|
|
| AYURVEDA |
Dreamless Sleep
We commonly believe that deep sleep is a state of absolute consciousness. What can we know of it? In answering this question, we must bear in mind that waking, dream and deep sleep are states that we intuit and that cannot create any conceivable break in life. They are known as immediacies and are not observed externally. Hence our knowledge of them is more intimate an perfect, less liable to error or misunderstanding than that of objects. I see a chair, and my notion of it agrees with that of several other minds, and practical life is pivoted on such agreement. But as to what a chair is in itself apart from my perception, generates a problem which has endlessly exercised the intellect of scientists and philosophers. Our knowledge of objects must be infinitely progressive, because of the disability with which we start, because we cannot know them as we know or realize our own feelings and sensations. The very structure of the intellect precludes the contrary. But this habit has so grown upon us that we forget the limitations of our power to know, and instinctively believe that knowledge alone is true which we acquire by observation and experiment. We call it scientific, as not allowing of the scientific method of approach. Now there must be something fundamentally wrong in this attitude, since the states are the sine qua non of life, the elements of which it is made up. The world which is the theatre of our activities enjoyments, and ambitions, with its comic and tragic sides is unfolded to us in only one of them. In the other there is a mimicry of it and in the third it is conspicuous by its absence Experimental Psychology, which presumes that The nature and the capacity of mind can be accurately known and measured by “behaviour” cannot go to the root of the matter. It takes it stand on the outside and forms its views from what is observes. This is opposed to the very nature of mind, viz., to conceive I as an alien when all the while we have the privilege of knowing it immediately by reference to our own feelings and sensations. The scientific description of sleep from our observation of the condition of the sleeper’s body is in the words of the Upanishads, to beat the ant-hill and imagine the snake inside to be killed. With whatever care we pursue our method of external observation, we shall never realize the nature of sleep or dream. As to waking, we are still more helpless. We cannot observe before we wake; and as all our acts are circumscribed by waking and involve it, we can never arrive at an objective notion of its nature. For it is as much an intuition as the other two. The only reliable source of knowledge about them is our intuition and a study of the latter gives us a more, not less scientific view of them than we have of eternal objects.
We have found that the entity that connects waking and dream is not the ego of either state, but the Witness or the Spirit which is free from individuality. We have now to ascertain the principle which pieces together all the three. We have first to tackle deep sleep. This is produced in three or four ways. First, in the natural manner; secondly, by means of drugs like chloroform; thirdly, by the practice of mental concentration known as yoga; or fourthly through devout meditation. The nature of the experience, however, does not vary, for in each instance the mind that alone can detect difference ceases to operate. As the sleep which comes to us naturally every day is the only from familiar to us universally, and as even the yogins cannot help sleeping, a close study of sleep is rendered possible to all, and obviates the necessity of that of the other forms. Though fancied to be a mere blank, a state of unconsciousness, we shall presently realize that it is the home of reality, the temple of God, and the true nebula giving birth to both mind and matter. It is the treasure-house of all truths; and in spite of our prepossessions we shall know it as the rock-basis of life.
To begin with, we have to dispose of the common notion that sleep is unconsciousness. This evidently is a serious misapprehension. For conscious beings as we are, though we may have a notion of unconsciousness, the notion when examined will be found to have no contact. A notion is formed in consciousness and the latter cannot conceive its own absence while it is there to testify to itself. Unconsciousness cannot be a link in the chain of life; and we could never speak of ** and constitute an integral element of conscious ** a person complaining of ** inability to form the idea. As Wilbon Carr observes: “When we say that a man is unconscious in his sleep, we do not mean by unconsciousness a complete absence of consciousness, as when we say that a stone is unconscious. We mean that the consciousness which is present is blocked or hindered from being effective. Rouse a man from his sleep…….and consciousness returns.” Besides the statement, “I was unconscious during sleep,” contradicts itself. For how can you say that you were unconscious unless you were conscious of your unconsciousness? If one retorts, “I know now that I was unconscious,” his position is not improved. How can you now refer to or describe a past occurrence unless it was part of your experience? And an experience of a conscious being presupposes consciousness at the time of experience as well as at the time of recollection. Further, the memory of sleep points to it as a period of felicity or bliss essential to life. It is thus futile to argue that sleep is a period of absolute unconsciousness. We can never be aware of such a state. We cannot own it or describe it as thus and thus. “I was aware of nothing, neither of myself nor of the world.” This is how a man roused from deep sleep describes it and there on hands the whole possibility of metaphysics as a positive science. If a man says he was aware of nothing. He must have been aware of this awareness. Do what we may cannot rid ourselves of awareness in some from or other. “I was not aware of myself or of the world”. This disposes of the ego and non-ego in sleep and discloses their eternal concomitance. I was not aware of the non-ego, because I was not aware of the ego, Just as the presence of the one necessarly demands and depends on the presence of the other. In waking we perceive the world because there is the ego to perceive it In sleep we are aware of neither, because neither is present. To suppose an outside world flourishing all the same by the side of the sleeper is not to the point. It is illogical. The persisting is obviously the waking world connected with the individual sleeper, which is congnized by the waking ** into Pure Spirit and no world can attach itself or spirit. For the world is seen to be concomiant with the individual ego, and it s the mind, the senses and the body that individuate Spirit. When, however, these shackles of determination are flung off as in sleep, still to hold that the world exists in relation to Spirit, is neither rational nor consonant to experience. The world comes and goes with the waking state; and as I can change my states, so I can, when I move into the next state, switch off the world, which is my cumber in waking, along with the ego, its counterpart. The recognition of this truth requires some clear thinking, as the mind and the present ego act as clogs impeding the higher view revealed by intuition.
TRANSCENDENTAL OR PURE CONSCIOUSNESS
What then is the awareness characterizing deep sleep? It is not one craving an object and an ego. It is not of the subject-object variety that we are familiar with in waking and dream. It is what Vedanta calls the Transcendental or Pure Consciousness. We shall call the other the empirical consciousness and the life predominated by it the empirical life. We shall now more closely examine sleep as Pure Consciousness. In the first place, it is a state of absolute unity. In the absence of time and space there is no room for change or plurality. Ramanuja indeed believes in the persistence of the ego, and some other thinkers in that of the non-ego also, then in a latent condition. But evidently they are wrong. For we have seem how the entity which links up waking and dram as the Witness, is already rendered possible only by the persistence of the Witness in sleep also, that is to say, of the Witness divested of the psychic set (mind and senses) and the physical body, which are the individualizing elements. Time ceases to operate outside of the states and is absent from sleep. Hence the ideas of latency or patency which are confined to the sphere of a time-order are inapplicable to the contents of sleep. We carry over to sleep our waking bias when we conceive multiplicity in a potential condition it, and we forget that it is an independent state to be judged and understood by itself and not to be translated into the terms of the others whereby we should forfeit the advantage of a new experience. There is neither a potential world in sleep nor an actual world beside the sleeper, the Scylla and Charybdia to be avoided in Vedantic sailing.
In the next place, it is not a state, in which Pure Consciousness abides, but is itself Pure Consciousness. The popular view that it is a state is due to a misapprehension of its true nature which a careful analysis can alone reveal. For it is timeless and changeless and to call it a state under the circumstances is a misnomer. The Witness has transformed itself into Pure Consciousness, for without it we could have no knowledge of sleep. But its report of the non-existence then of the ego and the non-ego shows that it has assumed the role of Pure Consciousness. It is hence clear that the Witness of the ego and the non-ego in the other states is also the witness of their absence, and that the Witness and Pure Consciousness are identical. A mirror reflects objects presented to it, but in the absence of objects it ceases to be a reflector, though the power to reflect is ever inherent in it.
In the third place, the states are independent expressions of Reality, so many wholes in which Reality manifests itself: for being free from time and space, it is indivisible. For the same reason, not only waking and dream are such a whole but every one of their constituents in such. The plurality perceived within a state stands as an obstacle to our recognition of the indivisibility of Reality. “Standing undivided amidst beings, yet appearing as divided” (Gita XIII. 17). But in sleep we have Pure Consciousness, Presented as the whole which is the master-key with which we have to unlock the doors of the other states. The metaphysical nature of the latter is thus revealed as Pure Consciousness which determines the value and the nature of the rest. We thus arrive at the equation:
Waking=Dream=Pure Consciousness.
The Goal of Vedanta
“This end or goal or Vedanta is thus described: It is that which being known, everything becomes known, and which being attained, nothing else remains to be attained. The urge or impulse to attain to this goal manifests itself in the earliest stages as efforts to satisfy one’s cravings or wants and to overcome fears, all of a physical character. In the higher stages it seeks to satisfy all intellectual as well as spiritual wants and overcome fears of all kinds. To attain the former, men make use of religion and science, and to attain the latter they pursue philosophy, especially Vedanta. Vedanta, therefore, does not desire religion or science but seeks their co-ordination. All disciplines from religion upwards tend to `purify’, `sharpen’ or make `one pointed’ the buddhi or reason- not the intellect as so many writers on Vedanta say. But it should not be understood that one can straightway start the study of philosophy before this capacity to `depersonalize’ (effacement of the ego) is attained.
The true test of the worth of Vedanta lies in its bearing on life now and here, not in any speculative hypothesis or any intellectually constructed system. The only question is: Does Vedanta explain the whole of life, and at the same time help the realization of universal good, in actual life? These are not two separate questions but are the obverse and the reverse, so to say, of the same question. Generally men view the highest good as one’s own supreme bliss in this or in some future life, taking the individual standpoint, and rest satisfied with it. This is religion or mysticism.
Though, as religion, Vedanta starts with the welfare of the individual, yet it does not stop till the whole of mankind, may the whole of the world of life, is embraced in its conception of the highest good. Man is not happy unless he has the satisfaction of possessing as much as possible of what is outside of him. At first he seeks wealth and all the means of happiness which are outside of him. He wants wife, friends and neighbours, or society; and he feels that their joy or sorrow is his joy or sorrow. In a word, he feels that their well-being constitutes his well-being. He next learns that the good of the other creatures and man’s good are interdependent. Vedanta goes a step further and says that the good of even the plant world involves the goon of man. In fact, Vedanta points out that what constitutes the body of man also constitutes in different combinations the material world. What constitutes the human body a minute ago is now part of the body of entities outside and vice versa. His body is food for others, as other objects are food for him. In fact, this exchange is so continuous that it is impossible to say whether there is anything that can be called one’s own at any time. It is a vain belief or delusion to think that there permanently exists anything separate as one’s own body. Similarly, the individual mind is made up of the thoughts or ideas of his parents, neighbours and ancestors, may, of the world known to him. Nowhere in the mental world of the individual can a line be drawn to indicate what is exclusively his own. His passions and feelings and cravings came to him with his body from his parents, i.e., inherited from his ancestors. Next, as regards what is called the self: Everyone refers to his self as “I”. What is the characteristic of this “I”? What is its general mark? It must be the common factor or feature of all the “It’s with all their differences. Eliminating the latter, which change with every man and every moment, the common feature “I” is the only permanent factor known. In a word individuality cannot be defined as a permanent feature. Whatever exists permanently is the universal only. “The One remains, the many change,” Individuality is a notion which, when enquired into lands us in the universal, the all. The firm conviction that the one is the all, attained by constant and dee enquiry into the meaning of life in all its aspects, is the goal of Vedanta. This attainment is impossible unless one constantly looks into one’s own life and actually sees in it the all.
(2) VISISHTAADVAITA
In expounding the nature of the Reality according to Visishtadvaita, Ramanuja harmonizes the claims of revelation, intuition, personal experience and reason. He accepts the authority as valid of Pratyaksha (Perception), Anumana (inference) and Sabda (revelation). Not only the Vedas but even the Pancharatras and the utterances of the Aalwars (Saints) are equally authoritative to him.
The real proof of the being of God is the being in God. Brahman is absolutely true, good and blissful.
