Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 2. The three states

[Guest guest]

Hello Ananda,

I understand what Shri Atmananda is getting at about

Deep Sleep and how it shows the nature of

consciousness. Shankara links both samadhi and deep

sleep and equates them from the point of view that

they are states from which we fall back - B.S.B.

II.i.9: "As in natural slumber and samadhi(absorption

in divine consciousness), though there is a natural

eradication of differences, still owing to the

persistence of the unreal nescience, differences occur

over again when one wakes up, similarly it can also

happen here. Bearing on this is the Upanisadic text,

"All these beings, when they become one with Existence

(during sleep), do not know, 'We have become one with

existence'.(Ch.VI.ix.3)

 

A point might be raised whether the experience of

samadhi is absolutely neccessary for the achievement

of the enlightened state paradoxical as that may

sound. In the ordinary way it must facilitate insight

into the nature of consciousness. Reflection on the

nature of the knowledge that we have been in a state

of dreamless sleep might do so as well but you will

not think me flippant if I suggest that samadhi might

be more of a milestone in the life of the seeker.

 

I append an extract from Tripura Rahasya which

contrasts the two states.

 

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

carried on into the state of Deep Sleep. It is given in

the form of a dialogue between the sage King Janaka

and a Brahmin interlocutor.

 

-"O King, if it is as you say that the mind made

passive by elimination of thoughts is quite pure and

capable of manifesting Supreme Consciousness, then

sleep will do it by itself, since it satisfies your

condition and there is no need for any kind of

effort".

 

Thus questioned by the Brahmin youth, the King replied,

-"I will satisfy you on this point. Listen carefully.

The mind is truly abstracted in sleep. But then its

light is screened by darkness, so how can it manifest

its true nature? A mirror covered with tar does not

reflect images but can it reflect space either? Is it

enough, in that case, that images are eliminated in

order to reveal the space reflected in the mirror? In

the same manner, the mind is veiled by the darkness of

sleep and rendered unfit for illumining thoughts.

Would such eclipse of the mind reveal the glimmer of

consciousness?

 

Would a chip of wood held in front of a single object

to the exclusion of all others reflect the object

simply because all others are excluded? Reflection can

only be on a reflecting surface and not on all

surfaces. Similarly also, realisation of the Self can

only be with an alert mind and not with a stupefied

one. New-born babes have no realisation of the Self

for want of alertness.

 

Moreover persue the analogy of the tarred mirror. The

tar may prevent the images from being seen, but the

quality of the mirror is not affected, for the outer

coating of tar must be reflected in the interior of

the mirror. So also the mind, though diverted from

dreams and wakefulness, is still in the grip of dark

sleep and not free from qualities. This is evident by

the recollection of the dark ignorance of sleep when

one wakes".

 

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

Saraswathi.publ.Sri Ramanasramam)

 

The image of the tarred mirror was the crystallising

one. It brought together all the teaching about

consciousness and our identity as experienced by

ourselves, what philosophers call self-identity.

 

The point about the chip is unnecessarily obscured by

the use of the word 'exclusion'. The chip is held

over the object on the surface of the mirror and over

that object alone. Thus that object is not reflected

because its place is taken by a non-reflecting

surface. If consciousness of the Self is blocked by

the occlusion of awareness brought about by deep sleep

then self-realisation is impossible. This is the

object you might have seen had it not been blocked.

 

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

correct for the immediate knowledge that we have on

waking that we were asleep. It is that peculiar sort

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

that what we cannot not know we cannot know either.

There is no coming or going in that awareness it

always is.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dennis,

 

Good to get your 5th Nov posting, raising two relevant questions: the first

about an

independent standpoint and the second about turiya.

 

I'll take the second first, because it is it's more a matter of interpretation

than

substance. From my understanding of Shri Atmananda's teachings, I would

interpret the

Mandukya Upanishad to the effect that turiya is not a state. As you say, it is

"the

'background' upon which the 'states' are manifest".

 

In fact, the Mandukya Upanishad uses the word 'sthana' or 'state' in association

with

waking, dream and sleep, but not in association with 'turiya' or the 'fourth'.

Thus, the

waking state is 'jagarita-sthana' (3, 9), the dream state is 'svapta-sthana' (4,

10), and

the deep sleep state is 'sushupta-sthana' (5, 11). But turiya is merely

'caturtha' (7,

12 -- 'turiya' and 'caturtha' are just alternative words meaning 'fourth'). It's

only in a

yogic interpretation that turiya is identified as a fourth state of nirvikalpa

samadhi,

achieved through mental concentration.

 

In an advaita interpretation, turiya is the 'fourth' in the sense that it is

beyond the

three states. The states come and go, but turiya stays present through their

changes. It

is their common reality, staying changeless through them all. And deep sleep is

a state of

merging into the reality -- represented by the humming sound 'mmm...', as it

trails off

into soundlessness. It's thus that deep sleep points positively to that one

reality which

is common to the other states as well.

 

So, what's called 'turiya' is most certainly described in Shri Atmananda's first

point for

sadhana: "Examination of the three states proves that I am a changeless

Principle

(Existence)." In this statement, 'turiya' is described by the final clause: "...

I am a

changeless Principle (Existence)"

 

About the question of an independent standpoint, I think you've hit the nail on

the head

when you say: "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."

 

To me, that's precisely the point. As Raj says, in his reply to you (5 Nov), the

whole

"aim of this [three-state] prakriya is to find that 'independent standpoint'".

Of course

the enquiry starts off conducted from the waking state, just as one looks at

someone else

from one's partial personality. But if the enquiry is genuine, why shouldn't it

find a

deeper, more impartial ground that is shared with other states? Is it so

different from

finding common ground with other people, when one is genuinely interested in

their points

of view?

 

To find such common and impartial ground, one has to stand back from superficial

partialities, thus going down beneath their limiting assumptions. That is what's

meant to

be achieved, by turning waking mind towards an enquiry of dream and sleep

experience. In

turning its attention to consider dreams and sleep, the waking mind is turned

back down,

into its own depth from where it has arisen. When it considers dreams, it is

still mind --

which thinks and feels through memory and inference, both of them unreliable.

