Deep sleep state

[Guest guest]

I have observed references to the state of deep sleep being used

frequently in vedantic discussions and in some cases being offered as

some sort of evidence for self/brahma union. I wonder how other

vednatins think of or explain what goes on in states like coma,

hypnotic trance and general anesthesia which all seem (atleast to me)

to be parallel to the deep sleep state. I am also interested in

understanding how sleep walking and talking in sleep figure into the

deep sleep understanding from similar perspective.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

My simple understanding:

 

I slept. No event was registered. Time has elapsed and there is a

sense of well being. Conclusion: I know that I slept and enjoyed my

sleep.

 

I was hypnotized by a psychiatrist. I don't remember what happened

during hypnosis. However, there is a voice recording of my

statements to the psychiatrist. Conclusion: I know that I was

hypnotized. I know the recording of my confession too.

 

I was in coma for a long while after a brain injury. I don't

remember anything about what happened during the coma. After I

became conscious, I realized from my friends and the calendar that a

long time had elapsed after I fell into coma and that I had no

remembrance of what happened during the time I was in coma when my

life was sustained through elaborate arrangements in the ICU.

Conclusion: I know that I was in coma and I know that I don't know

what happened during the period.

 

The same applies to sleep walking or sleep talking of which

the "waker" has no direct knowledge. He becomes aware of such things

only through others. However, the conclusion in both cases is: I

know from others that I sleep walked or sleep talked.

 

In all the above, the conclusion that we inevitably arrive at is

positive, i.e. "I know" and not a negative "I don't remember or I

don't know". Thus, this "I know" business is a continuing process

without interruption. What I mean to say is that even the "I did not

know" statement is an "I know that I did not know". There are no

gaps. The apparent gaps are "I know that there are gaps". The other

people who corroborate my reality are all objects of my

knowledge. "I" only am the subject in all transanctions.

 

Now, I am sure you will ask me what happens when I die. Well, my

answer is that I don't die if I am that "I know". That "I know" is

not related to my so called brain, because I have a brain is known

to me (I know that I have a brain). That "I know" has to keep

lighting up. The show must continue without let up. Knowing that

truth is immortality which we are all are after not knowing that we

are in fact just that. Enjoying the show then becomes jeevanmukthi.

 

If all this is too simplistic, please forgive me.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

___

advaitin, "sksharma" <sksharma> wrote:

> I have observed references to the state of deep sleep being used

> frequently in vedantic discussions and in some cases being offered

as

> some sort of evidence for self/brahma union. I wonder how other

> vednatins think of or explain what goes on in states like coma,

> hypnotic trance and general anesthesia which all seem (atleast to

me)

> to be parallel to the deep sleep state. I am also interested in

> understanding how sleep walking and talking in sleep figure into

the

> deep sleep understanding from similar perspective.

[Guest guest]

Dear Madathil,

 

You say "If all this is too simplistic, please forgive me". I actually feel

that it not simple enough.

 

In all your examples, you conclude that you 'know' something, whether it be

as a result of what someone has said or of what you have observed. In fact,

what is happening surely is that, after the event (sleep, hypnosis, coma),

you observe something (calendar, tape recording etc.) and make inferences as

to what must have happened in the intervening (unconscious) period.

 

The observations, the inferences and the subsequent 'knowledge' are all

dualistic, with you, still in ignorance, imbuing reality with a sense of

otherness. Is it not more simply the case that, whenever 'you are

conscious', adhyaasa takes place and creates the illusion of duality. When

'you are unconscious', there is no adhyaasa and therefore no illusion of

duality - and therefore no percepts, thoughts, visions or anything else.

There is no Self-awareness either. Certainly there is no knowledge during

these times. Knowledge is necessarily dualistic. Your claim of 'knowing that

you did not know' being equivalent to a continuation of knowing and that

therefore 'there are no gaps' is, I feel, untrue and missing the point.

