Saakshi bhaava and States of Consciousness

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Sri-s Madhva and Murthy for their responses on the former topic. I

have combined them because Murthy-ji's last post on saaksh bhaava seems to

me to overlap.

 

< jAgrat, svapna, suShupti are the three states of the jIvA>

 

Fine with this.

 

< vaisvAnara, taijasa and prAjna are the three adhyAsA-s (mis-

apprehensions) of the Consciousness.>

 

This is a way of looking at it that hadn't occurred to me. Certainly in the

waking state there is identification with the gross body (food sheath) and,

in dreaming, with the subtle body (vital, mental and intellectual sheath)

and, in deep sleep, with the causal body (bliss sheath). So yes, there is

adhyaasa in each case. But are these words the *names* for these adhyaasa-s?

I can't remember the reference now (I've been looking up quite a few!) but I

read somewhere that these are the names for the respective 'egos'. Thus, for

example, taijasa is the name given to the dream-ego in the state of svapna.

 

Trying to reach an interpretation that seems to make sense, I have come up

with the following. (I also acknowledge some old material I manged to find

from MantraLaura on the Advaita List in Feb. 98 - anyone remember

MantraLaura, haven't come across anything from her recently?)

 

In the waking state, the 'individual' is complete (vishva = whole) with all

faculties of senses and mind operating. The subtle and causal bodies may

also be experienced from this state (according to tattvabodha).

 

In the dreaming state, Consciousness illuminates the subtle world (taijasa =

'originating from or consisting of light') OR the mind projects the world of

the dream from its own 'light' OR the dream consists of the 'light' of the

mind. The last of these sounds more logical.

 

In the deep sleep state, the sleeper sees neither the external nor internal

worlds of objects; the senses and mind are inactive and nothing is

experienced, i.e. there is no knowledge. The state is governed by avidya but

there must be some vestige of awareness since, for example, if someone calls

our name, we will probably wake up. So it is not entirely ignorant, just

'mostly ignorant'.

 

Praaj~na means "Intellectual; wise, learned, clever; intelligence dependent

on individuality" but Mantra Laura adds the following (purportedly from

tattvabodha again): -

<Further, "During this state it is only aware of the thought 'I don't know'.

The self in this state is designated as praaj~na, meaning the one who is

nearly ignorant. Because the consciousness is present during this state, the

self is not totally ignorant, but nearly ignorant."> And she gives the same

derivation as Madhva: -

<praayena aj~na: i.e. almost ignorant>. In fact I think the full breakdown

of this is: - praaj~na = pra + aya meaning 'mostly' + aj~na meaning

'ignorant' but I am certainly open to correction here!

 

To switch to the other thread, Sri Murthy says "If we see ourselves at the

body level, we can regard ourselves to be a witness to characters outside

our body. If we see ourselves at the thought-level, we can regard ourselves

as witness to the thoughts." Isn't the body-level witness equivalent to the

waker and the thought-level equivalent to the dreamer? The sleeper is

witness to nothing so the 'all encompassing witness' must be in the state of

turiiyaa. Here there is no identification; no sheath; indeed no individual.

And there are no objects since all is known to be one, the background

reality upon which the illusory appearances are seen.So I almost agree with

Murthy-ji but not quite. I agree that there are no *separate* things to be

witnessed but to say that there is *nothing* to be witnessed comes back to

the perennial question of the reality of the world. There is no creation in

the sense of something separate coming out of a 'creator' but this is not to

deny the existence of the world. The world exists but is not other than the

Self, being merely name and form superimposed upon the existent reality.

 

Surely witnessing oneSelf does not create duality?

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VaishvaanaraH seems to refer to 'cosmic' Consciousness (Isvara?) as far as I

can make out. It means something like 'belonging to all men',

'omnipresent' - must say I still don't understand this aspect.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

>

> Surely witnessing oneSelf does not create duality?

 

In my opinion, witnessing oneSelf is unifying in the sense that it is

Self referral, so circular like a wave curving back upon

itself into its oceanic source.

 

Usually one participates in linear 'object referred' mental activity

seeking self 'out there' in 'things' where Self cannot be 'found.

 

With love,

 

Colette

>

> Dennis

>