RE: Deep Sleep

June 9, 2002

Hi Michael,

Excellent Post and welcome to the group!

As I suspected from our brief off-list exchange earlier, your background

enables you to speak with great authority and conviction so it is with some

temerity that I query an aspect of your post. This is especially so since

the relevant quotation is from Shankara. (Dare I challenge anything from

such a source?!) Coincidentally, I first read this material only a few days

ago and passed over it without objection but, re-reading it now, I would be

grateful if you could clarify for me.

The passage in question is: "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."

This is similar to the explanation of adhyaasa in the Brahmasuutra

bhaashhya, in that we mix up 'I am' (the real part) with 'something in

creation' (the false part). Although I may doubt the existence of all else,

I can never doubt that 'I am'... whilst I am conscious. But what is

happening here is that I am saying: '(Whilst I was asleep) I was conscious

of nothing' but I am saying it NOW, in the present. There is no dispute that

I exist now. But, at the time of the presumed deep sleep, there was no

consciousness of an 'I' to say 'I am conscious of nothing'. It still seems

to me that an inference is taking place - that this 'I' was still present -

but that, since there was no object of consciousness, there was no

experience and therefore there is no memory of an experience now, in the

present. How, therefore, is it possible to demonstrate that Consciousness

was present during the (presumed) deep sleep state?

I loved your lyrical description of the power of metaphor, incidentally:

"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." When a metaphor, analogy or story really connects, it can carry

the meaning of a truth far more effectively than logical argument.

Unfortunately, the wood chip and tarred mirror metaphors didn't do an awful

lot for me, I'm afraid. Perhaps I need to come back to them afresh in a day

or two.

Regards,

Dennis

June 10, 2002

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

Dennis writes:

The passage in question is: "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."

This is similar to the explanation of adhyaasa in the Brahmasuutra

bhaashhya, in that we mix up 'I am' (the real part) with 'something

in

creation' (the false part). Although I may doubt the existence of all

else,

I can never doubt that 'I am'... whilst I am conscious. But what is

happening here is that I am saying: '(Whilst I was asleep) I was

conscious

of nothing' but I am saying it NOW, in the present. There is no

dispute that

I exist now. But, at the time of the presumed deep sleep, there was

no

consciousness of an 'I' to say 'I am conscious of nothing'. It still

seems

to me that an inference is taking place - that this 'I' was still

present -

but that, since there was no object of consciousness, there was no

experience and therefore there is no memory of an experience now, in

the

present. How, therefore, is it possible to demonstrate that

Consciousness

was present during the (presumed) deep sleep state?

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

Hello Dennis, namaste

I am trying to answer your concluding question above. This is by

Reductio ad absurdum. If Consciousness were not present during sleep

how can you say now that I was 'conscious' of nothing?

Your contention that the consciousness of 'I' was not present during

sleep is only partially acceptable. For 'I' is Consciousness.

Consciousness was and is present as Consciousness. This

Consciousness does not need an 'object of consciousness' to be

Consciousness. Whether an object that is lighted is there or not,

Light is Light. What was not present during sleep was the feeling of

'I'; because 'feeling' is something that happens in the mind. Of

course mind was asleep. But Consciousness, that is 'I', was present

without a second 'object of consciousness'. ADVAITAM!

PraNAms to all advaitins.

Yours,

profvk

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

June 10, 2002

V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

>>How, therefore, is it possible to demonstrate that Consciousness

was present during the (presumed) deep sleep state?<<

Viewed from Yoga Sutras (YS) syncretic approach (see also Shankara's

YS commentary) a demonstration or proof might go as follows:

1. If a person "slept badly" (when sleep is pervaded by rajas –

disturbed sleep), he will remember and may remark on it.

Alternatively, he may remember "sleeping well" (i.e., sleep pervaded

by tamas) he might say he slept well. In other words, he infers that

because he slept well, the sleep of the lower mind (caitanya as

manas) was that of "deep sleep" (i.e., his sleep was pervaded by

tamas).

Another demonstration might proceed by definition might run as

follows:

1. As an evolute of Prakrti (i.e., Pradahana, or Maya), the mind

field caitanya when equated with citta involves the three gunas. For

instance, consciousness is pervaded by tamas during deep sleep, just

as it is pervaded by sattva during states of bliss (ananda; here not

the of non-dual bliss of Brahman, but of buddhi or intellect) as when

having progressed to samprajnata samadhi.

2. By definition then, consciousness (caitanya as citta) is always

present in all mental transformations, including that which is mainly

pervaded by tamas in deep sleep.

Further, as noted by Sankara in his YS commentary (if accepted,

although authorship is disputed in some circles) samadhi is a quality

of mind in all mental states (including that of "deep sleep"),

although only in ekagrate (i.e., samprajnata-samadhi) is there a

clarity of mind not subject to the state (YS 1.1).

The comparisons of states of "bliss" with "deep sleep," also recalls

sleep's blissfulness of Brahman in the Brhadaranyaka II 1. IV (cited

in A. O. Fort 1988) .

Capanelli-

References:

1988 A. O. Fort

" Beyond Pleasure: Sankara on Bliss"

Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol 16 (177-189).

1981 T. Leggett

Sankara on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, vol I. Samadhi Pada.

Routledge and Kegan Paul, LTD.

June 10, 2002

Dear David, I hope that the occlusion of the topic does not come upon you

while peruseing this.

Shankara attempts to demonstrate, contrary to common sense, that the nature

of consciousness is progressively clarified as we move from waking to

dreaming to deep dreamless sleep. The light as Yajnavalkya has been calling

it (or sensory input) is progressively diminishing. The matter in the world

of the dream is borrowed from waking experience and is illuminated by the

consciousness of the man himself functioning in a quasi-objective way.((He

rejects the notion that this establishes the truth of Subjective Idealism

(Vijnanavada) but that is another days work)).Finally there is the profound

darkness of sushupti. In that condition the Sage Yajnavalkya says "It

becomes transparent like water, one, the witness, and without a second.

This is the sphere(state) of Brahman, O Emperor." IV.iii.32 Brh.Up.

Is this deep nonsense or gnomic utterance? It is related I believe to the

mysterious - Bg.II.69 : "The man of self-control is awake when it is night

for all creatures; and such a sage sees as night that in which all other

creatures are awake".(Nabar&Tumkur trans.)

The leading idea of all this I take to be that the nature of consciousness

is revealed (made transparent) when there is not the distracting flood of

sensory imput. We look for explanations in the waking state where there

seems to be most evidence and we expect those explanations to be structured

in an empirical way. For the Yogi that is benighted ignorance(ajnana). Any

knowledge that is the result of evidences comes and goes and is distanced

from the knower by memory, perception, thought etc. The Self is not

distanced in this way. Every state of consciousness is saturated with

self-awareness so no inference is required to establish the Self. In Deep

Sleep you cannot by definition say 'I am asleep'. Self-awareness has become

one with the state of sleep. It is a sort of dark samadhi. "It is

ignorance that separates a second entity, and that is at rest in the state

of profound sleep"(Comm.on IV.iii.33 Brh.Up)

Because the statement 'I was asleep and slept soundly' can only truthfully

be uttered in the waking state does not mean that an inference is being made

any more than 'I am looking at this tree' is an inference from some sort of

inner sensation. Somebody else might infer that I was looking at the tree

because my eyes were open and I was faced the right way.

"How is it possible to demonstrate that consciousness was present during

the (presumed) deep sleep state" You asked. Well if you believe in a

substantive self and you apply the rule of identity, that the same thing

cannot have two beginnings in time, then the Self did not cease to be and

revive with my awakening.

The tar on the mirror analogy gives the idea of a depthless film. You are

you could say separated from this film by an infinately small gap. This

film has become the only object, the Self knows itself as that.

The problem with the wood chip and the mirror is that like the Brazilian

midfield he is trying to take too much out of the ball. First he plays it

as an analogy and then as a piece of straight physics. It ends up in touch.

After a long journey, Nasrudin found himself amid the milling throng in

Baghdad. This was the biggest place he had ever seen, and the people

pouring through the streets confused him.

-"I wonder how people manage to keep track of themselves, who they are, in

a place like this,' he mused.

Then he thought, 'I must remember myself well, otherwise I might lose

myself.'

He rushed to a caravansarai. A wag was sitting on his bed, next to the one

which Nasrudin was alloted. Nasrudin thought he would have a siesta, but he

had a problem: how to find himself again when he woke up.

He confided in his neighbour.

-'Simple', said the joker. 'Here is an inflated bladder. Tie it around

your leg and go to sleep. When you wake up, look for the man with the

balloon, and that will be you.' 'Excellent idea,' said Nasrudin.

A couple of hours later, the Mulla awoke. He looked for the bladder, and

found it tied to the leg of the wag. 'Yes that is me,' he thought. Then in

a frenzy of fear he started pummelling the other man: 'wake up! Something

has happened, as I thought it would! Your idea was no good!'

The man woke up and asked him what the trouble was. Nasrudin pointed to

the bladder. 'I can tell by the bladder that you are me - but who, for the

love of goodness, AM I?'

_______________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

June 10, 2002

Namaste,

>From the Garland of Guru's Sayings, by Sri Muruganar; tr. Prof. K.

Swaminathan . [Publ. Ramanashram, 1st ed. 1990].

# 937

The sage whose ego is extinct

Is freed from the three seeming states

Of waking, dreaming and deep sleep.

All that remains for such a sage

Is turiya, the most noble state,

First, last and all-transcendent.

#940

This true and laudable awareness,

Turiya, may be aptly named

Grand Sleep that knows no waking,

Or Eternal Wakefulness untouched

By slippery sleep.

[Also, Jnaneshvara - Changadeva Pasashti -

nideparaute nidaijaNe. jaagR^itii giLonii jaagaNe . (Marathi)]

#957

Do not lose hope and feel dejected

Because deep sleep has not pervaded

The dream-state. When in waking one

Attains deep sleep's non-dual bliss

It spreads into the dream-state too.

