Consciousness: A Historical Perspective

Since the time of the Upaniṣads, Consciousness has been the fundamental concept of Indian thought. The earliest and significant precursors to the Māṇdūkyakārika’ s analysis of the states of consciousness are found in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the Chāndogya Upaniṣads. Complying upon these Upaniṣadic references, I would like to begin my work with an analysis of the states of Consciousness in these two Upaniṣads. An attempt has been made in this chapter to study the views of the three schools of Indian Philosophy namely Cārvāka, Sāṅkhya and Nyāya as they offer divergent views on consciousness.

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad has a special relation with the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, as quoted by eminent scholar Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya,^[1] the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is the main Upaniṣadic source of the Āgamaśāstra. Commenting upon this relation an eminent advaita scholar T.M.P Mahadevan^[2] says that the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is the main source of Gauḍapādas thought.

Discussions about the three states of consciousness occur twice in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. The first one occurs in the form of a dialogue between Ajātaśatru and Gārgya. Ajātaśatru asks Gārgya a significant question: ‘where does a person (puruṣa) who possesses consciousness (vijñānamaya) go during sleep and from where does he come back’? (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad II.i.16)^[3]

Gārgya could not answer this question. Ajātaśatru then takes Gārgya to a person who is asleep and points out that:

‘When this person/being is asleep, it (being) absorbs, at that time, the functions of the organs through its own consciousness, and rests in the Supreme Self (ākāśa) that is in the heart. When this being absorbs them it is called svapiti. Then the organ of smell is absorbed, the organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the ear is absorbed, and the mind is absorbed’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. II.i.17)^[4].

The literal meaning of the word svapiti is ‘merged (apiti) in its own Self (svam)’. In dream, the mind and the senses are not restrained and a person moves as he pleases, he becomes a great king or a noble Brahmin as it were: or attains, as it were, high or low states. Just as a great king, takes his citizens with him, and moves about in his domain as he pleases, so does the Self takes breath etc. with him and moves about in this body as he pleases (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. II.i.18)^[5]. In deep sleep, however, a person knows nothing: he moves through the seventy two thousand nerves (channels) called the hitā and rests in the pericardium. In this state, one rests like a youth or a king/emperor or a Brahmin who has reached the maximum (atighni) of bliss (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad II.i.19)^[6].

In another well known dialogue, found in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, a brilliant discourse on the nature of Self/Consciousness is given by Sage Yājñavalkya. This section brings out the nature of Self as the Light of all lights and this Light requires no other light to illumine It (svayam jyoti). In this dialogue between Yājñavalkya and king Janaka, the king desires to know the source of illumination that makes it possible for human beings to function in this world. Yājñāvalkya initially informs the king that it is the light of the sun. This answer, however, does not satisfy the king. He further asks: when the sun has set what light does a person have? Yājñāvalkya informs him that it is the light of moon. This reply does not satisfy the king either. He queries further: with the setting of the sun and the moon, what light does a person have? Yājñāvalkya then replies: ‘it is the light of fire’. The king persists in questioning and asks what happens when the sun and the moon have both set, when the fire has gone out? Yājñāvalkya informs him that it is the vac or the word (the speech) also provides the light and enables us to perform our activities.

The king finally asks: what is the source of light when the vac is also at rest? Yājñāvalkya replies:

‘The Self serves as his light. It is through the light of the Self that, he sits, runs around, does his work and returns. The Self is its own light; it is self–effulgent, it is self-luminous’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.6)^[7].

Yājñāvalkya then goes on to describe the different states of consciousness. In the waking state, a person moves and functions on account of external physical light. In this state, the eyes and the other organs, which are outgoing in their tendencies, are helped by the external light of the sun, moon etc. A person lives and moves in the world utilizing the physical light. So, we see that in the waking state a light extraneous to his body, which is an aggregate of parts, serves as the light for him. Just as a person sits, moves, goes out, works and returns in the waking state, even so he sits, moves, and does various activities in the dream state. The physical light from the sun that one is familiar in waking is absent in dream state. However, a person who performs various activities in dream must be helped by some other light. What, then, is the light for him? When a person wakes up from deep sleep, he remembers his sleep experience and claims that he slept in peace and knew no object. There must have been some light in deep sleep with the help of which a person is able to experience peace/happiness. Therefore, there should be some internal light operating in the dream and deep sleep states. What is that light?

