Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Dream

  1. #51
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    181

    Post Re: Dream

    Namaste Yajvan,

    There are six granthi in the SaTcakram, and every such saMdhyA is a veritable SaNDhI, but the first five conjunctions are premature sightings of the jyeSTha brahmayoni, whose perfect SaNDhI is the ultimate saMdhyA, which is nirgrantha, providing eternal repose and no return.

    “Lucid dreaming” occurs in taijasa, but “restful alertness” occurs in vaishvAnara, perhaps gaining the AjñA of maNipUra cakra, but not yet the prAjñA of AjñA cakra.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Age
    43
    Posts
    79
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: Dream

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    Namaste,


    Compared with taijasa (dreaming), prAjña (deep sleep) is even “closer” to samAdhi, but it is not possible to reach samAdhi from unconsciousness.

    The teaching of svAmI lakshmanjU is not advaitavAda; rather, his “parAdvaita” is a kind of dvaitAdvaita or vishiSTAdvaita vAda.

    Neither jAgrat nor svapna, alone, is any nearer to samAdhi, but the yoga is (of course) found in their twin, the jAgratsvapnau (“wakeful sleep” or “lucid dreaming”). And the parAdevI may be found in this jAgratsvapnau ~ although parAdevI is bhairavI, who is only the mAyA of bhairava. Such shAktopAya occurs in taijasa, and it may lead one to brahmA and brAhmI (i.e. to nArAyaNa), but not to brahma (or nara). shAmbhavopAya, however, may lead one directly to advaitam.

    The bhaNDasura is the bandhapAsha and the pashubandha.
    Namaste Shri Sarabhanga,

    Can you please tell us what is the difference between shAktopAya and shAmbhavopAya in terms of sAdhana? From what you mention I take it that shAktopAya is one of the pravR^itti mArga and shAmbhavopAya to be nivR^itti mArga. How exactly are they different in terms of sAdhana? How they are similar, and how they are different?

    ~RL

  3. #53
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Age
    43
    Posts
    79
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: Dream

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    By saying that "Seamless Oneness" is at Turiya level, I never meant that Turiya was ever absent. How can it be claimed that the sea is absent when the waves obsure the vision of sea (because the waves are there because of the sea) ? So, I agree with your statement that "Turya is never missing but is hidden".
    While the analogy of sea and waves is very commonly cited by Advaitins to explain how Brahman 'becomes' many - it should be noted that this vAdA is that of bhedAbheda vAdA which has been explicitly refuted by Sri ShankarAchArya in his BSB.

    In advaita vedanta, there is only vivarta, and dualty is only an appearance of the one divided Absolute, and no actual transformation of the sea to waves is admissible. Therefore, any transformation must be restricted to the level of a 'thought' or consciousness.( the substance known as Brahman has never undergone any transformation)

    Atma has never been different from Brahman, and not even separated like the wave from the sea. It is still used as an example nevertheless, though such an example is more suitable for the dvaitAdvaita vAdA.

    ~RL

  4. #54
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    359

    Re: Sarveshvara

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    Namaste,
    And note that “pragnya” is a rather confusing word, since it does not distinguish between three quite different conceptions ~ prajñA, prAjñA, and prAjña. So, without further clarification, the term “pragnya” is bound to cause misunderstanding and endless disagreement of opinions.
    Namaste Sarabhanga Ji and Others,

    The Third Sarvesvara is praGYaanaghana evaanandamayo as per Mandukya. The indescribable Fourth, the Self (called as Samaan as indicatory but really Neti-Neti) is viGYaanaghana as per Brihadaranyaka. Both are ghana (without any parting) and non-dual.

    Actually there should not be any confusion in understanding the distinction. The Fourth is the revealer of Consciousness in intellect, whereas the Third is the revealed (pra -- going ahead) consciousness in the intellect.

    So, Self is the being whose revelation to us is Ishwara (who is nothing but Self revealed to intellect). Iswara, as if (on account of Avidya), is further differentiator in Hiranyagarbha of subtle forms and names and in AgniVaisvanaro of gross forms and names. Upanishads clarify that knowing the third fully means knowing the Self --- yes. (And Upanishads also teach dancing with women in Brahmaloka, that is in the domain of Hiranyagarbha -- the father of Gross Sun. Upanishads do teach that reaching the domain of Hiranyagarbha ensures a condition of no-return for the Bandha Jiva. From the world of Hiranyagarbha, a special Purusha picks up the jivas and takes them to Param Brahman).

    On understanding this, one can make a decision that there is absolutely no creation and that the Self is absolutely not an agent of Work or Creation. All this is simple projection on a cinema screen, as if.

    Buddhists, in general, do not make a distinction between the revealer of conciousness (the being-the Self-the immutable) and the revealed consciousness and thus miss out theoretically on the immutable. Buddha had stated a practical difficulty -- relating to strengethening of false identification of sadhaka's ego 'i' with the true I-I, (praGYaanaghana) -- for not bringing in the distinction between the revealer and the revealed.

    VA proponents on the other hand say that Consciousness itself is modifiable as opposed to immutabilty in Advaita, which uses a term called as transfiguration rather than saying that "a pot is a modification of consciousness".

    After breaking head for many nights, I have now come to a near settled comprehension, that condition of the Self being Samaan, immutable, and free of karma cannot be supported by any other thought system but Ajativada (but of course who can say anything with certainty about Him).


