‘Engagement’

You stated that not infrequently it seems as if you’re still “engaged” with the waking state.

Take time to contemplate the following point:

• Strange to say, Advaita Vedanta states that this sense of engagement hinges upon the imputation of reality to the waking state. It really “does feel” as if this is the world, in which real beings live out their very real lives.

And what seems to follow from taking “all this” to be real?

• It seems as if “all this” really matters.
• It seems as if I need to do some things, enjoy others, etc.
• It seems, in brief, as if I’m really participating in a real life (my own) in a real world (that independently exists) with real others, who also have real lives in which their real problems are playing themselves out.

If this interpretation is correct, ghen what’s so neat about it is that all we have to do is to examine one of the following fundamental questions:

1. What is real?
2. What is ego?

The first takes us into Atmananda, the second into Ramana Maharshi.

Let’s look more closely at the first question.

Well, What Is the Standard of Reality?

In Advaita Vedanta, X is real just in case

• a) X is changeless,
• b) X is self-conscious or self-luminous (i.e., X can shine “by its own light”), and
• c) X is self-existent (i.e., not dependent on any other thing for its existence)

Y is unreal just in case

• a) Y is changing, or
• b) Y is jada (not self-conscious; inert, “dumb”), or
• c) Y’s appearance depends upon the existence of something else.

How Do We Seem That The Waking And Dream States Are Unreal?

A) There are many ways, but here’s one:

• Let the gross realm (i.e., physical objects existing in space-time) be regarded as “Channel 1.”
• Let the subtle realm–thoughts, feelings, and energy (prana)–be regarded as “Channel 2.”
• Let the “plane of Consciousness” be regarded as “Channel 3.” 

B) Try to get a good experiential feel for 3 things:

• One, C1 is very different from C2, and both are very different from C3.
  • That is, play around with “changing the channels” until the above is clear to you.
• Two, C1 never makes contact with C2; nor can it. C2 can never make contact with C3. 
• Three, accepting the principle that “like can only know like,” see, experientially, how the subtle can only “know” the subtle and that Consciousness can only “know” Consciousness.
  • Therefore, when the subtle tries to grasp the gross, it only grasps the subtle.
  • More importantly, when Consciousness tries to grasp the subtle, it only grasps Itself.

C) “OK, but then how does A) and B) help me to see that the waking state is unreal?” Because you have this very clear understanding that it’s changing, that it’s jada, and that its appearance depends upon something prior. More poetically put: you feel that the waking state is a dream.

So What?

Back to the first section.

• If the waking state is a dream, then it’s unreal.
• If it’s unreal, then there’s a deeper sense of “wholly indifference” or “holy indifference.” 
• Being wholly/holy indifferent, one ceases to believe that one, qua Consciousness, is (truly) engaging with the waking state. 

This is the abode of peace.