[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

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)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S08_V02&hl=%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%83>
 इति श्रुतेः । ननु, तत्र ‘सदेव सोम्य’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । १)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S02_V01&hl=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF>
 इति प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यम् ; नैष दोषः,
बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः । यद्यपि सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र, तथापि
जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यैव प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः सच्छब्दवाच्यता च । यदि हि
निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं ब्रह्माभविष्यत् , ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । ३)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?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)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya?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)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Kena_pada?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)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Gita?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 । 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)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Mundaka?page=2&id=MD_C02_S01_V02&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%83>‘सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो
ह्यजः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Mundaka?page=2&id=MD_C02_S01_V02&hl=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%83>
 ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २ । ९ । १)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya?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>
 ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ३ । ६)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=2&id=BR_C02_S03_V06&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>
 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-vedanta.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
>  जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्ततुरीयाण्युपन्यस्तानि
>  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.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>