[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

[Praveen R. Bhat]

​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. 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.

​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] */


On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:43 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> //Use of the adjective in one place is enough representation for its
>> application in all places where not said.//
>>
>>
>> If no adjective is used even at one place, then logic demands that there
>> is unqualified rejection of ignorance in deep sleep. What then to say about
>> unqualified rejection at so many places! Ultimately one will not make much
>> progress whether one studies under a guru or whether one studies on one own
>> self, if one ignores such basics of logic.
>>
>
> Not just in one, but two places Shankara uses that adjective:
>
> B U B 4.3.19:  नानात्वं विशेषविज्ञानहेतुरित्युक्तं भवति ; नानात्वे च
> कारणम् — आत्मनो वस्त्वन्तरस्य प्रत्युपस्थापिका अविद्येत्युक्तम् ।
>
> 4.3.32.   अविद्या सुषुप्ते वस्त्वन्तरप्रत्युपस्थापिका शान्ता,
>
> Anyone with simple knowledge of Sanskrit grammar will be able to see that
> 'avidyaa' is the visheshya, substantive and 'vastvantara
> pratyupasthaapikaa' as the visheshana, adjective.
>
>
> Also in Mandukya karika bhashya:
>
> In 1.12:
>
> नात्मानं न परं चैव न सत्यं नापि चानृतम् ।
> प्राज्ञः किञ्चन संवेत्ति तुर्यं तत्सर्वदृक्सदा ॥ १२ ॥
>  भाष्यम्
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Mandukya?page=1&id=MK_C01_K13&hlBhashya=%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%88%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%82#bhashya-MK_C01_K12>
> कथं पुनः कारणबद्धत्वं प्राज्ञस्य तुरीये वा तत्त्वाग्रहणान्यथाग्रहणलक्षणौ
> बन्धौ न सिध्यत इति ? यस्मात् — आत्मानम् , विलक्षणम् , अविद्याबीजप्रसूतं
> वेद्यं बाह्यं द्वैतम् — प्राज्ञो न किञ्चन संवेत्ति, यथा विश्वतैजसौ ; *ततश्चासौ
> तत्त्वाग्रहणेन तमसा अन्यथाग्रहणबीजभूतेन बद्धो भवति । *यस्मात् तुर्यं
> तत्सर्वदृक्सदा तुरीयादन्यस्याभावात् सर्वदा सदैव भवति, सर्वं च तद्दृक्चेति
> सर्वदृक् ; तस्मान्न तत्त्वाग्रहणलक्षणं बीजम् । तत्र
> तत्प्रसूतस्यान्यथाग्रहणस्याप्यत एवाभावः । न हि सवितरि सदाप्रकाशात्मके
> तद्विरुद्धमप्रकाशनमन्यथाप्रकाशनं वा सम्भवति, ‘न हि
> द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ३ । २३)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=4&id=BR_C04_S03_V23&hl=%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87>
>  इति श्रुतेः ।
> In the highlighted sentence Shankar says: In deep sleep the jiva, called
> praajna, is endowed with avidya: which is 1. Not knowing the Truth
> (paramarthika truth) and 2. the seed of wrong-cognition (which is available
> for perception as objects in waking/dream).  Thus the jiva is bound by
> avidya: one fundamental avidya of his svarupa (aavarana) which is the seed
> of vikshepa, projection of duality/multiplicity that is perceptible in
> waking/dream.  So, clearly Shankara accepts the seed of multiplicity
> present in deep sleep.  This is exactly what he qualifies the avidya as
> वस्त्वन्तरस्य प्रत्युपस्थापिका अविद्येत्युक्तम्  in BUB 4.3.19,32.  In
> fact he specifies that Turiya is free from any type of avidya and cites the
> very BU 4.3.23 in the Mandukya.
> So, someone with this kind of global understanding of the Bhashya will
> have no issues in the BUB. He can clearly see the heart of the Upanishads
> and Shankara.
>
> Again, in GK 1.13: the presence of avidya in deep sleep is reiterated:  It
> is called bija nidraa.  This is what Shankara says as 'sabeeja brahman' in
> the Mandukya bhashya where jivas resolve during sleep/pralaya.  If this
> beeja is not accepted, one cannot come back to samsara after
> sleep/pralaya.
>
> द्वैतस्याग्रहणं तुल्यमुभयोः प्राज्ञतुर्ययोः ।
> बीजनिद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते ॥ १३ ॥
> भाष्यम्
> निमित्तान्तरप्राप्ताशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थोऽयं श्लोकः — कथं द्वैताग्रहणस्य
> तुल्यत्वे कारणबद्धत्वं प्राज्ञस्यैव, न तुरीयस्येति प्राप्ता आशङ्का
> निवर्त्यते ; यस्मात् *बीजनिद्रायुतः, तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधो निद्रा ; सैव च*
> *विशेषप्रतिबोधप्रसवस्य बीजम् *; सा बीजनिद्रा ; तया युतः प्राज्ञः ।
> सदासर्वदृक्स्वभावत्वात्तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधलक्षणा बीजनिद्रा तुर्ये न
> विद्यते ; अतो न कारणबन्धस्तस्मिन्नित्यभिप्रायः ॥
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>