[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Deep Sleep is Nondual Self with objections refuted, SSSS

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Michael ji,

In response to your reply it is to be noted that:  The Mandukya Bhashya 1.2
says this:  //तामबीजावस्थां तस्यैव प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य तुरीयत्वेन
देहादिसम्बन्धजाग्रदादिरहितां पारमार्थिकीं *पृथग्वक्ष्यति *। //

The explanation given by Sri Neti ji:  //Therefore the key here is,
Sushupti is called Prana and Prajna (bijāvastha) from standpoint of
ignorance (from waking stand point), whereas from the standpoint of truth,*
same sushupti (bijāvastha) is nothing but Turiya.** // *

is not presenting the correct intent of the Bhashya. The Bhashya is not at
all saying that the 'same sushupti (bijavastha) is presented as the Turiya
(in the 7th mantra which is the negation of all the three states).  Instead
what that bhashya passage is saying is:  The seed-free Fourth state
(Turiya) is NOT stated by the Upanishad while discussing sushupti which is
the causal seed state.  The Bhashya argues: Had the Shruti intended
(vivakshitam) to specify the sushupti state as WITHOUT the Seed, which is
the Nirguna Brahman,  it would have stated it *इत्यवक्ष्यत्*  as the Turiya
which is taught by these passages:  *यदि हि निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं*
*ब्रह्माभविष्यत्
,* ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । ३)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha/devanagari?page=4&id=BR_C04_S05_V03&hl=%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF>
 ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २ । ९ । १)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya/devanagari?page=2&id=T_C02_S09_V01&hl=%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87>
 ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १ । ४)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Kena_pada/devanagari?page=1&id=KP_C01_V04&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF>
 *इत्यवक्ष्यत्* ; ‘न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३ । १२)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Gita/devanagari?page=13&id=BG_C13_V12&hl=%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87>
इति
स्मृतेः ।   Neti Neti, that which can't be accessed by speech and mind,
That which is distinct from the known and unknown and the BG verse (all
passages about the Turiya brahman).  But the shruti does not do so, says
Shankara. And he points out the undesirable effects of specifying the
sushupti state as* free of the causal seed*:  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, and 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. Besides, in the
absence of any seed (of worldly state) to be burnt by the knowledge (of
Brahman), know- ledge itself becomes useless. Then Shankara says what
constitutes the causal seed-free Brahman by citing a few passages:

 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 ।  And this Brahman, *free of
the causal seed, will be presented in the sequel, as distinct from the
seed-state:  * तामबीजावस्थां तस्यैव प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य तुरीयत्वेन
देहादिसम्बन्धजाग्रदादिरहितां पारमार्थिकीं *पृथग्वक्ष्यति* । Thus, for
Shankara, there is a purpose for the Shruti to present the sushupti state
as with-seed.

By saying this Shankara is emphatic that the sushupti state is to be known
to be one of with-seed and not anything else.  For that matter, even the
waking and dream, where also the basic ignorance persists, are Turiya, from
the standpoint of Truth. Just because all the three states are Turiya from
the truth standpoint, one aught not to ignore the nature of each of the
states as they are taught by the Upanishad and the Bhashya (with the basic
ignorance underlying them). So, there is no merit in the statement
that //However,
that apavada dRShTi is always put aside by Post Sankara Vedānta
followers.//  The allegation would be valid only if the post-Shankara
Advaitins have rejected/ignored/refuted the Turiya teaching of the Bhashya
and the Upanishad, and held the three states to be the paramarthika truth.
They have done neither.

warm regards
subbu




>
>