The Three States and their objects

[Guest guest]

Subbu writes,

 

 

The Three States and their objects:

 

In the Mandukya Upanishad, we have the analysis of the three states

of waking, dream and deep sleep. While discussing these three

states, the Upanishad, especially the Kaarikaas, embark upon this

scheme:

 

In each of the three states there is a bhokta, subject, experiencer,

a bhoga, experience, and and bhogyam, object of experience. Also,

there is a bhoga, experience, in each state that the interaction

brings about.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Subuji,

The state of deep dreamless sleep is a

mysterious one but

I think it is incorrect to characterise it as an

experience. In the normal way an experience

requires a subject and an object, even the mental

modifications require a knower. Shankara makes

it clear that there is no mental subject/mental object

dyad operating in the state of deep sleep. The insight

into how we can yet have a knowledge that we

were in that state is for him of primal importance.

 

In the latter part of Upadesasahasri II.93 he dilates on this:

 

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

no consciousness in deep sleep."

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

Disciple - "How is it a contradiction?"

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

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

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

consciousness or of anything else in deep sleep."

Teacher. - "You are then conscious in deep sleep.

For you deny the existence of the objects of

knowledge (in that state) but not that of Knowledge.

I have told you that what is your consciousness

is nothing but absolute Knowledge. The Consciousness

owing to whose presence you deny

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

`I was conscious of nothing is the Knowledge,

the Consciousness which is your Self.

As it never ceases to exist, Its eternal immutability

is self-evident and does not depend on any

evidence; for an object of Knowledge different

from the self-evident Knower depends on an

evidence in order to be known. Other than

the object the eternal Knowledge that is indispensable

in proving non-conscious things different from Itself,

is immutable; for It is always of a self- evident nature.

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

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

fire and other things other than themselves,

but the sun and fire, themselves always

of the nature of light and heat, do not depend

for them on anything else; so being of the nature

of pure Knowledge, It does not depend on

any evidence to prove that It exists or that

It is the Knower."

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

 

Here is a thought which I proffer for your consideration:

if it is not an experience then it cannot be a remembrance.

What then can it be? I think that it may be the temporal

analogue of the Euclidean line viz. a durationless instant.

We can only know of it from the other side when consciousness

resumes it formful state.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

The long and short of the analysis is: In deep sleep state

there is the subject, experiencer, prAjna. For him there is the

object, the experienced: sukha, bliss, and ajnana, ignorance.

 

Here is an excerpt from the book "Spiritual discourses from

Sri Atmananda" , the Venerable Sage from Kerala:

 

QUOTE:

HOW TO PROVE THAT THERE IS NO IGNORANCE

IN DEEP SLEEP?

After waking from deep sleep we make two spontaneous assertions

(1)'I was at peace' and (2) 'I did not know anything'. These two

statements refer to the very same experience one positively and the

other negatively and therefore they cannot be different. The second

is in fact only a paraphrase of the first. The second statement means

only that " I did not know anything other than the positive

experience of deep peace in deep sleep". SO THERE WAS NO CAUSAL BODY

PRESENT THERE AT ALL. This proves not the existence of Ajnana, but its

non-existence in deep sleep.

Another approach: That which precedes is said to be the cause

and that which succeeds the effect. Here the time element is

essential to make this distinction possible and establish causality.

But standards of time differ fundamentally in the waking state and in

the dream state; and in deep sleep time does not exist at all. Where

there is no conception of time, neither causality nor a causal body

can exist. For this reason also THERE IS NO IGNORANCE IN DEEP SLEEP

BUT ONLY DEEP-PEACE un disturbed by any other experience.

 

Understanding deep sleep CORRECTLY IN THIS WAY, you find the

"I-Principle" there, in its REAL NATURE. This "I-Principle" shines

incessantly through all states. So when you say you wake up from deep

sleep it is wrong, for your deep sleep as your nature continues

without a break. That is to say you never come out of the

"I-Principle". All the worlds created by you in the waking and dream

states are withdrawn into you in deep sleep. The world as such does

not exist in deep sleep, but only as the pure "I-Principle".

[1951; Talk 222]

UNQUOTE.

Now, I leave it to the members to ascertain which is TRUE.My

request is to refer to one's own Anubhava and draw the RIGHT

conclusions.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

>

> Srigurubhyo NamaH

>

> The Three States and their objects:

>

> In the Mandukya Upanishad, we have the analysis of the three states

> of waking, dream and deep sleep. While discussing these three

> states, the Upanishad, especially the Kaarikaas, embark upon this

> scheme:

>

> In each of the three states there is a bhokta, subject,

experiencer,

> a bhoga, experience, and and bhogyam, object of experience. Also,

> there is a bhoga, experience, in each state that the interaction

> brings about. This is succinctly known as 1.sthAna-trayam

2.bhoktru-

> trayam 3.bhogya-trayam and 4. tripti-trayam. (let us not bother

> about the `sthana' in this discussion.)

>

> In the Upanishad the mantras: 3,4,5 and 6 deal with the above and

> the Kaarikaas: 1 to 5 expatiate on these. The Acharya's bhashya is

> also there.

>

> While the waking bhokta is called vishva, his bhogyam is the entire

> gross universe, experienced through the sense organs and mind. The

> Tripti that he gets is the sukha- duhkha from this experience.

>

> The dream experiencer is known as taijasa. His bhogyam is the

> entire subtle universe. He experiences this subtle (mind-created)

> universe with the sense organs, also created there for that

> purpose. The tripti he gets, again, is the sukha and duhkha

> experienced there.

>

> The sleep-experiencer is known as prAjna. His bhogyam is Ananda.

> While all the sense organs and even the creating mind are resolved

> then, he experiences this ananda. The Bhashyam clarifies that this

> ananda is not the Ultimate Bliss, as this sleep state is only in

the

> relative, ignorant, plane. The Bhashya for the kArikA no.2

> clarifies at the fag-end:

>

> // The causal state, too, is very much experienced in the body,

> inasmuch as an awakened man is seen to have such a recollection: `I

> did not know anything (in my deep sleep).'

> Hence it is said, `tridhA dehe vyavasthitaH' = existing in three

> ways in the body.'//

>

> What is pertinent here is, just like in each of the waking and

> dream states there is the duality of: experiencer and experienced

> (object), in the deep sleep also there is, according to this

> Upanishad and the KArikaa and bhashya, this duality of experiencer-

> experienced, in other words, subject-object, viShaya-viShayI.

>

> That the `viShaya-s', objects, in all the states, are mithya, is

> another matter. Nevertheless, in the state of ignorance, the

> division does exist. The adhyAsa-bhAshya starts with this

> distinction of the Consciousness-ViShayI (subject-seer) and the

> vishaya (object-seen) of the opposite characteristic.

>

> The `object' obtaining in deep sleep that is experienced by the

> sleeper-subject has been analyzed in the Vedanta shastra. For

> example, the Panchadashi, chapter 11 states this in the following

> manner:

>

> 58. A text of the Atharva Veda says: `In the state of deep sleep,

> when all the objects of experience have been absorbed and only

> darkness (Tamas) prevails, the Jiva enjoys bliss'.

>

> 59. A man from deep sleep remembers his happiness and ignorance and

> says: `I was sleeping happily; I knew nothing then'.

>

> 60. Recollection presupposes experience. So in sleep there was

> experience. The bliss experienced in dreamless sleep is revealed by

> consciousness itself which also reveals the undifferentiated

> ignorance (ajnana) covering bliss in that state.

>

> The Panchadashi continues:

>

> 62. The mind (mano-maya kosha) and the intellect sheaths (vijnana-

> maya kosha) are latent in the state called ignorance. Deep sleep is

> the condition in which these sheaths are latent and it is therefore

> a state of ignorance.

>

> 63. Just as melted butter again becomes solid, the two sheaths in

> the states following deep sleep again become manifest. The state in

> which the mind and intellect are latent is called the bliss-sheath

> (Ananda-maya kosha).

>

> 64.The modifications (Vritti) of the intellect in which, just

before

> sleep, bliss is reflected becomes latent in the state of deep sleep

> along with the reflected bliss and is known as the bliss-sheath

> (Ananda-maya kosha).

>

> 65. This Vritti thus turned within, which is termed the bliss-

> sheath, enjoys the bliss reflected on it in association with the

> modifications of ignorance, catching the reflection of

consciousness.

>

> 66. The adepts in Vedanta say that the modifications of ignorance

> are subtle, whereas those of the intellect are gross.

>

> 67. This is fully explained in the Mandukya and Tapaniya

Upanishads.

> It is the sheath of bliss which is the enjoyer and it is the bliss

> of Brahman which is enjoyed.

>

> The Commentary clarifies:

>

> In deep sleep, the mano-maya and vijnAna-maya koshas are in

resolved

> state. But the Anandamaya-kosha is very much there to experience

> the sleep state's contents of sukha and ajnana. When the man wakes

> up, the recollection expressed by him is: 'I slept happily; I did

> not know anything'. This recollection-expression is by the

vijnaana-

> maya kosha that is now awake. The arthApatti

> (implicational/inferential) conclusion is: The Ananada-maya aspect

> of the mind that was awake in sleep state grasps the sukha and

> ajnana anubhava (which are the objects of the subject PrAjna) then

> and when waking occurs, expresses the experience through the

vijnana-

> maya aspect of the mind.

>

> Thus, despite the resolving of all the objects and the instruments

> along with the mind in deep sleep, there is this undeniable

> experience of everyone in sleep which is later given expression to

> as `I slept happily; I did not know anything then' which the

> Mandukya bhashya confirms. The mechanism of this experience was

> explained above.

>

> >

> For someone who has listened to Swami Paramarthananda ji's Mandukya

> discourses, it is something unmistakable that he says: In sleep,

the

> object is the `blankness'. This is called ignorance, ajnana. He

> uses the Tattvabodha concepts to explain this. There is the

> Reflected Consciousness (RC) and the Objectified Consciousness (OC)

> in each of the three states. RC 1, 2 and 3 for the three

> Experiencers (Subjects) and OC 1,2 and 3 to represent the three

> objects in the three states. Thus RC- 3 is the PrAjna and OC- 3 is

> the ajnana in deep sleep.

>

> In the Mandukya kArikA bhashya for I .2, the Acharya states in no

> unmistakable terms that:

>

> // the Brahman, in which the jiva gets resolved during deep sleep,

> is not shuddha-Brahman; it is the Brahman with the bija (kAraNa,,

> that is, it is the causal Brahman) of the yet-to-come universe. He

> reasons that if this Brahman were to be taken as nirbIja-Brahman,

> then there would be the absurdity of everyone going to sleep having

> to come out again. Moreover, the need for Vedantic knowledge to

> dispel ignorance will stand obviated. Therefore the Brahman in

which

> the jiva resolves during sleep is sa-bija alone.//

>

> This shows that the jiva remains endowed with ignorance even

during

> deep sleep. Conversely, the jiva is not divested of his basic

> ignorance in deep sleep as well.

>

> With humble pranams to all seekers,

> Subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

> <subrahmanian_v@> wrote:

> The long and short of the analysis is: In deep sleep state

> there is the subject, experiencer, prAjna. For him there is the

> object, the experienced: sukha, bliss, and ajnana, ignorance.

>

> Here is an excerpt from the book "Spiritual discourses from

> Sri Atmananda" , the Venerable Sage from Kerala:

>

> QUOTE:

> HOW TO PROVE THAT THERE IS NO IGNORANCE

> IN DEEP SLEEP?

