Summary (of "Question", "braHmavid=Krishna?" series of mails)

Kiran B R kiranbr at ROCKETMAIL.COM
Mon Sep 9 10:56:08 CDT 2002

Thanks for changing the "Subject" back to the right
one...I wanted to change the "To" field but changed
something else:-)

> Yes it did, I'm so sorry.

No fact, it's good once in a while to
forget writing Jaggannathji says - there's
more to life than emails!

> 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? We
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.

> The difference is the world of the waking state is
> caused by God and is
> shared amongst all the jivas while the world of the
> dream state, is
> caused by individual jivas and is known to
> themselves only.

This is strange! I cannot believe you yourself are
postulating a difference between the dream and waking

What's more, you, who started out to show that the
dream state is as good as the waking state, and that
freezing water by boiling in one is equivalent to
doing it in another - are now saying that the dream
state is caused by the jivas and that the waking state
is caused by someone else. Your initial poser - "Isn't
the dream state enough for you? If not why not?" -
contradicts with this position.

> 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?

> In fact perhaps we can define the dream state as
> that portion of Maya
> which is under personal control and the waking state
> as that which is
> outside our control.

Either everything is under the control of the braHman
or nothing is. Either the brahman is or nothing is.

(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!)


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list