[Advaita-l] Self-knowledge

[Satyan Chidambaran]

Amuthan <aparyap at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
  
  Namaste shrI Amuthan,
  
  > *all* experiences also includes deep sleep (suShupti).
  > there in no way except by nirvikalpaka samAdhi that
  > the truth spoken by the shruti-s can be seen during
  > suShupti.
  
  An understanding of sleep doesn't require NS. An understanding of sleep  just requires one to see that the truth of the sruti statements  regarding sleep via analysis in the *sUksma buddhi*. 
  
  I slept well is everyones experience. On waking up, the one who says I  slept well must have been present in sleep also. One cannot recall  another's memory. Hence the continuity of the "I" must have been there  in sleep. One has to see that the assertion of the sruti cannot be  contradicted by any other pramAna. 
  
  If I existed in sleep and I experienced total peace, then it implies  that the "I" lacks nothing. This pokes a serious hole in the worldly  logic that all of my desires should be fulfilled for me to be happy.  This is in fact enough to show that I do not require to fulfil any  desires in order to be happy. I do not need any external crutches to be  happy. That happiness must be my nature.
  
  avasthatraya viveka in vedAnta doesn't require you to be asleep or in  NS when doing sleep analysis because by definition, if you were in  either, you couldn't do the analysis since the instrument of analysis  is inoperational. One is expected to be in waking state to do that  analysis. And what is the locus of that analysis but the buddhi?
  
  BTW, I ignored to respond to you KU Chapter 3.1.13 quote reproduced here:
  
  yacched vAnmanasi prajnah tad yacchejjnAna Atmani |
  
  jnAnam Atmani mahati niyacchet tad yacchecchanta Atmani || KU 1.3.13
  
  "The discriminative one should resolve the speech into the mind. He  should resolve that mind into the intellect. He should resolve the  intellect into mahat (hiranyagarbha). He should resolve that (mahat)  into the tranquil Atma"
  
  There are two kinds of laya: "bhAva poorvaka laya" and "vichAra  poorvaka laya". The former requires a physical resolution. The latter  requires a resolution by vichAra. This verse doesn't require you to  experience the resolution of the mind in the buddhi and the buddhi in  mahat using "bhAva poorvaka laya". It requires you to see the truth of  that vakya with the "subtle intellect" using kArana kArya vichAra and  vyashti samashti vichAra which is generally outside the scope of this  discussion. The mind is the cause of speech etc because speech is  sustained and directed by the mind. The buddhi is indeed the cause of  the mind. The conclusions in the buddhi affect the emotions in the  mind. The effects must inhere and resolve in their causes. Hence they  resolve in their causes. This is based on vichAra in the *buddhi*.
  
  In fact, if you look at the previous verse:
  
  esa sarveshu bhUteshu, gUdhotma na prakAsate |
  
  drsyate tvagryayA buddhyA sUksmayA suksmadarsibhih || KU 1.1.12
  
  "Being Hidden in all beings, this Atma is not evident. However, it can  be seen by the people of subtle vision with a sharp, subtle intellect"
  
  The use of "buddhi" isn't coincidental here.
  
  > and what makes you think that *everyone* 'chasing'
  > nirvikalpaka samAdhi 'fancies the truth in only
  > certain experiences and misses it in the rest of the
  > experiences'??? that is certainly not correct.
  > *please* see the other mail where MS clearly shows the
  > limitations of a mere attainment of nirvikalpaka
  > samAdhi.
  
  There is no issue if the NS is a byproduct of the knowledge,
  in which case it doesn't matter whether there is NS or not,
  what primarily matters is that the knowledge is there. If MS talked
  about a bramhavit, such a person wouldn't chase NS. Chasing implies
  a sense of incompleteness. If he is complete, why would he chase something?
  NS may happen, which is fine. NS may not happen, which is also fine.  That would be the attitude of someone who sees completeness in all  situations.
  
  The knower of bramhan will never chase NS or any experience for that  matter. A sishya in advaita vedAnta will also not chase NS because he  need not. Why chase something that is neither necessary nor sufficient,  especially when he is trying to get established in the knowledge that  truth is available in all experiences? He would be contradicting  himself by chasing a special experience.
  
  > please elaborate on what you mean by nididhyAsanam.
  
  I could write a little bit here. However, I can direct you to a book  that I think will save me some typing because the author has already  done good justice. Please see Section 23.
  
  http://www.katha.org/Academics/Advaita-PT-IIIB.html
  
  regards,
  --Satyan