> After waking from deep sleep we make two spontaneous

assertions

> (1)'I was at peace' and (2) 'I did not know anything'. These two

> statements refer to the very same experience one positively and

the

> other negatively and therefore they cannot be different. The

second

> is in fact only a paraphrase of the first. The second statement

means

> only that " I did not know anything other than the positive

> experience of deep peace in deep sleep". SO THERE WAS NO CAUSAL

BODY

> PRESENT THERE AT ALL. This proves not the existence of Ajnana, but

its

> non-existence in deep sleep.

 

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Sir,

 

[if the above were true (that is, both the spontaneous assertaions

are ultimately the same), the Acharya could have chosen to

paraphrase only the first and said in His bhashyam that 'sukha is

experienced in deep sleep' and stopped with that. Why did He chose

the second assertion alone and 'teach' in the following Bhashyam

that the causal body (avidya) is experienced then and that that

avidya is the 'object' of that state? I would not like to question

the wisdom of our Acharya and all the other Purva-acharyas that have

preceded and followed him and held that there is ignorance in deep

sleep. The Bhashya for the kArikA no.2 clarifies at the fag-end:

> >

> > // The causal state, too, is very much experienced in the body,

> > inasmuch as an awakened man is seen to have such a recollection:

`I did not know anything (in my deep sleep).'

> > Hence it is said, `tridhA dehe vyavasthitaH' = existing in

three ways in the body.'//

 

Further, it is in all our experience too. When i am very deeply

asleep, even the sound of powerful crackers in the neighbourhood is

not heard by me. Visitors coming in and staying for some time,

conversing, and leaving, etc., is all not known to me. When i wake

up and when others report these things to me, i spontaneously say: I

slept so deeply that i did not know any of these things'. ]

 

>

> Another approach: That which precedes is said to be the

cause

> and that which succeeds the effect. Here the time element is

> essential to make this distinction possible and establish

causality.

> But standards of time differ fundamentally in the waking state and

in

> the dream state; and in deep sleep time does not exist at all.

Where

> there is no conception of time, neither causality nor a causal

body

> can exist. For this reason also THERE IS NO IGNORANCE IN DEEP

SLEEP

> BUT ONLY DEEP-PEACE un disturbed by any other experience.

 

[This too may be seen in the light of the above explanation.]

 

 

>

> Understanding deep sleep CORRECTLY IN THIS WAY, you find the

> "I-Principle" there, in its REAL NATURE. This "I-Principle" shines

> incessantly through all states. So when you say you wake up from

deep

> sleep it is wrong, for your deep sleep as your nature continues

> without a break. That is to say you never come out of the

> "I-Principle". All the worlds created by you in the waking and

dream

> states are withdrawn into you in deep sleep. The world as such

does

> not exist in deep sleep, but only as the pure "I-Principle".

> [1951; Talk 222]

> UNQUOTE.

>

> Now, I leave it to the members to ascertain which is TRUE.My

> request is to refer to one's own Anubhava and draw the RIGHT

> conclusions.

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

 

[For this last mentioned observation of the Swami, i have no

objection. Bhasker ji, pl. note. I recently mentioned the

following in the post on SriDakshinamurty stotram. While the former

views mentioned above by me based on the Bhashya are the ones held

in the 'srishti-drishti' (cognition of what is created) paksha, this

one below is from the other view-point: drishti-srishti paksha.

What you, Sri Murty Sir, and Sri Bhaskerji, hold as the view

regarding sushupti, in my opinion, comes under the following view-

point and hence there is no quarrel with you. Only when we do not

recognize from which standpoint the views are put forth, there is a

problem. Kindly note the following:

 

// The mind as vikshepa-shakti itself:

 

The pre-eminent position of the Vedanta is to regard the mind,

manas, as none other than the diversifying power of Avidya. It is

not a product of avidya but is a synonym of the world-appearance

itself. The Yoga vaasishtha quoted in the Panchadashi XIII 20 says:

//O Rama ! whenever that Omnipresent Ever-luminous Infinite Self

assumes the cognizing power (a mode of Maya), it is called the

mind.//

 

In the drishti-srishti paksha (creation is mere cognition), the mind

is not a product of the subtle elements. The entire universe

inclusive of the subtle elements is regarded as a mode of the mind.

This has the sanction of the Shrutis such as `When a person is so

asleep,….. speech with all names merges in him'. This does not mean

that the world is not seen because of the absence of the instruments

of cognition. For, the Shruti again says: 'When he awakes, even as

sparks proceed in all directions from a blazing fire, even so, from

this Self the vital breaths proceed to their respective stations…

etc. `. Thus there is no defect in holding that the entire world is

none other than the manas.//

 

Hope the above clarifies.

 

Warm Regards and humble pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Namaste Subuji,

> The state of deep dreamless sleep is a

> mysterious one but

> I think it is incorrect to characterise it as an

> experience. In the normal way an experience

> requires a subject and an object, even the mental

> modifications require a knower. Shankara makes

> it clear that there is no mental subject/mental object

> dyad operating in the state of deep sleep. The insight

> into how we can yet have a knowledge that we

> were in that state is for him of primal importance.

>

> In the latter part of Upadesasahasri II.93 he dilates on this:

 

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH,

 

Namaste Michael ji,

 

Thanks for the response. I had a 'hunch' that you will come up with

a response !

While not contradicting your inner intention, i think there is

nothing wrong in characterising deep sleep also, along with the

other experiences, as an experiences. We all say, 'I slept'.

Sometimes we complain to a doctor: 'I do not get sleep at all'. The

Doctor also queries sometimes: 'Do you sleep well?'. Since it is an

undeniable part of our experience, the Shastra too embarks on the

analysis of the triad of states, including the sleep. In the

ultimate analysis, the Shastra too, intends to show us that there is

One Unchanging Principle in all the three states.

 

Now, coming to the Upadeshasahasri quotes, wonderful indeed they

are, i have a feeling that the Acharya is proving here the existence

of the undeniable Self. He has done this in the famous

Brihadaranyaka quote: na hi draShTuH driShTeH viparilopo vidyate,

avinAshitvAt' 'There is no extinction of the Seer of the seeing, for

He is Immutable, Eternal' ( a poor translation, though). But what i

pointed out in the analysis in my post is the 'content' of the sleep

experience, the presense of the jiva there as an experiencer (like

in the other two states). We see that the Acharya clarifying the

experience, its nature, etc. In this analysis the 'causal state' is

what is emphasized just like the gross and subtle states of the

earlier states. So, the *immediate* object of study in this Mandukya

analysis is not the Pure Consciousness, but the experiences

obtaining in the three states.

 

>

> Here is a thought which I proffer for your consideration:

> if it is not an experience then it cannot be a remembrance.

> What then can it be? I think that it may be the temporal

> analogue of the Euclidean line viz. a durationless instant.

> We can only know of it from the other side when consciousness

> resumes it formful state.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael

>

 

I agree the Self is not an object of experience. What i had pointed

out was the 'peace' and the ignorance that are experienced then. I

specially admired the way the Panchadashi (quoted in my earlier

post) analysed the whole thing and the ingenuity of Sri Vidyaranya

in showing how the Anandamaya kosha 'grasps', as the experiencer,

and the vijnAna-maya kosha later gives expression to the

experience. This is something 'novel' i think is not so explicitly

present in any other Vedantic work. I truly appreciate that last

sentence of yours. As you know, an experience cannot take place

without a knower. The revered author shows how there is present a

knower (even) then.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

....

>

> Further, it is in all our experience too. When i am very deeply

> asleep, even the sound of powerful crackers in the neighbourhood is

> not heard by me. Visitors coming in and staying for some time,

> conversing, and leaving, etc., is all not known to me. When i wake

> up and when others report these things to me, i spontaneously say: I

> slept so deeply that i did not know any of these things'. ]

>

>

 

Subbuji,

What about a person in Samadhi ? Would he know all these events

while he is in Samadhi ?

 

Also, what about a jnani like Ramana or Sankara ? Do they also

experience ignorance while in deep sleep ?

 

Frankly, the only experience I can remember about my deep sleep

state is the peace. The 'ignorance' part seems to be the

interpretation of the waker. When a person is fully engaged in one

activity, he will be oblivious of the rest of the world. If that is

ignorance, then even jnanis will have to be considered as ignorant.

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair

wrote:

 

>

> Subbuji,

> What about a person in Samadhi ? Would he know all these events

> while he is in Samadhi ?

>

> Also, what about a jnani like Ramana or Sankara ? Do they also

> experience ignorance while in deep sleep ?

>

> Frankly, the only experience I can remember about my deep sleep

> state is the peace. The 'ignorance' part seems to be the

> interpretation of the waker. When a person is fully engaged in one

> activity, he will be oblivious of the rest of the world. If that is

> ignorance, then even jnanis will have to be considered as ignorant.

>

> Regards,

> Raj.

>

 

Namaste!

 

I think when the mind is single-pointed, we are oblivious to other

things. We experience this when we are deeply engaged in any

activity. We may not even notice the passage of time for this is

noticed only when the single thought/experience is interrupted. In

samadhi too, I would expect that the mind is single-pointed and

engaged in one unbroken experience(?). Of the nature of this

experience, I am not competent to comment, but it cannot be

ignorance.

 

In deep sleep, the single, unbroken thought 'I do not know anything'

prevails until we awaken from it. Then we notice the passage of time

and recall the experience that was peace as well as ignorance (I

slept blissfully, I did not know anything, ). Now, this is my

experience.

 

>From the above, I can see why no one has ever prescribed deep sleep

as a sadhana. :-) I couldn't resist adding this in view of the

heated debate about samadhi and deep sleep :-)

 

As for jnanis, who can say what their sleep is like? another jnani?

In this context, it is said that Sri Appaya Dikshita had his

disciples write down what he uttered when under the influence of a

powerful hallucinogen (dattura leaves). These utterings formed the

famous bhakti hymn, AtmArpaNa stuti consisting of fifty verses. The

mind of a jnani is clear as a crystal.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v@>

> wrote:

> ...

> >

> > Further, it is in all our experience too. When i am very deeply

> > asleep, even the sound of powerful crackers in the

neighbourhood is

> > not heard by me. Visitors coming in and staying for some time,

> > conversing, and leaving, etc., is all not known to me. When i

wake

> > up and when others report these things to me, i spontaneously

say: I

> > slept so deeply that i did not know any of these things'. ]

> >

> >

>

> Subbuji,

> What about a person in Samadhi ? Would he know all these events

> while he is in Samadhi ?

 

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH,

Namaste Raj ji,

 

[Thanks for the response. Much depends upon the depth of the

Samadhi. I remember reading in the Yoga Vasishtha that when Prahlada

went into samadhi, he did not emerge from it for ages. The others

had to make loud sounds with kettle drums, conches and the like to

bring him out. I do not remember the details.]

 

 

> Also, what about a jnani like Ramana or Sankara ? Do they also

> experience ignorance while in deep sleep ?

 

[in the case of a Jnani too the experience of 'i did not know

anything then' is the same as with the others. The only difference

is that as the basic ignorance is not there for him by virtue of the

enlightenment had, he does not emerge as a samsari from sleep.]

>

> Frankly, the only experience I can remember about my deep sleep

> state is the peace. The 'ignorance' part seems to be the

> interpretation of the waker. When a person is fully engaged in one

> activity, he will be oblivious of the rest of the world. If that is

> ignorance, then even jnanis will have to be considered as ignorant.

>

> Regards,

> Raj.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat