[Advaita-l] Difference between waking and dream

[balu davey]

Sri Sastriji,
Pranams & Deepavali greetings.
Your statement even the Maha Vakya ' I am Brahman ' is valid only in
vyavaharika  state is cent per cent true. Non-duality(advaita) is the
natural/unmanifest state, substratum.  Absolute is the substratum for
the empirical and phenmenal stand points/experience. In existence
alone things appear to disappear. In silence alone sound,whether music
or noise, is born to disappear.
pranams once again

On 22/10/06, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In your original post you had stated that from the standpoint of absolute
> > reality both waking and dream states are mithya by which I understand that
> > their reality or existence is only relatively real and not absolutely
> real.
> > That they are subject to arrival and departure and are not nitya.
> >
> > The above statement of yours - that they are mithya - appears to me as
> > more correct than the one you make in the next post - that they do not
> have
> > any existence. If they do not have any existence how can there be any
> > experience of them at all?
> >
> > Where am I going wrong in my understanding? Would be grateful if you could
>
>  clarify.
> >
>
> praNAms
>
> venkat
>
>
>
> >From the pAramArthika standpoint there is nothing but Brahman. So SrI
> Sankara says in daSaSlokI—
>
> na jAgranna svapnako vA sushuptiH--  I have no waking, dream, or deep sleep.
> These are no doubt experienced by us, but that is in the vyAvahArika state
> in which there is ignorance. jIvahood itself is only due to ignorance. When
> ignorance is removed, there is no jIvahood (jIvatva). There is brahman
> alone.  All transactions, all states and all statements are valid only from
> the vyAvahArika standpoint. Even the mahAvAkya 'I am brahman' is valid only
> in the vyAvahArika state. The statement 'I am brahman' implies that there is
> one entity thought to be 'I' and another entity called brahman. Their
> identity is declared. This means that what was considered as 'I' in the
> empirical state has no separate existence, but it is only brahman wrongly
> thought to be'I'.  It is like saying "The  snake is only a rope", which
> means that the snake never existed, but was wrongly thought to be existing.
> Similary 'I' as a separate individual never existed in reality, but only
> brahman was always there. Of course as long as we are in ignorance, the
> empirical world is real to us, just as the snake is real until the rope is
> known.
>
> S.N.Sastri
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>


-- 
baludavey