|
|
| Hi Friends,
A small article on Mandukya Upanishad...
Mandukya Upanishad
===============
Mandukya Upanishad forms a part of Atharva Veda. This beautiful work consists of just twelve mantras. However, in these twelve mantras it captures the essence of all the Upanishads. The Upanishad talks of the supreme word Om and three states of living beings. It proclaims that Om is same as Bramhan and is beyond the three states.
http://www.yogavision.in/articles/80e3f708-9d98-49e3-8d2f-a5e587458be5.aspx
|
|
| |
|
| Thank you very much.
tasya vaachakaH pranavaH. tajjapasdarthabhaavanaM. -- Patanjali Chapter 1. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Bipin Joshi.
As always, very interesting.
Jonathon
|
|
| |
|
| "The second state of living beings is dreaming state. When we dream our sense organs are active in the dream. In the dream, we see, hear and also feel touch of objects as if they are real. Similarly, we walk, talk and do work in dream state also. Thus our organs of action are also active in the state of dream. This may sound strange to many people. However, ask this question to yourself - who sees the dream? No doubt the "I" factor residing in each of us sees the dream. So if "I" is participating in the dream, it is "I" whose senses are involved in the dream. You may argue that there are dreams in which "I" doesn't take part at all. Say for example, you see a dream in which a tiger is killing a bison. Where is "I" in this case? It is the "I" who witnesses this incidence. Thus "I" was "seeing" the incidence silently."
Thank you for this posting, Bipin Joshi. I'm curious about the dream state as it occurs that even though we are conscious of sense stimulation in dreams, the stimulus to the senses is not obvious. Granted, the witness, if you will, is "seeing", but the reality seen is not consistent in time or space. It may be something from our past or future we see. Actions may be here or there in a moment, outside of time. I wonder if the witness is utilizing the dreamer's sense organs, or if the witness has these capacities also.
If the latter, then this would constitute a level of proof of the witness.
Michael |
|
| |
|
| Dear dmbones:
During the dream, only things which are perceived are those which are in the Memory.
The Witnesser only witnesses the perception which is perceived by Chitta (subtlest part of human senses). But, due to ignorance witnesser gets involved in the perception when the Chittam is disturbed. |
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2007-04-12 9:38 PM
Dear dmbones:
During the dream, only things which are perceived are those which are in the Memory.
The Witnesser only witnesses the perception which is perceived by Chitta (subtlest part of human senses). But, due to ignorance witnesser gets involved in the perception when the Chittam is disturbed.
Hi Neel,
Intellectually I agree that disturbances to the Chitta and the memory would constitute the 'stuff' of dreams. But I now have experience of what seems to be future events in dreams. This is not clear, of course, but seems to be the 'deja vue' experience: "I've been here, seen and done this before...." all of which will have been 'seen and done' in an earlier dream. If dreaming can 'see the future' then the dreamer is not limited to the constraints of time, the sense organs may not be always involved in the dreaming (as the events have not yet materially manifested), and the Witness (also free of space and time constraints) exists beyond the mind's experience and knowledge, as well as within it.
I lack your Vedic philosophical experience. Thank you for your patience.
Michael |
|
| |
|
| Good comment dmbones. All the future events are only future as far as the expression is considered. Otherwise, there is no past, present and future. Memory is made of past experiences. But those experiences have relation to the future events. And, therefore, the expression of those memories as expressed in the dream is related to the future. However, you will notice that whereas the memory of the past experiences is quite exact in the dream when fully mapped or understood, the dream of the future events is only approximate. |
|
| |
Mandukya Upanishad