Let us suppose that two persons are trekking in jungle and they get separated at a particular point there is neither the sun nor the moon, not even the stars, to give them light at that time. When one of them shouts calling the name of the other person, the latter hears his voice and guesses the direction from which the sound comes for the purpose of locating him. Sound, which is the object of hearing, stimulates the ear, i.e. the auditory sense, and activates the mind of the person who hears the sound. In this situation, we say that speech serves as the light. One may ask: ‘How can speech be called a light, for it is not known to be such’? Yājñāvalkya answers this question. He says that, since a man lives and moves in the world helped by the light of speech, therefore it is a well known fact that speech serves as a light. Śaṅkara in his commentary on the text says that what is true of speech is equally true of other organs. The mention of the light of speech includes odour, etc. For, when odour and the rest also help the nose and other organs, a man is induced to act, or dissuaded from action, and so on. Thus they also help the body and the organs (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV. iii. 5)^[8]. Śaṅkara elucidates in his commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.6^[9] how the Self or Consciousness serves as the light. He says: By the word ‘Self’ is meant that light which is different from one’s body and organs, and illumines them like the external light provided by the sun, moon etc but is itself not illumined by anything else. A human being in the absence of all physical lights does not lose the knowledge of his own existence/presence. The Self is different from the body, the senses, and the mind etc. In fact the physical (external) lights such as the sun, moon and fire are illumined by the light of the Self. If there were no Consciousness who can illumine or establish the presence of physical lights? All lights require Consciousness to prove their presence. The Self on the other hand being non-material is not illumined by any light, or by any sense organs like the eye etc.

Then Janaka asks the question ‘which is the Self’ among the organs of the individual (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.7)^[10]. In other words Janaka wants to know about which exactly is the self in the body which comprises of sense organs etc. The Self per se, is non-relational (asaṅgo hi ayaṃpuruṣaḥ) declares Yājñāvalkya (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.15-16)^[11]. One does not know its non-relational nature because of the functioning of the internal organ called the intellect. The ever asaṅga Self wrongly identifies itself with the intellect and becomes almost difficult to differentiate one from the other. Yājñāvalkya uses the significant expression, ‘vijñānamaya’, in his answer to Janaka’s question, to highlight the association of the Self with the intellect in all our cogitations.

Śaṅkara in his commentary explains the meaning of the expression, ‘vijñānamaya’ and also the function of the intellect which is the adjunct or the conditioning factor of the Self.

To quote Śaṅkara:

‘Vijñānamaya’ means identified with the intellect; the Self is so called because of our failure to discriminate its association with its limiting adjunct, the intellect, for it is perceived as associated with the intellect, as the planet Rahu is seen with the sun and the moon. The intellect is the instrument that helps us in everything, like a lamp set in front amidst darkness. It has been said, ‘it is through the mind that one sees and hears’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1. v.3). Every object is perceived only as associated with the light of the intellect, as objects in the dark are lighted up by a lamp placed in front; the other organs (such as the visual sense) are but the channels for the intellect (Śaṅkara-bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.7){GL_NOTE:198572}.

Yājñāvalkya further explains how the Self, though different from the intellect, assumes the likeness of the intellect.

The intellect is that which is illumined, and the light of the Self is that which illumines, like light. We cannot distinguish the two because light is pure that it assumes the likeness of that which it illumines. When it illumines something coloured, it assumes the likeness of that colour. For example, when it illumines something green, blue, or red, it is coloured like them.Similarly the Self, illumining the intellect, illumines through it the entire body and organs …. Therefore, through the similarity of the intellect, the Self assumes the likeness of everything. Therefore it can not be taken apart from anything else like a stalk of grass from its sheath, and shown in its self-effulgent form (Śaṅkara-bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.7)^[13].

Hence Yājñāvalkya says: ‘Assuming the likeness of the intellect,……. It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.7)^[14]. The truth is that it is devoid of agency of any kind, devoid of cogitations of all types. Then, how can we know its non-relational nature, that is to say, that it is not really connected with any object which is transcendent to it? Its non-relational nature becomes partially manifest as a person moves from the waking to the dream state, giving up everything which he claims as his own in the waking state.

This is how Yājñāvalkya puts it:

‘Being identified with dream, it transcends this world–the forms of death’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.7)^[15].

It is difficult to understand when Yājñāvalkya says that the Self identifies itself with dream and again what are the forms of death without the help of Śaṅkara’s lucid commentary. The dream objects are nothing but the modifications of the mind as in the case of the waking state; the Self which illumines the mind in dream becomes one with it, and is not experienced as separate entity.

The following is Śaṅkara’s explanation:

The Self seems to become whatever the intellect which it resembles becomes. Therefore when the intellect turns into dream, i.e. takes on the modification called dream, the Self also assumes the form; when the intellect wants to wake up, it too does that. Hence the text says: ‘Being identified with dream’, revealing the modification known as dream assumed by the intellect, and thereby resembling it, ‘it transcends this world’, i.e. the body and the sense organs, functioning in the waking state. Since the Self stands revealing by its own distinct light the modification known as dream assumed by the intellect, it must be Self-luminous, pure, and devoid of agency and action with its factors and results… Death has no other forms of its own; the body and the sense organs are its forms. Hence the Self transcends those forms of death, on which actions and their results depend (Śaṅkara-bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.7)^[16].

As in the case of the waking state, in dream also, the Self or Consciousness is not the agent of any action, but appears to be an agent when it illumines the modifications of the mind. The truth is that the objects which appear during waking Consciousness disappear in dream consciousness: similarly, those which appear in dream Consciousness disappear in waking consciousness. Just as the Self is not bound by the objects which it is conscious of through the functioning of the mind in the waking state, even so it is not bound by anything which it is conscious of through the modifications of the mind in dream; so it is able to discard and disown them when it comes back to the waking state. The implication here is that the Self is really nonrelational though it appears to be relational in these states. Sruti also confirms this by the example of the mahāmatsya the great fish (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.18)^[17]. Just as a great fish swims from one bank to another of a river without being affected by the current of the water, even so the Self moves from the waking state to dream and then back to the waking state without being affected or touched by the objects, gross or subtle as the case may be, in these two states.

The principal passages of dream state have been explained in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV. iii. 9-14:

‘And there are only two states for that person (the individual Self): the one here in this world, the other in the next world. The third, the intermediate, is the dream state. When he is in that intermediate state, he surveys both states: this and the next world. Now, whatever support he may have for the next world, he provides himself with that and sees evils, sufferings and joys’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV. iii. 9).

‘And when he dreams, he takes away a little off (the impression of) this all–embracing world (the waking state), himself makes the body unconscious, and creates a dream body in its place, revealing his own brightness (jyotiḥ) by his own light–and he dreams. In this state the person becomes Self-illumined’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.iii.9).

In dream one experiences all diverse phenomena of the waking state and also the subject–object relationship. While dreaming, the man sees the functioning of the sense organs and also such external lights as the sun and moon, which illumine objects in the waking state. Then how can it be said that in the dream state the man himself becomes the light?

Yājñavalkya’s answer is given:

‘There are no (real) chariots, nor animals to be yoked to them, nor roads there, but he creates the chariots, animals, and roads. There are no pleasures in that state, no joys, no delights, but he creates the pleasures, joys, and delights. There are no pools, tanks, and rivers, but he creates the pools, tanks, and rivers. He indeed is the agent’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.iii.10). To this the following verses refer:

‘The effulgent infinite being (puruṣa), who travels alone, makes the body insensible in the dream state but himself remains awake, and taking with the luminous particles of the organs, watches those that are asleep. Again he comes to the waking state’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV. iii.11).

‘The effulgent infinite being (puruṣa) who is immortal and moves alone, preserves the unclean nest (the body) with the help of the vital breath (prāṇa) and himself moves out of the nest. He the immortal being goes wherever he likes’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV. iii. 12).

‘In the dream state, the luminous one attains higher and lower states, creates many forms. He seems to be enjoying himself in the company of women, now as if happy with laughter, now as if seeing things in terror and of fear’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV. iii.13).

‘Everyone sees his sport, but none sees him’. ‘So one should not, they say, suddenly wake up a man sound asleep. Hard to cure him if he does not find the right organ. Others, however, say that the dream state of a man is the same as the waking state, because what he sees while awake, that only he sees in dream. In the dream state the Self (puruṣa) itself becomes the light’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.iii.14).

In the deep sleep state consciousness passes into a state in which there are no dreams, no desires, and no pleasure. The Upaniṣad gives an example of a hawk with a view to show what and how we learn about the nature of the Self or Consciousness through the state of sleep.

It says:

As a hawk or a falcon flying in the sky becomes tired, folds its wings and goes to his nest to rest, the Self in this (deep sleep) state is free from pain, does not lack anything, and does not know anything; there are no desires, no dreams (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.19).

All distinctions are lost in sleep. One knows neither what is without nor what is within. Yājñāvalkya explains this experience with the help of an analogy: just as a man, when embraced by his beloved wife, does not know anything within or without, even so the empirical Self (person), when embraced by the all-knowing Self knows nothing within or without. That truly is his form in which desires are all appeased, in which the Self alone is his desire, in which he has no desire and no sorrow to approach him. The Self sees nothing in sleep because it alone is.

There is a perfect quietude (saṃprasanna). It is bliss (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.iii.21).

It is said:

‘While one does not see anything there, one sees everything there. Seeing, one sees not: for there can not be any absence of the sight of the seer, immortal as it is. Only no second is there for him to see, no other distinct from him’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.iii.23).

In this state, though the Self does not see with the eyes, it is an undeniable seer. The character of seeing is intrinsic to the Self; the Self can never lose this characteristic just as fire can not lose the characteristic of burning. The Self sees by its own light, it is the ultimate seer; there is none other for the Self to see. This passage clearly brings out the nature of Self as Light meaning the ever present Consciousness which is its svarupa (nature) and not a viśeṣaṇa (adjective).

Śaṅkara in his commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. III.iv.2 explains the case of seeing/vision by the visual sense which is supported by both the mind and consciousness.

To quote Śaṅkara:

‘Seeing is of two kinds, ordinary and real. Ordinary seeing is a function of the mind as connected with the visual sense; it is an act, and as such it has a beginning and an end. But the seeing that belongs to the Self is like the heat and light of fire; being the very essence of the Witness (Self), it has neither beginning nor end. The ordinary seeing/vision, however, is related to the objects seen through the eye, and of course has a beginning. The eternal seeing of the Self is metaphorically spoken of as the witness and although eternally seeing, is spoken of as sometimes seeing and sometimes not seeing’ (Śaṅkara-bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad III.iv.2)^[18].

In deep sleep the Self’s identity with all (sarvātma-bhāva) is realized. He who knows thus the significance of the experience of deep sleep knows the truth. There is a total loss of one’s individuality here.

All individual cognitions as well as the distinctions of good and evil based on such cognitions are dissolved in the state of union with Self.

‘In this state a father is not a father, a mother is not a mother, world is not world, gods are not gods and the Vedas are not the Vedas. In this state a thief is not a thief, a murderer not a murderer, an outcaste not an outcaste, a lowly born not a lowly born, a monk is not a monk, an ascetic is not an ascetic. He is untouched by good deeds and untouched by evil deeds, for he is then beyond all the sorrows of the heart’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.iii.22)^[19].

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad in a continuous series of passages IV.iii.23-30^[20] , denies the association of Consciousness with everyone of the activities including knowing even though it continues to be the eternal Witness. It says the Witness, though seeing then, does not see; though smelling then, does not smell (for the smelling of the smeller is never lost); though tasting then, does not taste; though speaking then, does not speak; though hearing then, does not hear; though thinking then, does not think; though touching then, it does not touch; though knowing then, it does not know (for the knowing of the knower is never lost), because there is nothing to be seen, smelt…, and known even though its presence is there in the Witness. It has always the power of revelation; but there are no objects to be revealed by it since the mind and the organs do not function in this (deep sleep) state. Its paradoxical language is intended to show, by recapitulating the knowledge situation we are familiar with, that in deep sleep state there is no trace of knowledge situation whatsoever. We are able to make such a claim because of the Self which is the Witness to the absence of the knowledge situation.

In Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.ii.2 Yājñāvalkya speaks of Indha-Indra who is the person in the right eye. Though he is Indha, people call him by the indirect name Indra; for the gods are fond of indirect names and hate to be addressed directly. The person in the left eye, Virāja (or Virāta), is his wife. Their meeting place is the space within the heart (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.ii.3). The Self consisting of Indha and Virāja is the eater of finer food than is the bodily Self. The prāṇas are his quarters (‘the eastern quarter is his eastern breaths; the southern quarter is his southern breaths’ etc). ‘This Self is That which has been described as ‘not this, not this’. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; indestructible, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers injury...’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. IV.ii.4).

