three states

[Guest guest]

--- " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> Dear Sadanandaji,

>

> You have said:--

>

> " The point is inferential bliss is different from

> experiential

> bliss. That is an inference we can reach! "

>

> By the above I suppose you mean that the statement

> on waking up that one

> slept happily and knew nothing is an inference, like

> the inference that you

> must have eaten the laddu.

 

Shree Sastri gaaru -

 

I was trying to deduce that experience of bliss of

bliss is not like inferential laddu since it is an

experience. It appears to be an inference from the

point of the mind which makes a statement that 'I

slept very well' where I is identified with the waking

mind since that mind is not there in the deep sleep

state to sleep well. Hence from the waker's mind

point it appears to be an inference drawn since it was

there in the waking and dream and not there in the

deep sleep state.

 

The question that is drawn is - is there an

experiencer other than the mind to experience the

absence of the mind or here absence of seer-seen

duality. All we can say is that there is a mind but

in a very subtle form that experiences the absence of

duality in the deep sleep state, which we call the

experience of bliss. Since I enjoyed the sleep, I was

trying to draw analogy that it is not like inferential

laddu but experience of eating laddu because of which

I feel full.

 

The analogy might not have come across the way I

intended. Thanks for providing the Siddhantabindu's

reference and happy to learn that my understanding is

identical with the teachings of great advaitic

masters.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

>

> Madhusudana Sarasvati says specifically in

> Siddhantabindu that this is a

> recollection of actual experience of happiness and

> ignorance in sleep and

> not an inference. Inference is one of the six

> pramanas accepted by Advaita.

> It requires certain conditions to become applicable.

> The following extract

> from Siddhantabindu makes this clear:----

>

>

>

> The person waking up from sleep recollects that he

> slept happily and did

> not know anything. Recollection is not possible of a

> thing not previously

> experienced. Even though the recollection is not

> accompanied by the

> 'that-ness' (the details of the experience such as

> the time, place, nature,

> etc.,) it cannot be said that it is not a

> recollection, since the absence of

> such details is attributable to the fact that the

> experience (of happiness

> and ignorance in deep sleep) was not caused by a

> vritti of the mind (but by

> a vritti of avidya). Moreover, there is no

> invariable rule that in every

> recollection such details must be present. Besides,

> in the waking state,

> experience in the form 'I slept' is not possible (as

> a perception).

> Inference is also not possible because both the

> reason (middle term) and the

> locus (minor term) are absent. The ego-sense is

> experienced only at the time

> of waking up. Since the mind is dormant in deep

> sleep the ego-sense (which

> is a vritti of the mind) is not experienced then and

> so there can be no

> recollection of any such ego-sense (after waking

> up).

>

> The above passage means that happiness and

> ignorance were actually

> experienced in sleep.

>

> S.N.Sastri

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>