Deep Sleep Discussions

[Dennis Waite]

The group is still producing new articles at a rate faster than I am
reading, so that I am still not up to date! However, in case interest in
this subject should wain before I have read all the related articles, I
thought I had better keep my promise to post K. Sadananda's article on the
Chinmayananda web site and my queries to him in response. (I have now
succeeded in locating it in my archives.) If I am covering ground which has
already been explored, please accept my apologies. I hope to have read all
the material within another week or so.
REFLECTION: WHO IS THE DEEP SLEEPER I?
K. Sadananda, Washington, D.C., sadananda at anvil.nrl.navy.mil, writes on
05/11/95 :
REFLECTION: WHO IS THE DEEP SLEEPER I?

K. Sadananda
-----------------
This article was written after listening to Gurudev's discourses on Mandukya
Karika at Houston camp during Dec. 1992. This was my offering to Gurudev as
Gurudashina. Gurudev after reading it, send it to Tapovan Prasad for
publication, and it was published with some corrections in May or June 1993
issue. In the end, I have added Gurudev's comments in his personal letter to me.
-------------------

The question, "Who is the experiencer of the deep sleep?" is discussed
extensively in Vedanta texts. It is much easier to recognize the experiencer
"I" in the waking and dream states since the subtle body comprising of mind
and intellect, is active in both states. Whereas in deep sleep state, the
identity of the experiencer is questioned since (a) the mind and intellect
are folded completely and (b) it is an experience of absence of every thing
including the feeler, thinker "I". In the deep sleep state, the
consciousness is enlivening only the causal body, and there is an experience
of absence of "every thing or any thing". According to Vedanta, a thing or
object is experienced only through mind, and the absence of the mind is
reflected as absence of "every thing". Then, who experiences the deep sleep?
Is there an experiencer at all? When I get up in the morning and declare
that "I slept well" - Is that statement an inferential or a statement born
out of positive experience? I know "I" was there when I was dreaming, and I
am there after I am awake, but in the intermediate stage, during deep sleep,
I do not know whether "I" was there or not, since my experience is that I do
not know any thing. Since I was there before I went to deep sleep and I am
there when I was awake, by inference, "I" must have been there in the deep
sleep as well, experiencing the absence of duality. But if it is only by
inference, I can not make a statement, that I enjoyed the bliss of the deep
sleep, unless I was present during the deep sleep too enjoying that deep
sleep. It is like a plate of laddu on a table. Laddu and I were alone there
in the room when the lights went out. When the lights came back, I was there
but laddu was not. By circumstantial evidence, I infer that I must have
eaten the laddu. Unless that laddu literally disappeared into my stomach,
and I have the satisfaction that I enjoyed that laddu, "I am the experiencer
of that Laddu" is only an inference but not the truth. Since I enjoyed the
deep sleep, my deep sleep, therefore, is an intensive experience and not an
inference. Furthermore, the law of memory states that the experiencer and
the remember has to be one and the same. Since "I" could recollect the
experience and declare that "I slept well", I must have been there in the
deep sleep state experiencing the sleep. The logic looks very simple and
straight forward: Who is the sleeper? I am the sleeper, experiencer of the
sleep and I enjoyed that experience.

But in truth, it is not that simple. We need to know who is that "I" who
claims that he is the experiencer. Let us reflect on the statement more
deeply. Let us go back to our basics. When I say, I was the experiencer or
enjoyer, who is making that statement. Obviously, it is the statement made
in the waking state. The consciousness, symbolized as OM, identifying with
the body is the perceiver, I, identifying with mind is the feeler I, and
identifying with intellect is the thinker I. The perceiver, feeler and
thinker, "I" is the "ego", or the Jeeva. In the waking state, the
consciousness identifies with all the three bodies, the gross, the subtle
and the causal (Vasana) bodies, although most of the identification in the
waking state is centered around the gross body. Because of this
identification, a notion, a thought or mano vritti rises in the mind that I
am the perceiver, feeler, thinker, the Jeeva, perceiving, feeling and
thinking the world of objects, emotions and thoughts (OET), that is the
waking world. This identification is so complete that limitations of bodies,
the gross and the subtle, are taken to be my limitations. Thus, in the
waking state there is an experiencer, I, experiencing the world of OET.
Hence, the life becomes a series of experiences.

Coming back to the deep sleep experience, when I say I enjoyed the sleep
experience, "That I am the enjoyer, experiencer, etc.," is also a mano
vritti or a thought just as the I am the perceiver, feeler thinker, I, the
ego. Thus, at the outset, the ego is the experiencer. But when analyzed
deeply, ego can exit only with reference to the past or future, and it has
no existence in the present. Whereas all actions or enjoyments or
experiences are in the present. Thus when ego, ahankar, says "I am the doer,
experiencer, or enjoyer", it is a false statement, or expressed differently,
it is an inferential statement of the mind and not the truth. Ego was there
before the action, and present after the action, and therefore falsely
infers or claims that it is the performer or enjoyer or experiencer. With
reference to deep sleep, mind was there before and after the sleep, but not
during the sleep. But when awake a thought arises in the mind that "I slept
very well". Hence, from the point of the mind or thought or ego, it is only
an inferential statement, since it was not there during the experience. In
fact, even in the waking state, ego (ahankar) has the feeling that "Aham
Karami, I am doing or I am the doer". In truth, it was never a doer, when
the action was being done since it was not there to do any thing at the time
of action or experience or at "Present".

(Note added: Who is the doer then is an involved question and I will address
in the internet some other time)

Then, we are back to the main question - Who is the sleeper? We have
established that it is an experience and not an inference. In fact, we can
ask the same question for experiences in the other states too? Who is the
perceiver, feeler, thinker or experiencer of waking state, dream state or
deep sleep state. Since perceiving, feeling, thinking or experiencing can
only be done not in the past or future but in present alone, and since ego
has no bearing in the present, we are forced to conclude that experiencer,
feeler, thinker, doer and as well as non-doer is nothing but OM alone, even
though ego falsely claims that it is the doer. This in fact is the truth. (
Note added: When I say I am the doer, or even the perceiver, feeler and
thinker etc. - it is also a thought - when that thought arises at that very
second that thought - I am the does - is being entertained by t he mind and
at that very second momentarily all the doing has stopped. Thus Ego just
pops in and claims the agency of action - when the action or enjoying is
going on - that is when the mind is preoccupied with the action or enjoyment
- the mind is free from the thought that I am the doer and thinker - free
from the ego. - Therefore ego is never an doer or enjoyer - it is not really
the perceiver, feeler, thinker) . Hence the statement it is only the OM
alone that is the doer, feeler thinker and enjoyer.

Now we know who is the experiencer or sleeper - it is nothing but Om, the
consciousness, I, experiencing the waking state by identifying with the
gross body, experiencing the dream state by identifying with the subtle
body, and experiencing the deep sleep state by identifying with the causal
body. Ego, which is nothing but a modification of mind or thought process,
due to non-apprehension of this truth that consciousness alone is the doer
or enjoyer, misapprehends and makes a false claim that ego is the doer or
enjoyer. Now we have an answer to the question, "Who is the sleeper, doer or
enjoyer?" It is nothing but OM!

Oh! That is not true either. From the point of consciousness- it is
described as "akartAham, abhOktAham - ahamEvAhamavyayah". "I am neither doer
nor enjoyer (experiencer). I am that immutable and eternal, one without a
second without any modifications". From this statement, OM can not be the
sleeper or experiencer or doer either. Therefore we are back to the base -
Who then really is then the sleeper, experiencer?

There is no true answer to the question because the question itself is
invalid. The problem is that we are trying to seek the subject with an
intellect which is in the realm of time and thus limited and bound, about
the subject or experiencer of the experience, who is beyond time. And the
truth lies beyond the intellect, transcending time and space.(Note added: it
is beyond the intellect in the sense it is beyond the normal means of
knowledge available for the intellect such as pratyasha, anumana etc. or
beyond the logic and inference) Only way to solve the problem is to
recognize that the problem is invalid. From the point of the limited
intellect, the answer is analytically correct that OM is the true
experiencer or doer, or sleeper etc, and we have to reject the false claims
of the ego that it is the doer, experiencer or enjoyer, since it has no
existence in the present when doing or experiencing is taking place. From
the point of OM, it is neither doer or enjoyer, since it is non-duel, one
without a second, and full and complete, and beyond all causes and effects
and thus beyond time. In fact, doer, non-Doer, experiencer, experienced,
sleeper or non-sleeper are all projections of the mind, recognizing its
presence as well as its absence. Only way to realize the truth by rejecting
all false (non-self) and recognizing that I am that subject who is neither
the doer nor the enjoyer.

(Note added- These is where Sastra pramana comes in providing that gyana
that I am that - no other pramana is valid - that is why Sankaracharya says
gyanam vina moksho na sidhyati - without gyanam Moksha is not obtained)

Now, answer to the question, "Who is the sleeper?" depends on who is asking
the question. For an ego centric samsari, one who is turned outwards, the
simple answer is it is the little I, the ego, who transacts in the world
with the notion that I am the doer and enjoyer. For a contemplative student
or sadhak, it is OM that is the doer or experiencer, since OM alone is
present when doing or experiencing is taking place. From the point of
realized master, the question has no meaning, since there is neither the
sleep nor the sleeper, experience or the experiencer and even the question
and the questioner. "Jyotir Jyotihi, Swayam Jyotihi Ahamevahamavyayah".
"Aakartaham, Abhoktaham -Ahamevahamavyayah". I am the light of all lights,
self effulgent mass of consciousness, I am neither doer nor enjoyer I am one
without the second, without undergoing any modifications!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHO IS THE DEEP SLEEPER I?

Some time ago now, I downloaded your excellent article on this subject from
the Chinmayananda Web Page (I think). I read it with interest and
immediately started scribbling the odd comment on it. For various reasons,
it seems to have taken me quite a long time to get around to writing to you,
for which I apologise, but if you are willing and interested could I pass on
my comments/queries?

You say this topic is extensively discussed in the Vedanta texts. References
would be useful here. I have found a long discussion and commentary (by
Shankara) in the Mandukya Upanishad but haven't yet tried to read it - I
confess to finding Shankara very difficult to read - but do not know of any
other references.

You say that the deep sleep state is 'an experience of absence of everything
including the feeler, thinker "I"'. I have difficulty with this statement,
both from a semantic and a personal experience point of view. Waking up and
not being aware at all of the period of deep sleep does not seem logically,
or feel actually, the same as experiencing an absence. Perhaps the question
is wrongly phrased. Rather than "Who is the experiencer of the deep sleep?",
perhaps we should ask "Where is the 'I' during deep sleep?". If deep sleep
is not really an experience, then there does not need to be an 'experiencer'.

You note that we get up in the morning and say "I slept well". True, but
isn't this just colloquial? What we mean is not that I remember in some way
the enjoyment of the sleep period in the past but that I feel refreshed
*now* and deduce that the sleep was 'good'. My experience is not that "I do
not know anything" but that I do not seem to have had any experience. If
this analysis is correct then you cannot say "Since 'I' could recollect the
experience and declare that I slept well, I must have been there in the deep
sleep state experiencing the sleep". If we are not actually recollecting
anything then the premise is unfounded. (Incidentally I did not find the
analogy of the laddu helpful. Presumably I would know whether or not I had
eaten it regardless of whether or not the room was dark. Touch and taste are
independent of visual stimuli.)

No problem with the next paragraph; I have just scribbled 'Good!' alongside :-).

I agree that it is the ego which claims "I slept well" but this is with
reference to something in the past (the deep sleep state) and anyway, by
your own claim, the ego couldn't have been there at the time.

I am not completely happy about the idea that the ego cannot exist in the
present. I have heard this elsewhere and it does seem reasonable that at the
precise moment of action there is only the unity of the
subject-action-object. I understand that the ego has no existence at all in
reality (c.f. the onion-skin analogy given by Ramakrishna) but doesn't
identification take place in the present? When not performing some
'specific' action, there nevertheless always seems to be some doing/thinking
going on and the ego always seems to be in the background with its
identifications and its desire for results etc. Since there *is* only the
present ("the future futureless and the past all deception" as T.S. Eliot
says), where is all this taking place? (or more correctly, when is it all
taking place?)

(Your note added at this point to the effect that 'Who is the doer' will be
addressed on the Internet some other time - I would be extremely interested
to see this when available!)

Your next para begins with the statement that we have established that deep
sleep is an experience and not an inference. As stated above, I was not
wholly persuaded of this. I wondered at this point whether it would not be
simpler to argue that the ego is a mistake and doesn't actually exist. It is
clear (e.g. from Kenopanishad) that seeing, hearing, experiencing etc.
cannot take place without the Self but it is not clear that it is the Self
which acts. I thought it was the guna which act and that the Self was always
only the observer. This para ends with the conclusion that the only way to
realise the truth is by rejecting all false (none-self) and recognising that
I am that subject who is neither doer nor enjoyer. This sort of agrees with
what I've just said but two questions arise. Isn't *everything* the Self?
(In which case there is nothing to reject.) Is there then *no* doer since it
is neither the ego nor OM? If 'I' am the subject who is neither, what am I
the subject of (i.e. what is the verb and object)?

Your 'note added' re Sastra pramana. I'm afraid my knowledge of some of the
specific terminology in Hinduism and of Sanskrit in general is rudimentary.
I didn't understand any of this. Is there a reference for the material?

In conclusion therefore, I accept the sort of extreme Advaita statements
made in, for example, the Astavakra Samhita, in principle and recognise
there *is* nothing other than the Self. In practice, however, the feeble
intellect (or more accurately the feebler Manas) trying to 'understand' the
ideas is still having problems! (The ego is obviously enjoying it though ;-))

Hope you don't find my comments too naive and uninteresting.
Thanks again for the article.

Dennis     15th August 1995
dwaite at aladdin.co.uk