The three states

September 26, 2007

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Respected Shri Sastri-ji,

>

> I don't normally bother about such details. But, this is getting

> really complicated. Your clarification to Br. Vinayaka raises some

> questions:

>

> 1. Mind is a flow of thoughts, we are told. A mind that has stopped

> functioning would mean an absence of thoughts - a void. Right?

>

> 2. Avidya is a something. How can a something take the place of a

> void? Besides, we need the mind to know that there is avidya.

>

> 3. How does the knowledge of " happiness and ignorance " in sleep

> transfer from avidyA to the void when the latter becomes functional

> as mind on waking? Secondly, how can a knowledge occur in avidyA?

>

> 4. Happiness in waking is experienced due to the mind being behind

> enjoyment. Is it in a similar manner that avidyA-vritti functions in

> sleep?

>

> 5. Ignorance means " I did not know anything " . How can that co-exist

> with " happiness " in sleep where " happiness " is a something known?

>

> Sorry for the bother. I am afraid we are getting really mired.

>

> PraNAms and best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________

===============================

namaskAraH SrI Nair mahASaya,

If you don't mind, I would like to express my views on the points you

have raised. Kindly consider them.

1. Mind is a flow of thoughts, we are told. A mind that has stopped

functioning would mean an absence of thoughts - a void. Right?

2. Avidya is a something. How can a something take the place of a

> void? Besides, we need the mind to know that there is avidya.

[/uNQUOTE]

My view: We say Mind is a flow of thoughts, but IMHO, it would be more

precise if we say, " Mind is that which takes the form of thoughts " .

Here, with due respect to Advaita, I would bring the view of SrI

patanjali maharshi from his yOga sUtra(Pardon me if it is not

considered an authority) where he said, " abhAva pratyayAlambanA

vrittiH nidrA " - (Deep)Sleep is a Vritti which embraces the feeling of

voidness.

What a beautiful aphorism!

Here, Mind is said to take the form of voidness hence it itself

becomes void. Mind is functioning, but there is no Object and hence no

Subject either. All the functionality of Mind then exists only in a

causal form which is by all means anirvachanIya.

There seems to exist a slight difference between the words of SrI

patanjali and advaita achAryas in this respect, but all that is merely

a verbal difference. SrI patanjali stopped at saying, nidrA is a

vritti of chitta and the rest of it should be understood by everyone

that when the chitta takes the form of Void, it itself becomes void.

So it is up to us if we want to say that nidrA is a vritti of Mind, or

of avidyA(Which is the root cause for the 'being' of Mind).

So we need to conclude saying, " avidyA itself takes the form of Mind

etc. " When it projects the multiplicity, it creates a Subject. When it

withdraws the multiplicity, the Subject dissolves, but avidyA exists

still to create the Subject-Object pair!

September 28, 2007

Dear Maniji,

I have this booklet with me, but since I have very recently shifted from my

previous house to my present one all the books have not yet been unpacked..

I shall get the booklet soon and shall begin to translate it. It may take

some time for me to start the work.

S.N.Sastri

May I request you respected Sastriji, for the benefit of the group members,

to very kindly translate/ transliterate the vakyas, with their meanings,

into English and give references of the particular Upanishads from where

these vakyas have been taken. If you are in India I can send the book to you

by courier for your kind study.

" mahAvAkyaratnAvali " IMHO is a very good book for all the students of

Vedanta.

With kindest regards

Mani

September 29, 2007

Namaste, Respected Sri Sastriji,

It is very kind of you to mention

<<I have this booklet with me, but since I have very recently shifted from my

previous house to my present one all the books have not yet been unpacked. I

shall get the booklet soon and shall begin to translate it. It may take some

time for me to start the work.>>

I am sure the members of the Group will find the booklet once it is posted,

very useful for Mananam. The author of the book had taken great pain in

selecting the very relevant vakyas and grouping them into various categories.

We are grateful to you for taking time, (only as an when convenient to you,)

to post the booklet for the benefit of the members of the group.

With kindest regards,

Mani

R. S. Mani

Building a website is a piece of cake.

Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

September 29, 2007

PRANAMS,

The books we read should elevate and enlighten our thoughts. The

thoughts must be chewed and digested in our mind. We should not

become completely fenced by the books one reads and become slave of

the ideas contained in them. Books might turn out to be a state of

idolatory, a sepulchre of thoughts. They are not magic spells or

talisman to take one to the Divine.

Manana refers to the reflection employing the type of reasoning

suggested by the Sruti itself conducive to experience. Here, the

term `experience' should be understood to mean intuition of Brahman,

which results at the end of Nididhyasana or contemplation and reveals

in one sweep the whole panorama of everything that is knowable in its

true perspective. Nididhyasana is philosophic contemplation, the last

of the triple means.

In this Self-enquiry, an individual discriminates between the

enveloping sheaths or kosas and the in-dwelling Self and rejects the

former to know the residuum as Self. Thus it is not a process of mere

reasoning on the mental plane, but a diligent practice to make all

knowledge gathered during Sravana, a part of the consciousness by

constantly rejecting all that is non-self.

To fix the mind firmly in the heart until the forces of projection

and veiling due to rajas and tamas are destroyed and to awaken with

unswerving and vigilant concentration on the Self, ceaseless like the

unbroken flow of oil, " the true and cognate tendency which is

characteristic of the Atman and is expressed by saying `Aham

Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman) and Brahmaivaham (Brahman alone am I) is

termed Nididhyasana or Atmanusandhana that is constancy in the Self "

says Bhagavan Ramana in his introduction to the translation

of `Vivekachudamani'.

With the discriminative intellect as the instrument, the yogi

discards all thoughts of non-self and is steeped in an unbroken

current, of the Self. Sankara (in his commentary on Gita 5-25) says

that this is the highest form of yoga. In this contemplation, there

is a constant appreciation that Atman being the self-luminous and

innermost principle, by the light of which Buddhi knows all things,

cannot be the object of knowledge.

The person engaged in Nididhyasana constantly remembers that the

Witness Self is the external Seer and never the object of sight, that

it is existence and not the existent. Though Nididhyasana is an

exercise of the intellect, the realization of the true nature of

Reality Itself depends upon the Reality Itself and not on a man's

conception of It. The aspirant continues Nididhyasana till he no

longer identifies the Atman with the body and his conciousness gets

firmly established in the truth that Brahman is the sole reality and

the phenomenon of the world is non-real and illusory. That

concentration of vrittis (mental mode) which ascertains the impartite

nature of Atman called the Akhandakara- vrittis Gnana is the result

of Nididhyasana. Though Nididhyasana is an exercise of the intellect,

the realisation of the true nature of Reality depends upon the

Reality Itself and not on a man's conception of it.

CDR BVN

October 1, 2007

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

While going through the archives of the advaitin list, I came across

a very interesting post by stig-ji. Swami Nikhilananda also says the

same thing while explaining the word *bhAvarUpa avidya* with a quote

from the sureshwarAchArya's bridhad vArtika(page 22-23 of his

translation of vedAntasAra of sadAnanda).

Is this the view accepted by Sri SSS? Useful Pointers with

references on this abstuse topic will be very much appreciated.

The following excerpt of the post is for your reference.

Post #12537

(Quote)

The existence of seed-ignorance (as explained by Gaudapada and

Shankara) in deep-sleep is fully accepted by Swami

Satchidanandendra Saraswati. For instance, in his book " The

Pristine Pure Advaita Philosphy of Adi Shankara " there is

actually a chapter called " Which is that avidyA which Shri

Shankara has accepted to exist in sushupti? " (pages 78-87).

