Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 3. "I am consciousness."

[Guest guest]

The analysis of three states is just a prakriya. It's just one way of

investigating truth. It starts with three ordinary statements: 'I am

awake'; 'I dreamed'; 'I slept soundly, where no dreams appeared.' All

these statements start with the word 'I'. What is that common 'I',

which is implied to know our experiences of waking, dream and sleep?

This is an implication that we often make. But what exactly does it

mean? What truth is there in it? That's what this prakriya

investigates, as it examines the three states.

 

For some who are intellectually inclined, there can be a problem with

this three-state prakriya, when it comes to deep sleep. The problem

is that deep sleep can seem distant and inaccessible, to the waking

mind that examines it. So some would rather investigate the waking

state, by asking there reflectively for an underlying truth that our

waking perceptions and interpretations each express. That results in

a different prakriya, which proceeds through three levels of knowing.

 

The three levels are those of body, mind and consciousness. They

correspond of course to waking, dream and deep sleep. Instead of

reflecting from the waking state through dreams into deep sleep, this

second prakriya reflects from perceiving body through conceiving mind

to knowing consciousness.

 

What is that consciousness, which is expressed in each living act of

mind and body? That is the central question here. An answer is given

in Shri Atmananda's second point for sadhana:

 

"Consciousness does not part with me for a moment. Therefore I am

consciousness."

 

In this answer, it is pointed out that consciousness is the knowing

of the self, always present with the self, throughout experience.

That knowing is no physical or mental act, which self starts doing at

some time and stops doing later on. Consciousness is not a put on act

that later can be taken off. Instead, it is the very being of the

self, exactly what self always is.

 

In truth, the self is consciousness, whose very being is to know. It

knows itself, shining by its own light. All appearances are known by

their reflection of its self-illumination. We know them only when

they come into attention, where they are lit by consciousness. But

then, how can that consciousness be known?

 

Consciousness is not an object that is known. Instead, it just that

which knows. It is thus known in identity, as one's own self, by

realizing one's own true identity with it. That is the only way in

which it can be known.

 

As a matter of ingrained habit, we think of consciousness as an

activity of body, sense and mind. Hence what we take for

consciousness appears confused with a great complexity of physical

and sensual and mental actions.

 

In every one of us, consciousness is actually experienced in the

singular, as one's own self. But when a person looks through mind and

body, at a world that seems outside, it there appears that

consciousness is different and changing -- in different persons,

different creatures and their varied faculties. Or, if a person looks

through mind alone, into the mental process of conception, it then

appears that consciousness is made up from a passing sequence of

perceptions, thoughts and feelings.

 

Thus, in itself, consciousness is quite distinct from the differing

and changing appearances that we habitually confuse with it. As it is

experienced directly, at the inmost core of each individual's

experience, it is pure self -- utterly impersonal and impartial,

beyond all difference and change. That is the inmost, undeniable

experience that we share in common, deep within each one of us. Yet,

very strangely, that undeniable experience is ignored and somehow

covered up, by the vast majority of people in the world.

 

It gets ignored because of a confusion that mixes self with body,

sense and mind. For this produces a mistaken show of physical and

sensual and mental actions, which are deceptively confused with the

clear and unaffected light of consciousness. As people identify

themselves with different bodies and with changing minds, they

mistake themselves as jivas or persons -- who are disparate and

uncertain mixtures, made up of knowing self confused with improperly

known objects.

 

Such persons take an ignorantly made-up stand, upon divided and

uncertain ground, built artificially from alien things. Accordingly,

experiences seem partial and appear divided by our personalities, as

people get unhappily conflicted in their seeming selves.

 

But where confusion ceases, as in deep sleep or in moments of

impartial clarity, there personality dissolves and self stands on its

own, shining by itself as happiness and peace. This is put simply and

concisely in Shri Atmananda's third point for sadhana:

 

"When I stand divested of body, senses and mind, happiness or deep

peace dawns. So peace is also my real nature."

 

Again, it might help to ask briefly how these teachings relate to

traditional advaita scriptures. On occasion, Shri Atmananda said that

the vicara marga could be characterized by a single

aphorism: 'Prajnyanam asmi' or 'I am consciousness.' One such

occasion is reported by Nitya Tripta:

 

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

 

The path of the 'I'-thought

('Notes on Spiritual Discourses...', 11th October 1952, note number

298)

 

The ordinary man has the deep samskara ingrained in him that he is

the body and that it is very, very insignificant, compared to the

vast universe. Therefore the only possible mistake you are likely to

be led into, while taking to the 'I'-thought, is the habitual

samskara of the smallness attached to the 'I'.

 

This mistake is transcended by the contemplation of the

aphorism 'Aham brahmasmi.' Brahman is the biggest imaginable

conception of the human mind. The conception of bigness no doubt

removes the idea of smallness. But the idea of bigness, which is also

a limitation, remains over.

 

Ultimately, this idea of bigness has also to be removed by

contemplating another aphorism: 'Prajnyanam asmi.' ('I am

Consciousness.') Consciousness can never be considered to be either

big or small. So you are automatically lifted beyond all opposites.

 

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

 

Here Shri Atmananda is saying that the mahavakya 'Aham brahmasmi'

does not quite go all the way to non-duality. It leaves a samskara

of 'bigness', which has to be removed by further contemplation. In a

way, the same thing may be seen implied in a classic scheme of four

mahavakyas that follow one after the other. Here is an interpretation

of the scheme:

 

1. 'Tat tvam asi' or 'You are that.' This represents the guidance of

a living teacher, essential to bring mere words and symbols to life,

so that a disciple may come to living truth.

 

2. 'Aham brahmasmi' or 'I am complete reality.' This broadens ego's

narrowness, in preparation for a non-dual realization that must come

about through a knowing in identity.

 

3. 'Ayam atma brahma' or 'This self is all reality.' Here, the same

thing is said as in the previous mahavakya, but in a way that is

impersonal, using the phrase 'this self' instead of the word 'I'. For

the 'I' may still have a sense of the personal in it -- even after

the broadening of ego's petty considerations.

 

4. 'Prajnyanam brahma' or 'Consciousness is all there is.' This

finally establishes the true nature of the self, known purely in

identity, as consciousness that is identical with everything that's

known.

 

This is of course only one among many interpretations, of one among

many schemes of mahavakyas. It's only meant as an illustration of how

the scriptures may be related to the vicara marga. As a further

illustration, a postscript is appended, with a translated passage

from the Aitareya Upanishad, for those who might want to see how it

describes the idea of self as consciousness. From this passage comes

the aphorism: 'Prajnyanam brahma.'

 

Ananda

 

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

>From the Aitareya Upanishad

 

3.1.1-2

 

What is this that we contemplate as 'self'?

 

Which is the self?

 

That by which one sees, or that by which one hears,

or that by which scents are smelled,

or that by which speech is articulated,

or that by which taste and tastelessness are told apart?

 

Or that which is this mind and this heart:

perception, direction, discernment, consciousness,

learning, vision, constancy, thought, consideration,

motive, memory, imagination,

purpose, life, desire, vitality?

 

All these are only attributed names of consciousness.

 

3.1.3

 

This is brahman, comprehending all reality.

This is Indra, chief of gods.

This is the creator, Lord Prajapati;

all the gods; and all these five elements

called 'earth', 'air', 'ether', 'waters', 'lights';

and these seeming complexes of minute things,

and various seeds of different kinds;

and egg-born creatures and those born of womb,

and those born of heat and moisture,

and those born from sprout;

horses, cattle, humans, elephants,

and whatever living thing, moving and flying;

and that which stays in place.

 

All that is seen and led by consciousness,

and is established in consciousness.

The world is seen and led by consciousness.

Consciousness is the foundation.

 

Consciousness is all there is.

 

3.1.4

 

By this self, as consciousness,

he ascended from this world;

 

and, attaining all desires

in that place of light,

 

became deathless, that became.

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

You wrote (8 Nov, 10.36 pm):

 

"Consciousness utterly without content does leave me puzzled. But the

dissolution of subject and object does not."

 

In a way, this is quite an accurate statement of the advaita

position, so far as I can see. When a person tries to think of

consciousness itself, with no content seen in it, that does leave a

puzzled 'me'. The puzzlement gives rise to further questions.

 

First, what are the contents seen in consciousness? Seen through

body, the contents are objects, in a world of bodied things. Through

the body's senses, the contents are sensations, coming from the

world. Through mind, the contents are thoughts and feelings, which

the mind conceives. These physical and sensual and mental contents

are seen indirectly, when consciousness looks through faculties of

mind and body that are different from itself.

 

But then, what content is perceived directly, as consciousness looks

at itself? As consciousness illuminates itself, what does it know

immediately, by its self-knowing light? What is its content to

itself? Surely, that immediate content cannot be anything different

from itself. That immediate content must be consciousness itself.

 

Interpreted like this, it is quite right to say that there cannot be

any consciousness devoid of content. For consciousness is always

present to itself. Its immediate content is itself, in all

experiences.

 

In the experience of deep sleep, there are no physical or sensual or

mental contents. No content is there seen indirectly, through body,

sense or mind. But what about the direct knowing of consciousness, as

it illuminates itself? Can consciousness be present to itself, in the

absence of body, sense and mind?

 

Habitually, we assume that consciousness is a physical or sensual or

mental activity. And then of course it seems that consciousness

cannot be independent of body, sense or mind. It seems then that

consciousness cannot be present in deep sleep, when body, sense and

mind are absent.

 

But since you recognize that physical and sensual and mental

activities are only appearances that come and go in consciousness,

what could remain when all appearances have gone? When body, sense

and mind and all their perceptions disappear, into what do these

appearances dissolve?

 

Do they dissolve into a negative nothing or blankness or absence,

which after all requires the presence of body or senses or mind to

perceive it? Or would there be just consciousness, present by itself,

as its own content, when body, sense and mind have disappeared? Why

shouldn't consciousness itself remain, present to itself, when its

passing contents disappear?

 

If consciousness can thus remain, that shows it independent of body,

sense and mind. Without it, none of them can appear; so each is

dependent on it. Each one of them depends on it, though it does not

depend on them. In other words, they are dependent appearances of its

reality.

 

In what they really are, each one of these appearances is utterly

identical with consciousness. It is their one reality, which each one

shows and which they show together. As they appear and disappear, it

seems that they are limited by time and space. Each seems to be

present in some limited location and to be absent elsewhere. But this

limitation is unreal. It does not apply to consciousness itself,

which is the reality that's shown.

 

For consciousness is the common principle of all experience, present

at all times and everywhere, no matter what experience is known, no

matter when or where. So consciousness cannot appear or disappear.

Its appearance would require a previous experience where

consciousness was absent. Similarly, its disappearance would require

a subsequent experience without consciousness. Such an 'experience

without consciousness' is a contradiction in terms – a falsity of

fiction that has been misleadingly constructed by the mind.

 

So while appearances are perceived by body, sense and mind, their

seeming limitations don't apply to consciousness, their one reality.

The limitations are a misperception, seen through the inadequate and

partial reporting of body, sense and mind. These unreal limitations

make it seem that there are appearances which disappear. But while

they seem to come and go, what they are is consciousness itself. It

is their unlimited reality, remaining fully present through each one

of their appearances and disappearances.

 

That is a classical advaita position, which is unequivocally taken by

modern interpreters like Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmananda. From

that position, deep sleep is interpreted as an experience where

consciousness is shown as its own content. Deep sleep shows

consciousness identical with what it contains, with what is known in

it. What's there revealed is not contentless consciousness, but

consciousness itself.

 

A further question rises here. If consciousness is independent of our

limited bodies, our limited senses and our limited minds, then how

can we know it actually, for what it is? In Shri Atmananda's

teachings, the question is answered by a simple statement: 'I am

consciousness.'

 

This statement is central to Shri Atmananda's approach. I am very

sorry to have given you the impression that the statement indicates

an inferior prakriya "for intuitively-challenged intellectuals" (your

message to Greg, 10 Nov). This is no inferior statement. Instead, it

is the centre of the teaching.

 

When it is said 'I am consciousness', the statement indicates a

knowledge in identity. That is how consciousness is known. It's known

by self-knowledge, as one's own true identity. It's only there that

subject and object are dissolved, including any puzzled 'me'.

 

According to Shri Atmananda, the statement 'All is consciousness'

does not go far enough. It leaves a taint of expanded mind, intuiting

the 'all'. The content of consciousness is still indirectly

perceived, as a vast and nebulous object. An expanded intuition is

thereby left unexamined, surreptitiously assumed to be doing the

perceiving. A final enquiry thus still remains, in order to find

consciousness identical with self. Until that identity is reached,

duality is not dissolved.

 

Thus, for Shri Atmananda, intuition is no answer to the limitations

of intellect and mind. Intuition is no more than a subtler form of

mind. The subtlety can make it even more misleading, when it comes

through ego. The only proper answer comes from genuine enquiry,

motivated by a love of truth. As the enquiry gets genuine, love

brings the truth itself to take charge of the enquiry.

 

Then the enquiry proceeds through 'vidya-vritti' or 'higher reason'.

That is no longer mind expressing ego, but rather truth itself,

appearing in the form of form of penetrating questions and discerning

reason.

 

The prakriya 'I am consciousness' is not at all for intuitively-

challenged intellectuals, but rather for those who are keen to

question thoroughly and to reason unrelentingly, with loving care.

 

The love is quite essential, as Michael L., Shri Madathil Nair and

Shri Venkatraman have been helpfully pointing out. But that is a

question for another message.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Hi Ananda,

 

Your last message to Benjamin surpassed even the brilliance of your earlier

comments - a masterful example of clarity in such a tricky area - thank you!

 

It does indeed seem obvious that Consciousness must remain, conscious of

itself as it were, in the absence of mind and body i.e. thoughts, feelings,

perceptions. And the conclusion, that 'I am Consciousness', is equally

clear. Although you do not refer to the actual 'experience' of this, it

seems that this must be the ever-present awareness of the 'realised man'.

But you did not go on to explain why it is (in Sri Atmananda's teaching)

that, though this must also be our own experience in deep sleep, there is no

direct (non-objective) knowledge of this.

 

I appreciate that, from the vantage point of the waker, this could not be

possible since the waker-ego is functioning through the body-mind.

Similarly, the dreamer-ego is functioning through the mind so also would

have no access. But, since the Consciousness is always aware of itself, this

should not be an obstacle at any time, should it? It is possible for anyone

to have the simple, pure experience of 'I am' immediately upon waking,

before the ego cuts in with its questions of 'Where am I?' and 'What day is

it?'. Why isn't this simple feeling of existence available throughout deep

sleep, too?

 

I suppose that what I am asking about is the 'beginningless ignorance' that

covers up the truth in classical Advaita. How is this concept explained by

Sri Atmananda and does this explain the blank experience of deep sleep?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

> That is a classical advaita position, which is unequivocally taken

by

> modern interpreters like Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmananda. From

> that position, deep sleep is interpreted as an experience where

> consciousness is shown as its own content. Deep sleep shows

> consciousness identical with what it contains, with what is known

in

> it. What's there revealed is not contentless consciousness, but

> consciousness itself.

>

>> Ananda

 

Namaste, Anandaji. I join Dennisji in bowing to you for the

excellent presentation of the so-called 'contentless consciousness'.

Particularly I mark the above words : "Deep sleep shows

consciousness identical with what it contains, with what is known in

it. What is there revealed is not contentless consciousness, but

consciousness itself"

 

My PraNAms at the feet of Atmanandaji for this revealing statement

about Deep sleep. Thanks.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Hello Ananda,

 

Your text is in double brackets, nit-picking and quibbles between asterisks.

 

((First, what are the contents seen in consciousness? Seen through

body, the contents are objects, in a world of bodied things. Through

the body's senses, the contents are sensations, coming from the

world. Through mind, the contents are thoughts and feelings, which

the mind conceives. These physical and sensual and mental contents

are seen indirectly, when consciousness looks through faculties of

mind and body that are different from itself.

 

But then, what content is perceived directly, as consciousness looks

at itself? As consciousness illuminates itself, what does it know

immediately, by its self-knowing light? What is its content to

itself? Surely, that immediate content cannot be anything different

from itself. That immediate content must be consciousness itself.))

 

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

 

This talk of consciousness as a subsistent reality is open to obvious

criticism. The argument seems to be that x,y,z are conscious i.e. aware of

stuff in the public world. Does it follow that because each of them is

conscious there must be a thing that they have in common viz.consciousness.

Is this the famous category error - I've seen all the colleges of the

University of Oxford now can I see the University of Oxford itself. Here we

are called to explain 'collegiality', the University of Oxford is not

another thing, it expresses a relation, it's a logical level thing and so on.

 

You may be right about consciousness but this argument will no establish it

in my opinion.

 

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

((Interpreted like this, it is quite right to say that there cannot be

any consciousness devoid of content. For consciousness is always

present to itself. Its immediate content is itself, in all

experiences.

 

In the experience of deep sleep, there are no physical or sensual or

mental contents.))

 

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

Would it not be true to say that there never is any content where there is

identity or non-duality? Consciousness having contents does not occur in

any state. The self knows itself no matter what guise it is in. It knows

itself as itself; see Brh.Up.II.iv.6 ...for there is nothing besides the

Self. If there were, it would not be known, but there is no such thing; the

Self is everything.......Because everything springs from the Self, is

dissolved in It, and remains imbued with It during continuance, for it

cannot be perceived apart from the Self. Therefore everything is the Self."

 

The beauty of the deep sleep protophaenomenon is that it explodes the notion

of contents of consiousness

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

 

 

((Habitually, we assume that consciousness is a physical or sensual or

mental activity. And then of course it seems that consciousness

cannot be independent of body, sense or mind. It seems then that

consciousness cannot be present in deep sleep, when body, sense and

mind are absent.

 

But since you recognize that physical and sensual and mental

activities are only appearances that come and go in consciousness,

what could remain when all appearances have gone? When body, sense

and mind and all their perceptions disappear, into what do these

appearances dissolve?

 

Do they dissolve into a negative nothing or blankness or absence,

which after all requires the presence of body or senses or mind to

perceive it? Or would there be just consciousness, present by itself,

as its own content, when body, sense and mind have disappeared? Why

shouldn't consciousness itself remain, present to itself, when its

passing contents disappear?

 

If consciousness can thus remain, that shows it independent of body,

sense and mind.))

 

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

 

It is thinking and awareness that first put us on to the notion of

consciousness but they are not what consiousness is. Consider the shocking

observation: Brh.Up.IV.iii.7: 'Which is the Self? This infinite entity

(Purusa) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the

organs, the (self-effulgent) light within the heart (intellect). Assuming

the likeness (of the intellect), it moves between the two worlds; it thinks

as it were, and shakes as it were."

 

In his commentary Shankara says: " By illumining the intellect, which does

the thinking, through its own self-effulgent light that pervades the

intellect, the self assumes the likeness of the latter and seems to think,

just as light (looks coloured). Hence people mistake that the self thinks;

but really it does not."

 

So the consciousness that is shown or demonstrated through thinking,

perception and awareness generally is the result of the pervasion of the

inert intellect, body, mind and senses by Pure Consciousness. By the

intuition of a continuous Self we can come to a knowledge that knows not

through thinking but through being. This being aspect obviates infinite

regress. "Hence we can never lay down the rule that wherever a thing is

perceived by something else,there must be some means beside the two.

Therefore if consciousness is admitted to be revealed by a subject different

from it, the charge of an infinite regress, either through the means or

through the perceiving subject (the self), is altogether untenable. Hence

it is proved that there is another light, viz, the light of the self, which

is different from consciousness."(pg.622.IV.iii.7)

 

Sruti asserts that everything is consciousness. However that consciousness

is not exactly the consciousness we come to know in the normal way. The

experiences we have of consciousness are given through conscious states.

Consciousness as a substantive cannot be known but it can be realised.

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

******

 

Many philosophers of good will who would accept that there are such things as

conscious states are still puzzled by the notion of consciousness as such eg.

did it evolve, is it emergent, is it a postulate of some kind and so forth.

The D.S. argument showing the nature of consciousness without the noise of

states might be an aid but as it has never come up as a problem in Western

Philosphy they lack the sense of it.

 

Best Wishes, Michael

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

Thank you for your 13 Nov posting, raising the question of how truth

gets covered up by ignorance. Yes, that is a crucial question here.

 

You wrote:

 

"It does indeed seem obvious that Consciousness must remain,

conscious of itself as it were, in the absence of mind and body i.e.

thoughts, feelings, perceptions. And the conclusion, that 'I am

Consciousness', is equally clear. Although you do not refer to the

actual 'experience' of this, it seems that this must be the ever-

present awareness of the 'realised man'."

 

Yes, this is well put. My reporting is theoretical, as a sadhaka

reporting to fellow sadhakas about ideas that have been heard and

thought about. So when I report the statement 'I am consciousness',

the report is theoretical. And the question rightly arises as to what

is the actual experience to which the statement points.

 

The simple answer is that the actual experience can only be found by

following the statement and going where it points. One has to go

there for oneself, by questioning the misperceptions and

misunderstandings that seem to cover knowledge in one's own

experience. As you say, one who realizes truth sees through the

covering, to that knowing which is "ever-present".

 

But, for that knowing to be fully true, it must be impartial. It must

be true impartially -- applying just the same to everyone's

experience, at any time and anywhere. Accordingly, the statement 'I

am consciousness' points to an ever-present knowing that is shared in

common by all persons everywhere, including those who feel themselves

to be ignorant and those who have realized that the feeling is untrue.

 

You went on to ask for an explanation:

 

"... why it is (in Sri Atmananda's teaching) that, though this must

also be our own experience in deep sleep, there is no direct (non-

objective) knowledge of this."

 

In Shri Atmananda's teaching, 'I am consciousness' is knowing in

identity, which is the only actual experience that anyone ever has,

in any state. All else is not actually experienced, but just

superimposed by misleading imagination and its false pretence. That

knowing in identity is the "direct (non-objective) knowledge" that

you speak of. It is fully present in deep sleep, shining by itself.

What you are really asking is how and why that pure knowing gets

obscured in deep sleep, where there is nothing else to obscure it.

 

You go on to admit that direct knowledge is obscured by waking ego

and by mind in the waking and dream states, but you point out that

such obscuring should not be an obstacle to self-illuminating

consciousness:

 

"... from the vantage point of the waker, this [direct knowledge]

could not be possible since the waker-ego is functioning through the

body-mind. Similarly, the dreamer-ego is functioning through the mind

so also would have no access. But, since the Consciousness is always

aware of itself, this should not be an obstacle at any time, should

it?"

 

Yes indeed. As Benjamin would no doubt agree, the perceptions,

thoughts and feelings of waking and dream states are not really an

obstacle at any time. They don't show anything but self-illuminating

consciousness. All acts of perception, thought and feeling are

illuminated by that self-shining light. Each one of them shows that

same light.

 

Consciousness is never actually obscured or covered up, but only

seems to be. Any obscurity or covering is quite unreal. It's a

mistaken seeming, seen through false perspective. The false

perspective comes from wrongly imagining that knowing is a physical

or sensual or mental activity that's done by body, sense or mind.

 

It's only such activities that come and go -- as each appears

sometimes revealed, and disappears at other times when it get covered

up by other things. Through all of these activities, the self-

illuminating light of consciousness continues knowing perfectly,

quite unobscured and unaffected by the presence or the absence of

activity.

 

It's here that idealists like Benjamin may differ from advaita. They

may insist on identifying consciousness as some highly subtle

activity of deep feeling or expanded thought or nebulous perception,

which they can cultivate by various kinds of deepening or expanding

or refining exercise. Then of course they have difficulties with deep

sleep, where no such activities appear.

 

You ask further:

 

"It is possible for anyone to have the simple, pure experience of 'I

am' immediately upon waking, before the ego cuts in with its

questions of 'Where am I?' and 'What day is it?'. Why isn't this

simple feeling of existence available throughout deep sleep, too?"

 

It depends on what you mean by "simple feeling". If it is a

relatively simple feeling which is less complex than other feelings,

then of course it comes and goes in waking and in dreams. It thus

gets to disappear in waking and in dreams, not only in deep sleep. No

surprise then that it should be unavailable in depth of sleep.

 

But if you are speaking of a feeling that is absolutely simple, it

has in it no sense of difference that could possibly distinguish it

from other feelings or experiences. It is not then a passing feeling

felt by changing mind. Instead, it is experience in itself or

consciousness itself, whose knowing in identity is ever-present in

all waking, dream and sleep.

 

You end by summarizing what you ask, very helpfully:

 

"I suppose that what I am asking about is the 'beginningless

ignorance' that covers up the truth in classical Advaita. How is this

concept explained by Sri Atmananda and does this explain the blank

experience of deep sleep?"

 

According to Shri Atmananda, 'beginningless ignorance' is a lower

level concept. It is meant to explain the world, as in Shri

Shankara's maya theory. Advaita proper is not meant for such

theoretical explanation, but only for an uncompromising enquiry back

into truth, beneath the unrealities of seeming world.

 

For this enquiry, Shri Atmananda took an extreme advaita position

that there really is no ignorance, no real covering of consciousness -

- neither by waking nor by dream appearances, nor by their absence in

deep sleep. Consciousness is not in truth obscured by perceptions,

thoughts and feelings, nor by their disappearance. It only seems

obscured from the false perspective of physical or mental ego, which

falsely identifies the knowing self with body, sense and mind, thus

confusing consciousness with physical and sensual and mental

activities.

 

It's from this false perspective that deep sleep seems dark and blank

and empty, when what there shines is uncompromised reality, true

knowledge and unfailing happiness.

 

All that's needed is to correct the perspective; not to improve, nor

to prevent perceptions, thoughts or feelings, nor to avoid what is

perceived or thought or felt in the world. In the end, it's the

perspective that needs purifying, not the world.

 

That clearing of perspective is the special work of the witness

prakriya, which is the next sub-topic for discussion. I'll post a

report on it tomorrow.

 

Ananda