#958

Till one attains non-dual bliss

One must while waking persevere

In self-enquiry, and till this bliss

Spreads to the dream-state and pervades it,

Persist in this enquiry.

Regards,

Sunder

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

In that condition the Sage Yajnavalkya says "It

> becomes transparent like water, one, the witness, and without a

second.

> This is the sphere(state) of Brahman, O Emperor." IV.iii.32 Brh.Up.

> Is this deep nonsense or gnomic utterance? It is related I

believe to the

> mysterious - Bg.II.69 : "The man of self-control is awake when it

is night

> for all creatures; and such a sage sees as night that in which all

other

> creatures are awake".(Nabar&Tumkur trans.)

>

June 11, 2002

For the attention of Capanellius:

Just a small correction for the record.

In #13635, Capanellius quotes two lines and attributes them to me.

Correctly though these two lines are found in my mail#13633, I am

actually quoting a passage from mail #13634 of Dennis Waite (9th

June). These lines are:

>>How, therefore, is it possible to demonstrate that Consciousness

was present during the (presumed) deep sleep state?<<

In fact my mail#13633 was trying to answer this question of Dennis.

In fact today Sadanandaji (mail #13639) has answered this more

effectively.

praNAms to all advaitins.

Yours, profvk

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

June 11, 2002

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> For the attention of Capanellius:

>

> Just a small correction for the record.

> In #13635, Capanellius quotes two lines and attributes them to me.

> Correctly though these two lines are found in my mail#13633, I am

> actually quoting a passage from mail #13634 of Dennis Waite (9th

> June). These lines are:

> >>How, therefore, is it possible to demonstrate that Consciousness

> was present during the (presumed) deep sleep state?<<

Thanks for the above correction and additional notes. I also left off

mentioning my interest in your own proof.

Thanks.

June 12, 2002

In a message dated 6/12/2002 9:01:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

profvk writes:

>

> Madathilanir (#13642):

> 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.

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

Yes, that is beautiful and rather straight forward and logical, all wrapped

up together. Indeed, the screen is being. Now, it should be interesting to

explore this "will of the screen" and the mechanics of its operations?

jai guru dev,

Edmond

June 12, 2002

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

Dennis writes in #13669:

Someone seems to be missing the point here! You say "If Consciousness

were

not present during sleep

how can you say now that I was 'conscious' of nothing?" This is

precisely

the point I was making. I was not able to say 'I am conscious (of

anything

or nothing)' whilst I was asleep. Only now, when I wake up, am I able

to say

'I WAS conscious...' but this seems to be an inference. How am I able

to

differentiate between situation A and B as follows?

A - I was conscious of a, b and c. Then I went to sleep and was

conscious

but conscious of nothing. Then I woke up and was conscious of x, y

and z.

B - I was conscious of a, b and c. Then I went to sleep and

consciousness

ceased to exist. Then I woke up and was conscious of x, y and z. Of

course,

I also remember a, b and c but this could simply be the 'new'

consciousness

accessing the old memories.

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

Reply by vk: The "'new' consciousness" is the flaw in Alternative B

above. There is only one consciousness. Even in alternative A,

whether the consciousness was at that time conscious of 'nothing' or

not is a wrongly-worded question. There was consciousness. That is

all. For a clarity on this I would like to go to Madathilnair's post

No.13642, from which I quote the last paragraph below:

Madathilanir (#13642):

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.

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

PraNAms to all advaitins

Yours, profvk

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

June 14, 2002

Namaste Madathil,

Your analogy of the screen and the objects in it etc. retains the same

relationship between its elements as the traditional mirror analogy. The

point about Deep Sleep is that here is an 'object' that is congruent with

the screen. This gives it its status as a limit case which tests our

theory. It tells us what the screen is undistracted by the presence of

'objects' and a 'witness'. This use of the concept of witnessing or the

witness is it seems to me used by Shankara in a specific context. It comes

up in relation to the rebuttal of the charge of infinite regress by the

Buddhist and ushers in the unique theory of superimposition.(B.S.B.)

Vedantins would never confuse this with the Cartesian Ego but that

particular program is so powerful that it tends to create distortion in the

Advaitic insight.

To get back to M.'s hunch that if cues were eliminated then we would not

know whether we had been asleep or not and our concept would be formed by

the reports of others. With the presence of cues and the learned

interpretation of subjective symptoms we can tell how long we have been

asleep and confuse that with a knowledge of the state itself. Is it

possible to get to a state free of all conditioning. I think not. Is

Shankara's assertion untestable and theoretically based? When I nap in

situations where cues as to time are absent is my knowledge that I have been

asleep a deduction from uneliminable phsiological sensations?

Shankara did not have any doubts on this issue - ("Waking up from deep sleep

one says) 'I' did not see anything at all in that state.' (From this it is

clear that) one denies the existence of the mental modifications, ( the

knower, knowing and the known) in deep sleep but not that of knowledge

itself." Para.97 pg.233 Upadesasahasri.

Neither did he use scripture to back up his claim. He took it to be an

insight available to anyone and not in any way a byproduct of his own

realisation. Was he correct in this? Is this just another worry? The

main purpose of the information delivered to us by our senses, including the

order in which it comes, is the navigation of this soft machine through a

dangerous world. We get to know what we really need to know i.e. what is

adaptive, the fine print may not even be read or worse still cannot be read.

Theoretic overlay may well be irrelevent to that project. I have the odd

sensation that I may have changed my own mind for me.

In the waking state inquiry may be far from the adaptive project unless you

consider that the vista of consciousness is larger than that. Perhaps these

subtle discriminations are only available to a mind sharpened by Dhyana.

That would be the Masters assumption. Let no one take offence at this, I am

merely speculating.

May I finish with a quotation from Wittgenstein's

philosophical Investigation:

§ 129 The aspect of things that are most important for us are hidden

because of their simplicity and familiarity. ( One is unable to notice

something - because it is always before one's eyes.) The real foundations

of his enquiry do not strike a man at all. Unless that fact has at some

time struck him.- And this means: we fail to be struck by what, once seen,

is most striking and most powerful.

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

June 15, 2002

Namaste Michael,

Thanks. Enjoyed your post.

This discussion began as an attempt from my side to drive home the

point that the attention we are devoting to the "experience of not

experiencing anything called deep sleep" is not at all that very much

warranted for advaita to stand on its own legs. What I have in mind

are the explanations offered that sleep is a "union with bliss" etc.

It may well be. Nevertheless, we could do without such theorizing.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't want to offend anyone. There

is no disrespect to any advaita teachers also meant here.

I thought perhaps we could understand the subject better if the

conditionings were removed. Hence, my attempt to put that guy in

space and conjecture what the situation would be like for him.

However, that turned out to be inconclusive.

I slept well last night. I feel fresh and happy now. Better I enjoy

this feeling "now" than rack my brain about what was happening when I

selpt in a 'mindless then'. The "now" has on the "screen"

an "experience of not experiencing" - "a gap", i.e. 'the mindless

then' is in the "now". That means, technically, the "screen" never

stopped lighting up (i.e. "I" was ever there awake witnessing - sleep

or wakefulness!). In other words, there is really no 'actual

sleeping' for me as we "collectively" understand. I only have the

sleep enjoyment. Then, why discuss sleep enjoyment in the past tense?

The same applies to death. My body's death, which will not be my

experience as was its origin, is only a "collectively acknowledged"

thought or idea. That thought or idea is also on the "screen". "This

body" may cease to appear on the screen. (It is our experience that

it is not there most of the time and its occasional appearances are

not of our choice!). The "screen" continues lighting up. What does

the disappearance of the body matter as long as it is the "screen"

or "the lighting up" in the "now"(all three are the same) that

matters?

The "now" is the self-evident "I exist", the lighting up is the "I

know" and the "screen" is the one without a second, hence "fulness".

Sat-chit-aananda dehoham Ahamekaahamavyayam! I am going back to the

same Sankara whom both of us respect so much. Where else to go?

A little contemplation (dhyaana as rightly pointed out by you in your

post) will convince anybody of what I have laboured to express with

the aid of incapable words. This, for me, is the most important fact

that is right in front of us, yet hidden, due to its very simplicity!

This is a subjective understanding and conviction. Please don't

introduce a collective scenario. "I" am the only subject and this is

the truth for me. It is true to you too. I have nothing more to

say. So, may we close this discussion?

Screenfully yours,

Madathil Nair

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

> Your analogy of the screen and the objects in it etc. retains the

same

> relationship between its elements as the traditional mirror

analogy. The

> point about Deep Sleep is that here is an 'object' that is

congruent with

> the screen.

Perhaps these

> subtle discriminations are only available to a mind sharpened by

Dhyana.

> That would be the Masters assumption. Let no one take offence at

this, I am

> merely speculating.

> May I finish with a quotation from Wittgenstein's

> philosophical Investigation:

>

> § 129 The aspect of things that are most important for us are

hidden

> because of their simplicity and familiarity. ( One is unable to

notice

> something - because it is always before one's eyes.) The real

foundations

> of his enquiry do not strike a man at all. Unless that fact has at

some

> time struck him.- And this means: we fail to be struck by what,

once seen,

> is most striking and most powerful.

June 18, 2002

Hiall,

I agree with Sri. Krishnamurthy's explanation of

the Consciousness/deep sleep/I state in reply to

Dennis. There is no need for a/n (second) object to

identify because the Self is Brahman consistent with

the Advaitic philosophy. Simple and succint.

With Love,

doc4baby

--- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

>

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

> Dennis writes:

> The passage in question is: "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."

> This is similar to the explanation of adhyaasa in

> the Brahmasuutra

> bhaashhya, in that we mix up 'I am' (the real part)

> with 'something

> in

> creation' (the false part). Although I may doubt the

> existence of all

>

> else,

> I can never doubt that 'I am'... whilst I am

> conscious. But what is

> happening here is that I am saying: '(Whilst I was

> asleep) I was

> conscious

> of nothing' but I am saying it NOW, in the present.

> There is no

> dispute that

> I exist now. But, at the time of the presumed deep

> sleep, there was

> no

> consciousness of an 'I' to say 'I am conscious of

> nothing'. It still

> seems

> to me that an inference is taking place - that this

> 'I' was still

> present -

> but that, since there was no object of

> consciousness, there was no

> experience and therefore there is no memory of an

> experience now, in

> the

> present. How, therefore, is it possible to

> demonstrate that

> Consciousness

> was present during the (presumed) deep sleep state?

>

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

>

> Hello Dennis, namaste

>

> I am trying to answer your concluding question

> above. This is by

> Reductio ad absurdum. If Consciousness were not

> present during sleep

> how can you say now that I was 'conscious' of

> nothing?

> Your contention that the consciousness of 'I' was

> not present during

> sleep is only partially acceptable. For 'I' is

> Consciousness.

> Consciousness was and is present as Consciousness.

> This

> Consciousness does not need an 'object of

> consciousness' to be

> Consciousness. Whether an object that is lighted is

> there or not,

> Light is Light. What was not present during sleep

> was the feeling of

> 'I'; because 'feeling' is something that happens in

> the mind. Of

> course mind was asleep. But Consciousness, that is

> 'I', was present

> without a second 'object of consciousness'.

> ADVAITAM!

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> Yours,

> profvk

=====

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

> My website on Science and Spirituality is

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

> You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of

> Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R.

> Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

>

> - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

> http://fifaworldcup.

>

=====

Siva and Kalyani Subramanian

Yaa DEVI Sarva Bhootheshu Maathru Rupena Samstitha

Namas Tasyai Namas Tasyai Namas Tasyai Namo Namaha !

HRAA OM HARA OM SADASIVA !

HARI OM HARI OM NARAYANA !!

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

June 19, 2002

Prof. VK, Dennis and Siva,

Just my two cents. It is important to recognize the limitations of the

objective analysis of the deep sleep state.

First the analysis is being done in the waking state by a waker's mind.

"

Logical deductions based on "I am existent and conscious (includeing

self-conscious) - sat and chit - and is that I am eternal - are again

confirmed by the waker's mind based on logical deduction only but fully

supported by the scriptural statement - sadeva soumya etc and na abaavo

vidyate sataH. The teachings and the analysis is validated by the mind by

the support of the scriptures. But the independent existence of the mind

sans conscious is itself questionable. An invalid guy trying to analyze the

sate by hearsay or circumstantial evidence.

There is no mind in the deep sleep state (mind being defined as thought

flow).

What is recognized in the waking mind is its own absence (like missing 18

and half minutes in Nixon's tape) - the rest is deduction by the mind which

was absent in that state.

Please remember I am not only not conscious of 'no thing" or nothing but

also not consious of myself too unlike in the meditation state where absence

of everything is known but presence of myself is felt.

In Panchadasi text Swami Vidyaranaya in the first chapter (I do not have the

text here to give ref.) brings this fact vividly. In order to negate the

deep sleep state he brings in the meditative state to prove that I am is the

turiiya state transending the deep sleep state.

Hence I consider any analysis by the waking mind of the state in which it

was not three is like the analysis of an 'indeterminate problem'

'anirvachaniiyam - I brought this issue in my discussions with Nanda about

an year back. The analysis is done by the mind not by conscious that is

ever present. It is akarthaa and abhokta.

Dennis - you may need to go back to deep sleep state to prove your existence

there - just kidding! Or meditative state to dismiss all the three states.

I see my friend Dr. Siva has joined the list - welcome Siva.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

June 19, 2002

To all wakers and sleepers:

My last post came round to accepting that the knowledge that we have been

in a state of deep dreamless sleep is an assumption theoretically based on

the fact that consciousness is always on. However the observation that

might have backed this theory up is blocked by adaptive needs such as 'where

am I' or 'what woke me up', 'am I in danger' etc.

I now think that what we have in this statement 'I slept soundly and was

conscious of nothing' is not a single report of a condition that has passed

but in fact two reports which are fused together.

(a) I slept

(b) I slept soundly and was conscious of nothing

The report (b) could have any number of varients e.g. I had an unquiet

night, I dreamt all night, I woke up in the middle of a dream, I was being

chased by elephants.

(a) is delivered to us by the physiological symptoms, cues, whatever. It is

the bare fact.

(b) is the character of the fact, the mental correlate as Shankara points

out in B.S.B. II.ii.28, You can have a cow as such and whiteness or

blackness/white cow or black cow. The smell of milk and the taste of milk.

He is thereby exposing the unreal nature of the Vijnanavada restriction of

reality to mental appearances.

We remember nothing, there was nothing to remember. Does that allow

Dennis' suggestion that there might be no consciousness at all during that

interval. On for the dream and off for the deep sleep passage. Who

switches it on and off? Why should that happen only in one form of sleep

and not in the other or does it switch on and off. By the Identity

criterion which I proffered viz. that the same thing cannot have two

beginnings in time continuity is established but there is yet another fact

which Shankara uses as a preamble and a preparation for the deep Sleep

argument. It is a varient of that in B.S.B. II.ii.28 where he draws our

attention to the marked difference between perception and mental cognition.

We do not inwardly scan our mental modifications. They are immediately

presented to us. The concepts that are part of our mental apparatus come to

exist in that moment of perception. "Not that anybody cognises a perception

to be a pillar, a wall, etc., rather all people cognize a pillar , a wall

etc. as objects of perception." The concepts that we have of whiteness,

tallness, ruggedness are switched on with the sensation and are not

abstracted from the review of inner mental data. There is no examination of

the mental modifications one after the other by the inner subject to

abstract these inner qualities from them. However as Peter Geach remarks in

'Mental Acts'

"The relation of the judgment to the sensory context was what Aquinas called

'conversio ad phantasmata'; it cannot be mere simultaneity, but we are no

better able than he to specify what the relation must be."

(from Upadesasahasri)

Ð#75. The teacher said to him,"your doubt is not justifiable, for you,

the Self, are proved to be free from change, and therefore perpetually

the same on the ground that all the modifications of the mind are

(simultaneously) known by you. You regard this knowledge of all the

modifications which is the reason for the above inference as that for

your doubt. If you were changeful like the mind or the senses (which

pervade their objects one after another), you would not simultaneously

know all the mental modifications, the objects of your knowledge. Nor

are you aware of a portion only of the objects of your knowledge (at a

time). You are, therefore, absolutely changeless."

Modifications of the mind are multitudinous and various and changeful and

the disciple (#74) in a confusing blend of abstractionism, idealism and

inner sense draws the inference that the Self implicated in all this must be

of a changeful nature too. The Master does not deny the variety of our

concepts but asks the disciple to consider instead the manner in which they

are presented to us. It is a figure/ground switch.

To recapitulate, we may have a knowledge of having been asleep due to

physiological cues, but our judgment as to the character of that sleep is

inwardly, immediately presented to us. We remember having dreams for

instance. In the case of deep dreamless sleep nothing presents itself.

That consciousness of nothing from the method of presentation of mental

modifications (#75) is an actual consciousness happening now and is

definitely not a memory nor an inference. You are not speaking about a

state of mind then but about a state of mind now. The belief that we were

talking about a state of mind then was the source of the varied views.

Perhaps one could say that it is a temporally extended now or an a now of a

duration more than the ordinary instantaneity

Best Wishes and thanks for a stimulating discussion,

Michael.

_______________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

June 20, 2002

In my last post, I said I would like to close this discussion.

However, I cannot resist expressing a big "thank you" for what is

quoted below from your post. One does not need pramanas for such a

conclusion. It is simple logic, only if one keeps one's eyes open

and really sees! It is not enough that one has eyes, one must see

with them. Victor Hugo said so. Not me, please.

Madathil Nair

__________________________

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

In the case of deep dreamless sleep nothing presents itself.

> That consciousness of nothing from the method of presentation of

mental

> modifications (#75) is an actual consciousness happening now and is

> definitely not a memory nor an inference. You are not speaking

about a

> state of mind then but about a state of mind now. The belief that

we were

> talking about a state of mind then was the source of the varied

views.

June 20, 2002

In a message dated 6/20/2002 3:34:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

dwaite writes:

> . . . Everything can only happen now. I

> can only be aware of something being presented now. What is being presented

> in the case of having dreamed is the memory of a dream. What is being

> presented in the case of having only had deep sleep is the memory of

> nothing. No difference - a memory in both cases.

Beautiful! Just like a computer being able to remember the 0 bit as well as

a 1 bit. We have memory of this or that of the waking state, of this or that

of the dreaming state, and of this or that of the sleeping state. But why do

you refute this statement in very following sentence?

With the memory of the

> dream we do not need to infer anything. It is obvious that we must have

> dreamt. In the case of the memory of nothing, we are obliged to infer that,

> since there is no dream memory we must have had deep sleep

>

The first statement is beautiful. In the second statement, I do not follow

that "we are obliged to infer . . ." There is no logic being used to "know"

we have slept, that is, in recalling the experience of sleep. As you say

above, "What is being presented in the case of having only had deep sleep is

the memory of nothing. No difference - a memory in both cases." Agreed. If

there is a notion of "inference" that is popping up and vying for

recognition, then does not such a notion spontaneously arise in want of

giving some intellectual credence to that which has been experienced?

Nama-rupa?

jai guru dev,

Edmond

June 20, 2002

Apologies for continuing this discussion after crying 'enough'! I was going

to let Michael's final comments rest

(To recapitulate, we may have a knowledge of having been asleep due to

physiological cues, but our judgement as to the character of that sleep is

inwardly, immediately presented to us. We remember having dreams for

instance. In the case of deep dreamless sleep nothing presents itself.

That consciousness of nothing from the method of presentation of mental

modifications (#75) is an actual consciousness happening now and is

definitely not a memory nor an inference. You are not speaking about a

state of mind then but about a state of mind now.)

but since Madathil has also indicated that this is an acceptable 'last

word', I feel bound to object again.

Michael, you acknowledge that we 'remember' having had dreams but then claim

that the consciousness of nothing in the deep sleep is happening now. How

can these two statements be reconciled? Everything can only happen now. I

can only be aware of something being presented now. What is being presented

in the case of having dreamed is the memory of a dream. What is being

presented in the case of having only had deep sleep is the memory of

nothing. No difference - a memory in both cases. With the memory of the

dream we do not need to infer anything. It is obvious that we must have

dreamt. In the case of the memory of nothing, we are obliged to infer that,

since there is no dream memory we must have had deep sleep.

How could we possibly be presented now with a consciousness of nothing that

happened in the past?

All the best,

Dennis

June 20, 2002

And how could the presentation of *any* object, whether it be the presentation

of "presence" or an "absence," happen at any time other than now?

--Greg

At 08:32 PM 6/20/02 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote:

>Michael, you acknowledge that we 'remember' having had dreams but then claim

>that the consciousness of nothing in the deep sleep is happening now. How

>can these two statements be reconciled? Everything can only happen now. I

>can only be aware of something being presented now. What is being presented

>in the case of having dreamed is the memory of a dream. What is being

>presented in the case of having only had deep sleep is the memory of

>nothing. No difference - a memory in both cases. With the memory of the

>dream we do not need to infer anything. It is obvious that we must have

>dreamt. In the case of the memory of nothing, we are obliged to infer that,

>since there is no dream memory we must have had deep sleep.

>

>How could we possibly be presented now with a consciousness of nothing that

>happened in the past?

June 20, 2002

Hi Dennnis!

Please permit this interruption before Michael gets back with his own

explanation.

The 'memory' is in the 'now'. The problem is with our concept

of "memory" as we understand it to be a picture of something that

happened in the "past". When everything is in the "now", there is no

scope for a "past". So, there cannot be any picture of the past. You

are just experiencing the sleep enjoyment in the "now". It is not

mandatory that you slept in the past for this enjoyment to be

experienced! Sounds perposterous!? No, Sir. This reality comprising

things we consider "normal" can crumble like a house of cards if we

really learn to "see". I didn't say this. The Mexican wise man, Don

Juan, said so. Frankji will vouch for it.

Yes, if you take matters as they appear, then there is a past,

present and future. Then "memory" is quite acceptable and, if you,

research, you will find that there are memory cells in a certain part

of the brain and that long-buried memories can be replayed by

activating them. That is not advaita. That is the aggrandisement of

Ignorance. Haven't we named it "science"? Scientists! Please don't

feel offended. You have to decide between the two. Then the problem

gets spontaneously resolved. I am hammering this on the keyboard

munching food cooked in a microwave oven. Let science languish in

the kitchen while we entertain lofty cogitations!

Madathil Nair

___________________________

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

> Apologies for continuing this discussion after crying 'enough'! I

was going

> to let Michael's final comments rest

>

> (To recapitulate, we may have a knowledge of having been asleep due

to

> physiological cues, but our judgement as to the character of that

sleep is

> inwardly, immediately presented to us. We remember having dreams

for

> instance. In the case of deep dreamless sleep nothing presents

itself.

> That consciousness of nothing from the method of presentation of

mental

> modifications (#75) is an actual consciousness happening now and is

> definitely not a memory nor an inference. You are not speaking

about a

> state of mind then but about a state of mind now.)

>

> but since Madathil has also indicated that this is an

acceptable 'last

> word', I feel bound to object again.

>

> Michael, you acknowledge that we 'remember' having had dreams but

then claim

> that the consciousness of nothing in the deep sleep is happening

now. How

> can these two statements be reconciled? Everything can only happen

now. I

> can only be aware of something being presented now. What is being

presented

> in the case of having dreamed is the memory of a dream. What is

being

> presented in the case of having only had deep sleep is the memory of

> nothing. No difference - a memory in both cases. With the memory of

the

> dream we do not need to infer anything. It is obvious that we must

have

> dreamt. In the case of the memory of nothing, we are obliged to

infer that,

> since there is no dream memory we must have had deep sleep.

>

> How could we possibly be presented now with a consciousness of

nothing that

> happened in the past?

>

> All the best,

>

> Dennis

June 21, 2002

I have been watching with interest this discussion on

deep sleep. Possibly, I am intruding, but I cant help

but exclaim, are we not categorizing "now" or the

present in a dream? There are only two states of

ignorance, one is the dream state and the other is

dreamless sleep.

In every dream we sense continuation( as though the

events of that dream can be linked to past happenings)

even though there is no continuation. Similarly in

this waking we feel the continuation of our experience

and assert that this is not a dream but waking.

But in reality we are always dreaming and then

suddenly lapse into a dreamless state. Now the dreamer

is analyzing a true state (that of dreamless sleep)

from the stand point of the false state (dreaming ).

What is required is to go back to the state of

dreamlessness (is there such a word?) consciously.

That is the REAL NOW. Is'nt Samadhi also similar?

