Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 To describe some prakriyas that Shri Atmananda taught, it might help to quote from a typewritten sheet entitled 'Points to be noted for sadhana'. These notes summarized a series of 'regular talks' that Shri Atmananda gave, by way of a systematic introduction to his teachings. In 1958, at Shri Atmananda's home in Trivandrum, my sister and I attended such a series of talks, and at the end we each received a carbon copy of the summarizing sheet. We were still children at the time, just before our teens, growing up as westernized Indians in post-colonial Mumbai (then called 'Bombay'). To us, Shri Atmananda was not westernized but very Indian, quite unlike our westernized school and our avant-garde intellectual parents. And yet, it was our school-teachers and our parents who struck us as old-fashioned and authoritarian. That wasn't how we thought of Shri Atmananda. We did not have to take what he said on authority, for he came across in a perfectly modern way -- as speaking on a level with us, about our everyday experience. In this everyday experience, he showed a meaning that was simple and straightforward, in contrast to all the complicated stuff that was being loaded onto us by our parents and our school. When we once complained of this load, he gently made it plain that the load was better taken on than evaded, and that his teaching should not be misused for the purpose of evasion. Such a straightforward attitude is characteristic of his teaching. This is evident in his first point for sadhana: "Examination of the three states proves that I am a changeless Principle (Existence)." Here, waking, dream and sleep are examined, as everyday experiences that show a self from which they are known. In the waking state, the self is identified with a body in an outside world, where the body's senses are assumed to know outside objects. But in the dream state, all bodies and all objects seen are imagined in the mind. Dreamt objects are experienced by a dream self -- which is not an outside body, but has been imagined in the mind. This shows that the self which knows experience cannot be an outside body, as it is assumed to be in the waking world. Considering the dream state more carefully, it too depends upon assumed belief. In the experience of a dream, self is identified with a conceiving mind, where thoughts and feelings are assumed to know the dreamt-up things that they conceive. But, in the state of deep sleep, we have an experience where no thoughts and feelings are conceived and nothing that's perceived appears. In the experience of deep sleep, there is no name or quality or form -- neither conceived by mind, nor perceived by any sense. At first, from this lack of appearances, it seems that deep sleep is a state of blank emptiness, where there is nothing to know anything. No mind or body there appears; and yet it is a state that we somehow enter and experience every day, when waking body falls asleep and dreaming mind has come to rest. If this state of rest is taken seriously, as an experience in itself, it raises a profound question. How is it experienced, when all activities of body and of mind have disappeared? The question points to a self which experiences deep sleep, a self that somehow goes on knowing when all changing actions of perception, thought and feeling have disappeared. That self is utterly distinct from mind and body, for it stays knowing when they disappear. Its knowing is no changing act of either mind or body; for it remains when all changing acts have come to rest, in an experience where they are utterly dissolved. So it is changeless in itself -- found shining by itself, in depth of sleep. Since change and time do not apply to it, that self is a changeless and a timeless principle of all experience. In the waking state, it illuminates perceptions and interpretations of an outside world. In dreams, it illuminates the inwardly conceived imaginations of a dreaming mind. In deep sleep, it shines alone, quite unconfused with body or with mind. In all these states, it remains the same. It is always utterly unchanged in its own existence, which illuminates itself. Through this prakriya, Shri Atmananda initiated an enquiry from everyday experience that is commonly accessible to everyone. Accordingly, he treated everyday deep sleep as a 'key to the ultimate'. He said that if a sadhaka is ready to consider deep sleep seriously, then this alone is enough, without the need for a yogic cultivation of nirvikalpa samadhi. How far does Shri Atmananda's position here accord with the traditional advaita scriptures? This question has already been discussed a week or two ago, but I'll repeat briefly that it depends on which scriptures are taken up and how they are interpreted. Two scriptures that I've studied here are the story of Indra and Virocana in the Chandogya Upanishad (8.7-12) and the analysis of 'Om' in the Mandukya Upanishad. I personally do not find it difficult to interpret these two scriptures in a way that accords fully with Shri Atmananda. But there are of course other interpretations which place emphasis upon nirvikalpa samadhi, as a fourth state considered in addition to waking, dream and sleep. I would say that for the purposes of different kinds of sadhana, it is quite legitimate to interpret the scriptures in such ways that may seem contradictory. As Shri Kuntimaddi Sadananda has been pointing out, the contradictions are only seeming, in the realm of dvaita where our sadhanas take place. Advaita is the goal to which the sadhanas aspire. It's there that all contradictions are dissolved. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Namaste Shri Ananda, In this message, you have dealt with a subject that intrigues me the most - that of deep sleep. While the way you have analysed it is certainly valid, to me it does not appear to be conclusive of the existence of a Self beyond the body-mind complex because there is an alternative common sense analysis that is equally valid. When a person wakes up in the morning and runs through his memory tape, he finds a record of events up to a point of time. Therafter the recording is resumed only after a blank in the morning. So his statement that he slept well and did not experience anything during sleep, is more an inference made by his 'day to day self' rather than a positive experience of 'nothing' by an eternal changeless Self. I know that advaita cannot be established only by logic and that the scriptures and teachers like Shri Atmananda, use logic only as a teaching aid. I also know that I have to let go of logic at some stage or the other even as the pole-vaulter has to let go of the pole at a certain stage to make the last leap over the bar on his own. But unfortunately, probably because of the way we live our daily lives, there is a reluctance to do this. And the alternative, more straight forward, 'inference' explanation of the deep sleep experience somehow seems more logical. Did this problem come up during the discussions with Shri Atmananda? I will be happy to know how he tackled it. praNAms Venkat - M Ananda Wood <awood wrote: To describe some prakriyas that Shri Atmananda taught, it might help to quote from a Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Namaste Anandaji. You are on to Post # 2! Give us more time please. We may still have something more to say aboiut # 1. A post every ten days would be much better, I feel. That way I feel I can do justice to home, office and what I write. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ - In advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote: > To describe some prakriyas that Shri Atmananda taught, it might help to quote from a > typewritten sheet entitled 'Points to be noted for sadhana'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Namaste Shri Nair, Shri Ananda had listed in his mail to Shri Ram Chandran, 6 or 7 topics under the main head of Shri Atmananda's teachings. So a topic every 10 days will take us well in to December which may not be good for our Purusharthas - subject for December discussion. Topic 2 out of 7 on day 4 of Nov is probably a day too early, but otherwise seems quite ok to me. praNAms, Venkat - M Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Namaste Anandaji. You are on to Post # 2! Give us more time please. We may still have something more to say aboiut # 1. A post every ten days would be much better, I feel. That way I feel I can do justice to home, office and what I write. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ - In advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote: > To describe some prakriyas that Shri Atmananda taught, it might help to quote from a > typewritten sheet entitled 'Points to be noted for sadhana'. 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 Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Hello Venkat, Fascinating question! I don't recall reading of anyone posing the very same question to Sri Atmananda - with the same alternative explanation you suggest. Two comments. One, there's a bit which this explanation leaves out of its account of deep sleep. Two, even if your alternative explanation fit 100%, it would still prove the Self beyond appearances. ONE === Let's take a look at this alternative explanation of deep sleep. Basically, it characterizes deep sleep as a simple gap of zero duration between two events in a series of memories. Zero duration? Yes. Because if it had a duration of greater than zero, it would be something other than the cessation of memories. In effect, with a greater-than-zero duration, deep sleep would be its own positive phenomenon, and that would be what we call a dream, not deep sleep. So for deep sleep, the gap must not have any duration. But there is more to deep sleep than a simple gap. A simple gap doesn't account for what we feel and seem to remember about deep sleep. Think about what a simple gap would really be. Nothing to identify it with. How do you know there are not such gaps in the interstices between *every* memory? Why do we seem to be able to say so much about this one particular gap right *there*, right where we say deep sleep is? It's not just that you see the difference in the clock and the sunlight and only from them infer deep sleep. It's more, it's that there actually seems to occur a memory in the waking state that seems to represent what happened. It seems that I was there, even though subtle arisings (as in a dream) seem not to have been there. And theres' no non-being or suffering during deep sleep - this is how it's remembered. This, along with its universality, is why Atmananda uses deep sleep as a teaching point instead of nirvikalpa samadhi. TWO === And then, even if deep sleep *were* merely a zero-duration gap, then Sri Atmananda's teaching point about the Self beyond appearances still stands. Because during the gaps, you nevertheless say that you *are*. You don't say "I stopped being there during the gap, and then re-appeared each the phenomena arose again." We don't have this intuition at all. Instead, what Atmananda and advaita say about the Self being present (actually being Presence) during deep sleep still seems intuitively right even if it's just gaps. Same thing! With best regards, --Greg At 05:06 AM 11/4/2003 +0000, S Venkatraman wrote: >Namaste Shri Ananda, > >In this message, you have dealt with a subject that intrigues me the most - that of deep sleep. While the way you have analysed it is certainly valid, to me it does not appear to be conclusive of the existence of a Self beyond the body-mind complex because there is an alternative common sense analysis that is equally valid. > >When a person wakes up in the morning and runs through his memory tape, he finds a record of events up to a point of time. Therafter the recording is resumed only after a blank in the morning. So his statement that he slept well and did not experience anything during sleep, is more an inference made by his 'day to day self' rather than a positive experience of 'nothing' by an eternal changeless Self. > >I know that advaita cannot be established only by logic and that the scriptures and teachers like Shri Atmananda, use logic only as a teaching aid. I also know that I have to let go of logic at some stage or the other even as the pole-vaulter has to let go of the pole at a certain stage to make the last leap over the bar on his own. But unfortunately, probably because of the way we live our daily lives, there is a reluctance to do this. And the alternative, more straight forward, 'inference' explanation of the deep sleep experience somehow seems more logical. > >Did this problem come up during the discussions with Shri Atmananda? I will be happy to know how he tackled it. > >praNAms >Venkat - M >Ananda Wood <awood wrote: >To describe some prakriyas that Shri Atmananda taught, it might help to quote from a > > > >Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger > > > > > >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 > > > >Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Namaste Venkatji, To add to the excellent explanation from Gregji, let me quote a relevant section from Sri. Atmananda's talks compiled by Nityatrupta: 20th January, 1951: THE CONTENT OF DEEP SLEEP QUOTE: .... Consciousness never parts with you in any of the three states. In deep sleep you are conscious of deep rest or peace.Inference is possible only of those things which have not been experienced. The fact that you had a deep sleep or profound rest is your direct experience and you only remember it when you come to the waking state. It can never be an inference. Experience alone can be remembered. The fact that you were present throughout the deep sleep can also never be denied. The only three factors thus found present in deep sleep are Consciousness, peace and yourself. All these are objectless and can never be objectified.In other words, they are all subjective.But there can only be one subject and that is the "I- Principle". So none of these three can be the result of inference since they are all experience itself. UNQUOTE According to Shri. Atmananda, the point to note in this prakriya is that we have to analyze the three states from an independent standpoint without any partiality to any one state. Each state should be analyzed in relation to the experiences within that state alone. When we try to explain the deep sleep experience in terms of waking time, we are being partial to the waking state. The waking time as an object cannot be seen to exist outside of waking state and hence cannot be used to explain deep sleep state experience. So the analysis must be from a standpoint which is commonly available in all three states. Pranaams, Raj. advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > Hello Venkat, > > Fascinating question! I don't recall reading of anyone posing the very same question to Sri Atmananda - with the same alternative explanation you suggest. > > Two comments. One, there's a bit which this explanation leaves out of its account of deep sleep. Two, even if your alternative explanation fit 100%, it would still prove the Self beyond appearances. > > ONE > === > Let's take a look at this alternative explanation of deep sleep. Basically, it characterizes deep sleep as a simple gap of zero duration between two events in a series of memories. Zero duration? Yes. Because if it had a duration of greater than zero, it would be something other than the cessation of memories. In effect, with a greater-than-zero duration, deep sleep would be its own positive phenomenon, and that would be what we call a dream, not deep sleep. So for deep sleep, the gap must not have any duration. > > But there is more to deep sleep than a simple gap. A simple gap doesn't account for what we feel and seem to remember about deep sleep. Think about what a simple gap would really be. Nothing to identify it with. How do you know there are not such gaps in the interstices between *every* memory? Why do we seem to be able to say so much about this one particular gap right *there*, right where we say deep sleep is? It's not just that you see the difference in the clock and the sunlight and only from them infer deep sleep. It's more, it's that there actually seems to occur a memory in the waking state that seems to represent what happened. It seems that I was there, even though subtle arisings (as in a dream) seem not to have been there. And theres' no non-being or suffering during deep sleep - this is how it's remembered. This, along with its universality, is why Atmananda uses deep sleep as a teaching point instead of nirvikalpa samadhi. > > TWO > === > And then, even if deep sleep *were* merely a zero-duration gap, then Sri Atmananda's teaching point about the Self beyond appearances still stands. Because during the gaps, you nevertheless say that you *are*. You don't say "I stopped being there during the gap, and then re-appeared each the phenomena arose again." We don't have this intuition at all. Instead, what Atmananda and advaita say about the Self being present (actually being Presence) during deep sleep still seems intuitively right even if it's just gaps. Same thing! > > With best regards, > > --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Many Pranams all Could this other common experience help confirm the precense of a witness of the three states. I normally wake up at 6.00 Am. However, Tomorrow morning I look forward to my Yoga Master's class at 5.00 AM. I haven't set any alarm, but I wake up at 4.45 am, fully alert. There must have been some awareness operating even through the deep sleep state for this to be possible. Om Namoh Bhagavate Vasudevaya Sridhar advaitin, "rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair> wrote: > Namaste Venkatji, > To add to the excellent explanation from Gregji, let me quote a > relevant section from Sri. Atmananda's talks compiled by Nityatrupta: > > 20th January, 1951: THE CONTENT OF DEEP SLEEP > > QUOTE: > ... Consciousness never parts with you in any of the three states. In > deep sleep you are conscious of deep rest or peace.Inference is > possible only of those things which have not been experienced. The > fact that you had a deep sleep or profound rest is your direct > experience and you only remember it when you come to the waking > state. It can never be an inference. Experience alone can be > remembered. The fact that you were present throughout the deep sleep > can also never be denied. The only three factors thus found present > in deep sleep are Consciousness, peace and yourself. All these are > objectless and can never be objectified.In other words, they are all > subjective.But there can only be one subject and that is the "I- > Principle". So none of these three can be the result of inference > since they are all experience itself. > UNQUOTE > > According to Shri. Atmananda, the point to note in this prakriya is > that we have to analyze the three states from an independent > standpoint without any partiality to any one state. Each state should > be analyzed in relation to the experiences within that state > alone. When we try to explain the deep sleep experience in terms of > waking time, we are being partial to the waking state. The waking > time as an object cannot be seen to exist outside of waking > state and hence cannot be used to explain deep sleep state > experience. So the analysis must be from a standpoint which is > commonly available in all three states. > > Pranaams, > Raj. > > > advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > > Hello Venkat, > > > > Fascinating question! I don't recall reading of anyone posing the > very same question to Sri Atmananda - with the same alternative > explanation you suggest. > > > > Two comments. One, there's a bit which this explanation leaves out > of its account of deep sleep. Two, even if your alternative > explanation fit 100%, it would still prove the Self beyond > appearances. > > > > ONE > > === > > Let's take a look at this alternative explanation of deep sleep. > Basically, it characterizes deep sleep as a simple gap of zero > duration between two events in a series of memories. Zero duration? > Yes. Because if it had a duration of greater than zero, it would be > something other than the cessation of memories. In effect, with a > greater-than-zero duration, deep sleep would be its own positive > phenomenon, and that would be what we call a dream, not deep sleep. > So for deep sleep, the gap must not have any duration. > > > > But there is more to deep sleep than a simple gap. A simple gap > doesn't account for what we feel and seem to remember about deep > sleep. Think about what a simple gap would really be. Nothing to > identify it with. How do you know there are not such gaps in the > interstices between *every* memory? Why do we seem to be able to say > so much about this one particular gap right *there*, right where we > say deep sleep is? It's not just that you see the difference in the > clock and the sunlight and only from them infer deep sleep. It's > more, it's that there actually seems to occur a memory in the waking > state that seems to represent what happened. It seems that I was > there, even though subtle arisings (as in a dream) seem not to have > been there. And theres' no non-being or suffering during deep sleep - > this is how it's remembered. This, along with its universality, is > why Atmananda uses deep sleep as a teaching point instead of > nirvikalpa samadhi. > > > > TWO > > === > > And then, even if deep sleep *were* merely a zero-duration gap, > then Sri Atmananda's teaching point about the Self beyond appearances > still stands. Because during the gaps, you nevertheless say that you > *are*. You don't say "I stopped being there during the gap, and then > re-appeared each the phenomena arose again." We don't have this > intuition at all. Instead, what Atmananda and advaita say about the > Self being present (actually being Presence) during deep sleep still > seems intuitively right even if it's just gaps. Same thing! > > > > With best regards, > > > > --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Namaste, I am very happy and thrilled by the explanations of the three states by Shri Atmananda. Though I agree with it fully, I have certain subtle doubts about certain statements which are listed below in parentheses [ ]. advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote: > > At first, from this lack of appearances, it seems that deep sleep is a state of blank > emptiness, where there is nothing to know anything. No mind or body there appears; and yet > it is a state that we somehow enter and experience every day, when waking body falls > asleep and dreaming mind has come to rest. If this state of rest is taken seriously, as an > experience in itself, it raises a profound question. How is it experienced, when all > activities of body and of mind have disappeared? > > The question points to a self which experiences deep sleep, a self that somehow goes on > knowing when all changing actions of perception, thought and feeling have disappeared. [ Self experiences deep sleep ? I think there must be some better way of saying this. Because the Self as an experiencer bothers my understanding of the Self] > That self is utterly distinct from mind and body, for it stays knowing when they > disappear. Its knowing is no changing act of either mind or body; for it remains when all > changing acts have come to rest, in an experience where they are utterly dissolved. So it > is changeless in itself -- found shining by itself, in depth of sleep. > > Since change and time do not apply to it, that self is a changeless and a timeless > principle of all experience. In the waking state, it illuminates perceptions and > interpretations of an outside world. In dreams, it illuminates the inwardly conceived > imaginations of a dreaming mind. In deep sleep, it shines alone, quite unconfused with > body or with mind. In all these states, it remains the same. It is always utterly > unchanged in its own existence, which illuminates itself. [suppose I add the following explanation. Would it be in the spirit of Atmananda's teachings.: The mind merges in the Self during deep sleep. When waking takes place, the mind comes back to its pre-sleep state. During the merging with the Self in deep sleep naturally there was Knowledge, Existence and Bliss. It is this Knowledge and Bliss that is held by the mind as if it were its own experience. Tell me what is not acceptable in this way of stating it. ] PraNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Namaste Shri Venkatraman, Thanks for raising the question of how deep sleep may be explained by running through a recording of one's 'memory tape' (message 19275, 3 Nov). Thus you describe a common sense analysis that deep sleep is a blank in the memory record, between falling asleep and waking up. And you point out that such a blank does not provide conclusive evidence of any positive experience by an unchanging self. As Greg has neatly explained, sleep can only have a duration in physical time, as indicated for example by the change in a clock or in sunlight. The memory record is not a physical tape; it is merely a sequence of passed moments. In that remembered sequence, there is a moment of falling asleep and (if the sleep was dreamless) the very next moment is waking up. As described from the physical world, there may be a duration of some hours between falling asleep and waking. When this physical description is added onto the memory record, then it may seem that there were some hours between the two moments of falling asleep and waking up. But if the memory record is considered in its own terms, it says something quite different. It says that these two moments were right next to each other, with no time in between them at all. So where do we go from this contradiction, between the physical view that time has passed in deep sleep and the mental view that no time has passed at all? As Greg says, we can go two ways. On the one hand, we can think that yes, there was a period of time which memory has failed to report. But this raises further questions. Can the failure be redressed? Even if we do not remember any physical or mental appearances in that period, was there some experience there that we can understand more deeply? Beneath such appearances, do we have any further experience that is revealed to us, by the sense of refreshing rest and peace and happiness which we seek in deep sleep and which sometimes comes across to us from there? On the other hand, we can take it that no time at all has passed between adjacent moments, as one has been succeeded by the next. Again this raises questions, even more profound. If there's no time between adjacent moments, what makes them different? How on earth can we distinguish them? Must there not be a timeless gap between them, after one has passed and before the other has appeared? And if this is so between the moment of falling fast asleep and the next moment of waking up, must it not be so between any two adjacent moments? So doesn't every moment rise from a timeless gap whose experience is the same as deep sleep? And doesn't every moment instantly dissolve back there again? So isn't every moment in immediate contact with a timeless depth of sleep that no moment ever leaves? In this way, are we not led to what is said in Atma Nirvriti, chapter 17, as quoted below? "Thus all are in deep-sleep state, a deep-sleep state where there is no ignorance (non-knowingness)." Such a position is achieved through a special kind of logic, which Shri Atmananda called 'higher reason' or 'vidya-vritti'. That is not the outward reasoning of mind, which builds upon assumptions, thus proceeding from one statement to another. Instead, it is an inward reasoning that asks its way down beneath assumptions, thus going on from each question to deeper questions. That inward logic finds its goal when all assumptions are dissolved and thus no further questions can arise. At the end of your message, you rightly raise the question of logic, which is crucial here. Thus, you say: "I know that advaita cannot be established only by logic and that the scriptures and teachers like Shri Atmananda, use logic only as a teaching aid. I also know that I have to let go of logic at some stage or the other even as the pole-vaulter has to let go of the pole at a certain stage to make the last leap over the bar on his own." Here, the 'logic' you refer to is the lower logic, the outward reasoning of mind. But of the higher logic or the higher reason, Shri Atmananda said exactly the opposite. He said that it alone is sufficient to realize the truth and to establish advaita. And he insisted that a sadhaka must hold on to it relentlessly, not letting go until it dissolves itself in complete establishment. For it is the true logic. It is the truth itself, appearing in the form of logic to take a sadhaka back into it, when love for truth gets to be genuine. This is a delicate issue, quite paradoxical to outward intellect. And it is depends essentially on the relationship between teacher and disciple. To give an idea, a note from Nitya Tripta's book is appended as a postscript. Ananda --- Is 'vicara' thinking about the Truth? ('Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda', 8th March 1958, note 29) No. It is entirely different. 'Vicara' is a relentless enquiry into the truth of the Self and the world, utilizing only higher reason and right discrimination. It is not thinking at all. You come to 'know' the meaning and the goal of vicara only on listening to the words of the Guru. But subsequently, you take to that very same knowing, over and over again. That is no thinking at all. This additional effort is necessary in order to destroy samskaras. When the possessive identification with samskaras no longer occurs, you may be said to have transcended them. You cannot think about anything you do not know. Therefore thinking about the Truth is not possible till you visualize it for the first time. Then you understand that Truth can never be made the object of thought, since it is in a different plane. Thus thinking about the Truth is never possible. The expression only means knowing, over and over again, the Truth already known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Dear Professor Krishnamurthy, Thank you for the kind message (4 Nov, # 19286). You are of course quite right in the doubts which you indicated in parenthesis. "[ Self experiences deep sleep ? I think there must be some better way of saying this. Because the Self as an experiencer bothers my understanding of the Self]" Yes, it is awkward to talk of the self which 'experiences' deep sleep. Would be happy to find a better way of putting it. Would it have been better to speak instead of a self that 'knows' deep sleep? Depends on the nuances these words have for different people. Shri Atmananda tended to speak of 'experience' as 'deeper than the superficial knowledge or feeling' (see Atma Nirvriti, footnote to chapter 23). So I used the word 'experience'. Both words, 'know' and 'experience', must provoke a questioning of what they mean, before their true meaning can be realized. The right description is of course the one that works best to that end. "[suppose I add the following explanation. Would it be in the spirit of Atmananda's teachings.: "The mind merges in the Self during deep sleep. When waking takes place, the mind comes back to its pre-sleep state. During the merging with the Self in deep sleep naturally there was Knowledge, Existence and Bliss. It is this Knowledge and Bliss that is held by the mind as if it were its own experience. "Tell me what is not acceptable in this way of stating it.]" Yes, Shri Atmananda spoke similarly of merging in the Self. And no, I wouldn't take objection to the explanation. It is simple and makes sense. May help to clarify what Benjamin points out can be a vexedly confusing subject. Thanks again, Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 I must say that I tend to agree with Benjamin so far regarding this fascinating subject (I could see this one topic continuing for most of November!). I think that the key point appears in this comment from Raj: "According to Shri. Atmananda, the point to note in this prakriya is that we have to analyze the three states from an independent standpoint without any partiality to any one state. Each state should be analyzed in relation to the experiences within that state alone. When we try to explain the deep sleep experience in terms of waking time, we are being partial to the waking state. The waking time as an object cannot be seen to exist outside of waking state and hence cannot be used to explain deep sleep state experience. So the analysis must be from a standpoint which is commonly available in all three states." I don't see how we can 'analyse the three states from an independent standpoint'. Surely the only state in which we can conduct any analysis at all is the waking state. Thus any commentary on what occurred during the dream or deep sleep state is going to be biased to say the least! I am assuming here, of course that by 'analysis', Raj is referring to the objective and rational pursuit of the mind-intellect which, as far as I am aware, only operates in a 'controlled' manner during the waking state. Accordingly I am still not convinced that we do anything other than infer what 'happened' during deep sleep. (In fact, my own experience is that I always seem to awake from a dream state so that I rarely - ever? - awake direct from a deep sleep of 'absence' of any sort of awareness.) The other aspect the worries me is that there has been no mention of 'turiya'. I thought that Sri Atmananda's metaphor of the carving out of rock was relevant here. Just briefly for those who have not encountered it: Imagine a rock out of which faces have been carved. We normally see only the faces but, if we look carefully, we eventually realise that there is only the rock, the faces are merely aspects of it. The faces rpepresent the three 'states of consciousness'; the rock itself is turIyA, the 'background' upon which the 'states' are manifest and our true nature, the only real vantage point for the witnessing of the 'three states'. I may have related Francis Lucille's version of the metaphor here rather than Atmananda's but I think the essence is there. Can you comment on this, please, Ananda? Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Namaste all. We have had several mostly inclusive discussions on this forum on deep sleep last and this year. The recent posts reminded me of the following which a famous Malayalam poet wrote about Sitaji, abandoned by Rama, sitting engrossed in thoughts at her jungle ashram: "The Sun set and vanished, Moonlight filled the world, Unaware sat the Mother of the world, Unaware even of Her sitting there alone." We are unaware of time most of the time even while awake. Then why do we bother so much about the absence of time awareness in sleep? Sitaji perhaps sat there and lost herself at 5.00 p.m. till she became alert to the world at say 7.30 p.m. What happened during the period? Thoughts of Rama and her life with him occurred to her. Where did they occur? Quite unnecessarily, so to say, we invent something called mind to answer that question simply because we find an experiencer of the thoughts and a need to explain how that experiencer experienced the thoughts. Sitaji was unaware of not time alone. She was unaware of her sitting there. That means she didn't even have body awareness. She had only thought awareness, i.e. she was the thoughts. Similarly, we are all thoughts when thoughts occur to us, we are our experiences when experiences occur to us, we are our objects when we sense them, we are our memories, when we remember. If we understand this, sleep becomes easier to understand. But, the problem is that I normally have the habit of asking who thought, who experienced and who remembered. Then, the bombastic villain, Madathil Nair, most of whom is ego – the doer, enjoyer and experiencer, comes in. Better that I took him to the back of the house and put a bullet in his head. The guy is so heavy he deprives me of my freedom to be my thoughts, experiences, objects and memory. So, what happens to me every evening. Look – I am the dinner, every morsel of it, I am my bed, I am my tired limbs, I am drowsiness, I am the comfort of lying down, then finally I am……….. What is that? There is nothing – no experience – till I take the form and beauty of the next morning. Till then I am the `experience of not experiencing anything'. That I believe is the non-knowingness Atmanandaji talked about. If time ticked while Sitaji sat lost, then time would tick when I too am lost in that non-knowingness. Objection: While you are thinking, you are awake and aware of the thinking process. While you are sleeping, you are not aware of sleeping. The two (absorption in thoughts and sleep) cannot therefore be compared or equated. Answer: When you are thinking, you are the thoughts. The awareness that you are thinking comes later like the awareness of sleep comes after waking. When the awareness of thinking occurs, you are that awareness of thinking. Then, there are no more the thoughts that you thought before. Experiencership, enjoyership, thinkership, rememberership etc., like sleepership, are always later thoughts and when they occur, you are them again. Conclusion: Objects to experiences to thoughts to memory to sleep we transform as Consciousness, endless and beginningless. If we are awake to the first four, then we are awake to the fifth (sleep) too. In fact, we are always awake. Never asleep. I believe that was what Shri Atamanandaji had in mind. Any takers? Any objections? Sorry for the sloppy language. The topic is so tricky. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Greg wrote: It's more, it's that there actually seems to occur a memory in the waking state that seems to represent what happened. It seems that I was there, even though subtle arisings (as in a dream) seem not to have been there. And theres' no non-being or suffering during deep sleep - this is how it's remembered. This, along with its universality, is why Atmananda uses deep sleep as a teaching point instead of nirvikalpa samadhi. Hello Greg, Though it, the knowledge that we have been in a state of deep sleep, appears in the guise of memory we must ask whether that is accurate. The bedrock of memory is experience if we characterise it as the calling to mind now of what was experienced then. But as there is no experience in the state of deep sleep there can be no memory. It can only be the direct and immediate awareness that we have upon waking of having slept without dreaming. This sounds like a useless analytic explanation eg. opium puts one to sleep because of its dormitive power; however I think it points to a deeper truth. This is expressed in the verses: IV.iii.30: 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. Brh.Up. IV.iii.31: When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell something, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something. This treatment of Sushupti as a sort of 'dark samadhi' is I think a central intuition of Advaita from the Upanishads, Tripura Rahasya, the commentaries of Shankara and Ramana's talks. Shankara regards it as the protophaenomenon of Advaita (the one fact that is worth a thousand)cf.Upadesasahasri chap.II.prose section. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Michael, Much appreciate your quotation from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (ombhurbhuva, 5 Nov, message 19298). It very aptly describes the state of deep sleep: "IV.iii.30: 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.31: When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell something, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something." It is particularly striking that you should interpret this passage to say: "This treatment of Sushupti as a sort of 'dark samadhi' is I think a central intuition of Advaita from the Upanishads ..." By the phrase 'dark samadhi', everyday deep sleep is viewed as an inferior samadhi, absorbed in darkness, in contrast to the yogic nirvikalpa samadhi, which is a higher state whose absorption is in light. Clearly, this is an interpretation suitable for those who direct energy through yoga to its nirvikalpa samadhi, as a way of seeking truth. But Shri Atmananda taught an approach that would interpret the same passage in quite a different way. It would point out that the passage says: "... it [the self] does not know in that state [deep sleep] because, though knowing it does not know ... that second thing separate from it". In short, there is knowing in deep sleep, but it is not a knowing of any object that is separate from self. The experience of deep sleep is pure knowing or pure light, unmixed with any object. The objects that appeared in waking and in dreams are thus absorbed by deep sleep into pure light, utterly unmixed with any darkness or obscurity. It's only in the waking and dream states that darkness or obscurity gets mixed up with light, through the seeming presence of objects. When seen correctly, deep sleep is identical with nirvikalpa samadhi. It is a state of absorption in pure light. This is not of course to deny that the yogic cultivation of samadhi has its benefits, in training concentration, in purifying character and in forcefully turning attention to a state of objectless experience. The passage you have quoted is as accurate a description of nirvikalpa samadhi as it is of deep sleep. But, since deep sleep is so commonplace and so easily entered, most people are not interested to consider it seriously. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Hi Raj, You said: "But when we try to recall the deep sleep state experience, there are no such objects to identify with. So it proves that none of the above-mentioned objects provide us with an "independent standpoint" to analyze all the three states. Now, to know that there were no objects in deep sleep state, there must have been an entity, and that entity has to be the real I-Principle." Sorry, but isn't there a fallacy in the above argument? I agree with the premise, namely that we can recall no experience in deep sleep and therefore assume that there were no objects to identify with. I'm not sure what the second sentence is trying to say. I agree that the objective experiences of the waking and dream states do not help us define what is happening in the deep sleep state - is this what you are saying? Finally, the conclusion does not seem to follow at all. You seem to be saying that if we know that there were no objects in the deep sleep state, we must have been aware. I do not see this. If I go into a deep cave and switch off all the lights so that it is completely dark, then I am aware of no objects - but I am aware that I am not aware. This is not at all like the deep sleep non-experience. At the time, I am not aware at all. Surely it is more valid to conclude that, since there was no awareness, therefore there was no 'I-Principle'? Why do you insist that there must have been an entity? All that you know is that there is an entity NOW, that is saying that there were no objects (because you don't remember any). Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 advaitin, awood@v... wrote: > Michael, > > Much appreciate your quotation from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (ombhurbhuva, 5 Nov, message 19298). It very aptly describes the state of deep sleep: > > "IV.iii.30: 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.31: When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell something, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something." Namaste We should thank Michaelji for bringing in the right quotation from the Upanishad at the right moment. Indeed the two passages above quoted forms the gist of advaita. A parallel stronger version is again in the same Upanishad: :"yatra tu dvaitam iva bhavati, tatra itara itaram jigrati, paSyati, :sprSati. yatra sarvam AtmA eva abhUt, tatra kena kam paSyet, kena kam jigret, kena kam sprSet? .... vijnAtAram are kena vijAnIyat?" Where there appears to be duality, there one smells another, sees another, touches another. Where there is only Atman there who sees whom? who smells whom? who touches whom? Hey! By what does one know the knower? "By what does one know the knower?" This is the punchline of the whole teaching. The last passage quoted above has the word 'iva' which indicates that the duality of our experience is only apparent and not absolutely real. I feel that Shri Atmananda's emphasis on deep sleep as a daily reminder to us about the truth of the above Upanishadic teachings, is most well-taken. PraNAms to Shri Atmananda. praNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.