[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

[Venkatraghavan S]

Yes, thank you too for the discussion. It helped me think through some
tricky portions of the bhAShya.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Fri, 4 May 2018, 12:57 Kalyan, <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sri Venkatraghavanji
>
> I am referring to the fact that Sruti calls the deep sleep self as
> advaitam. (Incidentally, for the Mandukya, turiya is advaitam). Deep sleep
> self cannot be advaitam if there is ignorance in that state.
>
> We also have emphatic statements like -
>
> तत्र च सर्वात्मभावः स्वभावोऽस्य, एवम्
> ***अविद्याकामकर्मादिसर्वसंसारधर्मसम्बन्धातीतं रूपमस्य, साक्षात् सुषुप्ते
> गृह्यते***
>
> //It has also been stated that identity with all, which is its nature, its
> transcendent form, in which it is free from all relative attributes as
> ignorance, desire and work, is directly experienced in the state of
> profound sleep//
>
> This is the most direct statement denying ignorance in deep sleep. If this
> does not convince one, then nothing will.
>
> I thank you for this discussion.
>
> Regards
> Kalyan
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 5/4/18, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile 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: Friday, May 4, 2018, 11:29 AM
>
>  Sri
>  Kalyanji,We needn't infer it if shruti explicitly
>  says so - shruti itself would be sufficient. However, the
>  shruti after saying न तु
>  तद्द्वितीयमस्ति goes on to say
>  ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं
>  यत्पश्येत् - there is no second thing
>  separate from it which it can
>  see.
>  Shankaracharya says ततः
>  द्रष्टुः अन्यत्
>  अन्यत्वेन विभक्तम्
>  यत्पश्येत् यदुपलभेत ।
>  यद्धि
>  तद्विशेषदर्शनकारणमन्तःकरणम्
>  चक्षू रूपं च, तत्
>  अविद्यया अन्यत्वेन
>  प्रत्युपस्थापितमासीत्
>  ; तत् एतस्मिन्काले
>  एकीभूतम् , आत्मनः परेण
>  परिष्वङ्गात् ;
>  द्रष्टुर्हि
>  परिच्छिन्नस्य
>  विशेषदर्शनाय करणम्
>  अन्यत्वेन
>  व्यवतिष्ठते ; अयं तु
>  स्वेन सर्वात्मना
>  सम्परिष्वक्तः — स्वेन
>  परेण प्राज्ञेन आत्मना,
>  प्रिययेव पुरुषः ; तेन न
>  पृथक्त्वेन
>  व्यवस्थितानि करणानि,
>  विषयाश्च ; तदभावात्
>  विशेषदर्शनं नास्ति ;
>  करणादिकृतं हि तत् , न
>  आत्मकृतम् ; आत्मकृतमिव
>  प्रत्यवभासते ।
>  तस्मात् तत्कृता इयं
>  भ्रान्तिः — आत्मनो
>  दृष्टिः परिलुप्यते
>  इति |
>  Swami
>  Madhavananda translates - But there is not that second
>  thing, the object, separate from it which it can see, or
>  perceive. Those things that caused the particular visions
>  (of the waking and dream states), viz. the mind (with the
>  self behind it), the eyes, and forms were all presented by
>  ignorance as something different from the self. They are now
>  unified in the state of profound sleep, as the individual
>  self has been embraced by the Supreme Self. Only when the
>  self is under limitations, do the organs stand as something
>  different to help it to particular experiences. But it is
>  now embraced by its own Supreme Self, which is Pure
>  Intelligence and the Self of all, as a man is by his beloved
>  wife. Hence the organs and objects do not stand as different
>  entities; and since they are absent, there is no particular
>  experience, for it is the product of the organs etc., not of
>  the self, and only appears as the product of the self.
>  Therefore it is a mistake due to this (absence of particular
>  experience) that the vision of the self is
>  lost.
>  The
>  absence of a second thing in the shruti in Shankara's
>  view does not refer to either the presence or the absence of
>  ignorance in deep sleep. Rather, it refers to the absence of
>  any object as separate from the self. The causes of the
>  particular vision of objects as stated in the bhAShya are
>  the mind and the sense organs. These (mind and sense
>  organs) are presented by ignorance as different from the
>  self in the waking and dream states. In the sleep state,
>  those organs are unified with the self. This in itself does
>  not mean that ignorance is absent, only that ignorance does
>  not present them as different from the
>  self.
>  If ignorance were
>  to be totally absent in deep sleep, it would need to
>  manifest from nothing in the waking and dream states and
>  then present the organs as separate from the self. That
>  would be absurd, again because of satkAryavAda. Therefore,
>  we are left with the conclusion that it must be present, but
>  its power to project multiplicity is dormant. Does this mean
>  that there are two things in deep sleep, contradicting the
>  shruti and disproving advaita? No, because ignorance cannot
>  be described either as real or unreal. This unmanifest name
>  and form, which is the seed of the world which Shankara
>  calls संसारप्रपञ्चबीजभूतं, is described as
>  तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीयम्
>  in the Brahma sUtra bhAShya (2.1.14) - impossible to be
>  described as either real or unreal. Therefore, we are left with an
> absolutely real
>  Brahman and a mithyA ignorance that is as though a part of
>  Brahman. This ignorance stays (in vyavahAra) until the rise
>  of brahma jnAna, which destroys not only ignorance, but its
>  products too.
>  Regards,Venkatraghavan
>  On Fri, May 4, 2018 at
>  11:02 AM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
>  wrote:
>
>
>
>                      //Agreed. I am not saying the Atma's
>  perception is lost in deep sleep (for the shruti itself says
>  नहि
>  द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो
>  विद्यते), I am saying ignorance
>  of the nature of agrahaNam is not perceivable. Its presence
>  can only be inferred by its effects.//
>
>  Sri
>  Venkatraghavanji
>  Ignorance can also be
>  inferred to be absent if Sruti explicitly says so. In this
>  case, Shruti says that there is no second thing in deep
>  sleep. Hence we can infer the complete absence of
>  ignorance.
>  RegardsKalyan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>