    I hope this is helpful for some readers.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 20 January 2008 at 07:53 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    181

    Post Re: Dream

    Namaste RL,

    parAdevI is shaivI mukha, as the means of approaching shiva, and shAktopAya leads one to this parAdevI (bhairavI). So, if that first meeting is not taken further (to perfect unity, without any distinction of devI or deva) then the advaita brahma is not yet attained. shAmbhavopAya, however, leads one directly to bhairava (shiva or brahma). The difference is that of attaining sattvA in relation to guNa as opposed to sattvam beyond any relation, or knowing AUM by all its parts together rather than as a perfect whole without parts. And in effect, it is the subtle difference between attaining nArAyaNa and attaining nara. Indeed, it is the difference of prAjñA and prajñA.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    181

    Post Re: Sarveshvara

    Namaste Atanu,

    The sarveshvara is prajñAghana (“nothing but intelligence”) and the turya is vijñAnaghana (also “nothing but intelligence”), but there is an important difference in the nature of that intelligence.

    nara = sharva = sarva = prajñAna
    nArAyaNa = bhava = sarveshvara = prAjñA


    ghana indicates “a striker, killer, or destroyer” and thus “slaying” or “an iron club, mace, or hammer”. And ghana is “compact, solid, material, hard, firm, dense, coarse, gross, viscid, thick, full, densely filled, dark, deep, complete, all, auspicious, or fortunate”.

    ghana refers to any “compact mass” (especially an unborn foetus), or to any “collection, multitude, quantity, or cloud”. And ghanA is “three dimensional”, either as a solid body or a diffusion or extension.

    In the case of prajñAghana and vijñAnaghana, the suffix indicates “nothing but”.

    The hiraNyagarbha is prajñAghana, but this pure intelligence is dependent on individuality and becoming; while prajñAna itself (which is vijñAnaghana) is the undivided essence of being.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    58
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4717

    Re: Dream

    Namaste Rajlakhsmi,

    Quote Originally Posted by Rajalakshmi View Post
    While the analogy of sea and waves is very commonly cited by Advaitins to explain how Brahman 'becomes' many - it should be noted that this vAdA is that of bhedAbheda vAdA which has been explicitly refuted by Sri ShankarAchArya in his BSB.

    In advaita vedanta, there is only vivarta, and dualty is only an appearance of the one divided Absolute, and no actual transformation of the sea to waves is admissible. Therefore, any transformation must be restricted to the level of a 'thought' or consciousness.( the substance known as Brahman has never undergone any transformation)

    Atma has never been different from Brahman, and not even separated like the wave from the sea. It is still used as an example nevertheless, though such an example is more suitable for the dvaitAdvaita vAdA.

    ~RL
    That sea-wave example is for visual concept for making one see the essence of a certain logic which is not flawless but good enough. We can't give any correct example of the Absolute which is flawless. All the words we know (or can create) are (or will be) meant to describe things which we can know or can compare with what we know through our senses, intellect & mind. The Absolute is beyond all that & hence It cannot be described in words. But then how to discuss without words ?

    Regards
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  8. #58
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Age
    43
    Posts
    79
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: Dream

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste Rajlakhsmi,



    That sea-wave example is for visual concept for making one see the essence of a certain logic which is not flawless but good enough. We can't give any correct example of the Absolute which is flawless. All the words we know (or can create) are (or will be) meant to describe things which we can know or can compare with what we know through our senses, intellect & mind. The Absolute is beyond all that & hence It cannot be described in words. But then how to discuss without words ?

    Regards
    Yes, this is also the reason why debates regarding the nature of Brahman are rather pointless.

    The better analogy used in Advaita is to treat Absolute as an object( just for assumption) and consider dualty as reflection of this object( causeless reflection) in mAyA and avidyA respectively.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    359

    Re: Sarveshvara

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    Namaste Atanu,

    The sarveshvara is prajñAghana (“nothing but intelligence”) and the turya is vijñAnaghana (also “nothing but intelligence”), but there is an important difference in the nature of that intelligence.
    -
    The hiraNyagarbha is prajñAghana, but this pure intelligence is dependent on individuality and becoming; while prajñAna itself (which is vijñAnaghana) is the undivided essence of being.
    Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

    Yes. Ghana, as most Hindi/Bengali speaking will know is dense, which when prefixed by 'Intelligence', which is spiritual, can only mean partless pure intelligence. It is Shankara himself who distinguishes prajñAghana as REVEALED PURE INTELLIGENCE and vijñAnaghana as the REVEALER OF PURE INTELLIGENCE (or the knower).

    Regarding the second point, I think, Advaitins usually equate dense Prajna (microcosm) to Ishwara (macrocosm) and Taijjassa (microcosm) to Hiranyagarbha (macrocosm) -- the the aggregate of all light bodies.

    Regards,

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Age
    43
    Posts
    79
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: Sarveshvara

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Regarding the second point, I think, Advaitins usually equate dense Prajna (microcosm) to Ishwara (macrocosm) and Taijjassa (microcosm) to Hiranyagarbha (macrocosm) -- the the aggregate of all light bodies.

    Regards,

    Om
    Yes.

    Turya is intelligence without self awareness - it is awareness itself ('am')
    Ishvara is intelligence with self awareness and undivided.('I am Brahman')
    Hiranyagarbha is Prakriti and is multiplicity.('I am Jagat')

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •