Three states of Consciousness: wakeful, dream and deep sleep

The first chapter of the Gauḍapādakārikā is called the “Āgama Prakaraṇa.”^[1] The very name of the prakaraṇa ‘Āgama’ signifies that it is based on a scriptural text. The term Śruti is also called Āgama. Since the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad^[2] is the focus of attention, the chapter itself is called “Āgama Prakaraṇa”.

According to Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati^[3], the advaita scholar, the Āgama Prakaraṇa is primarily meant to explain the Āgama which is the right traditional way of revealing the ātman. Gauḍapāda has given the name of the first chapter as “Āgama Prakaraṇa” because of the following reasons: (a) He considers the teachings of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad as authoritative source; (b) also in this chapter there is an elaboration of traditional (saṃpradāya) methodology of teaching which was adopted by the line of preceptors, to the advaita school of philosophy. In other words, the traditional methodology of propounding the absolute reality is adopted and followed by Gauḍapāda.

According to Hajime Nakamura^[4], a Japanese scholar of Buddhism and Advaita, the first chapter is called “Āgama Prakaraṇa” because its function is to clarify the meaning of āgama. Āgama (tradition) is to be contrasted with “upapatti” (proof) or “tarka” (logic) that are to be used as methodology for knowing the truth. Although there also exist “pauruseyāgama” (traditions originating from human beings), what is indicated here is the “traditional” quality of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad as a Śruti. Thus it may also be said that the first chapter is a Vārttika (authoritative commentary) to the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. In the strictest sense it should be regarded as such. In one manuscript the Māṇḍūkyakārikā is called the Māṇḍūkya-Upaniṣad-Vārttika. Gauḍapāda is considered to be the Vārttika-Kāra (Cf. Gauḍapādakārikā. edition, ĀnSS. p.25, n.; p.155, n.1; Mitākaṣarā edition, postscripts to chapters 3 and 4).^[5]

Though Gauḍapādakārikā is an exposition of Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, I would like to base the present study on Gauḍapādakārikā along with Śaṅkara’s commentary on it. The Upaniṣadic mantrs will be used for all the relevant themes that occur in Gauḍapādakārikā. The analysis of these texts would help us in understanding the nature of Consciousness in Advaita philosophy.

Āgama Prakaraṇa deals with the analysis of the three states of consciousness: namely wakeful (jāgrat), dream (svapna), and deep sleep (suṣupti), which are universally experienced by all human beings. Here I undertake a brief exposition of the general understanding of the three states.

The main feature of the wakeful state is the commonness of experience about the phenomenal world. All human perception, ideation, reasoning, anticipation about the external world are considered as the output of this very state. The mind and the senses which function in this state aided by physical light and consciousness are the instruments through which it experiences every kind of external object. When consciousness is directed through the mind and sense-organs to the outside world, one experiences his physical body and external world. The consciousness in sthe wakeful state indicates that the external world is solid, rigid, tangible set in its laws and rules.

The state of dream is a condition wherein the external sense organs cease to function. There is no cognition of “I” or “mine” with reference to the gross physical body. Based upon the impressions of the experience of the objects of the wakeful state, the mind projects dream. In the dream state, one is aware of internal objects i.e., one has internal perceptions. In this state when consciousness withdraws itself from the outside world and illumines only the mind, one becomes unaware of the external world and his own physical body, but experiences within himself a subtle world and subtle body.

In the wakeful state when the sense-organs are active, one can review the dream experiences and understand the dream as mere projection of the mind. From the standpoint of dream, dream objects are as gross and external as those experienced in the wakeful state. However, in wakeful state one knows that the dream objects were subtle, internal and composed of mere impressions gathered from the wakeful state.

In the deep sleep state, senses and the entire antaḥkaraṇa comprising of intellect, mind, ego and memory remain non-operative. Though the state of sleep is common, uneventful and unavoidable, it has a message to us about the possibility of, and the need for, transcending our finitude. Like the other two states, it is not permanent. As distinguished from wakeful and dream states, in the deep sleep state a person does not experience any object, external or internal, gross or subtle. When he wakes up from sleep, he says “I did not know anything at that time, and I slept happily”. Nevertheless, there was Consciousness at that time, though there were no objects, no phenomena related to it. If Consciousness were also absent at that time, recollection to the effect, “I was not conscious of anything then” would be impossible. The point is that Consciousness reveals objects if they are present; and when there are no objects to be revealed, Consciousness remains alone.

In the deep sleep state, the experience of peace (that is absence of disturbance) is common to all beings. In this state, every being whether a king, or a pauper, a criminal or a righteous enjoy the same peace. Whether you slept after a hearty meal or hungry stomach, after great enjoyment or heavy suffering, you attain the same peace in deep sleep. There is no difference between the deep sleep after a happy delightful day and the deep sleep after a mournful day. Why is it so? The reason being is that in the deep sleep state there is Consciousness alone. There is no individual “I”, or “ego”, implying that Individuality is totally abandoned in this state. If there were individuality intact then, each should experience deep sleep state, differently as in wakeful state. The individuality, which is responsible for the feeling of separateness, gets resolved in deep sleep. However, when one wakes up from the deep sleep one resumes one’s individuality as was prior to deep sleep. If one slept as a young person, one wakes up as a young person and not as old man. It is the impression of the jīva which makes the jīva return to the jīvatva whatever that might be. Though the state of sleep is radically different from the other two states, it is still a part of the empirical life of the jīva.

The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad begins with the word ‘aum’. In the mantra 1, the word aum is akṣara that is ‘imperishable’, and aum is indeed sarvam meaning ‘all this’. The phrase ‘all this’ refers to the entire world of manifest and non-manifest objects. The Upaniṣad further describes aum as ‘bhūtaṃ-bhavad-bhaviṣyad’ and trikālātītaṃ, which means all that is conditioned by the three points of time namely the past, present and future and that is beyond the conception of time is verily aum^[6] .

The mantra 2^[7], of this Upanisad describes the ātman (Self) as catuṣpāti. e. having four quarters (pādas). The first three quarter are identified with the three states, namely-wakeful dream, and deep sleep, referred in the text as Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña respectively. The last one which transcends the above mentioned three states is called Turīya or Caturtha, which means the Fourth^[8]. This is the real nature of the ātman or Consciousness which is ever free from the limitations it apparently suffers due to its attachments to the states of wakeful, dream and deep sleep.

The mantra 8 of the Upaniṣad equates the four quarters of ātman with the mātrās of aumkāra which are akāra, ukāra and makāra, and also the amātra, the silent presence. The single sacred sound aum constituted of three syllables “a”, “u” and “m”, are equated with the “quarters” of the (Self) ātman. The fourth syllable which represents the silent source of the other three syllables called the amātra, is actually a non-syllable and it corresponds to the Turīya which is the source, support and point of resolution of the three states.

In the following section I will be giving an exposition on the mantras 3, 4, and 5 of Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad which discusses the nature of the three states of consciousness viz. wakeful, dream and deep sleep respectively.

When ātman experiences the wakeful state and attaches itself to the external objects that appear to be gross it is called the Vaiśvānara. The word Vaiśvānara stands for that being which experiences the wakeful world and partakes the commonness experienced by all. The term Vaiśvānara is not restricted to human embodiment but to all embodied creatures which in any sense perceive the world. The Vaiśvānara leads one to experience the entire Viśva or the universe of wakeful state. It is because the ātman misidentifies itself with the wakeful objects, it is completely oriented towards exteriority of objects and loses the opportunity to know itself. This is described in the Upanisadic mantra 3 as bahiṣprajña which means that it is tied to the external objects. This tie with the world seemingly causes bondage and the ātman appears to be bound because of its wrong identification with the things it sees and experiences. However, the identification is only an apparent one and not real. Because of self ignorance the Vaiśvānara engages itself in seeing objects and identifying with external objects.

The Vaiśvānara consciousness which thus engages with the wakeful state has been described in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad as having seven limbs (saptāṅga) and nineteen door ways (ekonoviṃśatimukhaḥ) or modes of expression. The Śruti gives an anthromorphic description of Vaiśvānara as though possessing limbs etc. This Vaiśvānara has seven limbs and nineteen mouths.

Of these seven limbs six are mentioned in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (5.18.2):

“Of that Vaiśvānaraātman, the effulgent region is his head, the sun is his eye, the air his vital breath, the ether (ākāśa) the middle part of his body, the water his kidney and the earth his feet. The fire (the Āhavanīya fire, which is one of the three fires of agnihotra sacrifice) is described as mouth^[9]. The Vaiśvānara is to be meditated upon as a whole composed of parts, as the cosmic being whose limbs are the different parts of the universe”.

The Vaiśvānara has nineteen doorways (mukha/ mouths) through which it experiences the gross objects, sound, taste etc. The nineteen doors or ways are the five organs of the intellect (buddhindriyas), viz., sight, sound, smell. taste, touch, five organs of action (karmendriyas), viz, speech, grasping, locomotion, generation and excretion, five breaths (prāṇas) viz; the outgoing breath (prāṇa), the incoming breath (apāna), the distributive breath (vyāna), the diffused breath (udāna) and the upward breath (samāna), antaḥkaraṇa which comprises mind (manas) intellect (the buddhi), ego (ahamkāra) and memory (citta). Just as the seven limbs are superimposed upon ātman, the above mentioned nineteen doors are also superimposed on the Self (ātman) due to ignorance. Vaiśvānara is the first quarter because it is non-different from the totality of gross bodies known as Virāṭ. It is called the first quarter (prathama pāda), because the subsequent quarters are realized after knowing this quarter i.e Vaiśvānara.

The commentator Śaṅkara describes this Vaiśvānara or the Self in the wakeful state as the innermost Being/ Self using the word pratyagātman.^[10] It may be questioned as to how the seven limbs of the universal Self (ādhidaiva), viz, dyuloka as head, the sun as the eye etc. are mentioned in connection with pratyagātman? To this objection Śaṅkara responds that the intention is to state that there is no difference between the adhyātma pertaining to the individual and the ādhidaiva pertaining to the gods. The microcosmic subjective entity (adhyātma) is endowed with four quarters, namely, Vaiśvānara or Viśva, Taijasa, Prājña and Turīya. Likewise the macrocosmic objective universe, comprising the spheres of the sun, the moon, the stars, etc., also has four quarters. The four quarters are as follows: the Virāt, which is the totality of gross physical bodies also called the pañcikṛtaprapañca; the Hiraṇyagarbha, the totality of subtle bodies, the Īśvara or Avyākrta, which is the unmanifested totality of causal bodies, and the underlying substratum for all the three, the Turīya or Fourth. The Fourth is the supreme Brahman (Turīya) free from all attributes. The Turīya is transcendental, free from all causal relations, is non-dual and therefore the unrelated substratum of all appearances. The macrocosm is superimposed upon Brahman and microcosm upon ātman due to ignorance (avidyā). It may be kept in mind that both macrocosm and microcosm are illusory appearances. On account of the nondifference between the subjective and the objective, the limbs of Vaiśvānara are described in terms of the objective universe. The purpose of this exercise of identification is to show the illusory nature of the entire phenomenal world and thereby establish the non-duality of ātman/B rahman. The Self is seen as abiding in all beings and all beings are seen abiding in the Self.

The mantra 4 of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad proceeds to elaborate on Taijasa which is the Self identified with dream world. This is regarded to be the second quarter of ātman. The impressions gathered from the objects of the wakeful state appear as dream objects which look real, external and tangible. The dream self relates to the objects as the subject. According to the above mantra, the ātman that experiences dream objects is called Taijasa. The wakeful state is associated with various interactions and networking between the knower and the wakeful world followed by the idea of agency and instrumentality. The same is in some unique manner reproduced in the dream state, thereby creating a world that looks external and tangible to the subject. The movement (spandanam [spandana]) of the mind generates an appearance of objects and they begin to look as though external, but in truth, the objects appearing external are merely the activity caused by the movement of the mind and these impressions are borne in the mind (manaḥspandanamātra). The dream objects are created by the mind and appear to be real and external on account of ignorance (avidyā), desire (kāma) and action (karma). The word action (karma) here means the impressions created in the mind by the activities of wakeful state. Ignorance (agrahaṇam [agrahaṇa]) gives rise to desire, desire in turn impels a man to action, and action creates impressions. Being thus possessed of impressions of the wakeful state, the mind experiences the dream as if it were of wakeful state. As a piece of canvas would appear to be a slice of the wakeful world as it were when an artist has worked on it, so does the mind, with the impressions of the wakeful state traced on it, revive in the dream state as if it were the mind of the wakeful state itself. The dream state arises from the impressions of the experience in the wakeful state. To establish this proposition two Śruti texts are cited here by Sankara in his commentary on the mantra 4 of Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad.

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad says:

“Taking a little of this all embracing world (he sees dreams)” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 4.3.9)^[11].

Similarly the Praśna Upaniṣad of Atharva Veda declares: All the senses become one in the highest god, the mind (4.2). It says ‘in the dream, this god experiences (its own) greatness’^[12]. The dynamism (greatness) of mind consists in the fact that while cognizing a dream object the mind can transform itself into knowing, act of knowing and the object of knowledge (jñātā, jñeya, jñāna). The self luminous observer in the dream enjoys greatness of the mind, i.e., the mind which transforms itself both as objects and their knowledge. The mind becomes the object and also the perceiver, it “sees’ the object with the light none other than that of the ever luminous Self. The Taijasa or the dream consciousness is called antaḥprajñai. e. it is aware of the internal objects which is the dream world. The mind is subtle and internal, from the standpoint of the sense-organs. It is called Taijasa, the Luminous because consciousness appears as the subject unrelated to any gross object whatsoever. Viśva is the experiencer and knower of gross objects. But in the case of Taijasa, these are only mental impressions and so the experiences are of a subtle nature (pravivikta). Although there is no real entity present in the dream state other than the mind, the dreamer thinks that he is experiencing a real world exterior to him. The dream state also seems to possess the factors of subject and object and the characteristics of externality and internality.

The dream objects, however real they may appear in that state get falsified when one wakes up. From the standpoint of the wakeful state when the external sense-organs are active, one can review the dream experiences and come to know that dream was a product of an internal activity of the mind that creates the dream world not taking the assistance of the sense-organs. Again, from the standpoint of dream, dream objects are as gross and material as those experienced in the wakeful state. But, from the analysis of wakeful state, it is known that the dream objects are in fact not gross at all, they are subtle in comparison to the wakeful objects.

The description of dream state of consciousness is similar to that of the wakeful in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. The Taijasa, the dreamer is seen as imbued with the seven limbs and nineteen mouths as in the wakeful state. The individual self (microcosm) of the dream is to be identified with its macrocosmic counterpart, Hiraṇyagarbha, or the lord of the totality of subtle world.

After describing the wakeful and dream state the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad expounds the nature of deep sleep (suṣupti).The deep sleep state ‘suṣupti’ is the third quarter of the Self. The ātman as the experiencer of the deep sleep state is called Prājña.

The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad describes the deep sleep state as follows:

“That state is deep sleep where the sleeper does not desire any enjoyable thing nor does he see any dream. The third quarter (pāda) is Prājña, whose sphere is deep sleep, who remains one and totally without the distinction of seer and seen undifferentiated (ekībhūtaḥ), Prājña is a dense mass of consciousness (Prajñānaghanaḥ), which remains blissful (ānandamayaḥ), experiencing bliss (ānandabhuk) and which is the doorway (cetomukhaḥ) to the experience of the dream and wakeful states”.^[13]

The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad differentiates the deep sleep state from the other two states on the ground that in this state there is neither dream objects as in the dream state nor objects of enjoyment as in the wakeful state. In the deep sleep state one does not experience any object external as in wakeful or internal, as in dream, gross as in wakeful or subtle as in dream, which are the characteristics of the two states. Consciousness in this state, called Prājña and it is one, unified, and undifferentiated consciousness. It is of the nature of bliss; it experiences peace and silence and the blissful nature of consciousness manifests itself when it is by itself. The deep sleep state is not permanent (from the wakeful point of view), and from this state emerges either the dream state or the wakeful state. All three states (wakeful, dream and deep sleep) of consciousness have a common feature, namely, the ignorance of Reality. This is clarified in the subsequent kārikās (11-15) of Gauḍapāda wherein he states that the wakeful and dream states have both the non-apprehension (agrahaṇam [agrahaṇa]) as well as misapprehension (anyathāgrahaṇam [anyathāgrahaṇa]) while deep sleep has only non-apprehension of the Reality (tattva-agrahaṇam [tattva-agrahaṇa]).

Deep sleep is the state in which the diverse experiences of wakeful and dream become one dense indiscriminate consciousness.

Śaṅkara in his commentary of this mantra on suṣupti explains thus:

“It is a state in which all objects of duality which are nothing but the modifications of the mind spread over the two states (viz. wakeful and dream), reach the state of indiscrimination without losing their characteristics in the same way as the objects seen in the day become non-discernible under the cover of the darkness of the night. In this sense everything is undifferentiated (ekībhūta)) in the state of deep sleep. This unified state is known in empirical language as the unmanifest (avyakta). One viewing deep sleep from the wakeful state takes it to be the unmanifest (causal) state because he finds that the experiences of wakeful and dream is not there in deep sleep. In deep sleep no specific knowledge is present and is free from the knowledge of multiplicity. As in a dark night all cows appear black and cannot be distinguished from one another, in deep sleep too all discrimination/variety of objects disappear”.

Deep sleep is a state of ease and repose, where the friction caused by the subjectobject relationship is absent. When all mental effort disappear what remains is a non-dual existence of the Self. Viewed as the cause of wakeful and dream the deep sleep continues to possess agrahaṇam of the Truth. Because the deep sleep is associated with the idea of the causal adjunct (kāraṇa upādhi), the experience of bliss is not felt there. The undifferentiated consciousness (Prajñāna-ghana) of deep sleep, wherein all diversities disappear, is the antecedent to or in other words the source of the wakeful and dream experiences. The state of deep sleep is regarded as the door (cetomukhaḥ) to the other two states. The state of deep sleep is said to be the gateway to cognition (cetomukhaḥ) meaning that cognitions arise from here. From a state of non-awareness of things and events in sleep, one either wakes up gradually and eventually to full consciousness of the external world, or passes to the experience of objects and events in a dream. On the one hand, one goes into deep sleep state from wakeful and dream, and, on the other, one lapses from sleep into either of these states. Hence, it is called the gateway of consciousness, alike to its entrance and to its exit.

In deep sleep the Prājña is free from desire, without any gross or subtle limitations. In this state one rests in pure self-awareness, full of bliss (ānanda) even though one may not register it. Sleep is the source and limit of the other two states. Viewed from the point of causality ignorance is the chief limitation of this state.

The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad further elaborates the nature of Prājña in mantra 6. The Upaniṣad identifies Prājña with Īśvara, the Lord of the Universe. Prājña is the Lord of all (sarveśvara), the knower of all (sarvajña), the inner controller (antaryāmin). This is the source of all (yoniḥ), the origin and end, indeed, of beings”.^[14]

Śaṅkara in his commentary on this Upaniṣadic mantra says, this Prājña is the lord of all, the ruler of the entire world of diversity including deities. There is indeed no Lord other than Prājña^[15]. In this connection we have the Śruti passage: ‘Mind, my friend, is tied to breath’ (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.2)^[16] i.e. Prājña being identical with Īśvara knows all things in their different conditions. Hence it is regarded as the knower of all (sarvajña). He is the inner-controller. He alone enters into all and controls them from within. From him alone is born the entire world of diversity-the world comprising earth, the middle region and heaven. He is the source (yoniḥ), the cause of all that is, the very place of its origin and its dissolution.

However, Thomas wood^[17] has challenged the traditional advaita view which links mantra 6 with mantra 5 identifying Prājña with Īśvara. According to Wood, mantra 6 should not be read with mantra 5, the mantra 6 and 7 ought to be read together as they refer to the Turīya. To support this interpretation Wood cites the first prakaraṇa of the Gauḍapādakārikā, which he treats as an independent work in its own right. According to him in the Gauḍapādakārikā 10, Turīya is described as an ordainer (Iśāna), the lord (prabhu), the non-dual (advaita) and all-pervading (vibhu) god (deva) of all beings. Again in Gauḍapādakārikā 12, the lack of awareness, which is the characteristic of the deep sleep state is sharply contrasted with Turīya, which is described as Omniscient.

Thus Wood suggests that,

“The only natural way of reading this is to link it with mantra 6, which says that Īśvara is Omniscient”.^[18]

Wood says, the Turīya is described in positive terms in mantra 6, and in the language of negation in mantra 7. He argues that mantra 5 is complete in itself, for it concludes with the words trtīya pādah (‘the third quarter’) just as mantra 3 and 4 conclude with prathamaḥ pādaḥ and dvitiya pādahΩ respectively.

Here, I would like to mention why Advaitins have read mantra 5 and 6 together and refers mantra 7 alone to the Turīya.

The mantra 5 of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, identifies ‘Prājña’ with sleeper. Mantra 6 identifies Prājña with the Lord Īśvara taking recourse to Śruti passages to show that the Prājña is none other than the highest Lord (Parameśvara) and concludes that the Prājña, as the highest Lord is being referred to in mantra 6 of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. Following are the Śruti passages quoted by Śaṅkara in support of above mentioned advaitic view: ‘In the space within heart it sleeps, the ordainer of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22)^[19], ‘He who is all knowing and all wise’ (Muṇḍ U 1.1.9)^[20], ‘this one is the inner-controller’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7.1)^[21],’this one is the source of all ‘(Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.6)^[22]. Wood is right in thinking that mantra 6 refers to Īśvara. But his interpretation that the Lord would be identified with the sleeper, is a misconception of that teaching which says the reverse wherein, the sleeper (Prājña) has become identified with the highest Lord (the Prājñātman).

According to Śaṅkara the attributes of lordship etc., are finally negated by the subsequent statement “not this, not this” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.22) which reveals the absolute Brahman free from all attributes (nirguṇa). In mantra 6 everything has been reduced to the Lord. Afterwards the mantra 7 negates the phenomenal world in its totality, the effects as well as their cause, thus it negates even the attributes of lordship from the Absolute. This will be further discussed in the Upaniṣadic mantra 7.

In the following pages I have undertaken the study of verses 1-9 from Gauḍapādakārikāwhich elaborate upon the nature of Viśva etc. along with the variety of “creation” doctrines as advanced by philosophers of his time. Of the nine kārikās elaborated here, the first five kārikās (1-5) explains the mantras 3-5 of the Upaniṣad. The other four kārikās (6-9) explain mantra 6 of the Upaniṣad enumerating the “creation” doctrines.

Now, I begin with the first five kārikās of Gauḍapāda for delineating the three states experienced by consciousness, namely the wakeful, dream and the deep sleep states. The central point is to bring out the philosophy of Gauḍapāda that is oneness of Consciousness despite three different states experienced by it. He uses the phrase eka eva tridhāsmṛtaḥ to bring out this fact. In kārikā 1 he makes the following point:

Viśva who is all pervading, experiences the external gross objects. Taijasa experiences the internal subtle objects. Prājña is a mass of consciousness. It is one (Consciousness) alone who is thus known in the three states (eka eva tridhāsmṛtaḥ).

Śaṅkara interprets the above kārikā by saying that the Self is distinct from the three states, that it witnesses and that it is one, pure, and unrelated, are proved by the fact of its existence in the three states in succession. The three states alternate and differ from one another. But the Self that underlies them is unchanging. The Self remains unaffected and unattached to them. The experiences of the three states radically differ from one another. Yet one who goes through them remains the same. The evidence of memory in the form, “I am that”, shows its oneness in all the three states. One knows, “It is the same ‘I’ that was asleep and dreamt is now awake”. Śaṅkara further provides the authority of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.3.18) saying that it is like “mahāmatsyādi dṛṣṭānta”, ‘illustration of the great fish’, etc. There are two such illustrations found in the text one to clarify wakeful/dream and the other for the deep sleep. As a great and powerful fish swims from one bank to another of a river, unimpeded by the currents of the river, so also ātman “moves”/witnesses the wakeful and dream states totally unaffected by them (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 4.3.18). As a hawk or a falcon flying in the sky gets tired, and stretching its wings is bound for its nest, so also ātman run for this state, where falling asleep he craves no desires and sees no dreams (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 4.3.19).^[23] These illustrations of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad explain how one and the same ātman which is present in all the three states of experience is really unrelated even though it appears to be enmeshed with the perceived objects of the wakeful etc., as a result of which one finds it difficult to differentiate it from the three states.

The Self/Consciousness is non-dual and pervasive in all the three states of experience and is conceived in three ways. It is Viśva in the wakeful state, Taijasa in the dream state, and Prājña in the deep sleep state. Just as one and the same person is called the president of India, a nuclear scientist and head of the family depending on his status in different contexts, even so one and the same Consciousness is called by three different names in three different situations. Though Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña are essentially Consciousness, what is true of Viśva is not true of Taijasa and Prājña. Similar is the case with regard to Taijasa and Prājña. They are essentially one. They differ because of the difference in the conditioning factors.

If the three states are natural to ātman, then they would not be separated from ātman and so also the three states would be constantly associated with ātman. But this is not so-when there is wakeful experience there is no dream experience and vice versa and in deep sleep there is no wakeful or dream experience. Thus these three states are not constantly associated with ātman, but are only different adjectives and therefore ātman remains the same throughout. Because the three states come and go with respect to the same Self/ ātman, ātman thus is established as separate from these three states. He who sleeps wakes up, there is no change in the identity of the person due to the continuity of the Self in all the three states. Hence, it is established that there is the same non-dual ātman in the three states.

Ātman is ever pure (śuddha) and is ever free from all matter and materiality. Ātman, being non-dual, is free from the notion of causal relation. Purity implies oneness whereas impurity comes with the domain of duality/ multiplicity. The idea of purity and impurity, pleasure and pain, and the like are the characteristics of the states and not of ātman, which is only the witness of the three states. The jīva falsely identifies himself with the states and considers himself to be impure, unhappy etc. The notions of dharma (righteousness), adharma (non-righteousness), rāga (attachment), dveśa (hatred), etc., are all impurities and are associated with the three states and not with ātman. Therefore, the ātman which is distinct from the three states is established as pure.

The Self/Consciousness is non-relational (asaṅga). When we say that the Self is unrelated it implies that there is nothing other than the Self. Relationship is possible when there are two things. When two things are related there is attachment; when not related there is detachment. Association / attachment (saṅga) is also an object of knowledge which is accepted as the quality of the three states.

In the case of the wakeful and dream states, the Self is not the agent of any action. It appears to be an agent when it illumines the modifications of the mind. Just as the Self is not bound by the objects which it is conscious of through the functioning of the mind in the wakeful state, it is also not bound by anything about which it is conscious of through the modifications of the mind in dream. The objects that appears during wakeful state disappears in the dream state; similarly, those appears in dream state disappears in wakeful state. Truth is that the Self is non-relational though it appears to be relational in these states. The Self per se, Yājñvalkya declares, is non-relational (‘asaṅgo hi ayam purusaḥ’ , Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 4.3.15-16). One is not able to know its non-relational nature because of the functioning of the mind, i.e., the internal organ, with which it falsely identifies in such a way that it is difficult to differentiate the one from the other.

In kārikā 2, Gauḍapāda identifies three locations in the body presumably for the purpose of meditation. The Self as Viśva has its location in the right eye, the Self as Taijasa is within the mind and the Self as Prājña in the space within the heart.

Gaudapāda describes the Viśva as “he who is in the right eye, which is his opening” (dakṣinākṣi-mukhe). To explain this, Śaṅkara first refers to Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.2.2: “This puru“a, this person that abides in the right eye has Indha, the effulgent, for its name” (indho ha vai’ nāmai’ ṣa yo’ yam dakṣiṇe kṣan puruṣaḥ)^[24]. Śaṅkara, in his commentary on this kārikā, identifies Indha with Vaiśvānaraātman. The distinctive quality of Vaiśvānaraātman is effulgence (dipti-guṇa). It is on the authority of the above passage of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Gauḍapāda locates Viśva in the right eye. Though pervasive of the entire body, a special place is assigned to Viśva to facilitate meditation. According to Śaṅkara, there is excellence of perception (upalabdhi-pāṭava) through the right eye, therefore he assigns Viśva its seat in the right eye. He says that: The Vairāj /Virāṭātman (the totality of gross bodies) who is the perceiver in the sun, and the seer/perceiver (draṣṭṛ) in the eye are one and the same (eka).The ātman that dwells in the sun, Virāj and seer that dwells in the right eye, are one.

An objection may be raised here on the ground that there is difference between Hiraṇyagarbha (cosmic self) and kṣetrajña (the indwelling knower of the body) who is the seer in the right eye, who is “the lord of the body” (dehasvāmin), as its controller, the witness. Śaṅkara while refuting this contention says that there is no difference between kṣetrajña, the knower of the body and Virāj, the cosmic self. Śaṅkara citing from SvetU 6.11 says, ‘one shining being hidden in all creatures’ (eko devaḥ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ)^[25]. He further cites two passages from the smṛti text: ‘Know me alone, O Bhārata, as the kṣetrajña, (the knower of the body) in all kṣetras (bodies)’ (kṣetrajñaṃ cā pi māmviddhi sarva-kṣetreṣu Bhārata) (Bhagavadgītā 13.2)^[26]; ‘Indivisible, he abides in all beings as if divided (avibhaktam ca bhūteṣu vibhaktam iva ca sthitam), (Bhagavadgītā 13.16)^[27].

Viśva, the perceiver in the wakeful state, is felt equally in all the cognitive organs without any special distinction. He is described as existing especially in the right eye as perception is considered at its best in the right eye. The right eye here represents all the sense-organs. The one, who has his abode in the right eye, and having seen external forms, he closes his eyes, remember the same forms within his mind, sees those very form as if he is in dream as the manifestation of the subtle impressions of memory. As he perceives external (gross) objects in the wakeful in the same way he perceives objects in dream. Thus there is no difference between the dream state and the state of imagination in the wakeful. In both the states, the perceiver cognizes the impressions of gross physical objects experienced in the preceding states. The only difference between the states of dream and imagination in the wakeful state is that dream represents a whole state whereas the reflection represents the part of a state. Therefore Taijasa, the perceiver in the mind within, is the same as Viśva, the perceiver in the wakeful state.

When memory becomes inoperative, the perceiver in the wakeful and dream states unified with the Prājña, abides in the ākāśa (space) of the heart. It remains a mass of consciousness (prajñānaghana) as the mind ceases to function here. Both perception and memory are due to the vibrations of the mind and in the absence of such movement of the mind the perceiver abides in the heart without any distinguishable feature as Prājña. Śaṅkara introduces the notion of prāṇa here and almost equates it with Prājña including the mind itself. Prājña withdraws all the sense organs including the mind within itself.

According to Śaṅkara, Taijasa, the individual (vyaṣṭi) is identical with Hiraṇyagarbha the cosmic mind, and both are experienced as one. Hiraṇyagarbha and Taijasa are termed as the cosmic mind and the individual mind respectively. The macrocosm and microcosm, both being mere forms of thought, are identical. Therefore the perceivers, Hiraṇyagarbha and Taijasa, are identical because they are forms of thought/mind. This view is also supported by the scriptural passages: ‘This puruṣa (Hiraṇyagarbha) is all mind’.^[28] Or ‘That to which the mind is attached, toward that moves, attached, the subtle body, along with deeds’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 4.4.6)^[29] and, ‘This person who consists of mind is of the nature of light’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 5.6.1).^[30]

Now, Śaṅkara responds to another objection regarding the manifestation of the prāṇa in the state of deep sleep. When a person is asleep, all his sense-organs get merged into prāna. The sleeping person indeed breathes. How do you then say that prāṇa is unmanifest (avyākṛta)? To this Śaṅkara responds that prāṇa of the person sleeping is not in equation with his/her individuality as “piṇḍa paricchinna viśeṣa abhimāna nirodhaḥ”^[31]. In other words, the prāna seems to manifest when one identifies with it, as in dream and wakeful, this limiting wrong identification ceases in deep sleep. In deep sleep, a person temporarily “becomes one” for there are no space and time distinction and erroneous notions about a divided and limited body (piṇḍa) ceases. The prāṇa is certainly unmanifest in deep sleep, because in it all faculties are merged while they cease to operate. Though the sleeper’s act of breathing may be noticed by the onlooker, but the sleeper however is not aware of the act of breathing.

Justifying the condition of prāṇa being unmanifest in deep sleep as comparable to death, Śaṅkara argues that as in the case of people identifying themselves with individualized vital breath (prāṇas)^[32], the prāṇa becomes unmanifest after death, similarly in the case of those who identify themselves with individualized being, the prāṇa attains to the condition of being unmanifest in deep sleep. Deep sleep and death are similar where the identification with the individuality ceases and in both situations the “seed” for later manifestation (praśava bījātmakaṃ) is present. As the prāṇa in deep sleep (adhyātmaātmā) contains a seed or cause of future creation, similarly ādhidaivaātmā contains the seed for creation of the universe.

In the same manner the identity of deep sleep with avyākṛta is further established from the identity of their common cogniser, the Self/Consciousness. In spite of various limitations (upādhis) in the three states, the cogniser of the three states is understood as one. In other words, the cogniser of the three states is not three but one and the same. This is further supported by the view that ādhidaivaātmā and adhyātmaātmā are one.

An objection is preempted by Śaṅkara as to how the word “prāṇa” can be interchangeably used for avyākṛta or the unmanifest? Here it is possible that the imagined opponent assumes the five breaths which help in physiological functions as prāṇa. This is however unacceptable to Śaṅkara.

Śaṅkara here gives the authority of the Chāndogya Upanisad (6.8.2) which says that ‘Mind, my dear is bound to breath’ (prāṇa bandhanaṃ hi somya manaḥ).^[33] This has been questioned as to how this equation of prāṇa with avyākṛta is possible when the Chāndogya Śruti (6.2.1) identifies prāṇa with sat the Existence, because Chapter 6 commences with the statement “all this was sat in the beginning, one only without a second” (sad eva saumya idam agraāsīd ekam evādvitīyam)^[34]. This has no negative consequence on the equation of prāṇa with avyākṛta because the said Upaniṣad allows the use of cause or bījātmakatā to the word sat. The above Upaniṣad has not used the word sat to mean the absolute Brahman free from causality. Had it been the case that the Upaniṣad is referring to the Absolute then the central teaching “Not this Not this” of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad will become redundant. The crucial point made by Śaṅkara here is that prāṇa is not identical with the nirbīja or the absolute Brahman free from causation.

Śaṅkara further adds an important point that if deep sleep is not equated with the unmanifest but with the Absolute then when one wakes up one may not rise to the relative plane or the phenomenal world. Reaching the Absolute one cannot revert back to the phenomenal world, implying that with death or deep sleep one will attain liberation. Therefore, there will be no seed for future manifestations and the end of the cycle of birth. In such case the knowledge of advaita, which is highly praised in the Upaniṣads will be redundant. If one tends to believe that one can come back to the relative plane, it then becomes inevitable that the liberated person will also revert back to the cycle of birth and death.

Śaṅkara then posits two levels of understanding Brahman: sat as sabīja Brahman and sat as nirbīja Brahman. Sat Brahman contains the potency (bīja) for creation (māyāsṛṣṭi) and this is comparable to deep sleep state which has the innate potential (bīja) for the entire wakeful and dream states. He says prāṇa here (kārikā 2) indicates Sat Brahman and is the source of the creation of individualized selves (jīvas). So prāṇa is Sat Brahman and avyākṛta, which is the seed for all manifestations. As mentioned earlier if the prāṇa had no potential, there would be no arising from deep sleep or no further creation of the world after destruction (pralaya). Knowledge destroys ignorance, and liberates the person. If deep-sleep or state of resolution (pralaya) were contained no potential for creation (nirbīja), then knowledge will become redundant. However, knowledge is considered to be essential for removing the ignorance. Thus prāṇa refers to sat (sabīja) Brahman, the seed of all created beings. At the time of pralaya (dissolution) when the created beings become unified with sat or existence they do not become the Absolute Brahman. They remain only in a seed or potential condition and therefore they reappear at the time of creation. Further, knowledge alone burns the seed (bīja) in the form of ignorance (ajñāna) and if such seed at the time of suṣupti and pralaya is not there, then knowledge itself becomes futile, i.e. without any utility. Therefore in the Śruti passage sadevasaumya (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1), the word ‘sat’ meaning the seed of creation is described as prāṇa and Śaṅkara offers many more passages to establish the above mentioned point. For this very reason absolute Brahman is described as ‘the higher than the highest imperishable’ (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 2.1.2)^[35]; ‘He is present within and without, unborn and breathless’ causeless and is the substratum of the external (effect) and the internal (cause), (Mun◊ ḍ U 2.1.2)^[36], where from ‘speech returns….’ (Tait U 2.9)^[37]; of neti,neti ‘not this, not this’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 4.4.22)^[38].

The experiences of the wakeful, dream and deep sleep appear three fold. The waker or the Viśva experiences the gross world in the wakeful state, the objects are seen through the five external senses. The dreamer/ Taijasa in sleep experiences the dream world and the objects therein look subtle when he wakes up. The external sense organs are non functional while the mind is operative. The Prājña or the Self in deep sleep experiences bliss/peace. In this state neither the senses nor the mind is operative. Further the waker/ Viśva is satisfied (tarpayate) with gross objects, the dreamer is content with the subtle and Prājña with the blissful presence. Thus it appears that there are three kinds of experiences and three kinds of contentment.

The kārikā 5 clarifies any doubt regarding the status of the cognizer. The text declares,

“The one who knows both the objects of experience (bhojyam [bhojya]) and the experiencer (bhoktā) of the three states is not affected by them”.

The objects experienced in three states are indeed in the form of thoughts. All cognitions may be reduced to one process of the mind called ‘thought’. Even deep sleep is objectified when analyzed from the wakeful point of view. Thus the wakeful objects, dream objects and the objectified deep sleep bliss can be reduced to thought. But the Self that perceives both the experiencer and the object of experience remains one and unaffected by the multiplicity. Gauḍapāda uses the phrase “na lipyate”^[39] which conveys that the Self remains untouched by whatever it cognizes or illumines. This is like the sunlight that illuminates the objects but itself is not affected by the objects. This idea is central to Gauḍapāda’s doctrine of Asparśa Yoga which is deliberated in detail in later prakaraṇas. Śaṅkara in his commentary on kārikā 5 clarifies that there are no three selves for there is no division or any specificity in the seer. The single cognition “I am that” persists throughout in all the states (soham iti ekatvena pratisandhānād draṣṭṛtvāt aviśeṣāt..).^[40] There is no gradation in Consciousness. According to Śaṅkara this is like the disposition of fire to be hot irrespective of the logs of firewood added to it. Just as the inherent capacity of heat neither increases nor decreases, the seer’s capacity to “see”/experience also remains constant in all the three states.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Karmarkar thinks that Oṃ āranirnayaprakaraṇa is more suitable, Karmarkar, Gauḍapāda Kārikā, (Poona: Bhandarkar oriental Research Institute, 1953), xxviii.

[2]:

Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya has argued that the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad is later than the Āgama Prakaraṇa, Bhattacharya, The Āgama śāstra of Gauḍapāda, (University of Calcutta, 1943), xi.

[3]:

Satchidanandendra Saraswati, Māṇḍūkya Rahasya Vivṛiti, (Holenarasipur: Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, 2011), 26.

[4]:

Hajime Nakaramura, A History Of Early Vedānta Philosophy (part two), (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2004), 290.

[5]:

Ibid., 305 fn.

[6]:

Aum-ityetad-akṣaram-idaṃsarvaṃ, tasyopa-vyākhyānaṃbhūtaṃbhavad-bhavi“yad iti sarvamaumkāra eva, yac-cānyat-trikālātītaṃtad-apy-aumkāra evam (MāṇḍūkyaUpaniṣad 1).

[7]:

Sarvaṃhyetad Brahma, ayam-ātmāBrahma, so’yam-ātmācatu “pāt (MāṇḍūkyaUpaniṣad 2).

[8]:

According to Śaṅkara, these four pādas are not like the four feet of a cow but they are like four fractions of a coin called Kārṣāpaṇa. The idea is that each quarter resolves into the one next to it, and when the three resolve into the fourth, that fourth is the whole coin. The word pāda should be interpreted in two ways. For the first three Viśva, Taijasa and Prājña, the word pāda is to be derived as padyate anena and used in the sense of karaṇa-instrument. Through them the fourth is realized; hence they are called pādas. In the case of Turīya, the pāda is used in the sense of ‘goal’/‘object’. The Turīya is what is realised or reached (padyate).

[9]:

Nikhilananda Swami, The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikāand Śaṅkara’s Commentary trans. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 2000), 14.

[10]:

Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad with Gauḍapādiya-kārikā and Śaṅkara Bhāṣya with Hindi translation, (Gorakhpur: Gita Press, samvat 1993), 31.

[11]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, Vol. II, (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995), 179.

[12]:

Ibid.

[13]:

Yatra supto na kañcana kāmaṃkāmayate na kañcana svapanaṃpaśyati tat su “uptam. Su “uptasthāna ekībhūtah ˚ prajñānaghana evānandamayo hyānandabhuk ceto-mukhaḥ prājñaḥ tr˚ tīyaḥ pādaḥ, MāṇḍūkyaUpaniṣad 5

[14]:

e “a sarveśvara e “a sarvajña e “o-’ntaryāmy e “a yonih ˚ sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānām, MāṇḍūkyaUpaniṣad. 6

[15]:

Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad, Gita Press, 37.

[16]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 184.

[17]:

Thomas E. WOOD, The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad and theāgama śāstra: an investigation into the meaning of the Vedānta, (Delhi: MLBD, 1992).

[18]:

Thomas E. Wood, The Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad and theāgama śāstra: an investigation into the meaning of the Vedānta, (Delhi: MLBD 1992), 11-12.

[19]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, Vol. 5, part-2, 1060.

[20]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, Vol. 2, 25.

[21]:

Ibid., 17.

[22]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, Vol. 5, part-2, 686.

[23]:

Gambhirananda Swami, trans. Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad with the Kārikāof Gauḍapāda and the Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 2000), 19 fn.

[24]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 188.

[25]:

Ibid.

[26]:

Ibid.

[27]:

Ibid.

[28]:

The function of the mind having ceased, and cognition and memory, the acts of the mind, being at rest, prāṇa is indistinguishably concentrated in the heart, for the Śruti (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.3.3) says: “prāṇa alone draws all (within)”.As Vaiśvānara and Virāj are one, so Taijas is the same as Hiraṇyagarbha for it is the seer in the cosmic mind. The mind is the link between mind at both macro and micro level is the link between Taijasa and Hiraṇyagarbha; and this is borne out by the Śruti: “this puruṣa is manomaya (all mind)”.

[29]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 189.

[30]:

Ibid.

[31]:

Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad, Gita Press, 41.

[32]:

Thinking of “this is my prāṇa” and “that is his prāṇa” and so on.

[33]:

Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad, Gita Press, 42.

[34]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, Vol. 4, 474.

[35]:

Som Raj Gupta, The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man, 193.

[36]:

Ibid.

[37]:

Ibid.

[38]:

Ibid.

[39]:

Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad, Gita Press, 45.

[40]:

Ibid.