Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 Dear Shri Sampath, You introduce yourself as a novice but from your questions it is seen that you have studied the bhashyas of all the upanishads thouroughly and you yourself know all the answers. Shri Bhaskar will reply to your queries, But I hope you are not asking these questions only to test his knowledge. I am an old man of 85 and I hope you will excuse me for writing this. S.N.Sastri Iam a novice to this group as far as writing messages is concerned. To introduce myself, Iam Sampath from Hyderabad. With high respect to you and all the Acharyas of Advaita Sampradaya, I request you to throw some light on few contentions I have regarding the Concept of Deep Sleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 At 60+, I am fully with you Shri Sastri-ji. Shri Sampath, for all his humility, amazes me. Scholarship and clarity hand in hand! PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Shri Sampath, > You introduce yourself as a novice but from your questions it is seen that > you have studied the bhashyas of all the upanishads thouroughly and you > yourself know all the answers. ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Shri Sampath, > You introduce yourself as a novice but from your questions it is seen that > you have studied the bhashyas of all the upanishads thouroughly and you > yourself know all the answers. Shri Bhaskar will reply to your queries, But > I hope you are not asking these questions only to test his knowledge. I am > an old man of 85 and I hope you will excuse me for writing this. > S.N.Sastri >> At 60+, I am fully with you Shri Sastri-ji. Shri Sampath, for all his humility, amazes me. Scholarship and clarity hand in hand! PraNAms. praNAmaH Sri S.N.Sastri Mahasaya & Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair Mahasaya, I am really glad to hear from you. You all are great souls. Being 20 years old and ignorant of the subtleties of the concepts, I can only seek for your blessings for my understanding to be more clear. I am a devotee at the feet of Swami Vivekananda and I am trying to make a sincere study of the scriptures. !! Aneka Janma Samsiddhas Tato Yati Param gatim !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Shree Sampath, PraNAms. Whoever you are, welcome to the advaitin list. The questions you have raised are deep and appropriate. You are quite mature for your age and reminded me the Krishna's statement in the 6th chapter - ... yoginaam eva kule bhavati dhiimataam| etaddhi durlabhataram loke janma yat iidRisham|| - Otherwise he will be born in a family environment that is conducive for his rapid growth and that kind of birth is indeed is very difficult to get. You are indeed blessed with the knowledge of the scriptures at that young age. God has already blessed you with the environment and your presence here is welcome note to all. And you are right on the button about the identification with kaarana Shariira in the deep sleep state - absence of duality may be bliss but there is no knowledge ones real nature in that sushhupti state. Otherwise everybody will get up with knowledge after deep sleep state. An ignorant person remains as ignorant in the deep sleep state and jnaani will remain as jnaani in any state including the deep sleep state. Since once one has gained knowledge, he can never be ignorant again. Hari Om! Sadananda --- paramahamsavivekananda <paramahamsavivekananda wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Namaste: First let me also welcome our new member Sri Sampath to the list. I look forward to his active participation with messages with profound thoughts. Interestingly a thread with the same subject title appeared in the list during November 1998. These posts area available and members can revisit the archived postings for the month of November 1998. Most of those discussios on this subject matter were carried out at that tim by Sri Gummuluru Murthygaru, Sadaji, Charles Wikener and Sri Nanda Chandran. With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda " <paramahamsavivekananda wrote: > > > praNAmaH Sri S.N.Sastri Mahasaya & Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair Mahasaya, > I am really glad to hear from you. You all are great souls. Being 20 > years old and ignorant of the subtleties of the concepts, I can only > seek for your blessings for my understanding to be more clear. > I am a devotee at the feet of Swami Vivekananda and I am trying to > make a sincere study of the scriptures. > > !! Aneka Janma Samsiddhas Tato Yati Param gatim !! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda " <paramahamsavivekananda wrote: > So, in Deep Sleep, avidya hinders the jIva from becoming Conscious of > his union with Brahman. Namaskaramu Sri Sampth, Nice to see you in advaitin. :-)) Now, please tell me how will you treat the following mantra of the upanishad: esha sarvEshwara esha sarvajna eshOntaryAmi esha yoniH sarvasya prabhavApyayau hi bhUtAnAm||6|| This one is the lord of all; this one is **omniscient**; this one is the inner director(of all); this one is the source of all; this one is verily the place of origin and dissolution of all beings. According to your stand, the jiva is enveloped by ignorance and is unconscious of brahman. Then, how can you call this state as **omniscient** and the lord of all? According to later advaitins, suhupti of jiva is ashuddha satwa pradhAna and hence jiva is ignorant, but what shruti is saying here is, about prAjna, and not about ishwara from the samashti perspective. So as per your stand jiva is ignorant and to call him omniscient is a contradiction. Isn't it? Pray don't reproduce the notes given by Swami Nikhilananda, as you know pretty well that his and gambhir maharaj's works are the principal books which I refer. :-)) If you have any other explanation,please let us know. The sutrabhAshya which you have quoted selectively is one of the finest passages which have come from the pen of Sri Shankara. What about his forceful assertion and his elaborate explanation, which comes in the first part of the bhAshya to the pUrvapakshins to drive home the point that there is **complete merger of jiva** in Brahman? And there is no mention of ignorance et all. If AchArya was particular about the ignorance or upAdhi in deep sleep also, then the succeeding sutras and his elaborate explanations to pUrvapakshins will be redundant! Why AchArya is doing so? AchArya quotes from different Upanishads in support of this view. Is there any other passage in the sUtra bhAshya where AchArya speaks on this issue? Hope your questions about the prAjna and how it is treated by Sri SSS will be answered by Sri Bhaskar-ji soon. Its nice to interact with a knowledgeable person like you who has thoroughly read the literature of Swami Vivekanadna and upanishads!:-) Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote: > > advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda " > <paramahamsavivekananda@> wrote: > > > So, in Deep Sleep, avidya hinders the jIva from becoming Conscious of > > his union with Brahman. > > Namaskaramu Sri Sampth, > > Nice to see you in advaitin. :-)) Now, please tell me how will you > treat the following mantra of the upanishad: > > esha sarvEshwara esha sarvajna eshOntaryAmi esha yoniH sarvasya > prabhavApyayau hi bhUtAnAm||6|| > > This one is the lord of all; this one is **omniscient**; this one is > the inner director(of all); this one is the source of all; this one is > verily the place of origin and dissolution of all beings. > > According to your stand, the jiva is enveloped by ignorance and is > unconscious of brahman. Then, how can you call this state as > **omniscient** and the lord of all? According to later advaitins, > suhupti of jiva is ashuddha satwa pradhAna and hence jiva is ignorant, > but what shruti is saying here is, about prAjna, and not about ishwara > from the samashti perspective. So as per your stand jiva is ignorant > and to call him omniscient is a contradiction. Isn't it? > > Pray don't reproduce the notes given by Swami Nikhilananda, as you > know pretty well that his and gambhir maharaj's works are the > principal books which I refer. :-)) If you have any other > explanation,please let us know. > > The sutrabhAshya which you have quoted selectively is one of the > finest passages which have come from the pen of Sri Shankara. What > about his forceful assertion and his elaborate explanation, which > comes in the first part of the bhAshya to the pUrvapakshins to drive > home the point that there is **complete merger of jiva** in Brahman? > And there is no mention of ignorance et all. If AchArya was particular > about the ignorance or upAdhi in deep sleep also, then the succeeding > sutras and his elaborate explanations to pUrvapakshins will be > redundant! Why AchArya is doing so? > > AchArya quotes from different Upanishads in support of this view. Is > there any other passage in the sUtra bhAshya where AchArya speaks on > this issue? > > Hope your questions about the prAjna and how it is treated by Sri SSS > will be answered by Sri Bhaskar-ji soon. > > Its nice to interact with a knowledgeable person like you who has > thoroughly read the literature of Swami Vivekanadna and upanishads!:-) > > Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, > > Br. Vinayaka. > NamaskAraH Sri Vinayaka Mahasaya, You wrote: ....but what shruti is saying here is, about prAjna, and not about ishwara from the samashti perspective. [uNQUOTE] ## Mahasaya, IMHO, as far as my understanding goes, Mandukya Upanishad doesn't make any apparent distinguishing difference between ISvara and prAjna or to be more precise, between SamashTi and vyashTi. Otherwise how can the the word, " ALL " be used in regard to the prAjna in the same verse which you have quoted?, esha sarvEshwara esha sarvajna eshOntaryAmi esha yoniH sarvasya prabhavApyayau hi bhUtAnAm||6|| This one is the lord of *all*; this one is omniscient; this one is the inner director*(of all)*; this one is the source of *all*; this one is verily the place of origin and dissolution of *all* beings. From the beginning the Upanishad starts to say, All this is Brahman, this Self is verily Brahman. Next, the Self in the 3 states is described as vaisvAnaraH, taijasaH and prAjnaH respectively. We do not find any pronounced distinction between the individual and the universal beings. And in the above verse, prAjna is said to be the ISvara very clearly, " esha sarvEshwara " . This may be because what we call as prAjna is nothing but a portion of the ISvara. Thus the sarvajnatva and sarvagatatva are attributed to it. prAjna as such is prAjna(vyashTi) only after it is ISvara(samashTi) first. We can establish the existence of the individual only by pointing at its universal being but not otherwise! And it is said to be the origin and dissolution of all beings indicating that during the state of prAjna, the mUlAvidya persists and it becomes the kAraNa for the jIva srishTi to commence again when the person enters the waking or dreaming state that follows a deep sleep state. This mUlAvidya must be the core essence of avidya wherein its vikshEpa shakti being obliterated, it works only through the AvaraNa shakti. This AvaraNa shakti cannot be opposed to the essential nature of Brahman. At this juncture I am afraid to assert one thing which I believe to be true: " Had the Deep Sleep state been permanent, there is absolutely no need to realize! " Because, the whole problem is with the waking and dreaming states where the jIva experiences multiplicity and he suffers the friction of subject-object relationship. The state of " Utter Not Knowing " (sushhupti) and the state of " Beyond Knowledge " (turiya) appear similar just like, if we consider the lowest vibrations of ether as darkness and the medium vibrations as Light, the highest vibrations would be darkness again ! But there is a difference of poles between both states of darkness. We see in reality that the deep sleep is not permanent, and the jIva comes back into the state of " Knowing " and thus the " Door to the state of waking and dreaming " is said to be the State of Deep Sleep. Thus there must be a hidden kAraNa within the prAjna stithi which would cause the " One without a Second " - Brahman to suffer the perils of beginningless samsAra! The very second verse says, " sarvam hi etat brahma ayamAtmA brahma saH ayam AtmA chatushpAt! " " All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters. " Again in the 7th Verse it is said, " prapanchOpaSamam SAntam Sivam advaitam chaturtham manyantE sa AtmA sa vijneyaH !! " The Fourth is thought of as that in which *all phenomena come to a cessation*, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. *That is the Self; that is to be known.* Turiya is different from prAjna in that it is a cessation of all phenomena, and it is the very Self that is to be known! Even the Omniscience or Omnipotence are not attributed to the turiya and thus it is even said to be different from ISvara which is indicated by the words, " na prajnAna ghanam " (turiya is not a mass of Consciousness = Compared to prAjna). " na prajnam " (turiya is not even simple Consciousness = Compared to ISvara). You Wrote: to the pUrvapakshins to drive > home the point that there is **complete merger of jiva** in Brahman? > And there is no mention of ignorance et all. If AchArya was particular > about the ignorance or upAdhi in deep sleep also, then the succeeding > sutras and his elaborate explanations to pUrvapakshins will be > redundant! Why AchArya is doing so? [uNQUOTE] ## Mahasaya, SrI Sankara says that the self same soul rises from deep sleep on account of the Work, Remembrance, Scriptural text and Precept. Here, if you allow me, I would like to present my own opinion. With due respect to all Acharyas, what I opine regarding the interpretation of SrI Sankara Bhashya on 3.2.9 Brahma Sutra is as follows, >>>>> When Sri Sankara uses the word, " The self-same soul " what did he mean by that? Is it the pure Consciousness without any upAdhIs? If he really meant that, I must humbly point out with utmost respect to the Acharya that, " There are no two different kinds of souls " ! The qualification that SrI Sankara uses to say, " same soul " or " different soul " here is the " personal traits(karmas etc in kAraNa SarIra) " which is pronounced by his words like, " WORK " , " REMEMBRANCE " , SCRIPTURAL TEXT " and " PRECEPT " . This case is similar to that of Reincarnation wherein the same individual soul passes through different births because he is bound by the upAdhIs. Similarly, here, the same individual soul(qualified by its own karma) enters the waking state *again* from which it had gone into the deep sleep before. SrI Sankara must have meant this when he used those four words(work etc). Because those words cannot be used in connection with the pure Consciousness free of limiting adjuncts. As Sri Krishna says in Gita, nAnyam guNebhyaH kartAram yadA drasTAnupaSyati guNEbhyascha param vEtti madbhAvam sOdhigacchati !! When the seer perceives no agent other than the three Gunas, and realizes Me, the supreme Spirit standing entirely beyond these Gunas, he attains my own nature. When the kartA is only the three guNas, how would SrI Sankara attribute the " Work " , " Remembrance, " Scriptural text " and " Precept " to the pure Consciousness? And he declares his stand while refuting the analogy of Water drop and Ocean that, what he calls an individual soul is only the Brahman in connexion with the upAdhIs. And then he says that this individual soul passes through the three states along with its upAdhIs, which follow the beejAnkura nyaya. So we can easily draw a conclusion that the jIva merges into Brahman *along with its adjuncts* in sushhupti. This is in pure accordance with SrI Sankara's own words. Sri Vinayaka Mahasaya, You wrote: And there is no mention of ignorance et all. >> Please let me know how you interpret the words, " beejAnkura nyaya " of SrI Sankara if the Seed like form of adjuncts were not supposed to be the primal nescience. Finally I feel, the essence of SrI Sankara's reply to the question raised by the pUrvapakSin lies in saying that *there is no other chance* than rising of the same soul from sushhupti because the work etc are connected with the same upAdhIs(though in seed, causal form) even in the deep sleep state. It is similar to saying, during reincarnation, the same soul enters a new body. The " same " is used in relation to its adjuncts which it carries through all the births. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Namaste, Shri Sampath, I just read your reply to Vinayaka-ji on the Three States. First let me also welcome you, an 'abhinava Sankara' to this list, which I am sure will benefit enormously from your knowledge and clarity of presentation. As one much elder to you let me bless you with 'vedoktA AshiShaH'. I had also a longstanding doubt on the JIva merging with Brahman 'along with its adjuncts' which has now been cleared by you in the following portion of your mail. Thanks a lot. PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk > > ## Mahasaya, > > SrI Sankara says that the self same soul rises from deep sleep on > account of the Work, Remembrance, Scriptural text and Precept. > > Here, if you allow me, I would like to present my own opinion. > > With due respect to all Acharyas, what I opine regarding the > interpretation of SrI Sankara Bhashya on 3.2.9 Brahma Sutra is as follows, > > >>>>> When Sri Sankara uses the word, " The self-same soul " what did he > mean by that? Is it the pure Consciousness without any upAdhIs? > > If he really meant that, I must humbly point out with utmost respect > to the Acharya that, " There are no two different kinds of souls " ! > The qualification that SrI Sankara uses to say, " same soul " or > " different soul " here is the " personal traits(karmas etc in kAraNa > SarIra) " which is pronounced by his words like, " WORK " , " REMEMBRANCE " , > SCRIPTURAL TEXT " and " PRECEPT " . > > This case is similar to that of Reincarnation wherein the same > individual soul passes through different births because he is bound by > the upAdhIs. Similarly, here, the same individual soul(qualified by > its own karma) enters the waking state *again* from which it had gone > into the deep sleep before. SrI Sankara must have meant this when he > used those four words(work etc). Because those words cannot be used in > connection with the pure Consciousness free of limiting adjuncts. > > As Sri Krishna says in Gita, > > nAnyam guNebhyaH kartAram > yadA drasTAnupaSyati > guNEbhyascha param vEtti > madbhAvam sOdhigacchati !! > > When the seer perceives no agent other than the three Gunas, and > realizes Me, the supreme Spirit standing entirely beyond these Gunas, > he attains my own nature. > > When the kartA is only the three guNas, how would SrI Sankara > attribute the " Work " , " Remembrance, " Scriptural text " and " Precept " to > the pure Consciousness? > > And he declares his stand while refuting the analogy of Water drop and > Ocean that, what he calls an individual soul is only the Brahman in > connexion with the upAdhIs. And then he says that this individual soul > passes through the three states along with its upAdhIs, which follow > the beejAnkura nyaya. > > So we can easily draw a conclusion that the jIva merges into Brahman > *along with its adjuncts* in sushhupti. This is in pure accordance > with SrI Sankara's own words. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Dear Sampathji, Welcome to the list. I must say that your clarity and knowledge is absolutely astounding. I think the major issue here is the nature of the seed form of avidya. Before entering the state of deep sleep, the jiva is clearly ignorant and after re-emmerging from deep sleep, the jiva is still ignorant. If the jiva's ignorance was completely destroyed when going through the " gate, " then why is the jiva ignorant again when waking up? In order to explain this, we posit a seed form of avidya which persists through deep sleep. However, this seed form of avidya is inferred from the waking state alone. From the waking state, we say that " first there was waking, then dreaming, then deep sleep and now waking again " - this whole temporal sequence is from analysis in the waking state. We posit seed form of avidya in order to explain how this sequence works. However, here is the real question, I think: does the seed form of avidya manifest in anyway during the experience of deep sleep? One possibility is that the Self is present and nothing whatsoever appears and it is an experience where the Self alone is the content. The seed form of avidya is nothing something that alters the absolutely uncontaminated self-experience, but is something entirely unmanifest. As soon as the seed form manifests, we are in waking, etc... I think such an explanation would account for both the existence of some kind of persisting avidya and for those passages where Sri Shankaracharya suggests an unmixed experience of deep sleep. If deep sleep is analysed from the waking state, it is logically neccesary and correct to posit some kind of unmanifest ignorance. However, if the deep sleep state is looked upon from the point of view of its own experience, then it is unmixed consciousness alone. Here is an interesting and puzzling quote from Sri Ramana Maharshi, where he first says there is no ignorance in deep sleep and then later seems to say there is: " Again, sleep is said to be ajnana (ignorance). That is only in relation to the wrong jnana (knowledge) prevalent in the wakeful state. The waking state is really ajnana (ignorance) and the sleep state is prajnana (full knowledge). Prajnana is Brahman, says the sruti. Brahman is eternal. The sleep-experiencer is called prajna. He is prajnanam in all the three states. Its particular significance in the sleep state is that He is full of knowledge (prajnanaghana). What is ghana? There are jnana and vijnana. Both together operate in all perceptions. Vijnana in the jagrat is viparita jnana (wrong knowledge) i.e., ajnana (ignorance). It always co-exists with the individual. When this becomes vispashta jnana (clear knowledge), It is Brahman. When wrong knowledge is totally absent, as in sleep, He remains pure prajnana only. That is Prajnanaghana. [...] A man says, " I slept happily''. Happiness was his experience. If not, how could he speak of what he had not experienced? How did he experience happiness in sleep, if the Self was pure? Who is it that speaks of that experience now? The speaker is the vijnanatma (ignorant self) and he speaks of prajnanatma (pure self). How can that hold? Was this vijnanatma present in sleep? His present statement of the experience of happiness in sleep makes one infer his existence in sleep. How then did he remain? Surely not as in the waking state. He was there very subtle. Exceedingly subtle vijnanatma experiences the happy prajnanatma by means of maya mode. It is like the rays of the moon seen below the branches, twigs and leaves of a tree. " This topic matter is obviously very complicated. I hope you can help me come to terms with it... Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote: > > Dear Sampathji, > > Welcome to the list. I must say that your clarity and knowledge is > absolutely astounding. > > I think the major issue here is the nature of the seed form of > avidya. Before entering the state of deep sleep, the jiva is clearly Namaste, To put it succinctly there aren't three states or any states. However to posit them for discussion's sake lets put it this way. The deep sleep state is not realisation and is just a continuous thought of nothing or ignorance. So whatever you take into it you come out with it. Like Pralaya what goes in comes out. The problem is mind or thought itself, and potentiality still means ignorance..........Hupa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda " <paramahamsavivekananda wrote: > SrI Sankara says that the self same soul rises from deep sleep on > account of the Work, Remembrance, Scriptural text and Precept. > > Here, if you allow me, I would like to present my own opinion. > > With due respect to all Acharyas, what I opine regarding the > interpretation of SrI Sankara Bhashya on 3.2.9 Brahma Sutra is as follows, > > >>>>> When Sri Sankara uses the word, " The self-same soul " what did he > mean by that? Is it the pure Consciousness without any upAdhIs? > > If he really meant that, I must humbly point out with utmost respect > to the Acharya that, " There are no two different kinds of souls " ! > The qualification that SrI Sankara uses to say, " same soul " or > " different soul " here is the " personal traits(karmas etc in kAraNa > SarIra) " which is pronounced by his words like, " WORK " , " REMEMBRANCE " , > SCRIPTURAL TEXT " and " PRECEPT " . Dear Sri Sampath, I am not denying the existence of the upAdhi until the soul is liberated/nor does bhagavadpAda. It is absurd to do so! What I am precisely asking is, during deep sleep, the lack of cognition is due to **complete union with Brahman** or **due to ignorance**? In the sutrabhAshya shankara is repeatedly telling that it is due to **complete union** with the self and all the limiting adjuncts cease. There is nowhere mention of the ignorance here. Once we wake up, we see it as a blank state due to the active upAdhi in the waking state. Mind you, this we say **after we wake up**. Shankara says that upadhi is in a seed form but he don't say that it obstructs jiva **during the deep sleep right? ** Let us see what he says: " For apart from its connexion with the limiting adjuncts it is **impossible for the soul**in itself to abide anywhere, because being non-different from Brahman it rests in its own glory. And if we say that, in deep sleep, it abides in Brahman we do not mean thereby that there is a **difference between the abode and that which abides**, but that there is **absolute identity of the two**. For the text says, 'With that which is he becomes united, he is gone to his Self;' which means that the sleeping person has entered into his true nature.--It cannot, moreover, be said that the soul is at any time not united with Brahman--for its true nature can never pass away--; but considering that in the state of waking and that of dreaming it passes, owing to the contact with its limiting adjuncts, into something else, as it were, it may be said that when those adjuncts cease in deep sleep it passes back into its true nature. Hence it would be entirely wrong to assume that, in deep sleep, it sometimes becomes united with Brahman and sometimes not 2. Moreover, even if we admit that there are different places for the soul in deep sleep, still there does not result, from that difference of place, any difference in the quality of deep sleep which is in all cases characterised by the cessation of special cognition; it is, therefore, more appropriate to say that the soul does (in deep sleep) not **cognize on account of its oneness, having become united with Brahman**; according to the Sruti, 'How should he know another?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, l5).--**If, further, the sleeping soul did rest in the nâdîs and the purîtat, it would be impossible to assign any reason for its not cognizing, because in that case it would continue to have diversity for its object; according to the Sruti, 'When there is, as it were, duality, then one sees the other,' & c.**--But in the case of him also who has diversity for his object, great distance and the like may be reasons for absence of cognition!--What you say might indeed apply to our case if the soul were acknowledged to be limited in itself; then its case would be analogous to that of Vishnumitra, who, when staying in a foreign land, cannot see his home. But, apart from its adjuncts, the soul knows no limitation.--Well, then, great distance, & c., residing in the adjuncts may be the reason of non-cognition!--**Yes, but that leads us to the conclusion already arrived at, viz. that the soul does not cognize when, the limiting adjuncts having ceased, it has become one with Brahman. ** " http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sanka ra_38110.php There is room for many questions. The subject matter is very complex. We have to think very deeply before concluding on the same. That's why I contended that if this was simple, elaborate and extensive bhAshya will be redundant! If there is complete union of jiva in Brahman, where does the avidya/upadhi reside? Here shankara says that during deep sleep jiva shelves **all the upAdhis** and hence it is one with brahman. Will it become inactive for the time being? Is it a positive entity or not? Suppose we are experiencing the joy or if we are ignorant in deep sleep, why we are not aware of it during the deep sleep itself? Just like witness of darkness in the room during the waking state/dream where all objects are submerged in darkness? Why we have to **infer** after waking up? Secondly, though there is a blurred differentiation in the upanishad, traditionally up to the 9th mantra where the upAsana of the different mAtras of the omkara is taken up, the vishwa, taijasa and prAjna is considered in its individual aspect. The collective aspect is spoken of when the upAsana starts. Swami Gambhirananda says that: This identity (of the individual and collective) is suggested by indiscriminate use of these terms in the present(9th mantra) and the following texts. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Dear All: If I may, I would like to quote Sri Ramana Maharshi on this topic, since I believe his knowledge is quite experiental in this matter. Pranams to All, Mouna .................. D.: Relatively speaking, is not the sleep state nearer to Pure Consciousness than the waking state? M.: Yes, in this sense: When passing from sleep to waking the `I' thought must start; the mind comes into play; thoughts arise; and then the functions of the body come into operation; all these Page 582 together make us say that we are awake. The absence of all this evolution is the characteristic of sleep and therefore it is nearer to Pure Consciousness than the waking state. But one should not therefore desire to be always in sleep. In the first place it is impossible, for it will necessarily alternate with the other states. Secondly it cannot be the state of bliss in which the Jnani [?] is, for his state is permanent and not alternating. Moreover, the sleep state is not recognised to be one of awareness by people, but the sage is always aware. Thus the sleep state differs from the state in which the sage is established. Still more, the sleep state is free from thoughts and their impression to the individual. It cannot be altered by one's will because effort is impossible in that condition. Although nearer to Pure Consciousness, it is not fit for efforts to realise the Self. The incentive to realise can arise only in the waking state and efforts can also be made only when one is awake. We learn that the thoughts in the waking state form the obstacle to gaining the stillness of sleep. " Be still and know that I AM God " . So stillness is the aim of the seeker. Even a single effort to still at least a single thought even for a trice goes a long way to reach the state of quiescence. Effort is required and it is possible in the waking state only. There is the effort here: there is awareness also; the thoughts are stilled; so there is the peace of sleep gained. That is the state of the Jnani [?]. It is neither sleep nor waking but intermediate between the two. There is the awareness of the waking state and the stillness of sleep. It is called jagrat-sushupti. Call it wakeful sleep or sleeping wakefulness or sleepless waking or wakeless sleep. It is not the same as sleep or waking separately. It is atijagrat 1 (beyond wakefulness) or atisushupti 2 (beyond sleep). It is the state of perfect awareness and of perfect stillness combined. It lies between sleep and waking; it is also the interval between two successive thoughts. It is the source from which thoughts spring; we see that when we wake up from sleep. In other words thoughts have their origin in the stillness of sleep. The thoughts make all the difference between the stillness of sleep and the turmoil of waking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote: > > Dear All: > > If I may, I would like to quote Sri Ramana Maharshi on this topic, > since I believe his knowledge is quite experiental in this matter. > > Pranams to All, > Mouna > ................. > > D.: Relatively speaking, is not the sleep state nearer to Pure > Consciousness than the waking state? > > M.: Yes, in this sense: When passing from sleep to waking the `I' > > thought must start; the mind comes into play; thoughts arise; and then > the functions of the body come into operation; all these > Page 582 > together make us say that we are awake. The absence of all this > evolution is the characteristic of sleep and therefore it is nearer to > Pure Consciousness than the waking state. But one should not therefore > desire to be always in sleep. In the first place it is impossible, for > it will necessarily alternate with the other states. Secondly it > cannot be the state of bliss in which the Jnani [?] is, for his state > is permanent and not alternating. Moreover, the sleep state is not > recognised to be one of awareness by people, but the sage is always > aware. Thus the sleep state differs from the state in which the sage > is established. Still more, the sleep state is free from thoughts and > their impression to the individual. It cannot be altered by one's will > because effort is impossible in that condition. Although nearer to > Pure Consciousness, it is not fit for efforts to realise the Self. The > incentive to realise can arise only in the waking state and efforts > can also be made only when one is awake. We learn that the thoughts in > the waking state form the obstacle to gaining the stillness of sleep. > " Be still and know that I AM God " . So stillness is the aim of the > seeker. Even a single effort to still at least a single thought even > for a trice goes a long way to reach the state of quiescence. Effort > is required and it is possible in the waking state only. There is the > effort here: there is awareness also; the thoughts are stilled; so > there is the peace of sleep gained. That is the state of the Jnani > [?]. It is neither sleep nor waking but intermediate between the two. > There is the awareness of the waking state and the stillness of sleep. > It is called jagrat-sushupti. Call it wakeful sleep or sleeping > wakefulness or sleepless waking or wakeless sleep. It is not the same > as sleep or waking separately. It is atijagrat 1 (beyond wakefulness) > or atisushupti 2 (beyond sleep). It is the state of perfect awareness > and of perfect stillness combined. It lies between sleep and waking; > it is also the interval between two successive thoughts. It is the > source from which thoughts spring; we see that when we wake up from > sleep. In other words thoughts have their origin in the stillness of > sleep. The thoughts make all the difference between the stillness of > sleep and the turmoil of waking. > Namaste, My sister-in-law then interposed, " It is said that the bliss that occurs in deep sleep is experienced in the state of samadhi2 as well, but how is that to be reconciled with the statement that deep sleep is a state of nescience? " Bhagavan: " That is why deep sleep has also to be rejected. It is true that there is bliss in deep sleep, but one is not aware of it. One only knows about it afterwards when one wakes up and says that one has slept well. Samadhi means experiencing this bliss while remaining awake. " I: " So it means waking, or conscious sleep? " Bhagavan: " Yes, that's it. " ...Hupa. More from Ramana; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda " <paramahamsavivekananda wrote: Dear Sri Sampath and other Members, There seems to be no dearth of statements made by AchArya reiterating that there is no ignorance during the deep sleep. It is not a stray quote of sutrabhAshya like 2.2.29, in where AchArya says that the waking state is more real than dream etc. In the post script I have given the selected passages culled from Sri Shastri- ji's website for the careful study by one and all. The question remains unanswered, why in so many places AchArya is making such statements? He makes an important statement in the following bhAshya: Br.up.4.3.32.S.B.—yatra punaH saa avidyaa------ s'rutivachanametat. When, however, that ignorance which projects things other than the self is **at rest, in the state of deep sleep**, what can one see, smell, or know and through what? Then, being fully embraced by the self-luminous supreme Self, the jiiva becomes infinite, perfectly serene, with all his desires attained. Then there is no second entity different from the self to be seen. **In deep sleep the self, freed of its limiting adjuncts, remains in its own supreme light, free from all relationships.** May I request one and all not to bring the quotations of sages like Sri Ramana/ Swami Vivekananda? Because on has to study their statments in the proper light and not as a stray quotes. Out of two statements twenty interpretaions can be done, if one has a limited exposure to their literature! Moreover, there is a great danger of arguements taking emotional turn, forsaking the rational reasoning which is very much stressed by the advaita AchAryAs. It doesn't mean that they are entirely wrong either, I don't dare say so! I am very sorry, if I am hurting the fellings of some here. But this is what I honestly feel. Let us stick to the shankara bhAshya on the prasthAnatraya of bhagavadpada for convenience and clarity! Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. The self desires to go into the state of deep sleep Br. Up. 4.3.19.S.B. – tadyathaa asmin aakaas'e ---svamaatmaanam pravis'ati. As a hawk or a falcon, flying in the sky, becomes exhausted, and stretching its wings, goes towards its nest, where it can have perfect rest, so does this infinite being run for this state, where, falling asleep it craves for nothing and sees no dream. The waking state is also considered by the s'ruti to be only dream. As the bird goes to its nest to recover from fatigue, so also does the jiiva, who is fatigued by the experiences of the waking and dream states, go to his abode, which is his own self, **free from all attributes** and devoid of all exertion caused by action. **In this state he becomes one with the supreme Self**, as the following quotation from Ch.up, shows. Ch.up. 6.8.1.S.B.—tatra hi aadars'aapanayane--------mana aakhyaam hitvaa. Just as the reflection of a person in a mirror appears to merge back in the person himself when the mirror is removed, so also, in deep sleep, when the mind and organs become dormant, the supreme Being who had entered the mind as a reflection **attains his true nature**, giving up his appearance as an individual soul, which is called the mind. Ch. up. 6.8.1.S.B. yadaa svapiti iti uchyate--------- gamyate iti abhipraayaH. When a person is in deep sleep, he becomes identified with Existence (Brahman). Having discarded his nature as an individual soul he attains his own self, his own nature, which is the ultimate Reality. Br.up.4.3.15.S.B. tatra charitvaa iti----- `Roaming' in that state of dream and becoming fatigued, and thereafter going to the state of deep sleep, he comes back to the dream state and then to the waking state. Br.up.4.3.6.S.B—sushuptaat cha utthaanam--- We awake from deep sleep with the remembrance that we slept happily and knew nothing. Br.up.4.3.21.S.B—sa yadi aatmaa avinashTah------- duHkhii veti veda.- ---- A doubt may arise—If the self remains unaffected and in its own form during deep sleep, **why does it not know itself then** or know all other things, as it does in the waking and dream states? The reason is unity. This is explained by the s'ruti with an illustration. As a man, when fully embraced by his beloved wife, both desiring each other's company, does not know anything at all, either external, such as `This is something other than myself', or internal, such as `I am happy or unhappy', but he knows everything external and internal when he is not embraced by her and is separated, so also, this infinite being, the individual self, who is separated from the supreme Self (in the waking and dream states) because of having entered the body and organs, like the reflection of the moon in water, becomes **unified with the supreme Self in deep sleep** and does not know anything external or internal, such as `I am happy or unhappy'. Br.up.4.3.22.S.B.—atra cha etat prakr.tam-------- " In this state a father is no father, a mother is no mother, worlds are no worlds, the gods are no gods, the Vedas are no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble braahmaNa is no killer, and so on " . **The form of the self that is directly perceived in the state of deep sleep is free from ignorance, desire and action**. The s'ruti says that in this state a father is no father. His fatherhood towards a son is on account of the action of begetting. Since he is dissociated from all action in the state of deep sleep he is not a father then. Similarly, the son ceases to be a son in the state of deep sleep. All other relationships also cease to apply in this state. Br.up.4.3.23.S.B.—striipumsayoriva ekatvaat----drashTr.bhaavinii hi saa.---It was said that the self does not experience anything during deep sleep because of unity and this was illustrated by the example of a couple. It was also said that the self is pure consciousness. Now the doubt arises—if consciousness is the very nature of the self, just as heat is of fire, how can it give up that nature even in sleep and fail to see anything? The answer is – the reason for its not seeing anything in sleep is that there is then no second thing separate from it which it can see. What caused the particular vision in the waking and dream states, namely, the mind, the eyes and forms, were all presented by nescience as something different from the self. They are all unified in the state of deep sleep. The organs and objects are not there as separate entities in sleep. There is therefore no particular experience, for such experience is produced by the organs and objects and not by the self, and only appear as produced by the self. **But the vision of the self can never be lost.** Br.up.4.3.32.S.B.—yatra punaH saa avidyaa------ s'rutivachanametat. When, however, that ignorance which projects things other than the self is **at rest, in the state of deep sleep**, what can one see, smell, or know and through what? Then, being fully embraced by the self-luminous supreme Self, the jiiva becomes infinite, perfectly serene, with all his desires attained. Then there is no second entity different from the self to be seen. **In deep sleep the self, freed of its limiting adjuncts, remains in its own supreme light, free from all relationships.** Br.up.4.3.32.S.B.—etasyaiva aanandasya anyaani------ vibhaavyamaanaam. ---On a particle of this very bliss, projected by ignorance, and perceived only during the contact of the organs with objects, all other beings are sustained. Who are they? Those who have been separated from that bliss by nescience and consider themselves as different from Brahman. Being thus different, they subsist on a fraction of that bliss which is experienced through the contact of the sense-organs with their objects. (It follows from this that when one realizes one's identity with Brahman one enjoys this bliss in its plenitude, nay, one becom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.