According to Satchidanandendra Swamiji this seed-ignorance is

absense of knowledge only: Seed-ignorance should not be

understood as an positive existing entity or as a material cause,

as done by the proponents of mUlAvidyA (root-ignorance) among the

post-Shankarites. Regarding the views on seed-ignorance in

deep-sleep, this is what differs Swami Satchidanandendra

Saraswati from the very major part of the post-Shankara

advaitins. **Swami Satchidanandendra do not deny the existence of

ignorance in deep-sleep per se. On the contrary, in accordance

with Shankara he explains there is seed-ignorance. But he refutes

the view according to which this seed-ignorance is a positive

existing entity.** And according to Swami Satchidanandendra, the

post-shankarites deviates from Adi Shankara by propagating this

view. This is - I assume - the point made by Atmachaitanyaji in

his postings.

Swami Satchidanandendra´s arguments apparently sometimes gives

rise to misunderstandings.

For instance, his claims that there´s

no positive existing avidyA in deep-sleep apparently leads PhD

Michael Comans (in the book " The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta

p.263) to the conclusion that **Swami Satchidanandendra somehow

equates deep-sleep with turIya! This is of course not the case.**

However, in spite of this, Comans book is very readable, and

gives a good overview on the teachings of Gaudapada, Shankara,

Sureshvara and Padmapada. Swami Satchidanandendra´s teachings are

discussed on pages 246-267. I disagree with him on some points

here, but I nevertheless warmly recommend his book to anyone

interested in the history of Advaita Vedanta.

(Unquote)

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

October 1, 2007

praNAms Sri Vinayak prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks for your mail....Kindly pardon me, I am extremely busy at office

nowadays...My boss has loaded me some additional responsibilities after

seeing my free time at office :-)) Due to severe time constraints I am not

able to reply though I have plenty on hand :-)) I hope, this week end I

should be able to do something ...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

October 10, 2007

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

Dear Advaitins,

While searching for proper explanation to the apparently

contradicting stand of shankara on ignorance in sushupti or deep

sleep state, I came across the following explanation given by Swami

IshwarAnanda of RKM in his book, God Realization through Reason. I

shall reproduce it for the benefit of the interested members. As I

am very new to this prakriya I have very less to argue, but valid

objections with the support of shruti/bhAshya are welcome.

Needless to say many monks in RKM itself did not approve its views

when it was published from its trichur centre.

(Quote)

Causality not true.

This affords us an occasion to discuss the affirmation of potential

avidya during deep sleep in the brahma sUtra bhAshya of Shankara

(II.iii.31). It is clear that the argument there is based on

causality. This explanation is appropriate, because nothing can be

assumed to spring up unless suppose that effects spring up without

causes. Now, that causality itself is an assumption from the

standpoint of practical common-sense without which the activities of

everyday life will be impossible, but not true when enquired into,

that is to say, not philosophically true, has been shown by

gaudapAda in the mAndukya kArikA and accepted by shankara in the

commentary to it. The assumption is only pragmatic (vyAvahArika),

but not existent in truth (pAramArthika). It is not even as true as

the objects which are supposed to exist as cause and effect; for

while we can see the seed and the tree with our eyes the relation

between them is based on supposition or imagination. In other words,

causality is a concept, not a precept, full of self-contradictions.

Hence it has to be rejected as a true statement of the relation

between the two. In truth, there is no relation between them. It is

Brahman that appears as the seed and then as the tree; this is the

vEdAntic view. There may be invariable regularity in the precedence

and succession of the seed and the tree. But we can never prove it

is the seed (cause) that has become the tree (effect); for either

the cause has changed or not changed to become the effect. If it has

not changed, it has not become the effect; it would have remained as

it was. If it has changed, some new factor not found in the cause

has come into existence, or some factor not found in the cause has

come into existence, or some factor has disappeared, otherwise we

would not call it effect. That a new word is required to denote the

effect shows that something new has come in or something has been

lost. We have, therefore, to admit that phenomena do spring up

without causes. Only we should not call them effects; for if we do,

we assume causes. In fact, every change, every fresh phenomenon is a

challenge to the concept of causality. Therefore Akasmika upapatti

or spontaneous origination is possible. It is taking palce all

around us every moment. This is accordance with our everyday

experience and twentieth century science. (Book was written in 1953)

