[Advaita-l] Fw: dreamless sleep

[H S Chandramouli]

H S CHANDRAMOULI

Dear Sri Subrahymanyamji,

I am a little bit confused on your reply. I couldnt refer to Panchadashi
immediately as i am out of town. But the word Pragnanaghana is applicable
to the condition in sushupti only ( refer mandukya ) and not to the other
two states. You seem to have mentioned exactly the opposite. Have I
misunderstood you. kindly clarify.

Regards


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
>
> There was a discussion on this topic in the Advaitin forum and a reply,
> based on the Panchadashi 11th chapter was presented there:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/advaitin/conversations/messages/50519
>
> A part of the above post is reproduced here and more can be read from the
> above post:
>
> //The Panchadashi is explaining 'how it now experiences in deep sleep the
> bliss.' Also, the Panchadashi is addressing the question: how or who
> experienced the 'condition of obliviion' in deep sleep state. In the verse
> 11.62 the vijnAnamaya kosha (pramAtR, knower) and the manomaya kosha
> (pramANam, the instrument) are admitted to be 'dissolved' in their moola
> kAraNam, ajnAnam.
>
> But then we have to contend with this question: Upon waking up one recalls
> the sleep experience. If the vijnAnamaya that was
> 'dissolved'/absent/unavailable/inactive at the time of sleep, how is it
> that it (vijnAnamaya) is now able to recall the experience? For, it is only
> the one who has earlier experienced something can recall that experience.
> For this the answer in the verse 63 and the commentary is: Even though the
> vijnanamaya is admitted to be 'dissolved' during sleep, it is not admitted
> to be totally/completely lost/destroyed (svarUpanAsha abhAvaH). The
> anandamaya, which is known as the vilayAvasthA, molten-upAdhi, is the
> experiencer of the deep sleep. And the vijnaanamaya, which is known as the
> ghaneebhAva, solidified-upAdhi, is the one who remembers it and expresses
> it as 'I slept happily, not knowing anything'.
>
> The teekA further explains that the antaHkaraNam is the one that becomes
> 'molten' in the form of sleep and later becomes 'solidified' upon waking in
> the form of the vijnAnamaya (ghaneebhavati).
>
> The Atma, the jiva, who has the antaHkaraNa as the upAdhi, in the state of
> sleep was in the molten state and got the appendage 'anandamaya'. Upon
> waking the jeeva becomes solidified getting the name vijnAnamaya. Thus,
> according to this verse 63 and the commentary the jeeva as anandamaya
> (molten) in deep sleep experiences and the same jeeva as vijnanamaya
> (solidified) upon waking recollects (and gives expression to) the sleep
> experience. This is the clear picture as per the Panchadashi. //
>
> warm regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:17 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > PraNams to all.
> >
> > I am forwarding a question posed by a sincere seeker in private mail,
> > since the discussion may be relevant to many. I am not posting my answer
> to
> > him to the list. Those who want to address the issue raised by the seeker
> > are welcome. If the answer differs from mine and is relevant, I will
> > definitely forward that to him.
> >
> > Hari Om!
> > Sadananda
> >
> > > Acharya - Pranams
> > >
> > > BMI complex, time, space and universe cease to exist in
> > > dreamless sleep state (total blankness) but the witnessing
> > > consciousness still exists in dreamless sleep state. The
> > > statement of proof of the existence of sakshi is how can I
> > > know there was total blankness in dreamless sleep state if
> > > there is no consciousness to know it. (I can only ask this
> > > question in the waking state). I also can only say that I
> > > was slept happily in the waking state The knowledge of
> > > no-apprehension is also a knowledge.
> > >
> > > but sakshi is not the knower, sakhi only passively shining
> > > whether or not there is reflecting medium. Mind is the
> > > knower. Mind didn't exist in dreamless sleep state. So
> > > how can the above  statement be a valid proof of the
> > > existence of sakshi in dreamless sleep
> > >  state since the knower itself didn't exist?
> > >
> > > I can only infer the blankness in dreamless sleep state base
> > > on the absence of memory during the deep sleep, I only can
> > > recall the memory at the moment before deep sleep (because
> > > no memory in deep sleep state) and compare it to the
> > > experience of waking up in the morning. There is no memory
> > > of me have a dream also and I wake up happily. So in waking
> > > state I infer I experience the deep sleep . (even the
> > > ahamkara 'I', can not experience deep sleep because
> > > ahamkara also ceased to exist).
> > >
> > > then Is it possible the non apprehension knowledge only
> > > caused by the absence of memory during the deep sleep? (I
> > > can only say I have no memory also in waking state only)
> > >
> > > but I also think: even in waking state, the sakshi can not
> > > be seen or prove  because if I can see Sakshi or prove
> > > it then who is witnessing the ahamkara that trying to prove
> > > the existence of the sakshi?
> > >
> > > so not only in the deep
> > >  sleep state but also in waking state I can not know the
> > > sakshi. and deep sleep state is the state of ignorance, when
> > > I try to know the ignorance, the ignorance always run away,
> > > it is like trying to see the darkness using
> > > flashlight.  So it is true that I don't need to
> > > prove the existence of sakshi in dreamless sleep state
> > > because only total ignorance is in that state, self
> > > knowledge also didn't exist in the dreamless state
> > > (because any knowledge including Atmavidya only exist in the
> > > mind). and it is enough for me to know the sakshi is the
> > > witness of the ignorance and knowledge.(this knowledge also
> > > only exist in waking state in the mind, it is the ahamkara
> > > who say this, sakshi can not think or know anything but
> > > sakshi is the only one that make any knowledge or ignorance
> > > can be known, no mind there will be no knowledge and of
> > > course no self realization).
> > >
> > > and pure consciousness without any reflecting medium
> > > isn't that same with total
> > >  blankness? because consciousness can not say. "I am
> > > the pure consciousness, I am the self existent entity even
> > > without reflecting medium". And consciousness also can
> > > not see himself without reflecting medium. I also have heard
> > > the saying: "I don't need mirror to know that I am
> > > exist". I still know my self exist even I don't
> > > have mirror because I still have ahamkara or mind (that acts
> > > as reflecting medium) that is illumined by the sakshi and
> > > the reflection is received by the sakshi again. without
> > > ahamkara or mind, sakshi is just shining without any
> > > reflection comeback to Sakhi and then there is no self
> > > knowledge. (reflection of consciousness that is received by
> > > witnessing consciousness is the mandatory for knowledge to
> > > be exist)  Is that true Acharya?
> > >
> > >
> > > thank you very much Acharya for helping me. my prostrations
> > > to Acharya
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>