[Advaita-l] Causal Body

Srikrishna Ghadiyaram srikrishna_ghadiyaram at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 3 15:01:30 CDT 2003

Hari Om !!

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> > 

> Yes. The vaasana-s constitue the kaarana shariira -
> causal body- cause
> for suukshma and sthuula shariira-s.  

If vasanas constitute the Karana Sareera, and the
karana sareera is propelling all the time the other
two sareeras, accounting for  the waking behaviour, it
should apply to dream behaviour as well.  But, we seem
to be saying all the time that the dreams are based on
the experiences of waking state, implying without
explicit mention, of this life alone. And vasanas
themselves do not have an independent locus other than
what is called mind. So, mind should exist in sleep.

> > I was commenting in the context of your original
> reply
> > when the idea occurred to me that mind has not
> > disappeared, becaise Priya, Moda, Pramoda vrittis
> are
> > there. But, we do not see kartritva bhaava in
> sleep
> > and we recognise the Happy states on waking up. 
> There lies the difference - In deep sleep - there is
> no recognition of
> the experience either.  

This is not a sufficient argument, because on waking
up we say, "I dreamt", assuming that the dreamer is no
different from the waker, because if it was not my
dream, I should not have known it, just like I do not
know your dream. Similarly, I say, "I slept". If it is
someone else who slept, I can not say, "I slept".

You seem to accept that there is recognition of the
dreamer in that experience. Factually, the dreamer
does not know himself as a dreamer. He knows himself
as a karta or WAKER of that state only.  

Similarly the "Sleeper" is no different from the

In dream state I join 'myself' with the objects of
that state and express myself as a dreamer, in
relation to the dream world. Similarly,  I join myself
with the 'objects of the sleep world and express
myself as a sleepeer. But, the waker is not able to
understand that state because he can not now imagine
that 'objectless' sleep world, just as the waker would
imagine the same 'dream objects' in this waking state
and comprehend the nature of that dreamer. If the
waker can comprehend that objectless state in this
waking state, then he would recognise the sleeper as
well. This does not mean that there is no sleeper or
no experience of sleep. We know and recognise the
dream by reliving or remembering the experiences of
the dream state only. Similarly, now in this wakeful
state, we remember  the happiness of sleep state and
say I was happy in sleep. So, sleep happiness need not
be 'swarupa ananda' alone. Probably that is where
Priya, Moda, Pramoda, vrittis come into picture, along
with accounting for the happiness of the waking and
dream states. These three words have no other
understandable meaning  than the quantity of
joy/happiness they can give (leave aside the anology
of thinking , gaining and enjoying the object of
desire). Also, we know the the happiness is caused by
Punya. I do not remember the sanskrit sloka now, which
says that the happiness of the Punya purushas is
because of their punya phala etc. If it were Svarupa
Ananda it can not be described or limited by Priya,
Moda, pramoda etc. Ofcourse, we can not quantify the
happiness of sleep; neither it is different from day
to day, it is incomparable to happiness of waking
state. The results of the Punya are experienced even
in waking state as joy etc. We know those moments
where we are happy for no reason.

Since we know that 'Waker' and Dreamer are not the
same, we postulate a common-er. Hence the same
common-er should be the Sleep-er as well. So we say
Wake+er, Dream+er, Sleep+er make the three states, and
we say wake, dream, sleep is for the mind.

May be if I can simulate sleep in this waking state,
just like I simulate my dream in this waking state, I
will be 'Realised' !!!

>One can have different
> theories about from a
> waker's point -but those are the theories- The fact
> of the matter is the
> waking mind is making presumptions and conclusions
> about the state where
> it was not there.  'That there is a very subtle mind
> to experience that
> state' is also one theory.  Everybody's "experience"
> is there is not
> even the apparent duality where seer-seen or
> experiencer-experienced
> distinctions are there.  From mind's point, it is
> only an inferential
> conclusion that it slept well - based on the
> knowledge of its absence
> during those moments of the deep sleep. 

Similar is the case about the dream state. It is
described as 'dream' only in the waking state.

It is not a conclusion of mind. How can I conclude
that I did not exist ?? So, the conclusion has to be
about the mind by the one who knows all the states of
the observed. Otherwise, we may become a Budhist of
flicker consciousness theory.

> you. If the mind is not there - there is no ego
> either, since that is
> part of the suukshma shariira.  

Your above statement may not hold good. Mind itself is
EGO-ness vritti (ahamkara) behind EGO. So, you can not
say if Mind is not there ....

>  In the pure kaarana shariira happiness is only the
> absence of all
> duality - and the duality arises with vRittii-s.

I am familiar with this view/proposition. But, the
Punya purushas natural happiness is not because of any
absence of duality. We know happy people in the world
and none of them are in any non-daul state in common
life. Karana Sareera 'functions' in all the three

> Even in jnaani's mind
> there is duality - but there is no misunderstanding
> that the duality is
> reality.  His identification has shifted from the
> name and form of
> vRitti to substantive - consciousness that I am. 

This is what I was saying jnani's happiness is not
based on Priya. Moda, pramoda vrittis. So, the
happiness of sleep need not be svarupa ananda. It
might just be vrittigata punya phala.

> It also
> > gives me an idea that though Aham Vritti is the
> first
> > vritti arising before idam vrittis, bhoktritva
> vritti
> > may exist without Aham vritti or even in deep
> sleep
> > aham vritti is not gone (all confusing).
> VRitti is nothiing but a thought and thoughts
> constitute the mind.  As
> along as I am thinking, I have not slept.  Hence
> there is no VRitti that
> we know of in deep sleep state. 'aham vRitti' - aham
> vRitti is nothiing
> but locus of the idam vRitti - both constitute the
> mind that split into
> seer and seen duality.  
>There is no seer when there
> is no seen.  

Did you say it reverse ?

>I donot
> take the role of seer any more - I am - I am - it is
> not a thought but
> it is inspite of presence or absence of a thought.
> It is non-duality in
> spite of duality. Hence presence or absence of
> duality is not opposite
> to non-duality. One should be clear about this.  

By the above statements it can only mean 'Witness'
attitude. It does not mean 'I am'; It would mean 'I am
witness' of presence or absence of vrittis. Probably,
'I am' is beyond that.

>  The
> > difficulty is it does not explain 'Unhappiness'.
> One
> > possibility is that 'Unhappiness' is not a mental
> > Vritti at all !!! ??? 
> Yes you hit on the nail.  Unhappiness is the absence
> of vRitti - absence
> of duality. Happiness that I am is inspite of
> presence or absence of
> vRitti; and that is the knowledge too since sat is
> chit and chit is
> ananda. There is indentity and these not are
> attibutes of I.  

I meant may be "Unhappiness" is not a vritti, but
"Happiness" is a vritti, becasue Swami D, said
bhoktrutva of Sukha is Karana Sareera.

Om Namo Narayanaya !!!


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list