 

But when the mind goes further down to try considering deep sleep, the only way

it can

succeed is to get utterly dissolved in consciousness itself, where knowing is

identity.

There nothing is remembered or inferred; for knowing is entirely direct, as a

complete

identity of that which knows with what is known.

 

So, on the one hand, it is right to admit, as you do, that one can't see in

advance how

the analysis or the enquiry is going to succeed. That, as you say, is quite

beyond the

superficial waking mind where the enquiry starts off. And you are also right

that if

analysis means "the objective and rational pursuit of the mind-intellect", then

this can't

be adequate.

 

But, on the other hand, when Shri Atmananda spoke of 'enquiry' or 'reason' or

'logic' or

'analysis', he did not restrict these terms to the mind-intellect. In

particular, he said

that genuine enquiry must necessarily transcend the mind, through 'higher

reason' or

'higher logic' or 'higher analysis'. That higher reason is a questioning

discernment which

becomes so keen and genuine that the truth itself arises in response to it and

takes the

sadhaka back in, beyond all mind and partiality.

 

In advaita, all ideas and arguments are useful only to that end. As they

proceed, they

sharpen reason and discernment, to a point where all causality and all

distinctions get

dissolved. As reason reaches there, its results can't be foreseen or described,

but only

pointed to.

 

That's why deep sleep is so significant. It points to dissolution in an utterly

impartial

and thus independent stand, where no confused distinctions can remain.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dennisji,

You wrote:

>

> 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?

 

Exactly. This is what I was trying to convey through my sloppy

language.

>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).

>

 

We all know that we go through deep sleep state. So the question of

whether we existed in that state or not does not arise. The issue is

that we are unable to recall the experience in that state from our

current waking state.

>From waking state, it looks like a state where there was no objective

awareness. Is lack of objective awareness equivalent to nonawareness?

What would it be when no perception or thought or feeling arise in

consciousness? Will it be pure unconditioned consciousness or will it

be unconsciousness? If you believe that it is unconsciousness, then

this prakriya might not be useful to you.

 

Let me use an analogy here.

There is a wall with several pictures hanging on it. Suppose that

somebody removed all those pictures from the wall one day.

Person "A" who has seen the wall previously, has a mental image of

the wall with pictures. So the next time he sees the wall, he would

still explain the wall in terms of the pictures. For him, it is a

wall without the pictures.

For Person "B", who sees the wall for the first time, it is just a

plain wall.

>From waking state, the deep sleep appears as a state of consciousness

without knowledge of objects (like the wall without pictures).The

reason being that our focus in waking state is always on the objects

of consciousness, rather than the consciousness itself.

But when in deep sleep, it is just a state of pure consciousness

(like the plain wall).There is neither knowledge of objects, nor

ignorance of objects.

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> [ 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]

>

 

I prefer to say that the Self is the witness/sAkshi or the Observer

of the 3 states.

 

The way I understand avathAtraya is - the 3 states are completely

independent of each other and only seem to occur in succession to

one another from the point of view of the waking state. The

experiencer (ego or jeeva) of each state is also independent of the

experiencer of the other states. The Self(Atma) is the witness of

the states and the experiencers, totally removed from the

experiences. One anomaly is - when the experiencer tries to analyze

the world along with the experiencer, he really becomes the witness,

and when he is the experiencer, he cannot analyze the experience.

The witness and the experiencer are mutually exclusive at any given

time.

 

> [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. ]

>

 

This is also an anomaly, if not a false identification, or adhyAropa.

 

my 2cents,

Savithri

 

[PS:I am heavily influenced by the writings of Sri SacchidAnandendra

Saraswathi Swamiji. So, most of what I write are impressions from

reading his books.]

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thank you Savitriji. That lends some logic and direction to the

ongoing discussion. That is why I wanted to do away with Madathil

Nair, the experiencer, in my previous post.

 

It doesn't matter who influenced you. The fact that you happened to

say so is most important. Hats off! To you or Sri

SacchidAnandendra Saraswathi Swamiji? Hey, what is the difference?

You are an advaitin Mr. Nair!

 

Hey, Anandaji, I saw you describing this witness of ours as pure

intelligence etc. in one of your previous posts. He (She, as I am

responding to Savitriji's post) is neither pure or impure. There

cannot be any carbon in the light that lights up phenomena. Neither

can it be impure because no question of purity arises.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, "savithri_devaraj"

<savithri_devaraj> wrote:

The Self(Atma) is the witness of

> the states and the experiencers, totally removed from the

> experiences. One anomaly is - when the experiencer tries to analyze

> the world along with the experiencer, he really becomes the

witness,

> and when he is the experiencer, he cannot analyze the experience.

> The witness and the experiencer are mutually exclusive at any given

> time.

>

> [PS:I am heavily influenced by the writings of Sri

SacchidAnandendra

> Saraswathi Swamiji. So, most of what I write are impressions from

> reading his books.]

[Guest guest]

Many Prostrations at his feet and many pranams to all

Woodji

( I think I'll stick to adding ji even to western Advaitin names, it

does sound nice )

 

You wrote ( within Braces and quotes)

 

["To me, that's precisely the point. As Raj says, in his reply to you

(5 Nov), the

whole

"aim of this [three-state] prakriya is to find that 'independent

standpoint'".

Of course

the enquiry starts off conducted from the waking state, just as one

looks at

someone else

from one's partial personality. But if the enquiry is genuine, why

shouldn't it

find a

deeper, more impartial ground that is shared with other states? Is it

so

different from

finding common ground with other people, when one is genuinely

interested in

their points

of view?]"

 

My thought/ question:

 

Looking for the independent standpoint with howmuch ever sincerety

and perseverence, as long as it is with the mind intellect

equipment,with even a trace of Ahamkara or sense of doership present

may not get the answer as it is still 'me' or 'I' trying to find the

Stand point? Will the answer to this question of whether there is

awareness in deep sleep state ever come as long as there is 'me'

or 'I' asking this question. Unless, it can be explained by the

notion of consciousness or Brahman taking over at some stage

completely.

 

Many thousand Pranams and seeking forgiveness if any hurt is caused

to anyone.

 

Sridhar

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> Dennis,

>

> Good to get your 5th Nov posting, raising two relevant questions:

the first about an

> independent standpoint and the second about turiya.

>

> I'll take the second first, because it is it's more a matter of

interpretation than

> substance. From my understanding of Shri Atmananda's teachings, I

would interpret the

> Mandukya Upanishad to the effect that turiya is not a state. As you

say, it is "the

> 'background' upon which the 'states' are manifest".

>

> In fact, the Mandukya Upanishad uses the word 'sthana' or 'state'

in association with

> waking, dream and sleep, but not in association with 'turiya' or

the 'fourth'. Thus, the

> waking state is 'jagarita-sthana' (3, 9), the dream state

is 'svapta-sthana' (4, 10), and

> the deep sleep state is 'sushupta-sthana' (5, 11). But turiya is

merely 'caturtha' (7,

> 12 -- 'turiya' and 'caturtha' are just alternative words

meaning 'fourth'). It's only in a

> yogic interpretation that turiya is identified as a fourth state of

nirvikalpa samadhi,

> achieved through mental concentration.

>

> In an advaita interpretation, turiya is the 'fourth' in the sense

that it is beyond the

> three states. The states come and go, but turiya stays present

through their changes. It

> is their common reality, staying changeless through them all. And

deep sleep is a state of

> merging into the reality -- represented by the humming

sound 'mmm...', as it trails off

> into soundlessness. It's thus that deep sleep points positively to

that one reality which

> is common to the other states as well.

>

> So, what's called 'turiya' is most certainly described in Shri

Atmananda's first point for

> sadhana: "Examination of the three states proves that I am a

changeless Principle

> (Existence)." In this statement, 'turiya' is described by the final

clause: "... I am a

> changeless Principle (Existence)"

>

> About the question of an independent standpoint, I think you've hit

the nail on the head

> when you say: "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."

>

> To me, that's precisely the point. As Raj says, in his reply to you

(5 Nov), the whole

> "aim of this [three-state] prakriya is to find that 'independent

standpoint'". Of course

> the enquiry starts off conducted from the waking state, just as one

looks at someone else

> from one's partial personality. But if the enquiry is genuine, why

shouldn't it find a

> deeper, more impartial ground that is shared with other states? Is

it so different from

> finding common ground with other people, when one is genuinely

interested in their points

> of view?

>

> To find such common and impartial ground, one has to stand back

from superficial

> partialities, thus going down beneath their limiting assumptions.

That is what's meant to

> be achieved, by turning waking mind towards an enquiry of dream and

sleep experience. In

> turning its attention to consider dreams and sleep, the waking mind

is turned back down,

> into its own depth from where it has arisen. When it considers

dreams, it is still mind --

> which thinks and feels through memory and inference, both of them

unreliable.

>

> But when the mind goes further down to try considering deep sleep,

the only way it can

> succeed is to get utterly dissolved in consciousness itself, where

knowing is identity.

> There nothing is remembered or inferred; for knowing is entirely

direct, as a complete

> identity of that which knows with what is known.

>

> So, on the one hand, it is right to admit, as you do, that one

can't see in advance how

> the analysis or the enquiry is going to succeed. That, as you say,

is quite beyond the

> superficial waking mind where the enquiry starts off. And you are

also right that if

> analysis means "the objective and rational pursuit of the mind-

intellect", then this can't

> be adequate.

>

> But, on the other hand, when Shri Atmananda spoke of 'enquiry'

or 'reason' or 'logic' or

> 'analysis', he did not restrict these terms to the mind-intellect.

In particular, he said

> that genuine enquiry must necessarily transcend the mind,

through 'higher reason' or

> 'higher logic' or 'higher analysis'. That higher reason is a

questioning discernment which

> becomes so keen and genuine that the truth itself arises in

response to it and takes the

> sadhaka back in, beyond all mind and partiality.

>

> In advaita, all ideas and arguments are useful only to that end. As

they proceed, they

> sharpen reason and discernment, to a point where all causality and

all distinctions get

> dissolved. As reason reaches there, its results can't be foreseen

or described, but only

> pointed to.

>

> That's why deep sleep is so significant. It points to dissolution

in an utterly impartial

> and thus independent stand, where no confused distinctions can

remain.

>

> Ananda

[Guest guest]

Hi Ananda,

 

I agree with much of what you said in response to my last post, regarding

the independent standpoint and turiya. I would like to query further one of

your comments, however, if I may. You said:

 

"To me, that's precisely the point. As Raj says, in his reply to you (5

Nov), the whole "aim of this [three-state] prakriya is to find that

'independent standpoint'". Of course the enquiry starts off conducted from

the waking state, just as one looks at someone else from one's partial

personality. But if the enquiry is genuine, why shouldn't it find a deeper,

more impartial ground that is shared with other states? Is it so different

from finding common ground with other people, when one is genuinely

interested in their points of view?"

 

Surely it is only possible for the ego-mind to 'conduct an enquiry'? After

all, this is where the duality lies and surely any 'enquiry' must be a

subject-object relationship by definition. Since the ego-mind is not present

in the deep sleep state, how can any enquiry be relevant there? The Self

that is present throughout is non-dual and investigation cannot be relevant.

Please correct my reasoning here.

 

Your statement : "But when the mind goes further down to try considering

deep sleep, the only way it can succeed is to get utterly dissolved in

consciousness itself, where knowing is identity" goes someway towards

answering this concern but it still implies that any enquiry must come to a

dead end when deep sleep state is involved. When you say: "There nothing is

remembered or inferred; for knowing is entirely direct, as a complete

identity of that which knows with what is known", this seems to be a failure

of language (inevitable I suppose!) in that the word 'knowing' no longer

seems to fulfil its function, requiring as it does a 'knower' and a 'known'.

 

You go on to say "In particular, he said that genuine enquiry must

necessarily transcend the mind, through 'higher reason' or 'higher logic' or

'higher analysis'." What are these exactly? Is there a 'higher mind' that

performs these functions? Surely such a thing would still have to be a mind,

and thus still a part of duality?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dennisji,

 

You wrote:

> Hi Raj,

>

> I'm still having difficulties appreciating your analogies and

conclusions.

> You said:

>

> "But when in deep sleep, it is just a state of pure consciousness

> (like the plain wall).There is neither knowledge of objects, nor

> ignorance of objects."

>

> Again, I must refer to my experience to try to understand this. I

have

> (occasionally!) reached a state of total stillness during

meditation, in

> which I might say that I have no knowledge or ignorance of objects,

just

> 'pure consciousness' as you put it. But this 'state' is not, so far

as I am

> aware, the same as that in deep sleep. I have to qualify this of

course

> since I do not recall any facet of that (non-)experience. And this,

surely,

> is the point.

 

I have never had any such meditative experiences. But I do have a few

questions.

Are you able to recall your experience when you reached that total

stillness?

Do you remember that state as such, or do you remember the state of

mind just before and immediately after that experience?

Does your memory of having sat in a meditating posture and

controlling your thoughts, colour that experience ?

Does your memory of having come out of that state with a peaceful

state of mind colour that experience in any way?

 

The following is purely imaginary:

Case 1:

I sat in meditating posture, regulated my breathing and controlled my

thoughts. In the process, I am aware that my mind is becoming more

and more still. Then I fall into nirvikalpa samadhi and stay there

for few minutes, and the come out of it.

 

Case 2:

Suppose I sat in meditating posture, regulated my breathing and

controlled my thoughts. In the process, I am aware that my mind is

becoming more and more still. Suddenly I doze off for a few minutes,

and then wake up.

 

When I recollect these two cases, will I find any differences?

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Rajji and Dennisji, sorry for the intrusion. Couldn't just resist it.

 

The difference is that Case 1 doesn't doze off. You, Rajji, despite

having not had nirvikalpa samAdhi admittedly, seem to equate it with

deep sleep by using the words 'fall into'. Case 2 has to become Case

1 first of all to know the difference. You, the writer of the post,

cannot be both Case 1 and Case 2 at the same time or sit in judgment.

 

As far as we can safely express, deep sleep is the experience of not

experiencing. It indicates the presence of an absence like zero does

in mathematics. Since it is known distinct from the wakefulness

flanking it, it is an object like everything in wakefulness. Sleep

and wakefulness are, therefore, mutual complementaries. They have to

be seen as one.

 

Besides, sleep is something desired or craved after. So, there is

happiness in it. It can't therefore be an empty blank.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, "rajkumarknair"

<rajkumarknair> wrote:

> The following is purely imaginary:

> Case 1:

> I sat in meditating posture, regulated my breathing and controlled

my

> thoughts. In the process, I am aware that my mind is becoming more

> and more still. Then I fall into nirvikalpa samadhi and stay there

> for few minutes, and the come out of it.

>

> Case 2:

> Suppose I sat in meditating posture, regulated my breathing and

> controlled my thoughts. In the process, I am aware that my mind is

> becoming more and more still. Suddenly I doze off for a few

minutes,

> and then wake up.

>

> When I recollect these two cases, will I find any differences?

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennisji.

 

Please forget that Arjava comment. Sorry, if my statement hurt. I

only meant that the English word 'direct' cannot take in all the

shades of meaning that Arjava encompasses.

 

In your post 19615 to Anandaji, you said:

 

"You go on to say "In particular, he said that genuine enquiry must

necessarily transcend the mind, through 'higher reason' or 'higher

logic' or 'higher analysis'." What are these exactly? Is there

a 'higher mind' that performs these functions? Surely such a thing

would still have to be a mind, and thus still a part of duality?"

 

I have the same questions to ask, lest we may end up with something

similar to the Aurobindo stuff of supermind, supraconsciousness etc.

I suspect what Anandaji implies is intuitiveness gained through

Grace. Well, in that case, where is the case of conscious reasoning?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin, Dennis, Raj, Michael, Shrimati Savithri,

 

For me at least, your discussions of deep sleep have raised some interesting

questions about memory and experience.

 

Benjamin wrote (5 Nov):

 

"Find an Advaitin who DOES remember something from deep sleep, and I will be

happy. Of course, one could always start doubting any memory as possibly

spurious, but this reminds me of the solipsistic arguments against subjective

idealism, which never bothered me that much. I think a clear mind might be able

to tell if a memory of deep sleep is real. I have no doubt what I dreamed last

night (provided I can remember it)."

 

According to advaita, a true advaitin doesn't merely remember something from

deep sleep, but actually stands in just that experience which is the essence of

deep sleep. The advaitin doesn't merely remember that experience but knows it in

identity, as utterly at one with it. And this knowing in identity is most

definitely fully present in the waking and all states, whatever may or may not

appear. Hence, the Gita says (2.69, in a free translation):

 

One whose balance is complete

stands wide awake in what is dark

unconscious night, for any being

seen created in the world.

 

Created beings are awake

to what sage sees as a night

where true awareness is submerged

in dreams of blind obscurity.

 

In a way, Benjamin has stated the advaita position rightly. The only way to

non-dual truth is by learning from a living someone who directly knows deep

sleep, while speaking in the waking state. That learning cannot be achieved by

reading books or by any amount of discussion with people like yours truly. From

such reading and discussion, a sadhaka can only hear of ideas and arguments that

living teachers use to take disciples to the truth. To be convinced of the truth

to which such arguments are meant to lead, the sadhaka must be guided by a

living teacher who stands established in that truth.

 

Benjamin wrote further: "... if there is consciousness but no 'experience', not

even some nebulous sense of space or light or joyous feeling or whatever, then I

don't know what you are talking about. And if there IS some kind of experience,

but nobody can remember it, then I ask how you know this. And if there is an

experience and somebody can remember it, then please describe it for us as best

you can, because I am quite interested!"

 

The best I can think of is the following note by Nitya Tripta:

 

----

 

How do you think about or remember a past enjoyment?

('Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda', 26th March 1951, note 68)

 

You can only try to recapitulate, beginning with the time and place, the details

of the setting and other attendant circumstances or things, including your own

personality there. Thinking over them or perceiving them in the subtle,

following the sequence of the incident, you come to the very climax, to the

point where you had the previous experience of happiness. At that point your

body becomes relaxed, mind refuses to function, you forget the long cherished

object you had just acquired, and you forget even yourself. Here you are again

thrown into that state of happiness you enjoyed before.