The doctrine of causality is a pragmatic assumption which does not

stand the search of reason. This is the position taken in the sUtra-

bhAshya.** The result is that this world-appearance is spontaneous

and does not require any cause. It is no doubt false appearance,

mithyAjnAna in Brahman; no one can say why it should retract in deep

sleep, Samadhi and pralaya (cosmic dissolution), not why it should

re-appear. Its appearance and dis-appearance are inexplicable; its

true nature is incomprehensible; it is anirvacanIya; that is why it

is said to be mAyA.** But, the knowledge `All this is Brahman-

Atman', (samyak jnAna) leaves behind no second entity to be

explained. All phenomena are the false appearance of Brahman and no

explanation is necessary. Therefore, the view of causality taken up

in the sUtra-bhAshya as a concession to the commonsense view is not

final; **it is abandoned later on when enquiry has matured**.

The author in another chapter says that, according to shankara,

samadhi is as much a state of unelightenment as sushupti. An

explanation for the statement that mithyAjnana continues to exist in

sushupti, whereas all along we have been refuting it from Upanishads

and shankara, seems to be necessary. The explanation is that

shankara only says that that is inferred, there is only anumAna in

the waking, not anubhava, in those states, of such false knowledge,

and when anubhava contradicts anumAna the latter must be rejected

and anubhava must be accepted as pramANa. (na cha anumAnam

pratyakshavirodhe prAmANyam labhate-Br. Up. BhAshya, II.i.20).

Therefore the statement of shankara that mithyAjnAna in sushupti and

in smAdhi is inferred, does not contradict our contention that

mityAjnAna does not exist in sushupti and samAdhi.

(Unquote)

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

October 28, 2007

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

Dear Advaitins,

After going through the book, I found the stig-ji's statement is mis-

leading. Coman-ji's observation on Sri SSS seems to be correct one.

Sri SSS says that in sushupti there is a compelte merger of jiva in

brahman. For ex. by quoting sutra bhashya 3-2-7 he says:

" When there is no distinctive cognition or knowledge in sushupti

there does not exist any other special feature whatsoever. Because of

the reason that therein one has indeed become merged with the sadrUpa

brahman(ultimate reality of the essential nature of pure existence),

it is quite reasonalbe to say that he does not cognize (anything)... "

Here readers should keep in mind that Sri Shankara has affirmed that

sushupti means distinctive knowledge(vishesha vijnAna) become non-

existent(dis-appearing alone); he has not at all opined or affirmed

that that is an avasthA(state) in which mUlAvidyA exists as the

present day vEdAntins assert. Here too shankara has stressed that in

sushupti there does not exist any vishesha(special feature,

attribute) whatsoever.

page 85.

In other place he says that:

" agrahaNa means not cognizing duality alone and nothing else

whatsoever. "

I request interested members to go through the book carefully to see

what exactly Sri SSS says about agrahaNa.

Since I have quoted this in my previous post, I thought it was

necessary to share this info.

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

> Post #12537

>

> (Quote)

>

> The existence of seed-ignorance (as explained by Gaudapada and

> Shankara) in deep-sleep is fully accepted by Swami

> Satchidanandendra Saraswati. For instance, in his book " The

> Pristine Pure Advaita Philosphy of Adi Shankara " there is

> actually a chapter called " Which is that avidyA which Shri

> Shankara has accepted to exist in sushupti? " (pages 78-87).

> According to Satchidanandendra Swamiji this seed-ignorance is

> absense of knowledge only: Seed-ignorance should not be

> understood as an positive existing entity or as a material cause,

> as done by the proponents of mUlAvidyA (root-ignorance) among the

> post-Shankarites. Regarding the views on seed-ignorance in

> deep-sleep, this is what differs Swami Satchidanandendra

> Saraswati from the very major part of the post-Shankara

> advaitins. **Swami Satchidanandendra do not deny the existence of

> ignorance in deep-sleep per se. On the contrary, in accordance

> with Shankara he explains there is seed-ignorance. But he refutes

> the view according to which this seed-ignorance is a positive

> existing entity.** And according to Swami Satchidanandendra, the

> post-shankarites deviates from Adi Shankara by propagating this

> view. This is - I assume - the point made by Atmachaitanyaji in

> his postings.

> Swami Satchidanandendra´s arguments apparently sometimes gives

> rise to misunderstandings.

>

> For instance, his claims that there´s

> no positive existing avidyA in deep-sleep apparently leads PhD

> Michael Comans (in the book " The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta

> p.263) to the conclusion that **Swami Satchidanandendra somehow

> equates deep-sleep with turIya! This is of course not the case.**

> However, in spite of this, Comans book is very readable, and

> gives a good overview on the teachings of Gaudapada, Shankara,

> Sureshvara and Padmapada. Swami Satchidanandendra´s teachings are

> discussed on pages 246-267. I disagree with him on some points

> here, but I nevertheless warmly recommend his book to anyone

> interested in the history of Advaita Vedanta.

>

> (Unquote)

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

October 28, 2007

Dear Vinayaka-ji,

You wrote:

" After going through the book, I found the stig-ji's statement is mis-

leading. Coman-ji's observation on Sri SSS seems to be correct one.

Sri SSS says that in sushupti there is a compelte merger of jiva in

brahman. "

My reply:

Well, since Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (Sri SSS) has even namned a

comprehensive chapter in one of his books to " Which is that avidyA which Sri

Sankara has accepted to exist in sushupti " , it is pretty obvious that Sri SSS

too has accepted avidyA in deep-sleep, isn´t it? The question here is instead:

What kind of avidyA does Sri SSS accept as existing in deep-sleep?

When the jiva enter deep-sleep it merges with brahman, yes. But someone who is

ignorant and hence has not attained final liberation in the waking state, has

not attained liberation (jivanmukti) when he/she enters the deep-sleep state

either. The sole experience of non-duality in deep-sleep state will not make it

possible to attain jivanmukti. The only way is to destroy ignorance (avidya),

which is possible through shravana, manana and nididhyasana in the waking state.

For the ignorant jiva, the waking and dream state are conditioned by

tattvAgrahana (non-grasping and non-comprehension of the true reality) and

anyathAgrahana (comprehending reality in a distorted, misstaken and different

manner). This is the mark of the jiva in the waking and dream state. However, in

deep-sleep the jiva is conditioned by tattvAgrahana alone, and not with

anyathAgrahana. In deep-sleep we are not comprehending reality in a misstaken

manner, as we do in the waking and dream states: In deep-sleep we are not

" projecting " any external world as in the waking and dream states.

As Shankara says in his bhAshya on Gaudapada´s mAndUkya kArikA (1.11.),

deep-sleep is bound by bIjabhAva (category of cause) alone. In other words,

deep-sleep is conditioned by the seed (cause) of non-apprehension of reality.

Waking and dream, on the other hand, are conditioned by bIjabhAva (seed, cause)

AND phala (effect).

So, while deep-sleep is conditioned by ignorance in its seed form, one does at

least not experience any external world as in waking and dream. In this sence,

the jiva is merging in brahman. The jiva is not " drifting away " from brahman in

deep-sleep, as done in waking and dream. The jiva in deep-sleep does not

experience any objects, but remains in non-duality.

And this is where Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (Sri SSS) claims that the

later vedantic tradition has gone wrong. According to Sri SSS, later vedantins

do say that the jiva is ignorant in deep-sleep due to mUlAvidyA. Sri SSS, on the

other hand, says that the jiva in deep-sleep does not experience any duality or

objects for the simple reason that there is no such duality or objects to

experience!

Sri SSS does not deny that the deep-sleep state differs from turIya. There is

tattvAgrahana/bIjabhAva (non-apprehension of reality, seed-ignorance) in

deep-sleep. But according to Sri SSS, this seed/non-apprehension is NOT the

mUlAvidyA propagated by later advaitins. Sri SSS claims that there is no

ignorance in deep-sleep in the form of mUlAvidyA. Right or wrong, this is what

he says. In his book " The pristine pure advaita philosophy of Adi Sankara " Sri

SSS writes the following: " Agrahana has been accepted to exist in sushupti

[deep-sleep]. 'Agrahana' means 'not cognizing' - this is the common meaning

adduced to it. But, the Mulavidyavadins are asserting that the word 'Agrahana'

signifies here in this context 'Mulavidya'. " (page 80)

So, the different states and their conditions could be summoned up like this:

Waking state: ignorance in the form of cause (bIjabhAva) and effect (phala).

Dream state: ignorance in the form of cause (bIjabhAva) and effect (phala).

Deep-sleep state: ignorance in the form of cause (bIjabhAva) only.

turIya: no ignorance att all (no bIjabhAva, nor any phala).

Hope this helps

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

October 29, 2007

advaitin , " Stig Lundgren " <slu wrote:

Dear Stig-ji,

Thanks much for your kind clarification. It is much clear now. I was

very much particular about the content of deep sleep. Yes, the

content of deep sleep and turIya is one and the same, **as long one

is in deep sleep** but duality reappears for the ignorant jiva. Since

the being who have not realized their true nature in the waking sate

comes back from sadrUpa the acceptance of the ignorance in the seed

form is inevitable. If we remove this cause or bIja, there is no

difference whatsoever between samprasAda and the turIya.

This will become clear if we see an excerpt of prashna bhAshya

mentioned in the book which is as under:

" During the time of sushupti the kAryakAraNas(the body, the senses)

brought about by avidyA-kAma-karma disappear. When they become non-

existent, the AtmaswarUpa which was appearing differently due to (its

apparant association with)upAdhis (adjuncts) is rendered to be advaya

(non-dual), one and one alone, shivaswarUpa(of the very essense of

auspiciousness) shAnta (quieccent) "

(Pr. Bha. 4-7; BhA portion 69)

This point is made very much clear in the book " God Realization

through reason " . Its related excerpt I am reproducing for reference

of the group members. One can evaluate this proposition after careful

study and can decide whether it is correct or not.

" This is the only Upanishad in which a distinction is

made between the Atman of deep sleep and the Atman of

the state of truth-realization(Upanishads which

shanakra has commented. Some minor Upanishads have

reference to turIya and turIyAtita also). The former

is called prAjna and the latter turIya. turIya other

than the Atman of the deep sleep is the philosophical

superfluity. This will now be borne out by an

examination of the definition of turIya as given in

the Upanishad. The turIya is said to be `That which is

not conscious of the internal world nor of the

external world, nor that which is conscious of both,

nor that which is a mass of sentiency, nor that which

is simple consciousness, nor that which is insentient.

It is unseen by any sense organ, nor related to

anything, incomprehensible by the mind, uninferable,

unthinkable, indestructible, essence of the nature of

consciousness constituting the self alone, the

negation of all phenomena, the peaceful, all blissful

and the non-dual. This is known as the fourth, turIya.

This is the Atman and it has to be realized'. (mA,

U.I.7). Now, is there a single term in this definition

of turIya, which is not applicable to the self in deep

sleep? We find there is not. Therefore, the so-called

turIya is none other than samprasAda. We are confirmed

in this view by a key sentence of shankara in the

commentary on the gaudapAda kArika, 1.2, where the

self of deep sleep is sought to be identified with the

turIya which is defined later. " That is designated as

prAjna(when it is viewed as the cause of the

phenomenal world) will be described as turIya

separately, when it is not viewed as the cause and when

it is free from all phenomenal relationship such as

that of the body etc. in its absolutely real aspect " .

The identity of the turIya with samprasAda is,

therefore, quite clear. What remains for us is to

explain the introduction of the additional concept,

prAjna. It is necessary to see if the terms applied to

prAjna are verified by experience. That it is desire

less does tally with our experience; that it is free

from dream is also according to experience. But that

it is mass of sentiency in the sense of experience of

the jAgrat and the svapna all dumped together is not

borne out by experience. Therefore, shankara is very

careful to say, ata eva svapnajAgranmanaspandanAni

prajnAnAni ghanIbhUtani iva. The word `iva'(as if) is

very significant as showing that it is wrongly viewed

as prajnAnaghana. And discrimination in that state,

se'yam avashA avivekarUpatvAt prajnAnaghanam ucyate.

The description of prAjna as a mass of sentiency is

not, therefore, a description of the experience of

suhupti as such, but our view of it before sufficient

analysis. This is again supported by the other terms

applied to the experience of sushupti such as

sarveshvara, sarvajna, antaryAmin etc., for who has

ever experienced in deep sleep that he is the ruler of

the universe, or is the inner controller of the jivas

and the jagat, or is the all-knowing being, knowing

the past, present and future of all created entities

in the universe or that he is the origin and the

dissolution of all beings? It is quite clear

therefore, these attributes are heaped on the innocent

Atman of deep sleep, rather than experienced. It is a

theological attempt to find a place for a personal god

of the faithful in a philosophical system, but wrongly

placed in sushupti state. The mystics of all religions

have experienced the presence of an all powerful, all

knowing, creating, destroying sentient being in their

heightened mystic states., in savikalpa samAdhi. Such

state would have been the appropriate place for

assigning the experience of the personal god. The true

explanation, therefore, for thrusting the experience

of ishvara into the metaphysics of avasthatraya is

that it is only theological device to give a

philosophical appearance to the concept of personal

god. But experience flatly refuses to certify the

identification of the self of deep sleep with personal

god.

With regard to the concept of prAjna as the state of

bIja, or as the potential state of future creation, it

is significant to remember that the concept of

causality applied to it is only in the sense that

there is no realization of truth in that state.

This is due to absence of antahkaraNa, the instrument

with which the truth has to be realized. There is not,

therefore, a second positive entity other than the

Atman, which exists potentially as cause of the

bondage. The absence of tattvagrahana in sushupti,

therefore, does not in any way justify our conception

of turIya as different from the self of the state of

jnAna where tattvagrahana and anyathAgrahana is

equally absent. The Atman of deep sleep is therefore,

not more or less related to the world of waking or

dream than the turIya. That it is free from avidyA we

have already seen. For these reasons, our view that

the turIya as the Atman of the state of truth

realization can be put within the waking state is

justified. It may, therefore, be rejected as an entity

experienced in any state other than avasthatrayas. All

the other Upanishad which shankara has commented do

not at all make any reference to this turIya; and

their concept of samprasAda is the same as the turIya

of the mAndukya Upanishad. "

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

> When the jiva enter deep-sleep it merges with brahman, yes. But

someone who is ignorant and hence has not attained final liberation

in the waking state, has not attained liberation (jivanmukti) when

he/she enters the deep-sleep state either. The sole experience of non-

duality in deep-sleep state will not make it possible to attain

jivanmukti. The only way is to destroy ignorance (avidya), which is

possible through shravana, manana and nididhyasana in the waking

state.

>

> For the ignorant jiva, the waking and dream state are conditioned

by tattvAgrahana (non-grasping and non-comprehension of the true

reality) and anyathAgrahana (comprehending reality in a distorted,

misstaken and different manner). This is the mark of the jiva in the

waking and dream state. However, in deep-sleep the jiva is

conditioned by tattvAgrahana alone, and not with anyathAgrahana. In

deep-sleep we are not comprehending reality in a misstaken manner, as

we do in the waking and dream states: In deep-sleep we are

not " projecting " any external world as in the waking and dream states.

>

> As Shankara says in his bhAshya on Gaudapada´s mAndUkya kArikA

(1.11.), deep-sleep is bound by bIjabhAva (category of cause) alone.

In other words, deep-sleep is conditioned by the seed (cause) of non-

apprehension of reality. Waking and dream, on the other hand, are

conditioned by bIjabhAva (seed, cause) AND phala (effect).

>

> So, while deep-sleep is conditioned by ignorance in its seed form,

one does at least not experience any external world as in waking and

dream. In this sence, the jiva is merging in brahman. The jiva is

not " drifting away " from brahman in deep-sleep, as done in waking and

dream. The jiva in deep-sleep does not experience any objects, but

remains in non-duality.

>

> And this is where Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (Sri SSS)

claims that the later vedantic tradition has gone wrong. According to

Sri SSS, later vedantins do say that the jiva is ignorant in deep-

sleep due to mUlAvidyA. Sri SSS, on the other hand, says that the

jiva in deep-sleep does not experience any duality or objects for the

simple reason that there is no such duality or objects to experience!

>

> Sri SSS does not deny that the deep-sleep state differs from

turIya. There is tattvAgrahana/bIjabhAva (non-apprehension of

reality, seed-ignorance) in deep-sleep. But according to Sri SSS,

this seed/non-apprehension is NOT the mUlAvidyA propagated by later

advaitins. Sri SSS claims that there is no ignorance in deep-sleep in

the form of mUlAvidyA. Right or wrong, this is what he says. In his

book " The pristine pure advaita philosophy of Adi Sankara " Sri SSS

writes the following: " Agrahana has been accepted to exist in

sushupti [deep-sleep]. 'Agrahana' means 'not cognizing' - this is the

common meaning adduced to it. But, the Mulavidyavadins are asserting

that the word 'Agrahana' signifies here in this context 'Mulavidya'. "

(page 80)

>

> So, the different states and their conditions could be summoned up

like this:

>

> Waking state: ignorance in the form of cause (bIjabhAva) and effect

(phala).

>

> Dream state: ignorance in the form of cause (bIjabhAva) and effect

(phala).

>

> Deep-sleep state: ignorance in the form of cause (bIjabhAva) only.

>

> turIya: no ignorance att all (no bIjabhAva, nor any phala).

>

> Hope this helps

>

> Warmest regards

>

> Stig Lundgren

October 29, 2007

Namaste Shri Stigji.

A very beautiful exposition indeed. I wish you had given us this

before. A lot of unnecessary debate could then have been avoided.

Well, a question now remains. Will you kindly address it?

To my eyes, all this looks like a matter of terminology. Can we not

put an end to this endless debate through the following understanding?

If bIjabhAva is there in all states, then it no doubt is the root

cause (mUlAvidyA). The phala (projection of duality) in waking and

dreams is only a result of that cause. True, in deep sleep, the

original cause remains without projection. However, there is a result

still in deep sleep. And that is 'agrahaNa' (not cognizing one's own

real nature).

Thus,

Waking = bIjabhAva + projection of duality + agrahaNa ( all on turIya

substratum)

Dream = - ditto -

Deep sleep = bIjabhAva + agrahaNa (both on turIya substratum)

TurIya = TurIya 'cognized' (i.e. none of the above, the substratum

alone remains 'knowing' Itself)

The Sun shines. That is cause. The horrid summer heat below is the

result. Still, we say " Oh, I walked in the hot sun " , whereby we are

equating the result with the cause. " agrahaNa " can also thus be

equated with the original cause - bIjabhAva. From your exposition,

it looks like Shri SSS has no problem equating bIhabhAva with the

mUlAvidyA of the mUlAvidyAvAdins. Then, why not extend the equation

to " agrahaNA " too based on the sun-heat analogy? Is there any

technical reason that forbids such equation? We can have long sought-

after peace between the two sides if such an extended equation is

possible.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_____________________________