[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Thu May 3 08:21:45 EDT 2018
praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji
Sorry not seen mails for the last 3-4 days and already loads of mails on this topic :-) Just reading recently received mail of yours. Just thought of sharing my views on one of your statements, you said :
The issue is whether deep sleep is treated as the highest (free from ignorance). The answer is an emphatic yes.
> Yes, not only in br.bhAshya you have been quoting but at various places in sUtra bhAshya and chAndOgya bhAshya, bhAshyakAra says Atmaiva supthisthAnaM emphasizes that the jnAni-s who have realized brahman as themselves do not accept the merging in brahman of the individual in any place other than in sushupti. And in sUtra bhAshya (3rd adhyAya I reckon), bhAshyakAra clarifies why we have to say individual merges in brahman in sushupti when jeeva is always . brahman only irrespective of states / avasthA-s. His clarification goes like this : The individual is always brahman by nature. Once own nature cannot go out or come in. The jeeva appears as different from brahman in jAgrat and svapna due to upAdhi-s (adhyAsa or anyathAgrahaNa). But in deep sleep there is no upAdhi and therefore he is said to be one with brahman. Hence there is declaration : saMprasAdasthAnaM mOkshadrushtAnta bhUtaM because here jeeva svamapeethObhavati (he attains his own real self).
This is not my opinion. This is opinion of upanishad and Shankara.
> Yes, BUT the same bhAshyakAra emphatically also clarifies that there is beeja Shakti (tattva apratibodharoopena beejaathmana) in sushupti which is the root cause of knowing otherwise (anyathAgrahaNa) in waking and dream. mAndUkya kArika talks about this agrahaNa type of ajnAna / avidyA in sushupti. Hence in sUtra bhAshya talking about the realizing / knowing of this ekatva in sushupti and importance of tureeya, bhAshyakAra says both upAdhi-s donot exist in deep sleep so it is said " AS IF" he is merged in Atman or parabrahman. Some traditionalists hold this point and argue that : see there is clarification it is only 'as if' not real, so they quote kArika 6th mantra and 7th mantra to build a compound between prAjnA and tureeya. But this meaning is not tenable atleast according to some other vedAntins because the jeeva is always brahman in reality but due to upAdhi-s he appears AS IF he is different. But when there is no upAdhi it is said that he appears to be one with brahman even though he is always with brahman. So, in short here also oneness with sadAtma emphasized here. And one more point if the shruti / bhAshyakAra says that you are one with sat every night / deep sleep, then agrahaNa (i.e. not knowing that he is one with IT) type of avidyA will not go every one based on this statement go to sleep and stop doing sAdhana :-) because of this reason making sAdhaka-s more active in sAdhana bhAshyakAra clarifies deep sleep is NOT sAdhana to get mOksha. Sri SSS elsewhere gives an example, sushupti is like roaming in palace without knowing it. Without knowing is NOT a hindrance to say that there is no ekatva in sushupti. But to know this ekatva in sushupti mumukshu has to do sAdhana in waking. Hence tureeya is nothing but WAKING IN SUSHUPTI.
> So, shruti / bhAshyakAra while analyzing the sushupti avastha, talks about both viewpoints i.e. existence of avidyA and absolute oneness of jeeva in sushupti and contextually we have to reconcile both these seemingly contradictory statements.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list