[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

Kalyan kalyan_kg at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 30 14:53:51 EDT 2018


Thanks for pointing out the dichotomies between  the BU and ChU bhashyas. I reiterate - in deep sleep Shankara does not admit any ignorance in BU 4.3, as anyone is free to verify.

 
// It has been said that in the state of profound
 sleep there is not, as in the waking and dream states, that
 second thing differentiated from the self which it can. know
 ; hence it knows no particulars in profound sleep. Here
 it is objected: If this is its nature, why does it give up
 that nature and have particular knowledge? //

The question is a just different way of asking - why does jIva wake up from deep sleep and have particular knowledge?



--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4/30/18, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman
 To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Monday, April 30, 2018, 6:28 PM
 
 
 
 On Mon, Apr 30, 2018
 at 11:17 PM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 // That is not the
 impression that  anyone,
 any translator or commentator has got from
 the  Upanishad.  In case you have arrived at such a
 conclusion,  well, that is not substantiated in the least
 by the Upanishad. There is everything in the mantras in
 that  section to clearly show that it is an analogy.//
 
 
 
 
 
 Alright. We will then have to disagree here and leave
 it at that. I would only say one thing. Members are free to
 read BU 4.3 and commentary and then they can draw their own
 conclusions. In fact, as Sri Bhaskarji pointed out, the
 statement atra veda avedah is made with respect to deep
 sleep. On a different (note) Shankara does not interpret
 this to mean that the Vedas are sublated.
 
 Here one has to read the introduction to the
 third Brahmana of the 4th chapter by Shankara.  The above
 statement about veda being not-veda in deep sleep is part of
 the prakriyaa to teach the true state of the jiva. In this
 prakriyaa, methodology, the three states are talked of and
 the totally-free-of-all-upadhis state of the jiva is
 demonstrated in a graded manner - from jaagrat to svapna to
 sushupti to the one beyond sushupti.  By showing that all
 the identities of the jiva with caste, relations, gods, veda
 (as he is enjoined to perform karma), aashrama, etc. are not
 really his, as they cease to be experienced, though
 temporarily, in the deep sleep, the true nature of the jiva,
 the liberated state, is pointed out. So, the sublation of
 veda, etc. is implicit in this whole teaching. 
  
 
 
 
 
  //Could you show the exact  passage? //
 
 
 
 BU 4.3.31.
 
 Here is the Swami Madhavananda
 translation:
 It has been said that in the state of profound
 sleep there is not, as in the waking and dream states, that
 second thing differentiated from the self which it can. know
 ; hence it knows no particulars in profound sleep. Here
 it is objected: If this is its nature, why does it give up
 that nature and have particular knowledge? If, on the
 other hand, it is its nature to have this kind of knowledge,
 why does it not know particulars in the state of profound
 sleep? The answer is this: When, in the waking or dream
 state, there is something else besides the self, as it were,
 presented by ignorance, then one, thinking of oneself as
 different from that something-although there is nothing
 different from the self, no! is there any self different
 from it can see something. This has been shown by a
 reference to one's experience in the dream state in the
 passage, 'As if he were being killed, or
 overpowered' (IV. iii. 20). Similarly one can smell,
 taste, speak ..hear, think, touch and know
 something.
 
 Coming to the discussion:  //If the latter, he
 says, the jiva will  not emerge from sleep as that will be
 liberation: //
 
 
 Shankara in fact asks a similar question but bypasses it in
 the brihadaranyaka.
 
 If the question you mean is:  //
 
 Here
 it is objected: If this is its nature, why does it give up
 that nature and have particular
 knowledge?//
 then, the answer is provided therein by
 Shankara: that in the waking/dream states there is duality
 of the seer and seen and hence perception of duality is
 inevitable. 
 But then, the question is not the one I pointed
 out earlier: 
 
 //If
 the latter, he says, the jiva will  not
 emerge from sleep as that will be liberation: //    This
 is about attaining only saguna brahman in deep sleep and if
 it is held that the jiva attains to the Nirguna Brahman in
 deep sleep, he would not emerge therefrom, according to
 Shankara, based on the scripture. He says this in the
 Mandukya Upanishad bhashya  for the kaarika
 1.2:
 
 
 कथं
 प्राणशब्दत्वमव्याकृतस्य
 ? ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि
 सोम्य मनः’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ ।
 २) इति
 श्रुतेः । ननु,
 तत्र ‘सदेव
 सोम्य’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ ।
 १) इति
 प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म
 प्राणशब्दवाच्यम् ; नैष
 दोषः,
 बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः ।
 यद्यपि सद्ब्रह्म
 प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र,
 तथापि
 जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यै
 व प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः
 सच्छब्दवाच्यता च ।
 यदि हि निर्बीजरूपं
 विवक्षितं
 ब्रह्माभविष्यत्
 , ‘नेति
 नेति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ ।
 ३) ‘यतो
 वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ.
 २ । ९ । १) ‘अन्यदेव
 तद्विदितादथो
 अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १ ।
 ४)इत्यवक्ष्यत्
 ; ‘न
 सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ.
 गी. १३ । १२) इति
 स्मृतेः । निर्बीजतयैव
 चेत् , सति प्रलीनानां
 सम्पन्नानां
 सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः
 पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः
 स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च
 पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः,
 बीजाभावाविशेषात् ,
 ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च
 ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः
 ;
 तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव
 सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः,
 सर्वश्रुतिषु च
 कारणत्वव्यपदेशः । अत
 एव ‘अक्षरात्परतः
 परः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ ।
 २)‘सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो
 ह्यजः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ ।
 २) ‘यतो
 वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ.
 २ । ९ । १) ‘नेति
 नेति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ३ ।
 ६) इत्यादिना
 बीजत्वापनयनेन
 व्यपदेशः ।
 तामबीजावस्थां तस्यैव
 प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य
 तुरीयत्वेन
 देहादिसम्बन्धजाग्रदादिरहितां
 पारमार्थिकीं
 पृथग्वक्ष्यति ।
 बीजावस्थापि ‘न
 किञ्चिदवेदिषम्’
 इत्युत्थितस्य
 प्रत्ययदर्शनाद्देहेऽनुभूयत
 एवेति त्रिधा देहे
 व्यवस्थित इत्युच्यते
 ॥
 
 
 
 The translation for this may be
 seen in Swami Gambhirananda's book: p.189-190 of Advaita Ashrama
 edition, for the crucial portion: ///Hence Existence is referred to as
 prANa (in the Ch.Up.), and in all the Upanishads. It is
 spoken of as the cause in all the Upanishads by *assuming*
 It (for the time being) to be the seed of others (the whole
 creation). And it is because of this that It
 is referred to - *by refuting Its causal state* - in such
 Vedic texts as, 'Superior to the akshara (mAyA) (Mund.
 2.1.2), 'from which speech turns back (Tai.2.2), etc.
 That Supremely Real State, *free from causality, relation
 with body, etc. and modes of waking etc.* of that very
 entity that is called prAjna, will be spoken separately in
 Its aspect as the Turiya. If Brahman in Its seedless
 (non-causal) state be meant there, then the individuals that
 merge in It in deep sleep and dissolution cannot reasonably
 re-emerge. If anybody can re-emerge from sleep or
 dissolution, conceived of as nothing but identity with the
 pure Brahman, then there will be the possibility of the
 freed souls returning to take birth again, for in either
 case, the absence of cause is a common factor."// By
 saying the above, Shankara has indicated that ‘in all the
 Shruti passages, wherever it is said that during deep sleep
 the jiva merges in Brahman’ the ‘Brahman’ there is not
 the Absolute, Non-dual, Vedāntic Brahman, but the tinged,
 seeded, Brahman, that is the cause of creation.
 
 According
 to Shankara in all places where Brahman is referred to in
 the context of deep sleep/creation it is the tinged Brahman
 that is meant and not the Nirguna chaitanyam.  The
 reasoning is what is stated by Shankara above.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------ --------------
 
 On Mon, 4/30/18, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 
 
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman
 
  To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 
  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
 Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedan
 ta.org>
 
  Date: Monday, April 30, 2018, 5:25 PM
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  On Mon,
 
  Apr 30, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 
  wrote:
 
  // The Upanishad only
 
  gives deep sleep
 
 
 
   as an analogy to the liberated state //
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  I would disagree here. The upanishad literally equates
 deep
 
  sleep to the highest state. It is not a mere analogy.
 
 
 
  That is not the impression that
 
  anyone, any translator or commentator has got from the
 
  Upanishad.  In case you have arrived at such a
 conclusion,
 
  well, that is not substantiated in the least by the
 
  Upanishad. There is everything in the mantras in that
 
  section to clearly show that it is an analogy.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  //If the latter were meant by
 
 
 
   the shruti, everyone
 
  will, with zero effort, become
 
 
 
   liberated by just going to sleep.//
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  This is exactly what the upanishad suggests. Everyone
 gets
 
  liberated in deep sleep, without any effort.
 
 
 
  This is again an offshoot of the
 
  earlier misunderstanding of the
 
  Upanishad.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  //This is because in sleep there is no
 
 
 
   room for sattva
 
  (knowledge/deliberation/ sadhana) and
 
  
 
   activity, karma, rajas. //
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Ok. But I feel that there is a contradiction in equating
 
  deep sleep to tamas and highest state respectively.
 
 
 
  Again, a lot of things have been
 
  missed.  Nowhere does the Upanishad 'equate'
 sleep
 
  with the liberated state.  If such were the case, then
 
  sleep would have been taught as a substitute for
 
  liberation.  Nowhere such a teaching is given out. 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  //Shankara has pointed out that
 
 
 
   in sleep the jiva
 
  'merges' in saguna brahman and not
 
 
 
   the nirguna brahman.//
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  At least in the brihadaranyaka, it is mentioned that the
 
  individual is embraced by the supreme Self (becomes one
 with
 
  supreme Self), aka nirguNa brahman, in deep sleep. 
 
 
 
  This misconception arises because of
 
  not reading / understanding the mantras /
 
  bhashya.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  //If the latter, he says, the jiva will
 
 
 
   not emerge from sleep as that will be liberation: //
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Shankara infact asks a similar question but bypasses it
 in
 
  the brihadaranyaka.
 
 
 
  Could you show the exact
 
  passage? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  On a related note, the brihadaranyaka and mandukya seem
 to
 
  be giving different teachings. For the former, deep sleep
 is
 
  as good as nirguNa brahman. For the latter, there is a
 
  fourth state turiya above deep sleep, which is nirguNa
 
  brahman.
 
 
 
  In fact Shankara makes a statement
 
  showing the similarity between the two Upanishads:  In
 his
 
  introduction to the third brahmana of the fourth chapter
 he
 
  says:
 
 
 
 
 
  अत्र
 
  च
 
  जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्ततुरीयाण्
 युपन्यस्तानि
 
  अन्यप्रसङ्गेन —
 इन्धः,
 
  प्रविविक्ताहारतरः,
 
  सर्वे प्राणाः, स एष
 
  नेति नेतीति । 
 
 
 
  Swami
 
  Madhavananda:  ·Here, in a different connection,(1) the
 
  states of wakefulness, dream, profound sleep and
 
  transcendence have been introduced in the words,
 
  'Indha,' 'Has finer food,' 'The
 
  different vital forces,' and 'This self is That
 
  which has been described as "Not this, not
 this,"
 
  ' 
 
  He adds a
 
  footnote: 1. To show the order of gradual
 
  emancipation.
 
  Thus,
 
  the two Upanishads teach the highest through the same
 
  methodology; only that the Brihadaranyaka gives explicit
 
  examples like a fish traversing from bank to bank, a
 couple
 
  in love, a bird returning to its abode, etc. which are
 not
 
  there in the Mandukya. In both the Upanishads the
 
  'gradual' emanicipation is shown through the
 three
 
  states to the transcendental. 
 
  regards
 
 
 
  ----------------------------- - --------------
 
 
 
  On Mon, 4/30/18, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 
  wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman
 
 
 
   To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>,
 
  "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 
  vedanta.org>
 
 
 
   Date: Monday, April 30, 2018, 1:57 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   On Sat,
 
 
 
   Apr 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Kalyan via Advaita-l
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 
  vedanta.org>
 
 
 
   wrote:
 
 
 
   Namaste
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   The brihadaranyaka upanishad equates deep sleep with
 
  the
 
 
 
   highest state of brahman. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   The Upanishad
 
  only gives deep sleep
 
 
 
   as an analogy to the liberated state because there is
 
  no
 
 
 
   experienceable duality, no identities of jivas as so
 and
 
  so,
 
 
 
   no misery, there is explicit peace and hence the state
 
  is
 
 
 
   called samprasaada.  The comparison is only
 
  instructional,
 
 
 
   to enable the aspirant to get an idea of the liberated
 
 
 
   state.  Vidyaranya says in the Panchadashi, on a
 
  different
 
 
 
   context, the negation/sublation of jagat means only the
 
  firm
 
 
 
   conviction that it is mithya and not its disappearance
 
  from
 
 
 
   one's vision/experience.  If the latter were meant
 
  by
 
 
 
   the shruti, everyone will, with zero effort, become
 
 
 
   liberated by just going to sleep.     
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Why is sleep then, associated with tamas in the
 
  bhagavad
 
 
 
   gita?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   This is because
 
  in sleep there is no
 
 
 
   room for sattva (knowledge/deliberation/
 sadhana) and
 
  
 
   activity, karma, rajas.  In fact the 6th chapter of
 
  the
 
 
 
   Gita prescribes moderate sleep and moderate waking for
 
  the
 
 
 
   Yogi.  This is because, without the required quantum
 
  of
 
 
 
   sleep, even as modern physicians, etc. agree, one
 
  cannot
 
 
 
   pursue sadhana properly. The body needs a certain
 amount
 
  of
 
 
 
   sleep.  The cosmic correspondence with individual
 sleep
 
  is
 
 
 
   pralaya. This is a must since what has been created has
 
  to
 
 
 
   come to a resolution, dissolution, so as to enable the
 
  next
 
 
 
   cyclical creation.  That is why pralaya is also a
 
  tamasic
 
 
 
   function of Brahman.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Second question -
 
  vide the brihadaranyaka, can we say that
 
 
 
   sleeping is a sAdhana in itself?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   No. Sleep is not
 
  a sadhana in
 
 
 
   itself. As shown above, sleep, in moderate amount, is
 
 
 
   required for conscious sadhana; therefore sadhana is a
 
 
 
   conscious, wakeful activity. Shankara has pointed out
 
  that
 
 
 
   in sleep the jiva 'merges' in saguna brahman
 and
 
  not
 
 
 
   the nirguna brahman. If the latter, he says, the jiva
 
  will
 
 
 
   not emerge from sleep as that will be liberation: yad
 
  gatvaa
 
 
 
   na nivartante ...of the 15th chapter of the Gita. So
 too,
 
  in
 
 
 
   pralaya the jivas/bhutas merge in the saguna brahman,
 
  only
 
 
 
   to emerge later in srishti.  
 
 
 
   regardssubbu
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Regards
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Kalyan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   ____________________________ __ _________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
 
 
 
   org/archives/advaita-l/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.
 
 
 
   culture.religion.advaita
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   To unsubscribe or change your options:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   https://lists.advaita-
 vedanta.
 
 
 
   org/cgi-bin/listinfo/ advaita-l
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   For assistance, contact:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   listmaster at advaita-vedanta.o
 rg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list