[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Kalyanji,

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:15 PM Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have not misunderstood the bhAshya. It is you who have completely
> misunderstood the bhAshya.
>
Your understanding of bhAShya is against the traditional understanding
starting right from the TIkAkAra. It is also against other Upanishads.
Hence, mImAmsA has to be used; which is shown in sub-commentaries that I
follow. If you state I have misunderstood the bhAShya, then you are saying
so has the TIkAkAra and the entire tradition. You are free to have that
view, but it is clear as to who is wrong for the traditionalists desiring
mokSha.

The bhAshya says at a number of places (not just one or two) that there is
> no ignorance, desires etc. in deep sleep. You have failed to respond to
> these quotations. See below -
>
> https://advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2018-May/049325.html
>
> All of this is clear to me and talked of in my very first response. To
reiterate the siddhAnta. turIya (fourth) is the real nature of Atma in all
three states. In waking and dream, it cannot be seen since there is a
projection of duality; in deep-sleep, there is none; so the teaching is
done about the deep-sleep state where there is no projection, but only a
veil of real nature. It is anubhavasiddha. Bhashyakara has no compulsion to
spend time on what is anubhavasiddha. Tattvabodha does that! One who wakes
up knows:
1) he had Ananda, svarUpAnanda reflected in a resolved mind, recalled on
waking, when mind wakes up.
2) he knew nothing. This is avidyA, AvaraNa, veiling of real nature. Else
one would be realised and never dream or wake up.

What it finally means in this analysis is that I am of the nature of
Ananda, which I experienced in deep-sleep, but I do not know it because of
avidyA. That turIya svarUpa which is mine, experienced in deep-sleep hasn't
gone away even now in waking or doesn't go in dream. I correct my mistake
through this teaching of 4.3; else if I think I am liberated in deep-sleep,
I will never be liberated in waking since freedom in deep-sleep and bondage
in waking is no liberation!

When the bhAshya is so clear in itself, why then should anyone have the
> need to resort to a bhAshya on the bhAshya? When there is mention of deep
> sleep as free from avidya iin the bhAshya, what other clarification does
> one need?
>
>
I do not see the point that people make who question the utility of
sub-commentaries while using commentaries; else they should be using mUlA
only. That mUla has apparent contradictions, hence the bhAShya; If bhAShya
has apparent contradictions, which are clearly there in your free-styled
interpretation, one definitely needs sub-commentaries.

In any case, have it your way. I am happy to be wrong from your perspective
considering a beautiful statement of the same Bhagavan Anandagiri,
TIkAkAra, under Ma. Up. 4.57: भ्रान्तस्तु स्वकीयादपराधादेव भुजङ्गं परिकल्य
भीतः सन्पलायते, न च तत्र विवेकिनो वचनं मूढदृष्ट्या विरुध्यते। Of course,
you could also think the same other way round, but without using the TIkA
;-)

गुरुपादुकाभ्याम्।
प्रवीणभट्टः।
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। */ ​