Śaṅkara sees in this section of the Bṛhadāraṇyakaa reference to the four pādas of the Self, the first three which are non-absolute forms in the three states of consciousness, and the fourth which is the real Self, the Turīya–ātman. Indha or sarira–ātman what is called Viśva by Gauḍapāda and Vaiśvānara by the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. The Self which eats the finer food (praviviktaharatarah) is Taijasa. The Self whose quarters are the prāṇas (sarve prānaḥ) is Prājña. What is referred to as Caturtha or Turīya in the Māṇḍūkya is here indicated by the words ‘not this, not this’ (sa esa neti neti).

Thus, we find an appealing account of Consciousness which lays the foundation for all future understanding. Consciousness is self revealing, self luminous, never unfolded by any senses but which illumines all the senses and all the physical lights. It is the witness whose nature is “sight” which can never be lost. Nothing can dismantle this, nothing can wipe it out or nothing can erase it. Consciousness is the light that illumines the wakeful, dream and the deep sleep; everything has a resolution (laya) but not the witness of all resolutions. This is an extra ordinary unfoldment on Consciousness. Herein, we see with clarity the non-intentionality of Consciousness.

As enumerated in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (8.7-12) there is the exposition of three states and the Self which remains in and through the states free from all blemishes. This teaching is in the form of a dialogue wherein Prajāpati figures as the preceptor and Indra and Virocana as the pupils. Prajāpati, the teacher delineates the nature of the Self thus: “The Self, is free from evil, free from old age, free from death, from sorrow, hunger and from thirst. That is to be regarded as the Self whose desires come true, and whose thoughts come true. That is the Self one should seek, that is the Self one should desire to know. He who has known this Self, has realized that Self, attains he all the worlds, his desires are fulfilled” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.7.1)^[21].

The gods (devas) and the demons (asuras) both heard these words, and they desired to know the knowledge of immortal Self. Both Indra (representing gods) and Virocana (representing demons or asuras) decided to approach Prajāpati independently as envoys on the mission of learning from him knowledge of the Self. Being thus approached, Prajāpati asked both of them to observe celibacy (brahmacarya) for a period of thirty two years so as to get prepared for initiation into the sacred knowledge. And at the end of this period of celibacy they approached Prajāpati for instruction about the Self. Prajāpati said, “The person that is seen in the eye, that is the Self/atman, that is the immortal, that is the fearless, that is Brahman”. The implication of this statement is that the primeval/fundamental principle which is responsible for seeing and knowing is the Self. Indra and Virocana took “the person that one sees in the eye” to mean the image reflected in the eye. To confirm their understanding, they asked Prajāpati, “But, then, Lord, who is this one that is perceived in water and this one that is perceived in a mirror”? Prajāpati replied, “the same one, indeed, is perceived in all these” i.e. only the seer in the eye is the Self. From this they drew the corollary that the reflection of the body which is seen in media like water and mirror is the Self. When they informed Prajāpati of what they had inferred from his teaching, Prajāpati said, “Look at yourself in a pan of water; and then come and tell me what you do not understand of the Self” So they looked into a pan of water and reported that, ‘we see, sir’ said they, ‘this entire Self of ours, a perfect likeness of it, down to the very hairs and nails’.

Prajāpati directed them to look again in the pan of water after adorning themselves, putting on their best cloths and cleaning themselves. They followed the instruction, beautified themselves, looked at their charming reflections, and went away satisfied, thinking that the reflection and the body which was reflected constituted the Self. Prajāpati did not correct them at that stage, for he wanted to test them and give the true doctrine only to him that had proved his fitness through enquiry.

Reaching back to demons (asuras), Virocana told them of the experience which they not only appreciated but accorded the status of being the central creed of their lives. “The body is the Self” he declared, “the Self (i.e. body) alone is to be worshiped here on earth, the Self (the body) alone is to be served. It is only by worshipping the Self here and serving the Self that one gains worlds, this and the next” According to him Self is the reflected image of the body seen in a mirror in the waking state. Thus, in view of Virocana, Consciousness (i.e. Self) is that which is identified with the body in the state of wakefulness.

Though at first this doctrine seemed to satisfy Indra, very soon he realized its serious defect. “This Self” (in the shadow), he thought, ‘is well adorned when this body is well adorned, is well dressed when the body is well dressed, clean when the body is clean’. So, this (reflection in the water) will be blind when this body is blind, sick when this body is sick, crippled when this body is crippled, and will perish when this body perishes. Indra saw nothing good in this doctrine.

Indra went back to Prajāpati and apprised him of his difficulty. On having completed another course of celibacy for thirty two years, Prajāpati said to him, ‘He who moves about happy in dreams, he is the Self. That is the immortal, the fearless. That is Brahman’. Then Indra went away with tranquil heart. But even before he had reached the gods he saw this danger. ‘It is true’, he thought, ‘that when this body becomes blind, the Self does not become blind, when this body becomes sick, it does not become sick, when this body getting tainted with faults, it does not get so tainted….” Although the Self is not affected by the defects of the body in dreams, it is not killed when this body is killed, nor one-eyed when it is one-eyed, yet they kill it, as it were; they chase it, as it were. It becomes conscious of pain, as it were; it weeps, as it were. Indra was not satisfied in this doctrine too” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8. 10. 1-2)^[22]. Indra lived with Prajāpati for another thirty two years.

Then Prajāpati said to Indra:

“When one is fast asleep, all composed (samasta), and serene (samprasanna), and knows no dreams, that is the Self, that is the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman” (Ch U 8.11.1)^[23].

However, Indra himself comes to reject this view. Thus, the Upaniṣad says: then, even before reaching the gods, he (Indra), saw this danger, “In truth, this one (the Self in the state of deep sleep) does not exactly know, ‘I am this’. Nor does it know these beings. It has therefore reached utter annihilation (vināśa)” Indra feels that if there are no objects of which we are conscious, even the subject becomes destroyed. So, Indra approached Prajāpati once more. Prajāpati asked him again to pass through another course of celibacy but now only for five years before he got fully prepared for receiving the lesson into the real nature of Self/Consciousness.

On Indra’s coming back well prepared, Prajāpati told:

“Mortal indeed, is this body, in the grip of death. But of the immortal Self, the bodiless, is this the abode. In the grip of pleasure and pain is surely the embodied, no release from these is possible for it. The unembodied these cannot touch, neither pleasure nor pain” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad. 8.121.1)^[24].

The purpose of Prajāpati’s teaching in the Chāndogya, as of Yājñavalkya’s analysis of the three avasthās, in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, is to exhibit the true nature of the Self, as free from the defects due to the association with the objects of the states of waking, dream and sleep.

The names of the Self in the three states (Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña) employed in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad and the Gauḍapādakārikā are not found here; but the idea is the same. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad calls the Self of the waking state ākṣipuruṣa (8.7.4) or cakṣusa-puruṣa (8.12.4), meaning ‘the person that is seen in the eye’. Śaṅkara in his commentary on the Chāndogya Upaniṣad refers to it by the terms chayāpuruṣa (8.12.4) and chayā-ātman (shadow-Self) as well (8.8.2). For the dream state (Taijasa) in Māṇḍūkya he assigns the name svapnātman, the dream Self (8.10.1) and for Prājña the name suṣuptastha (8.11.1-2). The Self is the same in these three states. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad describes the Caturtha or Turīya of the Māṇḍūkya as uttama puruṣa (8.12.3), the supreme Self. Its nature may be well understood by realizing the significance of the state of deep sleep. As the Chāndogya puts it, everyday we have this precious experience, without knowing its meaning, ‘as people who do not know the exact spot where a treasure of gold has been hidden in the earth, walk over it again and again without finding it, so all these creatures day after day go into the supreme Self and yet do not find it, because the true knowledge of the Self veiled by ignorance (8.3.2).

In another dialogue in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.8 and 6.8.1) must be considered in order to complete the analysis of the teachings about the state of deep sleep. Āruṇi known as Uddālaka said to his son Śvetaketu, “Learn from me, my son, the true nature of sleep (svapanānta). When a person has enters into deep sleep, he becomes united with Pure Being (sat), he has gone to his own Self. That is why they say he is in deep sleep (svapiti); it is because he has gone (apita) to his own (svam)”.

Śaṅkara in his commentary on 6.8.1 says: svapna is the process of seeing. anta means center. So, svapnānta (svapna-anta) means the core of the process of seeing, which is deep sleep. Svapnānta may also mean the essence of the process of dream. This means that man in deep sleep, attains his Self. When a mirror is taken away, the reflection of a therein attains, so to say, the man himself. The Supreme deity too has similarly ‘entered’ the mind, breath and speech as a man ‘enters’ a mirror. In this (deep sleep) state the Self returns to his true nature. Thus, people say that he sleeps (svapiti), since at that time he returns to his own Self (svam apita bhavati)^[25].

During the waking state one becomes tired from various experiences in the shape of happiness and sorrow, attachment and aversion, delusions and other thoughts. In deep sleep all the senses are drawn in by the prāṇa (breath), which alone ‘lies awake in the nest of the body’.

As the fatigue of the waking state can not be shaken off by any other means than withdrawal into one’s own Self, an analogy is given to explain that the Self in deep sleep realizes Brahman.

“Just as a bird tied to a string flies from one direction to another but, finding no place of rest, comes back finally to rest where it is tied, so also the mind, my son, flies from one direction to another but finding no place of rest comes back finally to rest in breath, for mind is tied to breath” (6.8.2)^[26].

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (6.8.1) says that in the state of deep sleep the person has become “full” “complete” “perfected” or “serene” (sampanna), and that he has “gone to his own” (svam apita). The term “sampanna” is also used in Chāndogya 8.11-12 in a way which clearly precludes its meaning “being” (sat). The Upaniṣad in 6.8.2 goes on to say that in the state of deep sleep the mind rests upon the breath (praṇa), and this is clearly not regarded as the ultimate or highest state.

Because in 6.8.6-7^[27] it says:

“When a man is dying, his speech merges into his mind, his mind into breath, his breath into fire (tejas) and fire into the highest divinity (parasyam devatayam) i.e. Being. That which is the finest essence that all this has as its Self. That is reality (satya). That is the Self. You are that (tat tvam asi), Śvetaketu”

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad in 6.8, 8.6 and 8.11-12 analyze the deep sleep state which is internally consistent and also incompatible with the interpretation of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad i.e. the deep sleep state of the Self (Prājña) with Īśvara. For it would appear to make no sense to associate the state in which one “does not know himself” and in which one has “gone to destruction” with the Omniscient, Omnipotent IśΩvara which is described in 6th verse of Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. According to the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the state of deep sleep is simply one of the three states of the embodied Self, and not a particularly desirable one at that.^[28]

The introductory chapter begins with an analysis of the states of consciousness in Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya Upaniṣads. Indeed, from the earliest Upaniṣadic speculations to the growth of the systems and the centrality of the concept of consciousness in the development of Indian philosophy can hardly be denied. It is even arguable that the nature and function of Consciousness was perhaps the greatest bone of contention among the darsanas, with some critical disputes turning on the details of a particular theory of consciousness. Indian philosophy presents not one single homogenous theory of Consciousness but a whole array of theories. I would like to briefly expound the Cārvāka, Sāṅkhya and Nyāya school to highlight the objective and subjective view of consciousness

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Vidhushekhar Bhattacharya, The Āgama śāstra of Gauḍapāda, Edited, Translated and Annotated, (Calcutta:University of Calcutta, 1943), lxxxxiii.

[2]:

T.M.P.Mahadevan, Gauḍapāda: A Study In Early Advaita, (Madras:University of Madras,1975),65-6.

[3]:

Madhavananda Swami, The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upiniṣad, With the Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, Translated, (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 2008), 193.

[4]:

Ibid., 194.

[5]:

Ibid., 196.

[6]:

Ibid., 198.

[7]:

Ibid., 420-21.

[8]:

Ibid., 420.

[9]:

Ibid., 421.

[10]:

Madhavananda Swami, Trans. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 421. All the translations of this Upaniṣad in this chapter are from this text.

[11]:

Ibid., 449-52.

[12]:

Ibid., 426-7.

[13]:

Ibid., 429.

[14]:

Ibid., 430.

[15]:

Ibid.

[16]:

Ibid., 430-1

[17]:

Ibid., 454.

[18]:

Madhavananda Swami, Trans. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 327.

[19]:

Ibid., 462-3.

[20]:

Ibid., 467-72.

[21]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, Vol. 4, (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 2001), 711.

[22]:

Ibid., 729-30.

[23]:

Ibid., 733.

[24]:

Ibid., 736-37.

[25]:

Ibid., 525.

[26]:

Ibid., 531.

[27]:

Ibid., 540-43.

[28]:

Thomas E. Wood, The Māṇḍūkya Upanisa‹d and the Āgama Śāstra, An Investigation into the Meaning of the Vedānta, (Delhi: Motilal Banarsi Dass, 1992), 59.