Hi,
I got a very simple question :
what is exactly the difference between j?grat-svapna-susupti-tur?ya and vishva-taijasa-pr?jna-tur?ya ?
Does the one denote individual consciousness and the others universal consciousness, or am I totally wrong ?
Good question.
Have you ever had a dream and found that your dream body was very different to your waking body? If you have, then you will understand why Vedanta has corresponded each of the states of consciousness to a distinct body. The body with which you experience dream, is not the waking body. It is your subtle/light body, hence why it is Taijasa. In deep sleep, you experience the body of pure consciousness, hence why it is Prajnana. This is why they say that in deep sleep we in communion with the self.
Turya is not really a state of consciousness. It is an experience of the transcendental, which mystics describe as beyond language, time, space. While we experience all three states of consciousness on a daily basis, turya we do not experience on a daily basis, it is a very rare experience where we can glimpse the absolute. It takes place only when the mind has become completely still.
Why is it necessary to superimpose the notion of a body on these terms? This looks like interpretation that really isn’t warranted.
What I see here are two sets of terms, both ending with ‘turiya’ , usually translated as ‘the fourth’. May I ask what are your sources?
Thank you for your answers.
@ Surya Deva :
In fact, I was asking for the difference between j?grat and vishva, svapna and taijasa, etc., not for between j?grat and svapna, svapna and susupti, etc.
@ Asuri :
I was not making a difference between these two sets of terms, but then I read the Paramahamsa-parivr?jaka-upanisad (one of the S?nnyasa Upanisad) and I saw them differently used. The pranava is there described as consisting of 16 quarters, each one consisting of a particular state of consciouness, as follows :
j?grat-vishva - j?grat-taijasa - j?grat-pr?jna - j?grat-tur?ya - svapna-vishva - svapna-taijasa - svapna-pr?jna, etc.
So it seems that there is a difference between j?grat and vishva, svapna and taijasa, etc. The translation I read being not clear on this point, I just wanted to know what exactly is the difference between those terms
Why is it necessary to superimpose the notion of a body on these terms? This looks like interpretation that really isn’t warranted.
What I see here are two sets of terms, both ending with ‘turiya’ , usually translated as ‘the fourth’. May I ask what are your sources?
This is from Vedanta philosophy, the word body just refers to ones subjective vehicle via which they experience the objective world. In the waking world we experience the world through the physical body. In this case the subjective component is the physical body and the objective component is the waking world. In the dream world we experience the world through the subtle body(subjective = subtle body’; objective = dream world). In the dreamless sleep world we experience the world through the causal body, the unconscious(corresponds to the bliss-body in the kosha theory)
The reason they are called bodies is because they are very different to each other and exist on different dimensions. For instance, the subtle body can separate out from the physical body and travel about. It can assume any form. So you could have a physical body of a man, but a subtle body of a female. Hence why in some dreams we have a different body.
The first description of these bodies is found in the Mandukya Upanishad. A good starting point would be to read several translations and commentaries on that. `
[QUOTE=boukli;68903]Thank you for your answers.
@ Surya Deva :
In fact, I was asking for the difference between j?grat and vishva, svapna and taijasa, etc., not for between j?grat and svapna, svapna and susupti, etc.[/quote]
I answered the question of the difference between jagrat and vishva and and svapna and taijasa. Apologies if it was not clear. I will summarize it in a nut shell one refers to the subjective aspect about reality and the other refers to the objective aspect. So Jagrat is the subjective and Vishva is the objective.
You were not far of with your guess that one refers to individual consciousness and the other refers to universal consciousness.
The first description of these bodies is found in the Mandukya Upanishad. A good starting point would be to read several translations and commentaries on that. `
Just a note to add: The language that the Mandukya Upanishad uses to describe the ‘bodies’ is different to Vedanta. It uses Vedic language like ‘vishva’ meaning universal(synonymous with Virat purusha) ‘Taijasa’ meaning the light/brilliant one and ‘prajana’ meaning consciousness. These terms are archaic in Vedanta, Vedanta prefers to use post-vedic Samkhya terminiology of the ‘shariras’ meaning bodies: gross, subtle and causal(sthoola, sukshama and karana)
[QUOTE=boukli;68903]Thank you for your answers.
I was not making a difference between these two sets of terms, but then I read the Paramahamsa-parivr?jaka-upanisad (one of the S?nnyasa Upanisad) and I saw them differently used. The pranava is there described as consisting of 16 quarters, each one consisting of a particular state of consciouness, as follows :
j?grat-vishva - j?grat-taijasa - j?grat-pr?jna - j?grat-tur?ya - svapna-vishva - svapna-taijasa - svapna-pr?jna, etc.
So it seems that there is a difference between j?grat and vishva, svapna and taijasa, etc. The translation I read being not clear on this point, I just wanted to know what exactly is the difference between those terms[/QUOTE]
I get it. After looking at the upanishad you mentioned (and Mandukya too) and Apte Sanskrit-English dictionary it looks like jagrat and vishva are different words for the same thing, as are svapna and taijasa, and susupti and prajna. That’s as far as I can get with it. I’m not an authority by any means.
One other thing, the translation I looked at (on Celextel.org) doesn’t use the combination jagrat-vishva or svapna-vishva. It uses jagrat-jagrat, svapna-jagrat, and susupti-jagrat. It’s almost as if jagrat, svapna, and susupti are a different language than vishva, taijasa, and prajna.
For the sake of clarity, I’ll explain what I mean a little further. The upanishad says that the pranava contains sixteen parts. Using the first set of terms, the sixteen parts would be
jagrat-jagrat, jagrat-svapna, jagrat-susupti, jagrat-turiya
svapna-jagrat, svapna-svapna, svapna-susupti, svapna-turiya
susupti-jagrat, susupti-svapna, susupti-susupti, susupti-turiya
turiya-jagrat, turiya-svapna, turiya-susupti, turiya-turiya
Using the second set of terms, the sixteen parts are:
vishva-vishva, vishva-taijasa, vishva-prajna, vishva-turiya
taijasa-vishva, taijasa-taijasa, taijasa-prajna, taijasa-turiya
prajna-vishva, prajna-taijasa, prajna-prajna, prajna-turiya
turiya-vishva, turiya-taijasa, turiya-prajna, turiya-turiya
This illustrates the difficulty of trying to make sense of these things, because nothing really adds up. If turiya is beyond the subjective and the objective, how can turiya be subdivided into waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states? If one set of terms is subjective and one is objective, it still doesn’t add up, because turiya is supposed to be neither. I can see why you have to be a sannyasin and live on alms if you’re into this stuff. I think I’m going to bow out now.
@Surya Deva
I do see your point about subjective and objective aspects in the Mandukya Upanishad, but the sixteen parts isn’t working for me.
I have not read the Paramahamsa-parivr?jaka-upanisad(yet) so the 16 parts makes no sense to me at all, but I think I can see what it is aiming at(more on that later) The Mandukya Upanishad is one of the 12 principal classical Upanishads and the oldest Upanishad that describes the bodies. As it is a very short Upanishad, I will reproduce it here so we can see what it says clearly:
- All this is the letter Om. A vivid explanation of this (is begun). All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.
- 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.
- That same Self, from the point of view of the syllable, is Om, and viewed from the stand point of the letters, the quarters are the letters, and the letters are the quarters. The letters are a, u and m.
- Vaisvanara seated in the waking state is the first letter a, owing to its all-pervasiveness or being the first. He who knows thus verily accomplishes all longings and becomes the first.
- Taijasa seated in the dream is u, the second letter (of Om), owing to the similarity of excellence or intermediate position. He who knows thus verily advances the bounds of his knowledge and becomes equal (to all) and none who is not a knower of Brahman is born in his family.
- Prajna seated in the state of deep sleep is m, the third letter (of Om), because of his being the measure or the entity wherein all become absorbed. He who knows thus measures all this and absorbs all.
- That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/mandukya.html
Thus we can see from the above that there are two aspects of consciousness being described: The objective state of consciousness and the subjective state of consciousness.
The waking state refers to the external world, where consciousness is directed outwards. This outwards directed consciousness is called Vishva(gross body)
The dream state refers to the internal world, where consciousness is directed inwards. The inwards directed conscious subject is called Taijasa(the subtle body)
The deep sleep state refers to a state where consciousness is merged into consciousness. When consciousness is merged into itself there no subject to experience it, hence the subject is unconscious, but one still is aware that one has experienced unconsciousness upon returning to waking. The part of us that remembers being unconscious is called Prajana(causal body)
Turiya is not a state of consciousness but rather refers to a state of transcedence that exists beyond the 3 states. The proof for this transcendent state is that the self exists in all three states of consciousness as pure consciousness within which both the external and internal aspects are superimposed, thus it itself is beyond any external and internal division. It is neither consciousness of something nor is it unconscious. As it is beyond a subject and objective dichotomy, one cannot describe it, because description requires both a subject and an object.
Deep sleep is a sort of barrier that exists between the conscious subject and the state of transcendence. It is a level of pure unconsciousness that the conscious subject returns to every time they sleep, but in deep sleep one is the closest to the self. Hence why sleep is considered a state of bliss. Transcendence is when one breaks through that barrier by consciously entering deep sleep(Gita ‘The wise are those who are asleep when others are awake, and awake when others are asleep’)
The 16 parts is confusing, but I think this is what it is describing. In any state of consciousness, there is also the presence of the other subjective aspects of consciousness. For example, in the waking state, we also have some consciousness of our internal world(day dreaming) and occasional moments of unconsciousness(stupour) In other words we are simutaneously present as a waking, dreaming and deep sleep subject even in the waking state. Similarly, in the dream state we are aware of ourselves as a subject that is perceiving the world(waking subject), and as a subject that is perceiving an internal world(dreaming subject) and as a subject that can have moments of unconsciousness even in a dream(deep sleep subject)
Surya Deva,
Beautifully explained.
The difficulty in making full sense of the 16 parts is because we are taking them on the same plane, as if there are 16 static slices of Pranav. I think, we need to take an evolutionary dimension. Pranav is the first gross manifestation from which all matter evolves and on the spiritual path it takes us back from gross to subtle. But this happens in stages, in a back & forth manner, giving it a spiral growth path.
These twists and their evolving progression seems to be represented by the 16 pairs of words. For example, undoubtedly turiya is beyond consciousness. But that is not reached instantly and the four stages are not sharply distinct or mutually exclusive. That’s why we see an odd couple “jagrat-turiya” that perhaps indicates developing traces of turiya in the jagrat state. Even subjectivity and objectivity turn into subjective objectivity and so on. We need to take a fluid, dynamic view.
In YogaSutra, AUM is described as a silver cord that connects all the gross to subtle gradations with its vibrations becoming the subtlest sense of akash, and eventually transcending even that.
@Surya Deva[QUOTE=Surya Deva;68926]The 16 parts is confusing, but I think this is what it is describing. In any state of consciousness, there is also the presence of the other subjective aspects of consciousness. For example, in the waking state, we also have some consciousness of our internal world(day dreaming) and occasional moments of unconsciousness(stupour) In other words we are simutaneously present as a waking, dreaming and deep sleep subject even in the waking state. Similarly, in the dream state we are aware of ourselves as a subject that is perceiving the world(waking subject), and as a subject that is perceiving an internal world(dreaming subject) and as a subject that can have moments of unconsciousness even in a dream(deep sleep subject)[/QUOTE]
Your explanation is quite clear to me, and agrees well with what I have read.
@Asuri
I think you are missing a step in the explanations given in this Upanisad. As far as I understand, the Upanisad first distinguishes four elements in “subjective” consciousness (j?grat-svapna-susupti-tur?ya). Then it says that each of them is itself fourfold (so we have j?grat-j?grat, j?grat-svapna, j?grat-susupti, j?grat-turiya, svapna-j?grat, etc.). Next it makes the same distinction with “objectives” states of consciousness (so we have vishva-vishva, vishva-taijasa, vishva-prajna, etc.). And at the end it says that each element of Om is the meeting together of a “subjective” state and an “objective” state (so we have j?grat-vishva - j?grat-taijasa - j?grat-pr?jna, etc.). That means, if I am not wrong, that [I]each[/I] element of Om is [I]itself[/I] constituted of 16 states of consciousness. So, Om itself is constituted of 16*16=256 states of consciousness.
But perhaps am I mistaking.
I think you’ve made my point for me. The upanishad says the Brahma Pranava consists of sixteen parts, but if you follow your logic, you wind up with 256, or maybe 32. And you haven’t taken into account the duplication that occurs.
What is clear to me is that the Brahma Pranava was something that was only practiced by certain classes of ascetics. Unless you’re prepared to become a mendicant monk, I think it’s better not to concern yourself with such things.
I can see why there was a divergence from the Upanishadic Vedanta school and the emergence of Samkhya. The Vedanta system is simply too complicated, because it is more concerned with consciousness and language and interrogates the subjective and objective assumption about reality, ultimately dissolving it altogether to conclude that all is consciousness. The Samkhya school is more simplified. It accepts the subjective and objective assumption and works from there.
I think you are missing a step in the explanations given in this Upanisad. As far as I understand, the Upanisad first distinguishes four elements in “subjective” consciousness (j?grat-svapna-susupti-tur?ya). Then it says that each of them is itself fourfold (so we have j?grat-j?grat, j?grat-svapna, j?grat-susupti, j?grat-turiya, svapna-j?grat, etc.). Next it makes the same distinction with “objectives” states of consciousness (so we have vishva-vishva, vishva-taijasa, vishva-prajna, etc.). And at the end it says that each element of Om is the meeting together of a “subjective” state and an “objective” state (so we have j?grat-vishva - j?grat-taijasa - j?grat-pr?jna, etc.). That means, if I am not wrong, that each element of Om is itself constituted of 16 states of consciousness. So, Om itself is constituted of 16*16=256 states of consciousness.
But perhaps am I mistaking.
Against my better judgement, I looked at this again, and I think you may be reading too much into this. Also, I think you are too focused on trying to extract some metaphysical truth. You have to realize that the upanishad is describing a [I]practice[/I].
The upanishad states that one of the requirements for the Paramahansa monk is that he be attentive to deep meditation on Brahman in the form of Pranava. Then it asks the question what is the Brahma-Pranava? Clearly the Brahma-Pranava is the form of meditation, i.e. a mantra.
The upanishad goes on to state that the Brahma-Pranava consists of sixteen parts. That does not equate to 16 levels of consciousness. Then it says that the Pranava is [I]cognized[/I] in quadruples in the four states. This is describing a mental process, not states of consciousness.
Everyone so far has overlooked this part:
In the letter ?a? (of the Om ? Aum) there is jagrat-vishva, in the letter ?u? jagrat-taijasa, in the letter ?m? jagrat-prajna, in the ardha-matra (of Om) jagrat-turiya, in the bindu svapna-vishva, in the nada svapna-taijasa, in the kala svapna-prajna, in the kalatita svapna-turiya, in the shanti susupta-vishva, in the shantyatita susupta-taijasa, in pashyanti turiya-prajna, in para turiya-turiya.
The problem here is that I don’t know what these terms are referring to: bindu, nada, kala, kalatita, etc. You can’t ignore this, you have to understand it to get the meaning. I think it is describing how to perform the mantra that is associated with the practice. This is the first part of the mantra. The second part is:
The four parts of jagrat pertain to the letter ?a?, the four parts of Svapna pertain to the letter ?u?, the four parts of Susupti pertain to the letter ?m?, the four parts of turiya pertain to the ardha-matra.
It then goes on to say “This is the Brahma Pranava”. The Brahma Pranava is the whole preceding mantra. Also notice that the first part of the mantra has only twelve parts. the last quadruple is split between susupta and turiya. It would not surprise me if this is an error, but unfortunately we have no way of knowing.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;68947]I can see why there was a divergence from the Upanishadic Vedanta school and the emergence of Samkhya. The Vedanta system is simply too complicated, because it is more concerned with consciousness and language and interrogates the subjective and objective assumption about reality, ultimately dissolving it altogether to conclude that all is consciousness. The Samkhya school is more simplified. It accepts the subjective and objective assumption and works from there.[/QUOTE]
I would not use the term ‘simplified’, I would say practical. It was more concerned with things like how to determine what is and what is not valid knowledge. It was more concerned with evidence than with scripture, and more concerned with solving problems than with escaping from them.
I would say it is both simplified and practical. It is simplified because it does not really challenge the subjective objective divide in reality, but takes this as a basic assumption to develop its metaphysics and conclude the dual realities of purusha and prakriti.
However, as we can see from the above discussion the subjective objective divide in reality is not as clear cut, but rather they clearly overlap. So there is no purely subjective reality or a purely objective reality, one can be simultaneously present in all objective states of consciousness and all subjective states of consciousnes. There is no clear cut internal or external divide either, consciousness seems to be simultaneously outwards projected and introverted at the same time. This naturally leads to the conclusion that there is no subjective-objective division reality, it is all one consciousness. Hence the worldview of Vedanta.
However, for us to function in a practical reality we have to make a basic assumption of a subjective and objective division. Samkhya takes the subjective and objective division as a weak assumption, in that it acknowledges that the subjective and objective are in constant interaction with one another, and cannot exist apart from one another.
Nyaya-Vaiseshika take the subjective-objective division as a strong assumption, and hence also admit the existence of time and space. They are the most practical school of Indian philosophy and much of the applied Indian sciences of engineering, medicine and chemistry is based on their framework.
So essentially there are three major scientific worldviews, the same we can see being played out today in contemporay philosophy:
- Realistic pluralism: Nyaya-Vaiseshika -Classical physics
- Interactionist dualism: Samkhya-Yoga - Quantum physics
- Monistic idealism and emanationism: Vedanta - String theory
There is nothing wrong with either of these worldviews, they are very logical insofar as the basic assumptions they make from their vantage point. However, when we move up to a higher vantage point, the worldview from the lower vantage point is sublimated into the higher one. This is exactly what we see happening in modern science today, classical physics is now being sublimated into quantum physics, in that we can now apply quantum physics to describe classical phenomena as well.
Similarly, I see Vedanta as a higher worldview than Samkhya, and hence why Samkhya has been sublimated into Vedanta. This is clear if you look at the history of Vedanta, eventually it does away with the Upanishadic language and adopts the Samkhya terminologies and concepts, but also expands on them at the same time.
You are right Vedanta is a very difficult philosophical project, and suited only to the renunciant who can dedicate themselves to it. It is essentially a theory of everything and it takes a very long time before we can synthesize everything we know into a unified whole.