Nobody can describe Samadhi because it is not confined

to this dream state.

Anand

> The 'memory' is in the 'now'. The problem is with

> our concept

> of "memory" as we understand it to be a picture of

> something that

> happened in the "past". When everything is in the

> "now", there is no

> scope for a "past". So, there cannot be any picture

> of the past. You

> are just experiencing the sleep enjoyment in the

> "now". It is not

> mandatory that you slept in the past for this

> enjoyment to be

> experienced! Sounds perposterous!? No, Sir. This

> reality comprising

> things we consider "normal" can crumble like a house

> of cards if we

> really learn to "see". I didn't say this. The

> Mexican wise man, Don

> Juan, said so. Frankji will vouch for it.

>

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

June 21, 2002

Namaste Shri Anand Natarajan.

We are always samaadhi (I am deliberately avoding the

preposition "in" or "at"). This is the "screen" in my earlier

analogy. Awareness or Consciousness or Thuriya is just the same. One

who discerns knows that it is always samaadhi, uninterruptedly so -

whether one is dreaming or awake. In other words, samaadhi IS

inspite of all waking and dream projections. The problem is that we

have a tendency to take samaadhi as something that we enter and exit -

something like a retiring room - and that samaadhi ceases when

projections begin. That, in my humble opinion, is the root of all

confusion. If such notion is done away with, then the knowledge

of "deep sleep as something that happened in the past (dreamlesness

as you call it)" becomes just one of the things projected on what you

rightly called the "REAL NOW".

Pranams.

Madathil Nair

________________

advaitin, Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo> wrote:

> What is required is to go back to the state of

> dreamlessness (is there such a word?) consciously.

> That is the REAL NOW. Is'nt Samadhi also similar?

> Nobody can describe Samadhi because it is not confined

> to this dream state.

June 21, 2002

In a message dated 6/21/2002 7:03:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

ombhurbhuva writes:

> From the outside you know that sleep

> went on for hours, that the brain waves on the E.E.G. machine showed that

> there were no dreams but to the consciousness which is different from all

> this it is an instantaneous non-inferential awareness. We just know!

>

Yes, we just know! And this instantaneous knowing is direct experience, that

very direct experience from which all other thought forms, truths, etc must

(can only) be judged (with or without any additional ensuing intellectual

notions). Hence, it would seem that there is nothing more important than

obtaining, than allowing, than having personal direct experience -- direct

experience about all various things and unthings, i.e., especially the

interfacing transitional sakti things, things that catapult one directly into

brahman consciousness. Then all of this chitchat even is basically

meaningless avidya. However, the mirth and frolic of bouncing in and out of

these ongoing sat-cit-ananda domains are most enjoyable nevertheless, some

say, the very purpose of life.

jai guru dev,

Edmond

June 21, 2002

I really am going to have to call a halt to my involvement this time, at

least for the present - I'm off on holiday for the next week so will not be

able to read any further comments until Sun 30th. (Just when it was getting

interesting again!)

Just like to reiterate - there is only now (the future futureless and the

past all deception as old T.S. said). Our memory presents us with present

thoughts which we interpret as representing a past - this process is what I

referred to as 'inference'. It applies just as much to the dream as to the

blank of deep sleep. It just seems more obvious to us that there was

something in the past in the case of the positive dream experience.

Can't agree with your statement, Madathil, that "You are just experiencing

the sleep enjoyment in the 'now'". Enjoyment is a function of the ego which

was absent during the actual deep sleep experience. Although it is present

now, I am not asleep. And I don't accept any verification from Don Juan - I

understood this person had been thoroughly discredited. As I mentioned

before, though, I share your low opinion of science when it comes to matters

spiritual!

Happy with Anand Natarajan's interjection: "Possibly, I am intruding, but I

cant help but exclaim, are we not categorizing "now" or the present in a

dream?" Our so-called waking state is certainly effectively another dream.

But I haven't yet discovered how to go consciously back to the state of

dreamlessness.

Regards,

Dennis

June 21, 2002

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Anand Natarajan.

>

> We are always samaadhi

Consciousness Is

(I am deliberately avoding the

> preposition "in" or "at"). This is the "screen" in my earlier

> analogy. Awareness or Consciousness or Thuriya is just the same.

One

> who discerns knows that it is always samaadhi, uninterruptedly so -

> whether one is dreaming or awake. In other words, samaadhi IS

> inspite of all waking and dream projections. The problem is that

we

> have a tendency to take samaadhi as something that we enter and

exit -

> something like a retiring room - and that samaadhi ceases when

> projections begin. That, in my humble opinion, is the root of

all

> confusion. If such notion is done away with, then the knowledge

> of "deep sleep as something that happened in the past (dreamlesness

> as you call it)" becomes just one of the things projected on what

you

> rightly called the "REAL NOW".

To me samadhi is when consciousness & the subtle forms connect.

So, I'd describe it as an awake dreamer.

June 21, 2002

David , your points hereunder I will try to address. You wrote:

ichael, you acknowledge that we 'remember' having had dreams but then claim