The true insight of this philosophy is afforded by the upanishadic texts – “Brahma Vidapnoti Param – the knower of the Brahman attains the highest (Taittiriya Upanishad 2. 1.). The Upanishads declare Brahman to be Real – satya, self-conscious-Jnana, infinite – Anantha, Sinless – Apahatapapman and blissful – Aananda. This conception of Brahman as Real etc., brings out the truth of Visishthadvaita that Brahman is and has Reality. Though Brahman is the ground of all changes, it in itself does not changes while Achit (prakriti) undergoes modifications; and while the intelligence of the souls (Jivatmas) is subject to contractions and expansions on account of their Karma, Brahman is entirely free from all these alterations and alternations. Hence Brahman is defined as “The Real for reals”, “Satyasya Satyam” – Brahman is not only Real, it is also intelligent (Jnana). It is the Self underlying all; the ultimate subject of experience. While it abides within the sentient (Ajada) and Non-sensient (Jada), it is not touched or tainted by their imperfections.
The universe of the living and non-living is an eternal cyclic process with Pralaya – dissolution and srishti-creation, alternating each other. God reveals, Himself in creations. God not only is the ground (Aadhara) of the universe; He is also the controller (Niyanta) and Purushottama – possessing an infinity of moral perfections.
The mimamsikas insist on the meticulous performance of the rights prescribed in the Vedas. The Vedanta on the other hand regards the knowledge of Brahman as more important than the performance of Karma. The good resulting from karma, according to the Vedas, is attainment of heavenly pleasures, which according to the Vedanta, is evauiscent and has no intrinsic value. The supreme good of Brahman cannot be bartered away.
Isvara is righteous and absolutely good. There is no ** a price and cruelty in his Divine nature. While **seeing immanent in the universe God also ** it. The Lord is the righteous ruler of the ** dispensing justice according to the deserves of each Jiva i.e., his Karma The finite self or (Jivatma) has the freedom either to grow into the goodness of God or lapse into wickedness and vice according to his Karma which is in his own hand. Justice consists in the equitable apportionment of the nature of the Karma of each Jiva. What a man sows he reaps; and not even the Gods can alter the course of moral law.
Avidya (nescience) and Karma form an endless cycle and their effect cannot be removed by death and retribution. Mukti or liberation would be impossible if Divine Justice functions through the mathematical law of Karma. But Kripa or the Grace of God transfigures the rigorous law of Karma and becomes the ruling principle of religion. The hope of salvation lies in the saving grace of God, the Rakshaka – Saviour. Karma then becomes an attitude of self-surrender. Overpowered by mercy and tenderness, God realizes his Godliness by saving the sinner. When the universe is steeped in insecurity and sin, the Lord in his infinite mercy appears in the form of divine incarnation (Avatara). The Lord of Splendour takes the delight in sporting with finite self (Jiva) with a view to transmitting it into its own nature. The world is really beautiful, but it is mistaken to be ugly by the Jivatma owing to its feeling that it is essential with the body. The relation of Sarira and Saririn, the body and the soul formulated by Visishtadvaita brings out the synthetic combination of the ultimate values. The Jivatma (Saririn) is distinct from the body. It makes the body live, it controls and co-ordinates its functions and uses the body as an instrument for its own satisfaction. Similarly Brahman or Paramatma is the Saririn or Soul of the Universe because, Brahman is the source and sustenance of all beings in the world. The functioning of the world is an expression for Its satisfaction or Leela. There is a triple relation between the soul and the body, namely,
(1) Aadhara and Aadheya (support and the things supported).
(2) Niyanta and Niyama (the controller and the controlled).
(3) Seshin and Sesha (the Lord and the servant).
That God (Paramatma) is the life of all life (Antaryami) is the central idea of Visishtadvaita. In its practical aspect, it insists on the idea of God as redemptive love and lays down the path of Bhakti (Devotion) and Prapatthi (self-surrender) as a means to the attainment of eternal bliss. He who desires release (Mumukshu) specalises in spiritual quest by Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga.
|
|
|
Previous
Next
|
|
|