[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Deep Sleep is Nondual Self with objections refuted, SSSS

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

>  prAjna is tureeya only and likewise Vishwa and taijasa too tureeya only,


Nice.

However, just curious as to how do you define prAjna. If prAjna is turIya
only, then why do we call it prAjna?

Is our saying prAjna as prAjna AND not as turIya, on account of ignorance?

SImilarly, is our saying vishwa as vishwa, and not as turiya, on account of
ignorance?

do you want us to see 'tureeya' in some separate exalted or mysterious
> state / Avastha??  Tureeya is the naija svarUpa of all these three states
> and hence he is also called avasthAteeta.


What do you mean by the word "swarUpa"? If turIya is swarUpa of prAjna,
then prAjna must also have something which is non-swarUpa.

So, swarUpa + non-swarUpa = prAjna. What is that non-swarUpa?

You cannot simply assume the absence of tureeya in the three states and
> giving him the separate aloof state apart from these three states which
> shuruti asks us to analyze to know the true svarUpa of tureeya.


That is true. TurIya is always present.


> Dvaita grahaNa is there in both waking and dream (misconception) and in
> deep sleep dvaita grahaNa will not be there on account of 'ekatvaM' but
> without knowing this ekatvaM ( jnAna abhAva), when these two (agrahaNa and
> anyathAgrahaNa) ceases one is said to be attained the state of the fourth
> (tureeya) so says kArika.


So, basically, in sushupti, there are both tattva-agrahNa and
dvaita-agrahaNa. And in waking and dream, tattva-agrahaNa is present but no
dvaita-agrahaNa. Right?


> So, tureeyatvaM is the inherent nature of prAjnA, Vishwa and taizasa and
> tureeya is NOT a separate entity.


This is true.

It is from this view point it has been pointed out by bhAshyakAra and
> shruti that no ignorance whatever is seen to be actually lurking in
> sushupti, for Atman of the nature of Shuddha Chaitanya alone remains there,
> but ignorant mistake and look upoin him as enveloped in ignorance from the
> waking point of view.


But from this viewpoint Bhaskar ji, there is no ignorance whatsoever in
waking also.

My point is simple - the viewpoint from which there is no ignorance in
sushupti, from that viewpoint, there is no ignorance in waking and dream
either. So, why to give sushupti special status.


>  And as there can be no misconception (adhyAsa) without avidyA
> (jnAnAbhAva) underlying it, the SAME ATMAN should be considered to maintain
> himself free from jAgrat and Svapna.  Hence shruti says for the tureeya the
> socalled states are his dreams (trayee svapnAH - Itareya).
>

But how sushupti is swapna for turIya. For turIya, there is neither
sushupti, nor waking, nor dream. Then how can these three be called swapna.

Their swapna-hood can be only while sitting in avidyA, not while sitting in
turIya.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.