The Four Quarters

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.

  1. All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters.
  2. (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.
  3. (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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

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.

I admire your objectivity here. You will find all of the points in the Vedanta system are actually explained rationally. Gaudapada and Adisankara were the fiirst Vedantins who attempted to take Vedanta out of the realms of mysticism that it remained in the Upanishadic period, into the realms of rational philosophy, by rationally explaining every point Vedanta made.

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 ‘self’ in Vedanta basically means pure consciousness, which is neither a subject or an object. On that background of pure consciousness is superimposed a false subjective and objective divide(ahamkara or ego) It this aspect which believes there to be subjective and objective states(It divides between self and other; me and mine)

Now, this aspect described to exist on four different levels of conscousness: waking, dreaming, deep sleep. The Upanishad gives specific names for these egos: vishva, taijaisa, prajnana respectively. These are basically known to be false in Vedanta, but rather they really are just the transformations of the self. The true ‘self’ is experienced in turya, which is a state which transcends the three states. It is a transcendent state.

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.

This particular Upanishad is describing different states of consciousness and explaining what they are. So it says the waking state is when our consciousness is directed outwards, but it also says that the subjective part of us that experiences this is vishva. Therefore, this must mean the state part it is describing as objective.

I think why this is confusing for you is because you cannot tell apart consciousness, consciousness state and conscious subject. Consciousness here basically means the ‘self’ The state of consciousness means which world the subject is present in(waking, dreaming or sleep) And the subject who is experiencing that world means the aspect of ego that is present there(visha, taijasa or prajnana).

To clarify even further

External world - Internal world
Waking - Vishva
Dreaming - Taijasa
Deep sleep - Prajnana

Due to the ego there is a external/internal split on every level of conscousness and at every level an aspect of the ego is present. The waking ego is very different from the dreaming ego for example.

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.

Yes, and it is described as a state of bliss, because there is no longer any ego here, BUT there is a latent ego. This is described as the causal state because the karmas that cause us pain and misery are dormant, thus we experience here neither pain or pleasure. However, there is no conscious experience of it, rather it is described as bliss because in this state we are unconscious of all our pains. No matter how painful your life is, even if you are struggling from a painful disease, in this state you have respite.

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.

We do simultaenously exist in both subjective and objective states. The objective part is that we call the waking world and the subjective part is what we call our inner world. There is subjective-objectivity in everything, because the so-called inner and outer combine when we look at the world. For example there is no such thing as colours existing in the outer world, they are intuited from us. How we arrange and classify the world is also automatically done by us. So whatever we see ‘out there’ is never purely objective.

I will respond to your other points later. I have to go out now.

It’s really appalling to me that after I’ve shown everyone how wrong you are on this, you continue to lecture us. Please spare us the embellishment. Your inflated ego will not allow you to function as anything other than the expert and the teacher. You cannot handle the possibility that you could be wrong.

You’ve arrived at this point (on this subject matter) because you were exposed to some material that you weren’t ready for, and it sent your mind spinning. Hopefully soon you will get a grip on reality.

Lol, I get it now. You posted this topic not to discuss, but to err prove I am wrong. You were not actually wanting a discussion. Basically your word was suppose to be the last word on the matter.

Sorry, had I known, I wouldn’t have responded. I will keep this in mind for future reference: “Do not respond to Asuri’s points, let him have the last word”

Meanwhile, relax and lighhten up. It is only a discussion for petes sake.