 

As far as death, is concerned, surely it is because 'I am' that death is an

illusion, not because 'I know'. Is it not the case that a functioning

body-mind equipment is needed in order to have (so called) objective

knowledge? The corollary to this, of course, is that pure Consciousness

cannot know anything - hence the reason why there appears (in our dualistic

ignorance) to be a blank for unconscious periods.

 

........................

 

Just to change subjects briefly, I entirely agree with you on the 'Reality

and the New Physics' topic. Also as regards the CONTINUING articles by Dr.

Loganathan. However, you need not congratulate our PATIENCE on suffering the

long posts. The answer is quite simple - don't bother reading them. As soon

as I see an article with apparently RANDOM capitalisation of words, I ignore

it! (No offence intended to the good Doctor incidentally. It is simply the

case that the posts do not seem relevant to the group so I feel he is

wasting his time and our disc storage. If there is a method to the

capitalisation, I might however be interested to read that!)

 

Regards,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Waite,

 

Appreciate your critical comments.

 

As I see it, there is no divergence in our views. The difference is

only in the way we look at the problem.

 

I don't find any point in surmising what would have happened while I

was fast asleep or unconscious or under hypnosis or under

anaesthesia. It is just that I know that I did not know. That way,

it is very simple. Not that I don't accept adhyaasa etc. etc. But,

I am afraid we would end up complicating the entire issue if we take

unnecessary recourse to such terminology. (My apologies to

Atmachaitanyaji.)

 

Regarding the experience of non-duality in the "I know" process -

grammmatically you are cent per cent right, Shri Waite. However, if

you look at the actual experience, is there really a feeling

of "otherness" in an experience? There isn't. I realized this truth

from a third rate TV serial which portrayed sage Agasthya's ectasy

when he worded the Gayathri mantra. Looking at the Sun, he broke

into raptures! Was the Sun other than Agasthya? If he felt, non-

duality, could he have written the Gayathri manthra? Are these words

that I hammer on the keyboard apart from me? Where is duality Shri

Waitji? I don't see it.

 

Harshaji recently made a point. I am trying to recollect. If I

remember right,(Forgive me if I am wrong.), he implied that duality

comes to an end when one looks inwards. Is direction that

important? As I see it, whether you look inward or outward, there is

no duality. There is only oneness. And that is what is ectasy for

me. See the Moon, see the Sun, see the Milky Way, you are in all

that! What a wonderful feeling! Why don't you share it with me,

Shri Waite? Let adhyaasa rot on the shelves. There is ectasy all

around. I wish you join me in my rapture - the deathless "I know".

Sankara would not have expected anything less when he postulated

adhyaasa!

 

Thanks once again for your comments. At least, I am happy that I am

being listened to.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

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

> Dear Madathil,

>

> You say "If all this is too simplistic, please forgive me". I

actually feel

> that it not simple enough.

>

> In all your examples, you conclude that you 'know' something,

whether it be

> as a result of what someone has said or of what you have observed.

In fact,

> what is happening surely is that, after the event (sleep, hypnosis,

coma),

> you observe something (calendar, tape recording etc.) and make

inferences as

> to what must have happened in the intervening (unconscious) period.

>

> The observations, the inferences and the subsequent 'knowledge' are

all

> dualistic, with you, still in ignorance, imbuing reality with a

sense of

> otherness. Is it not more simply the case that, whenever 'you are

> conscious', adhyaasa takes place and creates the illusion of

duality. When

> 'you are unconscious', there is no adhyaasa and therefore no

illusion of

> duality - and therefore no percepts, thoughts, visions or anything

else.

> There is no Self-awareness either. Certainly there is no knowledge

during

> these times. Knowledge is necessarily dualistic. Your claim

of 'knowing that

> you did not know' being equivalent to a continuation of knowing and

that

> therefore 'there are no gaps' is, I feel, untrue and missing the

point.

>

> As far as death, is concerned, surely it is because 'I am' that

death is an

> illusion, not because 'I know'. Is it not the case that a

functioning

> body-mind equipment is needed in order to have (so called) objective

> knowledge? The corollary to this, of course, is that pure

Consciousness

> cannot know anything - hence the reason why there appears (in our

dualistic

> ignorance) to be a blank for unconscious periods.

>

> .......................

>

> Just to change subjects briefly, I entirely agree with you on

the 'Reality

> and the New Physics' topic. Also as regards the CONTINUING articles

by Dr.

> Loganathan. However, you need not congratulate our PATIENCE on

suffering the

> long posts. The answer is quite simple - don't bother reading them.

As soon

> as I see an article with apparently RANDOM capitalisation of words,

I ignore

> it! (No offence intended to the good Doctor incidentally. It is

simply the

> case that the posts do not seem relevant to the group so I feel he

is

> wasting his time and our disc storage. If there is a method to the

> capitalisation, I might however be interested to read that!)

>

> Regards,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Waite,

 

This is a PS to my sloppy post that I hurriedly hammered on the

keyboard last night. I don't think I covered my point of view well

as my wife then was impatiently waiting for me to take the family out

for dinner. It was her birthday. So, I didn't want to tell you

later that "I knew calamity" as well by testing her patience.

 

Yes. I fully agree with you that knowledge, inferential or direct,

is necessarily dualistic. There is a knower and there is a known.

It is the apparent chasm between the two that necessitates "add ins"

like body, mind, intellect etc., which are absolutely necessary if we

get down to analyzing the process of knowing and of which, however,

we are not at all aware through most of our waking moments. The

question now is if we can get rid of or at least limit the sense of

duality while keeping our eyes open and experiencing the world.

My "I know" explanation is just an attempt in this direction. The

sense of duality emerges only when "we get down to analyzing".

Otherwise, it is all One. This is the exact reason why empirical

sciences unfailingly fail at appreciating Reality because they stick

their nose deep into "enquiring". Well, that is their job. Can't

help it.

 

This reminds me of a story of a king and his consort which I read in

some old philosophical work. The lady was a realized being and the

king was a spiritual struggler. She taught him Vedanta and, as a

result, he reached a stage of spiritual evolution where he was able

to enjoy samaadhi at will – but only when he sat in a particular

posture and kept his eyes closed! His consort was not happy with the

situation. She continued helping him until at last he opened up like

Arjuna saying "Nashto Moha"! He no more needed a posture or closed

eyes to be One with everything. He "knew" that he had always been

just That!

 

Shri Waite, as advaitins we know duality and we know that there is

only Oneness despite duality. In acquiring this knowledge, no doubt,

we necessarily made use of concepts like adhyaasa, body, mind,

intellect etc. But, isn't it yet time we kept "these tools and

equipment" on the shelf, opened our eyes, looked upwards at the Sun

and chanted the Gayathri manthra or showed the lighted lamp to our

smiling Devi (She is my ishtadevatha.) and said "Na thathra sooryo

bhaathi ………." or looked at the splendour of the night sky and

thrilled heaven and earth by singing from Dakshinaamoorthi

Sthothram: "Naanachchiddra ghatodarasthithamaha

deepaprabhabhaasuram….."?

 

Will you feel any sense of duality then? I am sure no. You then

have no time to entertain duality. This guy called duality is there

in your sitting room only as long as you care to entertain him.

 

The whole of waking life or at least the practicable most of it can

thus be rendered "non-daul". We don't have to necessarily

turn "inwards" to do that. There is no "inwards" or "outwards" in

this business. All directions are the same. An "inwards" can exist

only in relation to the limitations of the body-mind-intellect

equipment, as you call it. Haven't we already placed it on the

shelf? Neither have we got to negate anything. We can be just That

inspite of everything. In other words, we accept everything and see

them from a different angle, wherefrom only the oneness in diversity

is perceived. This is my "I know" – the common denominator of all

transactions.

 

I am reminded of two situations Swami Dayananda Saraswathiji mentions

in this context. You are alone and there is a beautiful sunset.

That makes you extremely happy. There is no wish fulfillment here.

Yet, you are happy, because you are essentially happiness and the

sunset made you forget your limitations for a second. In other

words, you tasted oneness. The second situation (slightly

embellished by me): You are with your business rival in his sitting

room struggling to sort differences out. You hate the man because he

is a big pain on the neck. And suddenly you spot his baby. It is

smiling at you – a toothless, innocent smile. You forget everything

for a moment and break out into being a tender expansiveness inspite

of the fact that that baby is not yours and its father is your bitter

foe.

 

These are classical examples where duality vanishes without a trace.

There is no body-mind-intellect equipment here unless you sit back

later and analyze. You are then inviting the guy – the unwanted

duality - back into your sitting room.

 

It is within us to make each and every moment of our life "non-

dually" happy if we really contemplate and endeavour. The "I know"

(or jaanaami) explanation helps. One can even reach a point where

one is able to spot, appreciate and love the endearing "cherubicity"

(my coinage) behind the bushy moustache of Saddam Hussein without any

sense of separation. (I was a war prisoner in his Iraq some time

ago. I, therefore, have every reason to love him, for the hardships

I then underwent taught me great lessons.). There are masters around

us living this truth. Why can't we at least aspire to be in their

footsteps?

 

With advaitic contemplation, we begin to spontaneously glow like

glowworms. It is the waking, continuous glow of knowing (jaanaami)

without a sense of separation. Deep sleep, experiences (!) of

anaesthesia and hypnosis are within that glow. The concept of non-

existent death too. Who cares? I have got to glow. I don't have

time to see what happens to this body-mind-intellect equipment. It is

there on the shelf. I can take a look at it when I want. It does

not matter if it was the same one which I left there last time!

 

My Mother has written this. She is the eternal Glow.

 

Pranams and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Madathil,

 

What an excellent post! What you have written argues perhaps better than I

have read anywhere previously the superiority of bhakti as a 'path' over

jnaana. I acknowledge the truth of what you say and can only envy your

ability to live in this way. Unfortunately, the ties of our nature are

strong and recognising the truth does not thereby enable us to change the

ways of a lifetime. I am an incorrigible intellectual, I'm afraid and,

ironic though it might seem, the idea of worship and surrender triggers the

automatic image of duality in this mind and seems to bar it as a viable

approach. Unlike yourself, I must look to the logic and conceptual approach

of Atmachaitanya and the like to 'explain' what is happening in terms that

the mind can comprehend instead of the direct approach of intuiting the

truth from the heart. So yes, as you said in your first post, "As I see it,

there is no divergence in our views. The difference is only in the way we

look at the problem".

 

You say:

"Shri Waite, as advaitins we know duality and we know that there is

only Oneness despite duality. In acquiring this knowledge, no doubt,

we necessarily made use of concepts like adhyaasa, body, mind,

intellect etc. But, isn't it yet time we kept "these tools and

equipment" on the shelf, opened our eyes, looked upwards at the Sun

and chanted the Gayathri manthra or showed the lighted lamp to our

smiling Devi (She is my ishtadevatha.) and said "Na thathra sooryo

bhaathi .........." or looked at the splendour of the night sky and

thrilled heaven and earth by singing from Dakshinaamoorthi

Sthothram: "Naanachchiddra ghatodarasthithamaha

deepaprabhabhaasuram....."?

 

Of course, I agree - how could I not? But we cannot 'do' anything', and that

includes 'choosing' a course of action. I know that all of these concepts

are simply that and ultimately of no value. I know (intellectually) that

there is only One, that I am already That etc. but this is not enough. For

that direct intuitive realisation of truth, when all of the concepts

evaporate and the insubstantial pageant fades, all that I can do is 'waite

without hope' (pun intended and apologies for mixed allusions).

