An Interesting article - any response?

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Anand wrote:

>>    The proponents of "Jeeva-Brahma-Aikya" (identity of Jeeva and
>> Brahman) invoke the example of dreams to prove their hypothesis.
>> However their proof is all wrong as we shall see.
>
>   First misconception. Jeeva-brahma-aikya is not something that is
>   established by logic alone. It has basis in Shruti. Many Shruti
>    statements affirm it. Further, whenever there is a conflict between
>   logic and what the shruti says, the latter prevails.

Actually, isn't what is confirmed by logic _and_ scripture alone which is
correct? This is the view of gauDapaada in the GK. Otherwise one can certainly
find passages on creation.

>  There are serious logical flaws in *this* argument. First, it assumes
>  that the relationship between the "absolute" state and the waking
>  state is exactly like the relationship between the waking state
>  and the dream state. How do we know this? In other words,
>  variety in dream state  implies   variety in waking state
>  does not necessarily imply
>  variety in waking state  implies variety in absolute state

Quite correct. The whole purpose of the analysis of the 3 states in the GK is
to show that there is no fair way of differentiating what we call a mental state
(i.e, we call the dream a mental state on waking up) and what we experience in
the waking state. There is a detailed discussion in GK II and the bhaashhya by
the aachaarya on it. The purpose is to merely urge the aspirant to look at the
unifying thread in all 3 states, viz, the experiencer. More often than not this
point is lost, and people think that the turiiya is similar to some waking state
and the waking state then becomes a dream and so on. Obviously turiiya cannot be
described in any real sense, we are told by shruti that it is beyond words and
thinking. This mistake is made even by advaitins, eg, Dr Radhakrishnan who
criticizes gauDapaada after completely misunderstanding him.

This method of analysis of the 3 states is explicitly supported in the
maaNDuukya, bR^ihadaaraNyaka, kaivalya, nR^isimha taapaniiya and a host of
others. Logic also dictates that our whole experience be taken into account
during investigation. The rest, creation etc, are for people who have not got
rid of their prejudices about the waking state. Advaita alone conforms to both
logic and scripture. Otherwise, if one accepts passages on creationism per se,
without conforming to logic, which dictates the analysis of the 3 states (and
also supported elsewhere by shruti), one has to do verbal calisthenics to
explain passages like 'tatvamasi' and 'aham brahmaasmi'.

One request, Can we desist from posting other people's messages on some other
list here? It seems to be against netiquette if we don't get permission from the
author first (in this case Dr Guruprasad). I am saying this because he needs to
have a chance to respond to criticisms of his post, and then he may feel
constrained by the list motto "discussing advaita with reverence".

>  Maybe according to PuraaNas and other fairy tales. But I seriously doubt
>  if the Vedas say so.

Ajaati is the true import of the vedas. As gauDapaada says the passages on
creationism are present to lead the ignorant gently to the truth.

Ramakrishnan.