re deep sleep

[Guest guest]

David & Madthilnair have been keeping this ball in the air for a while. I

skirt over the inference problem to lay out the Advaitic position but it is

such a common occurence, waking, that thought experiments are unnecessary.

Thank you for accepting me as a member and excuse the length , Michael Reidy

 

In the Upanisads the altering of the felt nature of consciousness as it

moves through the various modalities of waking, dream, and deep dreamless

sleep (sushupti) is central to the understanding of self-nature and

self-identity. Deep Dreamless Sleep is for them what S.T.Coleridge would

have called a protophaenomenon.

The naturalist, who cannot or will not see, that one fact is

often worth a thousand , as including them all in itself,

and that it first makes all the others facts ; who has not

the head to comprehend, the soul to reverence, a central

experiment or observation ( what the Greeks would perhaps

have called a protophaenomon ) ; will never receive an

auspicious answer from the oracle of nature.

From Essay VII on the

Principles of Method.(The Friend)

 

That is to say D.S. is like an experiment of consciousness upon itself

revealing its own structure. The core of the insight is simple and yet so

profound, and so ordinary that it is overlooked. How do we know that we

have slept soundly? In brief that knowledge cannot be the result of an

inference. We might infer as to how long we slept but as to the bare fact

it is our experience that we are perfectly aware of it without any external

aids. Might we not have been told 'you were asleep' upon waking up in our

childhood and asscociated that experience with 'sleep'. That slow emerging

into consciousness &c. In other words it is a learned language game. The

assumption here is that D.S. is a state of pure blank nescience that has to

be inferred in some way. It is obvious that we do not remember that we

slept, for it must be an epistemic bedrock that we can only remember what we

experienced. That would also apply to chemical traces left in the brain by

the state of sleep which are 'read off' on waking. Those traces would be

like the multitude of other somatic processes that we don't need to know

about. In any case the trace if given as information is given now and is

not 'about' then.

That this has never cropped up as a question in Western Philosophy barring

a tangential reference by Thomas Reid in a rebuttal of Lockes theory of

Identity and then not in the same sense is an indication of how deep the

inner ravine of mental subject/mental objects is. The assumption is that if

there is no consciousness in D.S. then how we know must be from an external

source. If not, the knowledge should never have occured at all. There

would simply be sensations of tiredness, a blessed abatement of

consciousness and that succeeded by the slow ascension to the waking state.

In between there would be nothing.

Sankara and Ramana Maharshi stress this as an indication of the fact the

"the knowledge of the knower is never lost" Brhadaranyaka Upanisad: "That

it does not know in that state is because, though knowing then, it does not

know; for the knower's function of knowing can never be lost, because it is

imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it

can know." IV.iii.30 trans. Swami Madhavananda pub.Advaita Ashrama. In the

Commentary Sankara deals with some objections which he goes into in a more

detailed way in Upadesasahasri untrammeled by linkage to a text. Remember

he is approaching it from the objection to the eternal nature of knowledge

and its identity with the self, his philosophic mileu was broadly

nondualistic so the fact of the knowledge that we have been in a state of

deep dreamless sleep is not in dispute.

 

#92: Disciple: -"But I have shown an exception, namely, I have

no consciousness in deep sleep."

#93. Teacher.-" No, you contradict yourself."

Disciple - "How is it a contradiction?"

Teacher.-" You contradict yourself by saying that you are

not conscious when , as a matter of fact, you are so."

Disciple. - "But Sir, I was never conscious of

consciousness or of anything else in deep sleep."

Teacher. - "You are then conscious in deep sleep. For you deny

the existence of the objects of knowledge (in that state) but not

that of Knowledge. I have told you that what is your consciousness

is nothing but absolute Knowledge. The Consciousness owing to whose

presence you deny (the existence of things in deep sleep) by saying,

`I was conscious of nothing is the Knowledge, the Consciousness which

is your Self. As it never ceases to exist, Its eternal immutability

is self-evident and does not depend on any evidence; for an object of

Knowledge different from the self-evident Knower depends on an

evidence in order to be known. Other than the object the eternal

Knowledge that is indispensable in proving non-conscious things

different from Itself, is immutable; for It is always of a self-

evident nature. Just as iron, water, etc., which are not of the

nature of light and heat, depend for them on the sun, fire and other

things other than themselves, but the sun and fire, themselves always

of the nature of light and heat, do not depend for them on anything

else; so being of the nature of pure Knowledge, It does not depend on

any evidence to prove that It exists or that It is the Knower."

(from Upadesa Sahasri tran.Swami Jagadananda pub.Sri Ramakrishna Math)

 

 

On the 16th. Dec. '36 Mr. Naterval Parekh a Gujerati gentleman is brought

over the same set of jumps as the Disciple was by Shankaracarya 1,200 years

earlier.

D: I do not want intellectual answers. I want them to be practical.

M: Yes. Direct knowledge does not require intellectual discourses. Since

the Self is directly experienced by everyone, they are not at all necessary.

Everyone says "I am". Is there anything more to realise?

D: It is not clear to me.

M: You exist. You say 'I am'. That means existence.

D: But I am not sure of it, i.e. my existence.

M:Oh! Who then is speaking now?

D: I, surely. But whether I exist or not, I am not sure. Moreover,

admitting my existence leads me nowhere.

M: There must be one even to deny the existence. If you do exist, there

is no questioner, and no question can arise.

D: Let us take it that I exist.

M: How do you know that you exist:

D: Because I think, I feel, I see, etc.

M: So you think that your existence is inferred from these. Furthermore,

there is no feeling, thinking, etc., in sleep and yet there is the being.

D: But no. I cannot say that I was in deep sleep.

M: Do you deny your existence in sleep?

D: I may or may not be in sleep. God knows.

M: When you wake up from sleep, you remember what you did before falling

asleep.

D: I can say I was before and after sleep, but I cannot say if I was in

sleep.

M: Do you now say that were asleep?

D: Yes.

M: How do you know unless you remember the state of sleep?

D: It does not follow that I existed in sleep. Admission of such

existence leads nowhere.

M: Do you mean to say that a man dies every time that sleep overtakes him

and that he resuscitates while waking?

D: Maybe. God alone knows.

M: Let God come and find the solution for these riddles, then. If one

were to die in sleep, one will be afraid of sleep, just as one fears death.

On the other hand no one courts sleep. Why should sleep be courted unless

there is pleasure in it?

From The Talks pgs. 257/8/9/

For now I summarise by stating that we are conscious in deep sleep for we

can say - 'I was conscious of nothing'. To throw this idea aside as a

species of trifling sophistry is a temptation given that we are so much

under the sway of the contents of consciousness picture of awareness - no

contents, no awareness.

The significance of the bare fact as explained through an analogy struck me

in the way that analogies often will. We feel their explanatory power more

than we understand them in that they baffle the system of thought that we

are at the moment using. It works like a wisdom virus unmaking our

ignorance.

Tripura Rahasya or The Wisdom beyond the Trinity was where I encountered

it. Though famous in Sanskrit; Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi regarded it as one

of the greatest works expounding the Advaitic philosophy, it was not

available in English, a fact which he regretted. A devotee translated it

and the ashram have since taken over the copyright. It is a most peculiar

work. Allegory is mixed with legend and deep reflection on the nature of

reality and the sorts of samadhi. Scholars distinguish it

from Advaita Vedanta and ally it to the system called the Tantri or the

Sakta.

However in both systems the favourite example of the world being an image

reflected in consciousness as images in a mirror is used.

-"Distinguish between the changeless truth and the changeful untruth and

scrutinise the world comprised of these two factors, changeful phenomena and

changeless subjective consciousness, like the unchanging light of the mirror

and the changing images in it". pg. 86 Tr.Ra.

*Literary Note: Mirror upon mirror mirrored

Is all the show. W.B.Yeats

Memories of the words of women,

All those things whereof

Man makes a superhuman

Mirror resembling dream (The Tower by W.B.Y.)

 

Further down page 124/5 in Tr.Ra. the mirror analogy is carried on into the

state of Deep Sleep. It is given in the form of a dialogue between the sage

King Janaka and a Brahmin interlocutor.

-"O King, if it is as you say that the mind made passive by elimination of

thoughts is quite pure and capable of manifesting Supreme Consciousness,

then sleep will do it by itself, since it satisfies your condition and there

is no need for any kind of effort".

Thus questioned by the Brahmin youth, the King replied,

-"I will satisfy you on this point. Listen carefully. The mind is truly

abstracted in sleep. But then its light is screened by darkness, so how can

it manifest its true nature? A mirror covered with tar does not reflect

images but can it reflect space either? Is it enough, in that case, that

images are eliminated in order to reveal the space reflected in the mirror?

In the same manner, the mind is veiled by the darkness of sleep and rendered

unfit for illumining thoughts. Would such eclipse of the mind

reveal the glimmer of consciousness?

Would a chip of wood held in front of a single object to the exclusion of

all others reflect the object simply because all others are excluded?

Reflection can only be on a reflecting surface and not on all surfaces.

Similarly also, realisation of the Self can only be with an alert mind and

not with a stupefied one. New-born babes have no realisation of the Self

for want of alertness.

Moreover persue the analogy of the tarred mirror. The tar may prevent the

images from being seen, but the quality of the mirror is not affected, for

the outer coating of tar must be reflected in the interior of the mirror.

So also the mind, though diverted from dreams and wakefulness, is still in

the grip of dark sleep and not free from qualities. This is evident by the

recollection of the dark ignorance of sleep when one wakes".

(Pgs.124/5 Tripura Rahasya. tran. Swami Ramananda Saraswathi.publ.

Sri Ramanasramam)

 

The image of the tarred mirror was the crystallising one. It brought

together all the teaching about consciousness and our identity as

experienced by ourselves, what philosophers call self-identity.

The point about the chip is unnecessarily obscured by the use of the word

'exclusion'. The chip is held over the object on the surface of the mirror

and over that object alone. Thus that object is not reflected because its

place is taken by a non-reflecting surface. If consciousness of the Self is

blocked by the occlusion of awareness brought about by deep sleep then

self-realisation is impossible. This is the object you

might have seen had it not been blocked.

I still hold to the view that 'recollection' is not correct for the

immediate knowledge that we have on waking that we were asleep. It is that

peculiar sort of knowledge that we cannot not know. It might be said that

what we cannot not know we cannot know either. There is no coming or going

in that awareness it always is. Just a minute, this is an intellectual

apprehension of mine, I am shocked when I read "Hence people mistake that

the self thinks; but really it does not".(pg.616 Brh.Up.)

 

 

 

_______________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/11/2002 11:38:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

madathilnair writes:

 

> My hunch is that he will not know that he slept . . .

 

We always know that we have slept because of the tremendous differences in

the qualities of consciousness before sleeping and after awakening. We need

no heartbeats or passing celestials to gage time. The state of liveliness

alone gages time for the mind-body system.

 

Similarly when we move into the state of transcendental consciousness, a

state very similar to sleep in that time and space become lost to vision, but

yet so very different. For example, my very first experience of

transcendental consciousness was really quite overwhelming, in that upon

opening the eyes after TM's initiation and very first meditation, the whole

world moved with colors and vibrancy, undreamed of before, producing an

enhancement and direct connection with the rest of the universe that was

absolutely awesome. Yet, there was an interim time between initiation and

first opening the eyes (perhaps 20-minutes) where there was no time, just

like sleep.

 

So one 'knows' of that time-lapsed interval through the differences in lively

affectations after slipping out of the stage. One now clearly knows the

difference between sleep and transcendental consciousness. This is

especially brought out where it is indeed possible to go to sleep in the

process of moving to transcendental consciousness. Though the two have the

same ostensible references (as basically no-thing), we know the differences

after the fact through feeling. Advaita cannot be complete unless feeling is

simultaneously brought in.

 

Sleep must come in due time, like it or not, deny it if we will. This moment

of falling to sleep is totally different from the moment of waking. So too

are the emotional feelings different on different awakenings. So, what were

we doing while asleep? Always the same thing? That is doubtful. Can the

dreams give us a glimpse of what sleep content may have been? Yes, I think

so. Sometimes we move with devas of more sattva and sometimes with devas of

less sattva. Sometimes the concerns are deep into an extension of pressing

duality activities while at other times the concerns are deep with the more

unseen transcendental crowds.

 

I think lots more can be said about such things also, and surely more things

might be experienced and measured about such phenomena, but we have to be

willing to widen our horizons and postulate more detailed mechanics. If we

insist on staying only with that advaita as thought to have been developed

centuries and millennium ago, even though with lots of beautiful thinking,

then will not our thinking patterns remain stagnate at just those domains?

Is there not any possibility for growth? Perhaps we have already grown

beyond many of these inherited domains and now we rather think (punish) and

force ourselves to determine that we are unable to reach those past, less

evolved domains? Is that not a possibility? Are we not trying to hold back?

 

I understand what the long festering brilliant intellectual advaita movements

from masters of the art are here manifesting (and it is a marvel), just as I

understand the festering brilliant intellectual chess movements from masters

of the game are manifesting (and that also is a marvel). But in my ignorance

(for what else can it be called), I do not know what this activity of

sportsmanship has to do with sleep. We always know when we have been asleep,

and for some, when we have been in transcendental consciousness. Knowing

when one has been asleep is an obvious self evident pragmatic reality known

to apparently everyone except for the supreme masters of advaita.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thanks for your fantastic posts and the wealth of information

provided through them, which, I am sure, will enrich Advaitin

archives. I accept most of what you have stated.

 

However, I am afraid, the discussion on this thread has strayed from

the original purpose for which it was initiated.

 

My question still is if the fellow in space, in zero gravity, unaware

of the biological processes going on inside his body, excepting

heartbeats, surrounded by heavenly bodies having no relative motion

and therefore indicating no change, will ever know that he slept if

he slept. (This is not a case of complete sensory deprivation.)

 

What my question so far elicited is a lot of discussion,

philosophical quotes and research findings about sleep on our

terrestrial plane.

 

Although I admitted that it is hard to simulate experimental

conditions similar to the ones our friend in space is in, I am

compelled to look at the question from another angle.

Each object that we perceive occupies space - space-time to be up-to-

date. Each event occurs in time, i.e. there is a before and after,

most often dissimilar, between which there is a measurable duration.

Both these references are available to our friend in space in the

form heavenly bodies (for space-time) and heartbeats (for time).

What is missing is an awareness of biological changes (other than

heart-beats). Besides, there is absolutely no dissimilarity in the

circumstances preceding and following sleep.

 

In my case, on the surface of this moving earth amidst ever-changing

heavens and conditions, there is a particular set of circumstances,

including biological feelings, when I go to bed, and there is yet

another set when I wake up. So, sleep becomes an event between these

two dissimilar sets of circumstances with a duration during which I

am not aware of my circumstances. Is this applicable to our friend

in free fall for whom there is space-time and temporal references

but absolutely no other biological frame of reference and awareness

of change? Will he ever know that he slept?

 

My hunch is that he will not know that he slept although one who

observed him without his knowledge would know that he slept. For

him, sleep is a non-event (while it is an observed event for the

observer) and, for us in bed on earth, it is an event (an experience

of not experiencing). In the latter case the "not experiencing" is

appreciated thanks to mostly dissimilar experiencing that precedes

and follows it. It is a something between two distinct things. It

cannot therefore be missed.

 

To make it clearer, let us liken Consciousness to a self-projecting,

self-luminous, iridescent screen, where objects, thoughts,

experiences etc. are spontaneously projected. The screen can will to

erase the projections. Let the projections be erased. The screen

remains. The screen IS without the projections and the screen IS

inspite of the projections. The experience of not experiencing

called deep sleep is just one of the things projected there. It is

sustained by the screen and not the screen by it. We seem to be

trying hard to prove the latter! That the experience of not

experiencing should be projected is not mandatory for the screen's

being. It is all within the will of the screen.

 

I don't think I have contradicted advaita here.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/11/2002 4:44:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

colette writes:

 

> Edmond, I don't agree with you. One can be awake, & be reported to

> have been observed asleep. There is a consciousness that is a

> sameness of awareness.

>

> Col

>

 

OK Colette, that certainly must be an experience for someone at some time,

like the fellow who is perturbed by another and reports him to be "sleeping

at his post". Or perhaps if and when I appear to be in some kind of

momentary somnabulistic daze, somebody might retort in disdain that "he's

asleep". The dentist still always thinks I'm asleep as he calls me in to the

hot chair. It matters not whether I'm deep in TM, truly transcendent, or

fully aware of the environment. I suppose that either way, your above

statement is here the truth with the dentist.

 

However, I don't think that this was the context of those who originated the

statement and I am not quite sure what context you are implying. Anyhow,

that is certainly not what I was referencing. Rather, just a simple, "Hello

Bill." "Did you sleep well last night?" "Great, so did I." "Do you

remember going to sleep?" "Sure, what a strange question." "Yes, I heard it

the other day on the internet." "Do you remember waking?" "Sure, what a

strange group you must be on." "No, they are just different, but are you

certain that you were asleep, that is the big question dominating?" "Bill,

Bill, come back, come back, everything is just fine."

 

Love to you Colette,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, edmeasure@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/11/2002 11:38:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> madathilnair writes:

>

>

> > My hunch is that he will not know that he slept . . .

>

> We always know that we have slept because of the tremendous

differences in

> the qualities of consciousness before sleeping and after

awakening.

 

Edmond, I don't agree with you. One can be awake, & be reported to

have been observed asleep. There is a consciousness that is a

sameness of awareness.

 

Col

[Guest guest]

advaitin, edmeasure@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/11/2002 4:44:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> colette@b... writes:

>

>

> > Edmond, I don't agree with you. One can be awake, & be reported

to

> > have been observed asleep. There is a consciousness that is a

> > sameness of awareness.

> >

> > Col

> >

>

> OK Colette, that certainly must be an experience for someone at

some time,

> like the fellow who is perturbed by another and reports him to

be "sleeping

> at his post". Or perhaps if and when I appear to be in some kind

of

> momentary somnabulistic daze, somebody might retort in disdain

that "he's

> asleep". The dentist still always thinks I'm asleep as he calls me

in to the

> hot chair. It matters not whether I'm deep in TM, truly

transcendent, or

> fully aware of the environment. I suppose that either way, your

above

> statement is here the truth with the dentist.

>

> However, I don't think that this was the context of those who

originated the

> statement and I am not quite sure what context you are implying.

Anyhow,

> that is certainly not what I was referencing. Rather, just a

simple, "Hello

> Bill." "Did you sleep well last night?" "Great, so did I." "Do

you

> remember going to sleep?" "Sure, what a strange question." "Yes,

I heard it

> the other day on the internet." "Do you remember waking?" "Sure,

what a

> strange group you must be on." "No, they are just different, but

are you

> certain that you were asleep, that is the big question

dominating?" "Bill,

> Bill, come back, come back, everything is just fine."

>

> Love to you Colette,

 

Hello my dear friend.

 

I think what I was saying relates to that turiya thingy everyone was

speaking of. I call it the transcendent Self. One's attention may be

there or on the body consciousness. This makes me think of that quote

of Maharishi's where he implies that Brahman is even 'beyond'

absolute & relative.

 

Looking forward to reading your memoirs further.

(You could write a book;-)

 

love,

 

Col

 

P.S. I wonder if you everlooked into the parallel with the Veda &

body that Dr Tony Nader wrote about for MMY? Remarkable. I am sure

you would love it.

>

> Edmond

[Guest guest]

advaitin, edmeasure@a... wrote:

>I am not quite sure what context you are implying.

 

Hi Ed, sorry I should have been clearer. My point was that the body

can be asleep while the observer within is not,(& is not aware a part

of them has fallen asleep). And another person reports to have seen

them asleep, while they themself have observed the other person enter

the room trying not to waken them.

 

This has happened to a couple of my friends in the crossover from

waking state to 'sleep state'.

 

Col

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

For more on Tony Nader:

 

http://www.maharishitm.org/en/tonynaderen.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin, "oceanwavejoy" <colette@b...> wrote:

>

> love,

>

> Col

>

> P.S. I wonder if you everlooked into the parallel with the Veda &

> body that Dr Tony Nader wrote about for MMY? Remarkable. I am sure

> you would love it.