The purpose of this thread is to continue the discussion of several topics that came up in another thread. I’ll start with the description of the ‘four quarters’ of the self contained in the Mandukya Upanishad.
- All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters.
- (The Self) seated in the waking state and called Vaisvanara who, possessed of the consciousness of the exterior, and seven limbs and nineteen mouths, enjoys the gross objects, is the first quarter.
- (The Self) seated in the state of dream and called Taijasa who, possessed of the consciousness of the interior, and seven limbs and nineteen mouths, enjoys the subtle objects, is the second quarter.
- Where the sleeper desires not a thing of enjoyment and sees not any dream, that state is deep sleep. (The Self) seated in the state of deep sleep and called Prajna, in whom everything is unified, who is dense with consciousness, who is full of bliss, who is certainly the enjoyer of bliss, and who is the door to the knowledge (of the preceding two states), is the third quarter.
- This is the Lord of all; this is omniscient; this is the in-dwelling controller (of all); this is the source and indeed the origin and dissolution of all beings.
- The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
[B]Observation versus scriptural origin.[/B]
The claim has been made that the Mandukya schema is based on observation, and is consistent with modern science. Observation can extend only to the first three ‘quarters’, waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. By its very nature, the fourth quarter is unobservable. However the upanishad does provide a rationale for the fourth quarter, which is given to be the self-evident, unchanging nature of the identity which we call our self. So we have to concede that there is a rational basis for this system.
[B]Subjective and objective states. [/B]
Our friend Surya Deva has stated that the Mandukya Upanishad divides reality into subjective and objective states, and that we exist simultaneously in both subjective and objective states. A careful reading reveals that the four ‘quarters’ or states pertain only to the self, and therefore can be classified as subjective. The upanishad says that in the waking state, the self enjoys the gross objects. It is difficult to see how this can be construed as an objective state. The upanishad defines the waking state as having the consciousness of the exterior. It says nothing about the exterior being a particular state of some objective reality, or about it being a state that pertains to the self. On the contrary it seems to imply that the exterior exists independently of the self, whether or not the self is conscious of it. This analysis continues into the dreaming state, which is defined as consciousness of the interior. There is no suggestion that the interior of which the self is conscious is any kind of state, either of an objective reality or of the self. So we have to conclude that the assertion of some kind of objective state is false.
The analysis breaks down when we get to the state of deep sleep. Here the upanishad states that everything is unified. The self is said to be both full of bliss and the enjoyer of bliss. But there are no objects of bliss to be enjoyed. There is no longer the distinction between the enjoyer and the objects of enjoyment. The subjective and objective divide breaks down even further when we get to the fourth state. Here, there is no longer either enjoyer or object of enjoyment. There is only identity, which is specifically stated to be non-dual.
The assertion of subjective and objective states has to be considered inconsistent with the Mandukya Upanishad. The assertion that we exist simultaneously in both subjective and objective states would have to be regarded as pure fantasy.
[B]Conscious, subconscious, unconscious and the subtle bodies. [/B]
On the surface there appears to be a rough correspondence between the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious and the states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. However, subconscious and unconscious are considered to be properties of the mind, not of a self that is distinct from the mind. There is no modern concept of a subconscious body or an unconscious body that would correspond to the hindu concepts of subtle body and causal body. Similarly there is no modern concept of subtle objects that are perceived in the dream state.
The argument has been made that near-death and out-of-body experiences provide strong evidence for the existence of subtle bodies. However, assuming that were true, it still would not provide any evidence that the entity that leaves the body is the same as the subtle body that exists in the dream state or the so-called causal body that purportedly exists in the state of deep sleep. The assertion of the causal body is problematic even within the hindu system, because as noted previously, in the state of deep sleep the distinction between subject and object has been blurred.
So is the Mandukya Upanishad consistent with modern science? Not exactly.
[B]Mystical experience and turiya.
[/B]
Surya Deva has also argued that reports of mystical experiences are consistent with the hindu concept of turiya. A careful look at the description of turiya reveals this to be an impossibility. The term mystical experience implies that the individual was conscious of and has a memory of some extraordinary event that occured. But the definition of turiya states that there is no consciousness, and that all phenomena has ceased. So to equate mystical experience with turiya is spurious.