In yesterday’s answers, Sri Bhagavan said that the Self is pure consciousness in deep slumber, and He also indicated the Self of the transition from sleep to the waking state as the ideal for realisation. He was requested to explain the same.
Sri Bhagavan graciously answered: The Self is pure consciousness in sleep; it evolves as (“I”) without the (“this”) in the transition stage; and manifests as aham (“I”) and idam (“this”) in the waking state. The individual’s experience is by means of aham (“I”) only. So he must aim at realisation in the way indicated (i.e. by means of the transitional “I”). Otherwise the sleep-experience does not matter to him. If the transitional “I” be realised the substratum is found and that leads to the goal.
Again, sleep is said to be (ignorance). That is only in relation to the wrong (knowledge) prevalent in the wakeful state. The waking state is really ajnāna (ignorance) and the sleep state is (full knowledge). Prajnāna is Brahma, says the . Brahma is eternal. The sleep-experiencer is called prajna. He is prajnānam in all the three states. Its particular significance in the sleep state is that He is full of knowledge (prajnānaghana). What is ghana? There are jnāna and . Both together operate in all perceptions. Vijnāna in the is viparita jnāna (wrong knowledge) i.e. ajnāna (ignorance). It always co-exists with the individual. When this becomes vispashta jnāna (clear knowledge), It is Brahma. When wrong knowledge is totally absent, as in sleep, He remains pure prajnāna only. That is Prajnānaghana. “Aitreya Upanishad” says prajnāna, vijnāna, ajnāna, samjnāna are all names of Brahma. Being made up of knowledge alone how is He to be experienced? Experience is always with vijnāna. Therefore the pure “I” of the transitional stage must be held for the experience of the Prajnānaghana. The “I” of the waking state is impure and is not useful for such experience. Hence the use of the transitional “I” or the pure “I”. How is this pure “I” to be realised? “Viveka Chudamani” says, “Vijnāna kose vilasatyajasram.” He is always shining forth in the intellectual sheath (vijnāna kosa). “Tripura Rahasya” and other works point out that the interval between two consecutive (ideas or thoughts) represent the pure () ‘I’. Therefore holding on to the pure ‘I’, one should have the Prajnānaghana for aim, and there is the present in the attempt. All these have their proper and respective places and at the same time lead to realisation.
Again the pure Self has been described in “Viveka Chudamani” to be beyond asat, i.e. different from asat. Here asat is the contaminated waking ‘I’. Asadvilakshana means , i.e. the Self of sleep. He is also described as different from sat and asat. Both mean the same. He is also Asesha sākshi (all-seeing witness).
If pure, how is He to be experienced by means of the impure ‘I’? A man says “I slept happily”. Happiness was his experience. If not, how could he speak of what he had not experienced? How did he experience happiness in sleep, if the Self was pure? Who is it that speaks of that experience now? The speaker is the vijnānātma (ignorant self) and he speaks of prajnānātma (pure self). How can that hold? Was this vijnānātma present in sleep? His present statement of the experience of happiness in sleep makes one infer his existence in sleep. How then did he remain? Surely not as in the waking state. He was there very subtle. Exceedingly subtle vijnānātma experiences the happy prajnānātma by means of mode. It is like the rays of the moon seen below the branches, twigs and leaves of a tree.
The subtle vijnānātma seems apparently a stranger to the obvious vijnānātma of the present moment. Why should we infer his existence in sleep? Should we not deny the experience of happiness and be done with this inference? No. The fact of the experience of happiness cannot be denied, for everyone courts sleep and prepares a nice bed for the enjoyment of sound sleep.
This brings us to the conclusion that the cogniser, cognition and the cognised are present in all the three states, though there are differences in their subtleties. In the transitional state, the () “I” is (suddha) pure, because () “this” is suppressed. Aham (“I”) predominates.
Why is not that pure “I” realised now or even remembered by us? Because of want of acquaintance (parichaya) with it. It can be recognised only if it is consciously attained. Therefore make the effort and gain it consciously.