 

Perhaps it is true that I am enjoying the company of this guy called Duality

in my living room. Maybe I find the intellectual challenge of taunting him

and being tortured in return amusing. But then this is what the play is

about, isn't it? Without it, there would be no play. Just as there can be no

knowledge without duality, there can be no enjoyment either. Perhaps this is

the real obstacle - the need to give up both when the natural instinct is to

seek them out.

 

Yes, all that you say is true. I recognise the taste and the analysis that

destroys. My only defence is that this is how things are. Why should I

strive to strive towards such things? They come (or not) at the whim of

Grace, to put it poetically. Whilst I want it and look for it, I know I am

not going to find it. So we simply have to let things be and enjoy them (or

not), as is our nature. At least if the intellect understands what is

happening, the pain is mitigated.

 

Liked your reference to that loveable cherub, Saddam, incidentally. It is

examples such as this that really brings all of what we are talking about to

life.

 

Many Thanks and I hope you and your wife enjoyed your evening out. (I

wouldn't want to feel responsible for spoiling her birthday!)

 

All the best,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste,

 

My simple understanding:

 

I slept. No event was registered. Time has elapsed and there is a

sense of well being. Conclusion: I know that I slept and enjoyed my

sleep.

 

-------------

 

Dear Madathilnairji,

 

On getting up from deep sleep no one told me that I (In my Jivahood) had slept

well.Since I (My True SELF) was awake , as ever I am - as Kevala Dhrug I knew,

and as Jiva, after getting up from sleep I know now, that I had slept well!

 

____ Again you say:

 

I was hypnotized by a psychiatrist.

 

I was in coma for a long while after a brain injury.

 

The same applies to sleep walking or sleep talking the "waker" has no direct

knowledge.

 

--------------------

 

As rightly pointed out by you yourself,in these cases enumerated above ---

 

He becomes aware of such things only through others. Repeat:Only through others.

 

--------------

 

Unlike ,after getting up from deep sleep,the fact that I was in coma or I was

hypnotised or was sleep-walking has to be told to me by others, instead of

knowing it by myself.

 

This situation needs a little more study .Is it not?

 

Hari Om!

 

Swaminarayan.

 

..

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Swaminarayanji,

 

Thanks for your point of view.

 

However, I am afraid no amount of researches in our waking state is

going to take us any farther than where we are with regard to this

question. (In other states, unfortunately, we are not accustomed to

doing researches!). I am a little scared of "jeeva-hood", "kevala

drig-hood" etc. and would like to avoid such terminology as far as

possible when simpler approaches that are not contrary to advaita are

possible. However, kindly note that I am aware of such explanations

and have nothing aginst them.

 

The raison d'etre for my stand on this issue is well covered in my

subsequent two posts to Shri Dennis Waiteji.

 

Before concluding, I would like to invite your attention to the

following imaginary situation I described in my post 12708 to Shri

Sadanandaji. I was fondly expecting substantial comments on it from

our knowledgeable members. Unfortunately, nothing came through. May

be I was too silly. Do you have anything to say now that you have

raised the issue?

 

 

QUOTE:

 

 

"Now, about this sleep business, I have another crazy thought. Let us

suppose a guy was put in space in zero gravity. There are stars

around which look like fixed points without any relative change in

their positions. These are there to give our friend the "feeling" of

space, because the concept of "space" cannot sustain without

matter. Other than feeling his heartbeats, which gives him a sense

of continuity (time), this guy is not aware of any biological

activity. Even his hair does not grow.

 

In these circumstances, either of the following two can happen. He

may doze off due to boredom or he may "create" a world of his own due

to extreme sensory deprivation a la Henri Charriere's Papillon.

(Papillon was kept in solitary confinement by French authorities for

a long time in French Guyana. Sensory deprivation resulted in

Papillon creating a world of his own, which among several other nice

things included a beautiful lady too. It is said that, after escape

from prison, Papillon came across the same lady in "real" life and

married her! Please refer to Charriere's novel (based on real-life

experience) "Banco" – a sequel to his more famous work "Papillon".

By the way, I do not know whether Pailllon's experiences are

vyavahaarika or prathibhaasika.).

 

Let us assume that our friend is not fortunate like Papillon. He

falls into deep sleep, remains in that state for a long time and

wakes up. What will be that experience like? Nothing around him has

changed when he slept. So, there is nothing to tell him about the

passage of time. He felt his heart-beat before he dozed off. He can

feel it now. He does not, however, know how many thousands of times

his heart beat when he slept. Will he now say "I enjoyed the sleep"?

I doubt. I feel he would not even know that he slept. In this crazy

example, there is awareness of time (heartbeats) and there is

awareness of space (the fixed stars). What is missing? Obviously, an

awareness of biological processes. Does that mean that it is just a

sense of physical well being due to rest that makes us all

say "sukhena maya nidra anubhooyatha ithi"? God forbid. I want

thoughts from everyone. However, whatever you all have to say, I am

sure the big "jaanaami" light keeps shining for this guy. And, is it

not the only important thing?"

 

UNQUOTE

 

Whatever be your feedback, if any, on this question, one thing is

certain. We cannot be too sure of the answer, which in a way is like

saying "I don't know" and which in my way of saying is "I know that I

don't know".

 

I hope you are with me.

 

Best retards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________________

 

 

advaitin, Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan> wrote:

>

> Dear Madathilnairji,

>

> On getting up from deep sleep no one told me that I (In my

Jivahood) had slept well.Since I (My True SELF) was awake , as ever I

am - as Kevala Dhrug I knew, and as Jiva, after getting up from

sleep I know now, that I had slept well!

>

> ____ Again you say:

>

> I was hypnotized by a psychiatrist.

>

> I was in coma for a long while after a brain injury.

>

> The same applies to sleep walking or sleep talking the "waker" has

no direct knowledge.

>

> --------------------

>

> As rightly pointed out by you yourself,in these cases enumerated

above ---

>

> He becomes aware of such things only through others. Repeat:Only

through others.

>

> --------------

>

> Unlike ,after getting up from deep sleep,the fact that I was in

coma or I was hypnotised or was sleep-walking has to be told to me by

others, instead of knowing it by myself.

>

> This situation needs a little more study .Is it not?

>

> Hari Om!

>

> Swaminarayan.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Madthilnair:

 

Your concluding statement was quite effective to get the essence of

advaita in a nutshell. Let me add the following additional comments

and pretend that 'understood the difference between deep sleep and the

waking state!.

 

The statements:

'I know that I don't know' and

'I don't know that I don't know'

though in appearance look different (dual) but in reality are

non-dual!

 

Also, 'I don't know that I know' and 'I know that I know' will fall

into the same category.

 

Due to the spell of 'mAyA' we do state:

'I don't know whatever I should know' and

'I know whatever I shouldn't know.'

 

A careful contemplation on the same line of thought will reach the

conclusion "We can't be too sure of answers that distinguishes between

different states of our experiences." When we ponder over those

answers, we infact go far away from the 'Truth of our existence!'

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Dear Swaminarayanji,

>

> Thanks for your point of view.

>

> Whatever be your feedback, if any, on this question, one thing is

> certain. We cannot be too sure of the answer, which in a way is

> like saying "I don't know" and which in my way of saying is "I know

> that I don't know".

>

> I hope you are with me.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Madathilnair;

 

As one of the list moderators, I want to express my apology for

providing substantial comments as per your expectation. Please be

aware that the list moderators and the knowledgeable members also fall

as victims of the spell of 'mAyA,' and bounded by the constraints of

time. But let me state that I believe that your statements are

relevant and substantive to the scope of this list and I appreciate

your participation and contribution.

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Before concluding, I would like to invite your attention to the

> following imaginary situation I described in my post 12708 to Shri

> Sadanandaji. I was fondly expecting substantial comments on it from

> our knowledgeable members. Unfortunately, nothing came through. May

> be I was too silly. Do you have anything to say now that you have

> raised the issue?

>

>