 

Thus, in remembering a past enjoyment, you are actually enjoying it afresh, once

again. But some people stop short at the point where the body begins to relax,

and they miss the enjoyment proper.

 

Similarly, when you begin to think about your experience of happiness in deep

sleep, you begin with your bedroom, bed, cushions ... and pressing on to the

very end you come to the Peace you enjoyed there. You enjoy the peace of deep

sleep; that is to say you find that the peace of deep sleep is the background of

the variety in wakefulness, and that it is your real nature.

 

----

 

Dennis wrote (6 Nov), in reply to Raj:

 

"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 understood Raj's argument in quite a different way. I took it to mean that we

recall no objects and no objective experience in deep sleep. But, by looking

back at deep sleep we can return to an experience that is purely subjective --

with no objects or objective actions, forms, names or qualities mixed into it.

And we can return to that subjective experience because it's shared in common by

deep sleep and the state that's present now. It was present in deep sleep and

it's just as present now, supporting our waking experiences.

 

Or, in Dennis's terms, it is the ever present background (turiya) found

immediately present in all states -- just as rock is immediately present in all

figures whose seeming shapes have been carved into it. Would be interested in

Dennis's take on this. Would it be fair to say that turiya is experience itself;

not 'this' experience or 'that' experience, but the common principle of all

differing experiences?

 

That common principle would then be objectless, for experience gets

differentiated when and only when it is associated with different objects.

Experience of 'this' object is different from experience of 'that' object; so,

if there is an experience shared in common by all differing experiences, it must

be objectless. And that can hardly be different from objectless consciousness.

 

As Benjamin point out (in the second quote from him above), this goes against

our habitual view of consciousness, as needing at least "some nebulous sense of

space or light or joyous feeling or whatever" to make it real. However, if such

a view is accepted, it must mean that nebulous perceptions, thoughts and

feelings are more real than consciousness. In short that subtle ideas are more

real than plain consciousness, unmixed with any trace of such ideas. Or at least

that consciousness cannot be realized independent of such ideas. I am genuinely

puzzled here. Is this what Benjamin means? Is this a misunderstanding of his

position? Must be, I suspect, to some extent at least.

 

Michael (ombhurbhuva, 6 Nov) gave a very interesting quote from the Tripura

Rahasya:

 

"The mind is truly abstracted in sleep. But then its light is screened by

darkness, so how can it manifest its true nature? A mirror covered with tar does

not reflect images but can it reflect space either? Is it enough, in that case,

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

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

unfit for illumining thoughts. Would such eclipse of the mind reveal the glimmer

of consciousness? ...

 

"Moreover pursue the analogy of the tarred mirror. The tar may prevent the

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

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

the mind, though diverted from dreams and wakefulness, is still in the grip of

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

the dark ignorance of sleep when one wakes."

 

What strikes me about this analogy is that it applies very well to deep sleep,

without having to consider any yogic samadhi at all. Yes indeed, the clear

consciousness of deep sleep is obscured by a coating of apparent darkness, like

tar on a mirror. But as the latter paragraph specifically indicates, the

consciousness within is unaffected. The coating is only a superimposition seen

from the outside, from outside the inmost experience of deep sleep. That stays

unaffected by the superimposition.

 

So what is needed is merely a change of perspective, when looking at deep sleep

from the waking state. A questioning enquiry into our waking perspective is thus

the kerosene that will dissolve away the tar. If yogic samadhis are cultivated

blindly, without such an enquiry that throws our assumptions into questioning,

then the tar will remain and the samadhis will just guild the messy tar with a

further coating, this time of gold. The golden coating on the tar will inherit

the messy unevenness of the tar and may even add more unevenness and messes of

its own. Moreover there will be great reluctance to give up the sparkling guild,

so that both guild and tar may be perpetuated.

 

Shri Atmananda was highly trained in yoga himself, and warned against this kind

of problem. So do many yogis and jnyanis. I do not say this to denigrate yoga or

samadhis. Just to point out that each approach has problems and advantages of

its own.

 

And of course I agree with Michael when he says: "...'recollection' is not

correct for the immediate knowledge that we have on waking that we were asleep.

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

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

in that awareness it always is."

 

In fact, what deep sleep does is to show that there are two parts to memory. One

is a mental recollection that reproduces a copy of the forms and names and

qualities of previous experiences. But this copy has also to be linked by

knowing to the past. To give an idea that something then is now reproduced, some

kind of knowing must extend into the past.

 

That implies a consciousness which is not just mental. It is not just one of

mind's appearances, appearing at some point of time. It must somehow carry on

through time, as consciousness of each object keeps getting replaced by

consciousness of some other object. The consciousness of an object is mental, a

passing appearance produced by mind. There are many such appearances, coming and

going all the time. Consciousness itself is objectless, utterly beyond the mind.

 

As Shrimati Savithri writes (7 Nov), "the Self is the witness/sAkshi or the

Observer of the 3 states", which "are completely independent of each other".

And the witness is an objectless consciousness which is found by detaching it

from all physical and mental "experiencers". When deep sleep is rightly

understood, it helps a sadhaka to realize that complete detachment. To

understand the absence of all objects in deep sleep, there must be a

corresponding detachment from all objective inclinations of body and of mind.

That's what makes it hard to understand.

 

Ananda

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

endaro mahaanubhaavulu,

sleep is one state of samadhi,

yes.

but are there only three

states????

I AM AN IGNORAMUS ON THIS.

however, if you do not mind, can i express a few

sentences???

besides sleep and samadhi, how shall we

describe the following states of apparent inactivity

or stillness?

[1] during the shavaasana of yoga, each

part of the body is relaxed progressively,

and ultimately the whole body and the brain

are RELAXED. during this relaxation,

most practitioners report getting visions

of flowers or the sweet scent of flowers

or fragrances,

or just a pleasant feeling of complete

relaxation.

[2] dream state.[this is already covered by

this

discussion though]

[3] hypnotic state.

[4] anaesthetised state. drugged sleep.

[5] fainting or otherwise losing consciousness

..

[6] coma.

 

 

 

i myself would like to answer the above

query in the following manner:

subsequent to the dream state, the "deep"

sleep state has many levels. these levels are stacked

one after the other like the rose petals or the onion.

 

 

i would like to offer the following to

substantiate this:

[1] the lalita ashtottharam identifies

" jaagrath swapna sushupteenaam-----",

as the three states. [ jagrath: awake.

swapna : dream. sushupti: deep sleep[?].

[2] the lalitha sahasranaamam, however

goes one step further :

devi lalitha is-

"suptha prajnaathmika turya

sarvaavasttha vivarjita"

here are identified the states of --

# suptha [ =still /calm etc]

# praajnaatmika [= with prajna=

with consciousness]

# thurya

# sarvaavasttha [= all other states] .

therefore, besides , suptha,

prajnaathkika, anf thurya all of which

have been discussed by the learned

advaitins here, many other states

are also spoken of here[ sarvaavasttha].

 

[3] most major temples in india have

seven praakaraas [ seven circumferential

ambulatory paths], and seven doors before

you reach the "moolasthhanam"[=the

principal

deity]. [of course, we will identify this

with the chakras of the spine]

[4] the "sriman nagaram" of Devi SHRI Lalitha

is

reached after going thro nine

" aavaranas ". hence the navaavarana

poojas for Devi.

i can cite a few more such refs,

but i will be straying from

vedanta , into smrities.

 

sorry to interrupt the highly learned

and very highly evolved advaitins.

--- rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair

wrote: > Dennisji,

>

> You wrote:

> > Hi Raj,

> >

> > I'm still having difficulties appreciating your

> analogies and

> conclusions.

> > You said:

> >

> > "But when in deep sleep, it is just a state of

> pure consciousness

> > (like the plain wall).There is neither knowledge

> of objects, nor

> > ignorance of objects."

> >

> > Again, I must refer to my experience to try to

> understand this. I

> have

> > (occasionally!) reached a state of total stillness

> during

> meditation, in

> > which I might say that I have no knowledge or

> ignorance of objects,

> just

> > 'pure consciousness' as you put it. But this

> 'state' is not, so far

> as I am

> > aware, the same as that in deep sleep. I have to

> qualify this of

> course

> > since I do not recall any facet of that

> (non-)experience. And this,

> surely,

> > is the point.

>

> I have never had any such meditative experiences.

> But I do have a few

> questions.

> Are you able to recall your experience when you

> reached that total

> stillness?

> Do you remember that state as such, or do you

> remember the state of

> mind just before and immediately after that

> experience?

> Does your memory of having sat in a meditating

> posture and

> controlling your thoughts, colour that experience ?

>

> Does your memory of having come out of that state

> with a peaceful

> state of mind colour that experience in any way?

>

> The following is purely imaginary:

> Case 1:

> I sat in meditating posture, regulated my breathing

> and controlled my

> thoughts. In the process, I am aware that my mind is

> becoming more

> and more still. Then I fall into nirvikalpa samadhi

> and stay there

> for few minutes, and the come out of it.

>

> Case 2:

> Suppose I sat in meditating posture, regulated my

> breathing and

> controlled my thoughts. In the process, I am aware

> that my mind is

> becoming more and more still. Suddenly I doze off

> for a few minutes,

> and then wake up.

>

> When I recollect these two cases, will I find any

> differences?

>

> Pranaams,

> Raj.

>

>

>

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

DEAR ADVAITINS,

sorry to interrupt.

i am terribly unevolved. however, let

me interrupt:

maha vishnu is depicted to be

"asleep"

always. reclining on anantha [the spine/the

chakraas/the five senses], floating in the ocean of

milk[ superconsciousness], he is always asleep with

eyes shut [deep samadhi] .

this is the state of yoga nidra which

is being discussed in these mails.

but HE is ever alert !!!.

the moment a devotee [gajendra the

elephant, draupadi] calls out in utter surrender, he

is answering the call instantaneously at the moment

of the call, without the slightest of delay!.

my level of evolution is zero or sub

zero.

so please excuse the interruption.

with regards,

a.v.krshnan.

 

 

 

 

 

--- Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > Namaste

Benjamin, Dennis, Raj, Michael, Shrimati

> Savithri,

>

> For me at least, your discussions of deep sleep have

> raised some interesting questions about memory and

> experience.

>

> Benjamin wrote (5 Nov):

>

> "Find an Advaitin who DOES remember something from

> deep sleep, and I will be happy. Of course, one

> could always start doubting any memory as possibly

> spurious, but this reminds me of the solipsistic

> arguments against subjective idealism, which never

> bothered me that much. I think a clear mind might be

> able to tell if a memory of deep sleep is real. I

> have no doubt what I dreamed last night (provided I

> can remember it)."

>

> According to advaita, a true advaitin doesn't merely

> remember something from deep sleep, but actually

> stands in just that experience which is the essence

> of deep sleep. The advaitin doesn't merely remember

> that experience but knows it in identity, as utterly

> at one with it. And this knowing in identity is most

> definitely fully present in the waking and all

> states, whatever may or may not appear. Hence, the

> Gita says (2.69, in a free translation):

>

> One whose balance is complete

> stands wide awake in what is dark

> unconscious night, for any being

> seen created in the world.

>

> Created beings are awake

> to what sage sees as a night

> where true awareness is submerged

> in dreams of blind obscurity.

>

> In a way, Benjamin has stated the advaita position

> rightly. The only way to non-dual truth is by

> learning from a living someone who directly knows

> deep sleep, while speaking in the waking state. That

> learning cannot be achieved by reading books or by

> any amount of discussion with people like yours

> truly. From such reading and discussion, a sadhaka

> can only hear of ideas and arguments that living

> teachers use to take disciples to the truth. To be

> convinced of the truth to which such arguments are

> meant to lead, the sadhaka must be guided by a

> living teacher who stands established in that truth.

>

> Benjamin wrote further: "... if there is

> consciousness but no 'experience', not even some

> nebulous sense of space or light or joyous feeling

> or whatever, then I don't know what you are talking

> about. And if there IS some kind of experience, but

> nobody can remember it, then I ask how you know

> this. And if there is an experience and somebody can

> remember it, then please describe it for us as best

> you can, because I am quite interested!"

>

> The best I can think of is the following note by

> Nitya Tripta:

>

> ----

>

> How do you think about or remember a past enjoyment?

> ('Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda',

> 26th March 1951, note 68)

>

> You can only try to recapitulate, beginning with the

> time and place, the details of the setting and other

> attendant circumstances or things, including your

> own personality there. Thinking over them or

> perceiving them in the subtle, following the

> sequence of the incident, you come to the very

> climax, to the point where you had the previous

> experience of happiness. At that point your body

> becomes relaxed, mind refuses to function, you

> forget the long cherished object you had just

> acquired, and you forget even yourself. Here you are

> again thrown into that state of happiness you

> enjoyed before.

>

> Thus, in remembering a past enjoyment, you are

> actually enjoying it afresh, once again. But some

> people stop short at the point where the body begins

> to relax, and they miss the enjoyment proper.

>

> Similarly, when you begin to think about your

> experience of happiness in deep sleep, you begin

> with your bedroom, bed, cushions ... and pressing on

> to the very end you come to the Peace you enjoyed

> there. You enjoy the peace of deep sleep; that is to

> say you find that the peace of deep sleep is the

> background of the variety in wakefulness, and that

> it is your real nature.

>

> ----

>

> Dennis wrote (6 Nov), in reply to Raj:

>

> "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 understood Raj's argument in quite a different

> way. I took it to mean that we recall no objects and

> no objective experience in deep sleep. But, by

> looking back at deep sleep we can return to an

> experience that is purely subjective -- with no

> objects or objective actions, forms, names or

> qualities mixed into it. And we can return to that

> subjective experience because it's shared in common

> by deep sleep and the state that's present now. It

> was present in deep sleep and it's just as present

> now, supporting our waking experiences.

>

> Or, in Dennis's terms, it is the ever present

> background (turiya) found immediately present in all

> states -- just as rock is immediately present in all

> figures whose seeming shapes have been carved into

> it. Would be interested in Dennis's take on this.

> Would it be fair to say that turiya is experience

> itself; not 'this' experience or 'that' experience,

> but the common principle of all differing

> experiences?

>

> That common principle would then be objectless, for

> experience gets differentiated when and only when it

> is associated with different objects. Experience of

> 'this' object is different from experience of 'that'

> object; so, if there is an experience shared in

> common by all differing experiences, it must be

> objectless. And that can hardly be different from

> objectless consciousness.

>

> As Benjamin point out (in the second quote from him

> above), this goes against our habitual view of

> consciousness, as needing at least "some nebulous

> sense of space or light or joyous feeling or

> whatever" to make it real. However, if such a view

> is accepted, it must mean that nebulous perceptions,

> thoughts and feelings are more real than

> consciousness. In short that subtle ideas are more

> real than plain consciousness, unmixed with any

> trace of such ideas. Or at least that consciousness

> cannot be realized independent of such ideas. I am

> genuinely puzzled here. Is this what Benjamin means?

> Is this a misunderstanding of his position? Must be,

> I suspect, to some extent at least.

>

> Michael (ombhurbhuva, 6 Nov) gave a very interesting

> quote from the Tripura Rahasya:

>

> "The mind is truly abstracted in sleep. But then its

> light is screened by darkness, so how can it

> manifest its true nature? A mirror covered with tar

> does not reflect images but can it reflect space

> either? Is it enough, in that case, that images are

> eliminated in order to reveal the space reflected in

> the mirror? In the same manner, the mind is veiled

> by the darkness of sleep and rendered unfit for

> illumining thoughts. Would such eclipse of the mind

> reveal the glimmer of consciousness? ...

>

> "Moreover pursue the analogy of the tarred mirror.

> The tar may prevent the images from being seen, but

> the quality of the mirror is not affected, for the

> outer coating of tar must be reflected in the

> interior of the mirror. So also the mind, though

> diverted from dreams and wakefulness, is still in

> the grip of dark sleep and not free from qualities.

> This is evident by the recollection of the dark

> ignorance of sleep when one wakes."

>

> What strikes me about this analogy is that it

> applies very well to deep sleep, without having to

> consider any yogic samadhi at all. Yes indeed, the

> clear consciousness of deep sleep is obscured by a

> coating of apparent darkness, like tar on a mirror.

> But as the latter paragraph specifically indicates,

> the consciousness within is unaffected. The coating

> is only a superimposition seen from the outside,

> from outside the inmost experience of deep sleep.

> That stays unaffected by the superimposition.

>

> So what is needed is merely a change of perspective,

> when looking at deep sleep from the waking state. A

> questioning enquiry into our waking perspective is

> thus the kerosene that will dissolve away the tar.

> If yogic samadhis are cultivated blindly, without

> such an enquiry that throws our assumptions into

> questioning, then the tar will remain and the

> samadhis will just guild the messy tar with a

> further coating, this time of gold. The golden

> coating on the tar will inherit the messy unevenness

> of the tar and may even add more unevenness and

> messes of its own. Moreover there will be great

> reluctance to give up the sparkling guild, so that

> both

=== message truncated ===

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

"rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair

> 2003/11/07 Fri PM 06:56:36 EST

> advaitin

> Re: Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 2. The three states

 

The following is purely imaginary:

Case 1: I sat in meditating posture, regulated my breathing and controlled my

thoughts. In the process, I am aware that my mind is becoming more and more

still. Then I fall into nirvikalpa samadhi and stay there for few minutes, and

the come out of it.

 

Case 2:

Suppose I sat in meditating posture, regulated my breathing and controlled my

thoughts. In the process, I am aware that my mind is becoming more and more

still. Suddenly I doze off for a few minutes, and then wake up.

 

When I recollect these two cases, will I find any differences?

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

**************************

Yes, you will find a difference. Deep Sleep and Nirvikalpa Samadhi are like day

and night. You will be able to recognize the Self in the waking state as the

Same Self in Nirvikalpa (after Nirvikalpa Samadhi) but not after deep sleep.

 

Self being the Self is independent of memory.

 

When you are about to shave and look in the mirror, you do not think, "Look,

there I am, I see myself, I remember my face. How nice looking. etc." The

recognition is instant.

 

That is an analogy only. Please do not overanalyze. Well, do as you please! :-).

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Ramana Maharshi

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis, Shri Madathil,

 

Dennis wrote (Nov 7):

 

"Surely it is only possible for the ego-mind to 'conduct an enquiry'? After all,

this is where the duality lies and surely any 'enquiry' must be a subject-object

relationship by definition. Since the ego-mind is not present in the deep sleep

state, how can any enquiry be relevant there? The Self that is present

throughout is non-dual and investigation cannot be relevant."

 

Yes, the enquiry starts with the mind and its confused assumptions. But what it

does is to question the assumptions, in an attempt to clarity their confusions.

In effect, as the enquiry proceeds, the mind keeps digging up its seeming

ground, from under its own feet. It keeps undermining its previous positions, in

search of clarity. Its questions are turned back upon the very assumptions that

have given rise to them. As assumptions are unearthed, examined and their

falsities removed, the enquiry falls back on deeper, more directly rooted

foundations, from where further questions rise and turn back down to investigate

and clarify what's underneath.

 

So long as this reflecting-down enquiry keeps finding that its stand is a

construction from diversity, made up from buried elements that have to be

examined further, the enquiry is still in mind and cannot reach a final end. For

then one's stand is still built up on different and alien things that are not

fully and directly known, and this inevitably brings in ignorance, confusion and

uncertainty.

 

To reach a final end, the mind must find a way to go directly and completely

down beneath all mental constructs, to where the mind and its journey down are

utterly dissolved and no diversity remains. How is that possible? Well, in a

sense, that happens every night, when we fall into deep sleep. The mind relaxes

then -- withdrawing back from waking world, through dreams, into a depth of

sleep where no diversity appears. The higher reason or vicara does this in the

waking state, by a questioning discernment that progressively refines itself of

all ingrained confusions, until it penetrates entirely beneath diversity, where

it dissolves spontaneously in what it has been seeking.

 

In short, though the enquiry starts out in mind, it is not targeted at any

object that the mind conceives. It's target is pure subject -- the inmost ground

from which conception rises and where conceptions all return to get dissolved,

as they are taken in. By targeting that ground, the enquiry must point beyond

its conceptions, to where they get utterly dissolved.

 

So, from the mind where it starts out, the enquiry and its results must seem

quite paradoxical. The paradoxes come from mind that is dissatisfied with its

own conceptions. So it looks for a way beyond them, though at the same time it

expects to conceive what will be found beyond. In fact, the only way to find out

is to go there. It cannot be conceived in advance.

 

To navigate along the way, language can be very useful, if it is used to point

beyond its symbols and descriptions. It's function is to sacrifice itself, to

burn up so completely that not a trace of smoke or ash remains, to interfere

with what its meaning shows.

 

It is the 'higher reason' that uses language in this way. The function of the

higher reason is precisely to burn up all obscuring residues that language

leaves behind. So, where you ask if the higher reason is a function of a 'higher

mind', the answer is most definitely not. Shri Atmananda was quite explicit

about this. In Malayalam (or Sanskrit) the higher reason is 'vidya vritti',

which means the 'functioning of knowledge'. The higher reason is just that which

dissolves the mind in knowledge. It is the functioning of knowledge, expressed

in a questioning discernment that takes mind back to knowledge where all

thinking is dissolved. There is no 'higher mind'. The only way that mind can get

'higher' is to get utterly dissolved in knowledge.

 

Let me try to put it more simply. Knowledge is the subject of which both higher

reason and mind are instruments. The higher reason functions, through discerning

enquiry, to dissolve the mind in pure knowledge, where mind properly belongs.

And as the higher reason functions, it makes use of mind reflectively, in order

to bring mind back to knowledge. There is no question of the higher reason being

an instrument of any mind. It is always the other way about.

 

Perhaps it would help to point out that the higher reason is exactly the

'dialectic' of Socrates. Not of course of Hegel or Marx. They are as different

from Socrates as Shri Aurobindo from Shri Atmananda.

 

Sorry. This is a very delicate subject and all this is hopelessly inadequate.

 

Ananda

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda,

 

Thank you very much for your recent reply to my inquiries concerning

deep sleep. I feel that you gave me the best answer possible, given

that I am still approaching it from the standpoint of the mind. It

helped me quite a bit.

 

I will now try to be a spectator on this list for a while, for one

very humanitarian reason ... to keep you from working yourself to

death! I am most impressed at how hard you have worked so far to

give everyone a very considerate, thoughtful and detailed answer,

treating everybody equally. That last point distinguishes you from

some other gurus.

 

Actually, even though I profess only confusion on the subject of deep

sleep, that is only my mind speaking. I do think that some of the

spiritual literature I have read has given me some faint flashes of

insight into the matter. For example, I have read that an

enlightened man is 'awake while asleep and asleep while awake'. That

is suggestive to me, and fascinating if nothing else. Some of your

quotes were like this too.

 

Also, a number of Advaitin and Buddhist texts speak of the

'perception which is no-perception', the 'brilliant darkness', the

'inexpressible silence', and so forth. For example, the 'perception

which is no-perception' can be found in the famous Buddhist Heart

Sutra, and similar remarks can be found in the Vivekachudamani or the

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, as recently quoted on this list, and so

forth. These are all different expressions of non-duality.

 

I do realize that ultimately a 'miraculous' power called intuition

must be aroused ... the famous third eye. Sincere philosophical

discussion may be useful as a preparatory stage, mostly to purge the

mind of incorrect thinking. But occasionally I get the briefest and

faintest flash of insight that the Self is indeed a kind of

inexpressible, pure 'seeing' which is not seeing as we normally know

it, with all its categorizations, judgements, attachments,

rejections, and other mental disturbances.

 

Therefore, any impulsive effort to grab at the Self is doomed to

failure. It will happen spontaneously at the proper time. We must

simply be completely open and accepting, and have complete faith.

This faith is not the childish faith which seeks gifts from God but

rather faith in our self. And we must ceaselessly seek for it, but

without any effort or desire for results. If all this discussion is

sincere, it will help at least a little.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin