[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Praveen ji for this post. I shall make some remarks in between to
substantiate all that you say, with some more bhashya references.

2018-05-03 21:59 GMT+05:30 Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>:

> ​Namaste Subbuji​,
>
> Thanks for quoting the bhAShya. This is the bhAShya I'd mentioned few days
> back. I usually assume that people who have real interest look up the
> bhAShya referenced! Moreover, one need not even go as far as the bhAShya,
> because Mandukya mantras put it very simply as prAjna (one identified with
> the deep sleep state) is Ishvara and there is a turIya beyond this. Now, in
> the orthodox tradition, there is no difference made between avidyA and
> mAyA, which is the equation at prAjna. Ergo its clear that one is merged in
> saguNa brahma = nirguNa brahma with avidyA/ mAyA.
>
> I'd also mentioned Chandogya 6th chapter, but that has fallen on deaf ears
> too. So I shall quote the same for the benefit of others who may get driven
> away by erroneous misinterpretations of mantras, bhAShyas and even TIkAs.
> Under Ch. 6.8.1, Bhashyakara says यदा स्वपितीत्युच्यते पुरुषः, तदा
> तस्मिन्काले सता सच्छब्दवाच्यया प्रकृतया देवतया संपन्नो भवति संगतः एकीभूतो
> भवति। Who is this सद्देवता? We will find this questioned elsewhere as we
> shall see at the end of this post.
>

In the BSB 1.4.3:   अविद्यात्मिका हि सा बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या
परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी महासुषुप्तिः, यस्यां स्वरूपप्रतिबोधरहिताः शेरते संसारिणो
जीवाः । तदेतदव्यक्तं क्वचिदाकाशशब्दनिर्दिष्टम् — ‘एतस्मिन्नु खल्वक्षरे
गार्ग्याकाश…Not just in deep sleep, even otherwise, all jivas, ignorant,
are under a long slumber in that Bija Shakti that is avidyaatmika, which is
itself resting in Brahman, which is maayaamayee, called 'Mahaa sushupti'.
All beings devoid of knowledge of their true nature are asleep, they are
samsarins, jivas.



> Further, 6.8.2 mantra says about the jIva in deep-sleep so: अन्यत्रायतनम्
> अलब्ध्वा प्राणमेवोपश्रयते, प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः। What is this प्राण now
> where the deep-sleeper merges into? Is this सगुण or निर्गुण ब्रह्म? This is
> clarified under another Upanishad, Mandukya Karika 1.2 (due to एकवाक्यता of
> all Upanishads) while analysing the unmanifest state in deep sleep as
> referred by the word प्राण।
>
> (सिद्धान्ती)  ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (छा. उ. ६-८-२) इति श्रुतेः ।
>
> (पूर्वपक्षी)  ननु, तत्र ‘सदेव सोम्य’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१) इति प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म
> प्राणशब्दवाच्यम् ;
>
> (सिद्धान्ती) 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) ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २-९-१) ‘अन्यदेव
> तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १-४) इत्यवक्ष्यत् ; ‘न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’
> (भ. गी. १३-१२) इति स्मृतेः। *निर्बीजतयैव चेत्, सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां
> सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च
> पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः, बीजाभावाविशेषात्*, ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च
> ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ;
> तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च
> कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।
>
> The last couple of lines are to be considered very seriously.
> 1) If the merging in deep sleep/ pralaya is into निर्बीज/ निर्गुण ब्रह्म,
> then there would be no getting up from them again (which has been mentioned
> multiple times by many on this very thread).
> 2) More importantly, those liberated will be born again!!! This is the
> ridiculousness that people will land into, contradicting all सिद्धान्त at
> its very root, if deep sleep is without avidyA. That is, in the case that a
> person merges into nirguNabrahma during deep sleep, then that state is
> bereft of avidyA. So is the state of a liberated bereft of avidyA. There is
> no difference between the two. Then, what guarantee is there that one will
> not be born again when avidyA is gone? None. Since just like one wakes up
> from deep sleep without avidyA, so can one do the same after liberation
> without avidyA since there is no difference between the two at all! An
> extremely serious logical flaw. Ergo, tarka also has to be studied under a
> qualified Guru.
>

Shankara is never tired of highlighting this concept.  In the very
beginning of the BSB, in  1.4.3, just before the passage I cited above, he
says:   परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न
स्वतन्त्रा । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या ; अर्थवती हि सा ; न हि तया विना
परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति, शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः ।
मुक्तानां च पुनरनुत्पत्तिः । कुतः ? विद्यया तस्या बीजशक्तेर्दाहात् ।

We have to admit a latent Shakti (like the Pradhana of the Sankhya) which
is subservient to Brahman (for Shankhyas this Shakti is independent). For,
without that Shakti, the Brahman of Vedanta cannot even be the creator of
the world. This latent Shakti is to be necessarily admitted. Shankara gives
one more reason for admitting this Shakti: For the sake of the
non-returning of liberated ones to samsara. Why? Since this beeja shakti,
latent power, is burnt by Vidya.  So, if this Shakti is not admitted,
liberated ones can, by default, be born again as there is no avidya that is
annihilated.


So, not just in one place, but in several places Shankara has admitted this
latent power that subsists throughout the samsaric life.  In Mandukya 1.16
too Shankara mentions this idea:

अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते ।
अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुध्यते तदा ॥ १६ ॥
योऽयं संसारी जीवः, सः उभयलक्षणेन तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधरूपेण बीजात्मना,
अन्यथाग्रहणलक्षणेन चानादिकालप्रवृत्तेन मायालक्षणेन स्वापेन, ममायं पिता
पुत्रोऽयं नप्ता क्षेत्रं गृहं पशवः, अहमेषां स्वामी सुखी दुःखी क्षयितोऽहमनेन
वर्धितश्चानेन इत्येवंप्रकारान्स्वप्नान् स्थानद्वयेऽपि पश्यन्सुप्तः, यदा
वेदान्तार्थतत्त्वाभिज्ञेन परमकारुणिकेन गुरुणा ‘नास्येवं त्वं हेतुफलात्मकः,
किन्तु तत्त्वमसि’ इति प्रतिबोध्यमानः, तदैवं प्रतिबुध्यते । कथम् ?
नास्मिन्बाह्यमाभ्यन्तरं वा जन्मादिभावविकारोऽस्ति, अतः अजम् ‘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>
 इति श्रुतेः, सर्वभावविकारवर्जितमित्यर्थः । यस्माज्जन्मादिकारणभूतम् ,*
नास्मिन्नविद्यातमोबीजं निद्रा विद्यत इति अनिद्रम् *; अनिद्रं हि तत्तुरीयम्
; अत एव अस्वप्नम् , तन्निमित्तत्वादन्यथाग्रहणस्य । यस्माच्च अनिद्रमस्वप्नम्
, तस्मादजम् अद्वैतं तुरीयमात्मानं बुध्यते तदा ॥
The Turiya is free of avidya tamo beeja, which means the other three states
are endowed with this seed-ignorance, that sprouts as waking and dream and
remains just as seed in the deep sleep. Shankara starts this commentary by
spelling out the two types of avidya: the seed avidya characterized by
ignorance pertaining to the Truth and the effect-ignorance characterized by
taking the Truth to be something else.  It is this latter alone and not the
former, that is denied by Shankara in the BUB when he says there is no
avidya in sleep, even there, by qualifying the avidya by the adjective
'that avidya which projects manifoldness'.
regards
subbu


>
> ​gurupAdukAbhyAm
> ,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
>
>