The Nature of Reality

Onward...

When in the state of dreamless sleep, no mental activity occurs (thinking, feeling, sensory perception). From the waking experience this may seem to be a negative characteristic. However, we can't experience nothing, as there would be nothing to experience. We know from experience that the dreamless state is the most rewarding type of sleep. When we awake refreshed from a dreamless sleep we think we have experienced nothing, but if nothing was experienced how have we been refreshed? Further, and this is my own observation, although when in dreamless sleep we believe nothing has been experienced and none of the senses or thinking skills are being employed, we may still be awakened by an outside disturbance. Although the dreamless state is experienced as a lack of subject and object, and the self seems to disappear, something must continue.

 

A pretty good seque.....Let's look at the positive aspects of sleeping.
[QUOTE]2. Sleeping Experience,
(a) The first appears plainly from the fact that we do not cease to exist when asleep, though all objective, individual experience has vanished. It must be this : profound sleep, in itself, is the state of unconditioned being. I mean that in dreamless sleep there remains a principle transcending qualities or accidents, these pertaining to objectivity.
(b) The second follows from the fact that on waking we are conscious of having slept soundly, though absence as such can never be experienced. It must be this : profound sleep, in itself, is the state of non-duality. I mean that the principle of consciousness remains without its seeming to assume the duality of a conscious subject and its object.
(c) The third is proven by the confidence with which we look forward to the enjoyment associated with sound sleep; and also by the feeling of an actual deprivation when we suffer from insomnia. It must be this : profound sleep, from its own standpoint, is the state of self-contentment. I mean that when desire and the objects of desire have vanished with the cessation of mental activity, what remains is the positive import of desirelessness.[/QUOTE]First remember we are talking about dreamless sleep in this section....not the act of dreaming while sleeping.
1. While engaged in dreamless sleep no individual experience is present. The self vanishes. Yet something remains sans subject and object.
2. When awaking from dreamless sleep we are aware of having slept, even though no self was present to experience the state of dreamless sleep. Therefore dreamless sleep transcends the duality of subject and object but, at the same time, consciousness is still present but in a state of nonduality.
3. As the nondreaming state is not feared, is actually welcomed, and damage ensues if it is deprived, it must be a state of contentment and positivity. In dreamless sleep no self or mental activity is present and therefore no desire for "another" subject or object can arise. The state of desirelessness is therefore found to be positive.

 

The non dual nature of being shown during dreamless sleep manifests as the retention of being, lack of subject and object, and peace. But in reality the nature of dreamless sleep must be singular, it transcends being, non duality, and peace. Each is transcended as to express any of them would be to admit their opposite. However, they are known as they appear to exist. They appear to exist as each is contained in the state of dreamless sleep and are recognized upon leaving that state. But, as we proceed it will be shown that the dreamless state, in fact, is never exited but remains as a background when it has seemly been exited.

 

If you are referring to Freud's unconscious state, I believe his state of unconsciousness was restricted to the individual. My unconscious thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. have no bearing on your unconscious.
The non dual state of dreamless sleep is not individual, as it is non dual.

 

Looking a little deeper.......

4. We have stated that dreamless sleep is non dual, that no mental activity takes place. If so how can a person be awakened from dreamless sleep as some knowledge derived from the senses by the mind must take place to arouse one from slumber?
5. Here's where it starts to gt weird......the objection assumes that dreamless sleep is experienced by an individual, one who experiences sleep, someone who can be aroused. But if dreamless sleep is in fact non dual, there is no sleeper, and no one to arouse while in that state.
Even though others may see an individual engaged in dreamless sleep, those individuals are in fact only notions experienced in the waking state. When dreamless sleep is entered no bodies are present, either of the sleeper or of those in the waking state. From the standpoint of dreamless sleep no bodies, or individuals at all exist.
The individuals observing the dreamless sleeper, make that observation while awake, and they can only tell the dreamless sleeper of that observation after the dreamless sleeper has entered the waking state and left the dreamless state.
While in the waking state bodies, or individuals, are always present; in the dreamless state no bodies, or individuals exist. From the standpoint of dreamless sleep there is no one to arouse and no one to do the arousing.
6. Finally, even if some sort of thought does occur in the dreamless state we can not be aware of that thought unless we are awake. Therefore we would not be in the dreamless state.

 

During the act of introspection we can reach an understanding of the nature of reality. This is an individual act as introspection is an individual act. Experiences are individual acts. In order to experience something there must be something to experience and someone to do the experiencing, a duality.
In dreamless sleep we aren't experiencing a collective state as there is no one to experience anything. We transcend experience. The "experience" of dreamless sleep is only known after we leave that state and introspect on it as an individual.
There is no collective in the dreamless state as a collective is composed of individual items, beings, objects, etc.
I don't know about religious doctrine. The explanation of Vedanta as espoused in this book doesn't rely on doctrine or tenets, it is a presentation of facts which we can debate on. We can discuss the validity of those facts as presented, no need to accept them on faith.

There will be some very complicated and strange ideas put forth, but no need to accept them without applying logic and rationality.
Perhaps I shouldn't have skipped the introduction.
On Non-Dualistic Vedanta,

Stick with it if you wish and see if it becomes clearer.

 

Thoughts are not continuous. Before one thought can begin, another must end. In order to have a beginning and an end there must be an interval between the ending and beginning, otherwise there is no ending or beginning.
As the interval occurs outside of thought, there can be no knowledge of it. As it occurs outside of thought no passage of time can be noted. Thus as there is no knowledge of its occurrence or a passage of time it is the same as the state of dreamless sleep.

The interval between thoughts and the state of dreamless sleep are identical and as the interval between thoughts occurs continuously during the waking hours, the dreamless state also occurs continuously during the waking state.

 

No comment needed.

So, let's summarize and see if anyone agrees or disagrees with what has been presented.
1. We experience three states waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep.
2. Waking and dreaming are mental activities involving a subject and object(s).
3. Consciousness continues in the form of the real self and is present in the state of dreamless sleep, the interval between thoughts, fainting, absent-mindedness, total anaesthesia, etc. and is characterized by a lack of sensory perception, a lack of desire, non duality, and perfect peace. However it is obscured by the thought process even though it continues as the ground of all existence.

Any questions, comments, or points which need to be raised before we proceed?​

 

PART TWO
OBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE
​

1. Objective experience is a blend of thinking and feeling.
2. The act of cognition, or knowing, can be beyond thought, or comprised of thoughts. That is the self can disappear in certain experiences or be one with the object of its attention. That is, we think about the object.
3. Thoughts have no reality in themselves.Thoughts are merely the real self recognizing the object of its attention. The thought and the object cannot be separated. For the time being thoughts will be considered real.

 

All thoughts are based on sensory perceptions. All thoughts proceed from specific particular sensory input to general concepts or notions.
As such they rely on extroversion, not introversion.

 

You are saying thoughts have physical reality?
You can place a thought on this table in front of me?