Who Slept Well?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAThis is the first of a four-part article by Acharya Sadananda of Chinmaya Mission Washington (edited by myself) clarifying the nature of the deep-sleep state and addressing a number of problems which frequently cause confusion in seekers.

I wish to express my appreciation to Pujya Sastriji and Shree Subbuji for directing me to the Panchadashi Ch.11, where the deep-sleep aspects are discussed extensively by Shree Vidyaranya.  This article is in response to a question posed by a sincere seeker in a private mail. His question focused on the following:  Who is the experiencer, knower, and the recollector of the deep-sleep state, when the mind is not there? In essence, who slept well and knows that he slept well and is now recollecting that information when he is awake.  This response to the question is based on my understanding of the 11th Chapter, together with a private communication from Shree Sastriji the post to Advaitin by Shree Subbuji.

In searching for answers, I came across the article by Shree Ananda Wood on the topic of Shree Atmananda Krishna Menon’s understanding of the deep sleep state. Given the fact that all descriptions of the deep-sleep state are necessarily from the vantage point of the waking state, we can only rely for analysis on 1) shaastra pramANa and 2) those experiences that are universally common.  The problems with Shree Atmanandaji’s interpretation of the deep–sleep state are noted at the end, since there are many people that I see on Facebook, as well as elsewhere, who follow Atmanandaji writings relating to deep sleep state.

Common Experiences in Deep-Sleep State

We all experience the deep sleep state.  Everyone longs for it and prepares all the things they needed to ensure uninterrupted relaxing sleep, such as soft bed, pillows, mosquito curtain where needed, etc.  The external accessories do contribute to comfort and happiness for the one who is preparing to sleep.  This is the object-induced happiness, when the mind is still awake. This happiness that is born out of comforts enables the mind easily to give up the waking state, by detaching oneself from the body-identification, and glide into the dream and deep sleep states.

This object-induced happiness has nothing to do with the happiness or suffering that we subsequently experience in the dream state. In spite of a comfortable bed one can go into uncomfortable dream experiences, in which the dreamer’s body, mind and intellect (BMI) can undergo severe pain and unhappiness.  Conversely, in spite of the uncomfortable BMI conditions in the waking state, the dreamer’s BMI can have all the comforts in the dream. In essence, the dream experiences can be contradictory to the waker’s experiences.  While it is still dark in the bedroom where we are sleeping we can dream of a bright and brilliant sun in the dream. We all experience these contradictions during our waking and dream states. When we go to the deep sleep state however, there appears to be no more identification with BMI-s and their related experiences. Everyone enjoys the deep sleep state, whatever conditions one has during waking or dream states. There is a famous Telugu song by Annamacharya  that says: nidra okkate – the sleep-experience is the same whether one is a beggar lying down on the street-pavement or an emperor sleeping in a comfortable bed in the palace.

Thus, everyone experiences happiness in the deep sleep state.  This happiness differs from the happiness that one gains during the waking and dream states. In these two states, the happiness is related to fulfilling desires and thus is an object-induced happiness. The object can involve physical, mental or intellectual fulfilment.  In essence, there is a tripuTI or triad that involves experiencer-experienced and experiencing, each differing from the other.  This duality or plurality is inherent in the happiness that one gains in the waking and dream states.  In contrast, the happiness that one experiences in the deep sleep state is devoid of the obvious duality of experiencer-experienced.  The object-oriented happiness arises not from the object per se, but is due to the reflection of intrinsic fullness of the self when the mind is momentarily quietened, satisfied with the objective gains.  That satisfaction can arise, for example, when a desire for an object is fulfilled. Vidyaranya calls this vishayAnande brahmanandaH – where the happiness which is the intrinsic nature of Brahman is reflected in the mind as object-induced-happiness.

One who has understood the absolute truth and hence has sublimated all desires for object oriented happiness and therefore revels in himself by himself is a realized master, says Lord Krishna – prajahAti yadA kAmAn sarvAn pArtha monOgathAn, Atmanyeva AtmanA tuShTaH. Therefore, the happiness of the realized person comes with the clear understanding that he is full and happy by himself, and has no need for object-oriented happiness. This understanding comes about in the mind, as a result of using the mind and not in the absence of the mind. In essence, the happiness that one enjoys comes from oneself, either via fulfillment of desires or by renunciation of desires.

In the deep sleep state, there is no object-oriented happiness, since no objects are perceived; the perceiving senses are folded and there is no subject-object duality.  In addition, the mind that experiences happiness also appears to be folded. The question arises as to who experiences the deep sleep state? Is there an experiencer-experienced-experiencing triad in the deep sleep state?   When I awaken from the deep sleep state, I say that I enjoyed the sleep or I slept well.  The law of memory is that the experiencer and the recollector of that experience have to be one and the same. I cannot recollect somebody else’s experience. Therefore, in principle, I was the one who slept and thus experienced the happiness in the deep sleep state, in spite of the apparent absence of experiencer-experienced duality, since I am able to recollect that I slept very well and that I was happy.  I do complain and become irritated, if I did not have a good sleep.  Hence the benefits of the deep-sleep experience of happiness are felt in the waking state. Some even take sleeping pills in order to get into this deep sleep state of non-duality where one is relieved of the pains of BMI. Thus the first experience of deep sleep is the happiness that one enjoys.

The second aspect of this deep-sleep experience is that I have no knowledge of that experience, while I am in the deep sleep state. This is also a common experience of all beings.  I experience the homogeneous absence of everything; the absence of the duality seen in the waking and dream states. Scripture (Mandukya Up.) states this with: na kanchana kAmam kAmayate – there is no desire to enjoy any objects in the deep sleep state since their existence is neither perceived nor experienced.  There is no experienced, knower-known duality.  Hence, all the objective-knowledge gained in the waking and dream states is as though absorbed into a homogenous mass of undifferentiated knowledge, which scriptures call praj~nAna ghanam.  The praj~nAna ghanam includes the knowledge of things I know and also the knowledge of the ignorance of things that I do not know, viditam vA aviditam vA.  In one sense, in the deep sleep state, I have the knowledge of the absence of particular knowledge of any kind.   What we have is knowledge of the deep sleep state as ‘I do not know anything’ – that is lack of any particular or differentiable knowledge.  Non-existence of objects is also knowledge, since when I am awake I say that I did not know anything during the deep-sleep state. This is anupalabdhi pramANa – knowledge of the non-existence of a thing – just as when I say that I see there is no pot here. That is, I know that I do not see a pot here, or I have the knowledge of the absence of a pot. I should have prior knowledge of a pot in order for me to be able to say that I do not see any pot here. I cannot say there is no gaagaabuubu here, since I do not have any prior knowledge of what a gaagaabuubu is. The absence of an object is knowledge, only if its presence in the universe was known before and is stored in the memory.

To be continued…

5 thoughts on “Who Slept Well?

  1. Indeed an impressive series of essays coming from the formidable combination of the deeply knowledgeable and well-respected Acharya Dr. Sadananda and the erudite and expressive Dennis Waite backed by highly learned and redoubtable Advaita scholars and practitioners mentioned therein with profuse citations from scriptural references. These deservingly popular articles appeared at 3-4 other web sites in their earlier avatar (i.e. pre-Dennis editing) and are warmly received by all.

    If, however, some skeptics are still left out, may I, with unbound trepidation, draw their attention to the ongoing Series titled “The Enigma of Deep Sleep“? One may discover where a non-scripture/faith based analysis leads us to.

    regards,

  2. Ramesam, you start by saying that “We shall go only by a close and critical examination of our own day to day experience without invoking fanciful theories and ethereal constructs”. In the unfolding you may not be constructing ‘fanciful theories’, but the account and arguments you enter into are full of theoretical constructs – are ‘theory-laden’. Such are enumerating four functions of the mind, or that “you are a creation all the time”, to mention only two.

    Concerning the last example, if by ‘you’ one means the body, no problem, but if we stay with the concepts ‘mind’, or ‘person’ (which you mention in the same context), that is something else. I am sure you are aware of this.

    Besides that, I don’t think a comparison or contrast between the sub-microscopical or sub-atomical and the macroscopical realms are called for here – in a discussion of deep-sleep – because each of them works quite well within its own parameters (as per current science). A human body may be/is a conglomerate of atoms and/or and sub-atomic particles (arranged by subtle, unknown cosmic laws, please note), but we do not have to be limited to the physical dimension. The concept ‘person’ is amenable to more than one philosophical ‘theory’ or view, but there is no need to go into this. ‘Individual person’, ‘individual mind’, even if theory-laden concepts or constructs, work perfectly well (let’s say it rhetorically) in the empirical human realm, just as Newton’s laws do so in the world of large bodies.

    Thus, there are three sets of laws (and facts) that we can consider depending on which ‘world’ we may be studying: 1) macroscopic (Newtonian physics); 2) sub-atomic (nuclear physics); 3) empirical/human (not just physical. I don’t think we can talk of laws with respect of the supra-ontological dimension (nirguna), which is unsublatable, and not a theory.

    I realize that this is only the first part of a series of three, and I may have jumped a little too soon, for which, my apologies.
    Martin.

  3. Just a few thoughts and doubts referring to the above published first part of the series “Who Slept Well?” (not Ramesam’s series which I think should be discussed somewhere else):

    “Given the fact that all descriptions of the deep-sleep state are necessarily from the vantage point of the waking state, we can only rely for analysis on 1) shaastra pramANa and 2) those experiences that are universally common. “

    As to 1) I learned that shaastra does not depend on blind faith but always can and should be substantiated by logic. As to 2) I cannot go along with even the expression „common experiences“ if they refer to experiences in or of deep sleep.
    Moreover I am surprised about Vedantic analysis relying on common experiences, which are altogether unreliable as we all know.

    The recollection of sleeping well is not a memory but a statement made in the waking state about one’s condition in the waking state. So far I am not convinced that the assertion of an experience of happiness in deep sleep is logically verifiable.

    Rather than calling that happiness an experience, it seems much more likely to be a result of deep sleep (in which body/mind recovers best because of the absence of perception of objects).

    If the happiness is an effect then the common desire for deep sleep would be object induced happiness as much as other happinesses are; this would be enough to account for everyone being keen on deep sleep.

  4. Dear Martin and Sitara,

    Thank you both for the subtle observations.
    I agree with the points made by both of you.

    @ Martin:

    As Sitara said, this may not be the appropriate place to discuss the Series of articles on ‘The Enigma of Deep Sleep’ I have been posting since Nov 2013 at AA, I will not go into a detailed response on the points made by Martin, though the points raised are undoubtedly significant. However, I may be allowed to say here that my Posts are confined to a study of the ‘set of facts that consider the “empirical/human” aspects’ only and not Newtonian or Quantum Physics. I posted so far four articles and the series is still continuing.

    @ Sitara:

    I am inclined to second every one of Sitara’s observations. Though one should wait for the complete presentation to see how an argument is developed, the first part published here seems to have several inconsistencies at least in the way the sentences are formulated. For example:

    There appears to be an implicit assumption made in the article that there are many varieties of “happinesses”, when it is said: “everyone experiences happiness in the deep sleep state. This happiness differs from the happiness that one gains during the waking and dream states.”

    IMHO, “happiness” is all one only. Happiness is simply the absence of ‘unhappiness.’ The very act of removal of the causative factor for ‘unhappiness’ itself simply leaves one with ‘happiness.’ Thus the causative factors (objects/persons) may be many; but the ‘happiness’ is one only.

    If it is agreed “that I have no knowledge of that experience, while I am in the deep sleep state”, it is not reasonable to assert that “In one sense, in the deep sleep state, I have the knowledge of the absence of particular knowledge of any kind.”

    If it is postulated that “In contrast, the happiness that one experiences in the deep sleep state is devoid of the obvious duality of experiencer-experienced”, there is no scope to ask “The question arises as to who experiences the deep sleep state?”

    regards,

  5. Response to Sitara’s first comment from Acharya Sadananda:

    Just a few thoughts and doubts referring to the above published first part of the series “Who Slept Well?” (not Ramesam’s series which I think should be discussed somewhere else):

    “Given the fact that all descriptions of the deep-sleep state are necessarily from the vantage point of the waking state, we can only rely for analysis on 1) shaastra pramANa and 2) those experiences that are universally common. “

    As to 1) I learned that shaastra does not depend on blind faith but always can and should be substantiated by logic. As to 2) I cannot go along with even the expression „common experiences“ if they refer to experiences in or of deep sleep.
    Moreover I am surprised about Vedantic analysis relying on common experiences, which are altogether unreliable as we all know.

    Sada: Just for clarification. The three fundamental means of knowledge involves a) perception b) logic and c) shaastra or shabda or scripture.

    a) The first is strong one for all objective realities – ‘I see it therefore it exists’ is the basis. Senses become the basic means of knowledge for perception.

    b) logic is considered a weaker means of knowledge since its validation again depends on perception. For example logically a scientist can establish a theory but confirmation has to come by experimental proofs which are perceptually based.

    c) That which cannot be directly deduced by perception or logic has to be known only on the basis of scriptures. Scriptural statements can be logical but logic is not the basis for the statement of truth. ‘I am the absolute truth’ is neither based on perception nor based on logic. But it is not illogical since ‘I am’, as the existent-conscious entity, is a non-negatable entity and the truth is that which can never be negated.

    Vedanta considers experience also, as in the analysis of the three states of experience (waking, dream and deep sleep state) and analyzes the truth behind those experiences. Hence, scripture itself points out the order of importance of these non-objectifiable entities: first scripture, second logic, and third experience – shaastra-yukti-anubhava. Hence, the statement I provided is: experience is common to all. The common experiences are outlined: a) I exist during deep sleep state b) I am happy in that state c) I did not know anything. These have been noted by the scriptures for analysis.

    If these are not the common experiences, please let me know.

    The recollection of sleeping well is not a memory but a statement made in the waking state about one’s condition in the waking state. So far I am not convinced that the assertion of an experience of happiness in deep sleep is logically verifiable.

    True, the statement is made in the waking state. However, it is about the conditions experienced in the deep sleep state. The mind is folded in the deep sleep state and, from its point of view, the statement cannot be ‘I slept well’ without really knowing who it is that slept well, if it is not there in the deep sleep. Otherwise, it will only be an inference made by the mind that makes that , as has been analyzed in the article. This requires deeper thinking and more contemplation than a casual acceptance or rejection. One can have personal beliefs; no problem with that.

    Rather than calling that happiness an experience, it seems much more likely to be a result of deep sleep (in which body/mind recovers best because of the absence of perception of objects).

    If the happiness is an effect then the common desire for deep sleep would be object induced happiness as much as other happinesses are; this would be enough to account for everyone being keen on deep sleep.

    Here, the happiness that one gets is due to the absence of suffering rather than the positive happiness that one obtains when one’s desire is fulfilled. The degrees of happiness have been extensively analyzed in the Tai. Up. It is common experience that people take drugs etc just to get enough sleep, so that they can forget all these discomforts at the physical, mental and intellectual levels – essentially to gain the absence of duality as is analyzed in detail in the articles.

    Suggestion to all those who have questions – please study the article completely and if there are valid questions I will be happy to address to my satisfaction.

    Hari Om!
    Sada

Comments are closed.