[Advaita-l] What If Time Is an Illusion?

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Ravi Kiran prabhuji
Hare Krishna

That is a very good compilation on sushupti.  Thanks for sharing it.  However, bhAshyakAra himself hints that there exists agrahaNAtmaka avidyA in sushupti in mAndUkya kArika bhAshya.  kArika also talks about it while comparing prAjnA with Vishwa and takzasa.  But this jnAnAbhAva type of avidyA is quite distinct from mUlAvidyA or kArNAvidyA or brahmAshrita avidyA which has been propagated by later vyAkhyAnakAra-s.  BTW, this jnAnAbhAva is not at all a hindrance to pUrNatva in sushupti.  Absence of knowledge does not mean that knowledge itself does not exist.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

From: Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 7:02 PM
To: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>; kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>; Advaitin <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What If Time Is an Illusion?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com<mailto:bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>> wrote:


Yes, interesting point and anubhavAtmaka fact as well.  If the waker’s mind is active in sushupti ( deep sleep) then sushupti anubhava would differ from individual to individual just like in waking and dream states where we have different experiences.  But interestingly when someone says :  yesterday night I had a sound sleep, nobody would ask the counter question what that experience is !! ??  The sukha-nidde ( dreamless sound sleep) anubhava is ONE and SAME for all.  Hence as soon as some one shares his experience of deep sleep we straightaway come to know what would be the ‘experience’ of that sound sleep.  This will not be the case when someone says :  I had a dream in my sleep, yesterday, why because karaNa (upAdhi) belongs to individual is different there hence we have to ask about the particulars of that dream state experienced only by that individual and same is the case in waking state.  The eka-rUpa anubhava in sushupti for everyone is because there is neither objects nor the indriya-s exist differently from oneself clarifies bhAshyakAra in bruhadAraNyaka.

True .. by going through bhAshya alone, it is not clear how one can posit avidyA vRttis in sushupti as appropriate .. It will be interesting to know, in any of the bhAshya texts, if there is discussion of avidyA vRittis in sushupti and explained in the context of Sruti ?

In the absence of which, can we safely say - the mention of such by later Acharyas, as different prakriyas ?

In BrihadAranyaka, the bhAshya clearly says ..

that the self is by nature eternal, free, enlightened and pure...the self becomes such only in the state of deep sleep: ‘That is his form—beyond desires (Aticchandā), free from evils, and fearless’ (IV. iii. 21).  the form of the self that is directly perceived in the state of deep sleep is free from ignorance, desire and work. As it is such, i.e. unique, the self desires to enter this state.

this infinite being (self), fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either external or internal. That is his form—in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the self, and which is free from desires and devoid of grief.

If the self remains.intact in its own form in the state of deep sleep, why does it not know itself as ‘I am this,’ or know all those things that are outside, as it does in the waking and dream states? Unity is the reason.  there being no such division among the factors of an action as knowledge and known, whence should particular consciousness arise, or desire manifest itself, in the natural, immutable light of the self?

there is nothing else but the self. How? Because all objects of desire are but the self in this form since there is no ignorance to project the idea of difference. In states other than that of deep sleep, i.e. in the waking and dream states, things are separated, as it were, from the self and are desired as such.

अत्र पितापिता भवति, मातामाता, लोका अलोकाः, देवा अदेवाः, वेदा अवेदाः ।

That it does not see in that state is because, although seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.

Those things that caused the particular visions (of the waking and dream states), viz. the mind- (with the self behind it), the eyes, and forms, were all presented by ignorance as something different from the self. They are now unified in the state of deep sleep, as the individual self has been embraced by the Supreme Self,  hence it knows no particulars. Only when the self is under limitations, do the organs stand as something different to, help it to particular experiences.

सलिल एको द्रष्टाद्वैतो भवति  - It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the world (state) of Brahman, ...: This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.

In deep sleep the self, bereft of its limiting adjuncts, the body and organs, remains in its own supreme light of the Ātman, free from all relations,
That which is infinite is bliss’ (Ch. VII. xxiii. 1) . On a particle of this very bliss, put forward by ignorance, and perceived only during the contact of the organs with their objects, other beings live. Who are they? Those that have been separated from that bliss by ignorance, and are considered different from Brahman

When there is duality, as it were, then one sees something,’ etc. (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15)

But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one see and through what?

Also, in waking state, if it is ignorance that causes this relative existence through those extraneous limiting adjuncts, is that ignorance natural to him, or is it adventitious, like desire, work, etc? If it is the latter, then liberation is possible  (4.3.19 - Brih. bhAshya)

ignorance is not a natural characteristic of the self, for that which is natural to a thing can never be eliminated, as the heat and light of the sun. Therefore liberation from ignorance is possible. ( 4.3.20 - Brih. bhAshya)


Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar