulfilled.
> Either everything is under the control of the braHman
> or nothing is.
Again, your framing of the question constrains the answer. I reject the
either/or nature of it. Brahman is totally outside maya. The concept of
maya is superimposed on Brahman by objects of maya itself. However Maya
unlike Brahman is not a single thing but an infinite variety of things.
So we cannot definitively say "Maya is __" the way we can say "Brahman is
___" All we can do is point to particular situations.
> Either the brahman is or nothing is.
control is not a necessary condition for existence.
> (Even in the down-to-earth sense, I don't understand
> why you call the dream-state is something under
> personal control. I don't know about others, but I
> can't dream what I want to dream always!)
But you've been more successful in that than in boiling freezing water
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list