identity between dreamer X and the dream character X

[Guest guest]

Murthy gaaru - I was about to address the rest of your comments slowly after

I returned from my weekend trip. It appears to be not necessory now in view

of further discussions on the topic.

 

To address reference to your question there is a discussion - I think it may

be in YogavaashishhTa or could be in AshhTavakra - Janaka goes and asked

Ashtavakra, his teacher when he dreampt after a scrumptus royal meals that

he was a miserable begger on the street and that he is starving for food.

In hunger he goes to sleep in his own dream and wakes up as a king because

of big disturbance outside. He runs to ashTavakra and asks whether he is a

begger dreaming that he is a king having a good time or he is a king

dreaming as begger having a miserable time. So what he was asking is he is

the king jiiva in one state or begger jiiva in the other state which one is

more real. Essentially he was identifying himslef the dreamer king and

himself the begger in his dream state. The rest of the environment and the

situation and surrounding are different, what you call characters qw one of

the jiiva in terms of indentity with the local equipemnts as I am that.

Astavakra answers that he is neither, he is the substratum for both and yet

beyond both. The description of the microcosm and macrocosm in the Madukya

kaarika is clear in description the waker and the dreamer and the deep

sleeper.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>advaitin

>advaitin

> identity between dreamer X and the dream character X

>Mon, 9 Aug 1999 10:09:36 -0230 (NDT)

>

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>namaste.

>

>One of the outcomes of the recent on-going discussion on the

>thread "Who is dreaming ?" is the question of identity or otherwise

>between the dreamer X and the dream character X.

>

>Let us say, jeeva X is dreaming (dreamer X) and the dream story has

>the character X appearing in the dream (dream character X).

>

>Shri sadananda says (if I understood him correctly): there is identity

>between dreamer X and the dream character X. The dream character X takes

>the dream story to be real. Also, the dreamer X takes the dream to be

>real until he wakes up.

>

>My thinking is: there is no identity between the dream character X

>and the dreamer X. The dream character X takes the dream story to be

>real, but the dreamer X has no say whether the dream story is real

>or not. He is simply dreaming, completely unmindful that a dream

>story is taking place. If the dream story has a tiger chasing the

>dream character X, the dream character X takes it to be real and

>gets frightened. The dreamer X is unaffected by this tiger in normal

>experience.

>

>I like to clarify my own understanding of this. I searched through

>MAnDUkya kArikA, MAnDUkya and Br^hadAraNyaka upanishads and Shri

>Shankara's bhAshhyAs on the above for any discussion of this point.

>

>Do Shri sadananda and other learned members know of any discussion

>of this in Indian philosophical thought, or even in other philosophies,

>or even in scientific interpretation of dream ? Is there identity between

>the dreamer and the dream character in normal experience ?

>

>Any discussion of the views and any reference to literature is very

>much appreciated.

>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist members: don't miss out on the latest news at ONElist

>Join our community member news update at

>

>------

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

>focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available

>at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

One of the outcomes of the recent on-going discussion on the

thread "Who is dreaming ?" is the question of identity or otherwise

between the dreamer X and the dream character X.

 

Let us say, jeeva X is dreaming (dreamer X) and the dream story has

the character X appearing in the dream (dream character X).

 

Shri sadananda says (if I understood him correctly): there is identity

between dreamer X and the dream character X. The dream character X takes

the dream story to be real. Also, the dreamer X takes the dream to be

real until he wakes up.

 

My thinking is: there is no identity between the dream character X

and the dreamer X. The dream character X takes the dream story to be

real, but the dreamer X has no say whether the dream story is real

or not. He is simply dreaming, completely unmindful that a dream

story is taking place. If the dream story has a tiger chasing the

dream character X, the dream character X takes it to be real and

gets frightened. The dreamer X is unaffected by this tiger in normal

experience.

 

I like to clarify my own understanding of this. I searched through

MAnDUkya kArikA, MAnDUkya and Br^hadAraNyaka upanishads and Shri

Shankara's bhAshhyAs on the above for any discussion of this point.

 

Do Shri sadananda and other learned members know of any discussion

of this in Indian philosophical thought, or even in other philosophies,

or even in scientific interpretation of dream ? Is there identity between

the dreamer and the dream character in normal experience ?

 

Any discussion of the views and any reference to literature is very

much appreciated.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

At 08:39 AM 8/9/99 , Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

 

(Some philosophical references at the end, but some discussion before that)

 

>Shri sadananda says (if I understood him correctly): there is identity

>between dreamer X and the dream character X. The dream character X takes

>the dream story to be real. Also, the dreamer X takes the dream to be

>real until he wakes up.

 

 

Gummuluru,

 

I agree, this is what Sadananda seems to say. The question seems to

involve the following:

 

X: the dreamed character

Y: the dreamer

Z: the waker

 

The question seems to be:

 

Q: are X and Y really the same character?

 

To say that Z believes they are the same is not sufficient for identity.

>My thinking is: there is no identity between the dream character X

>and the dreamer X. The dream character X takes the dream story to be

>real, but the dreamer X has no say whether the dream story is real

>or not. He is simply dreaming, completely unmindful that a dream

>story is taking place. If the dream story has a tiger chasing the

>dream character X, the dream character X takes it to be real and

>gets frightened. The dreamer X is unaffected by this tiger in normal

>experience.

 

 

I tend to agree with this way of thinking. I don't think any of X, Y and Z

are the same at all. Primarily, because of this - for any X and Y to be

really the same, they must be real as X and Y. But any reality they share

is because they are both Brahman, and in that case they are

identical. Just because we say there is a waking character Z who takes X

and Y as the same certainly isn't sufficient for them to really be the

same. And then, if we aren't asking if they are REALLY the same, but only

whether they are (conventionally) the same, then it becomes just a matter

of what is said according to various models and theories.

 

Another thing is (pace Advaita Vedanta teachings), the evidence for even

the conventional existence of dreamer Y is not very good. Dreamer Y is not

present during the dream, and is not present during the waking

state. Indeed, that entity cannot be found by even casual investigation,

never mind rigorous analysis. At best, it is a fabrication or belief

arising to a waker Z.

 

Before the above question (Q) ("Are X and Y the same?") can be answered, we

must investigate two other questions:

 

Q': Are X and Y really characters at all?

Q'': What is it for ANY two things to be identical?

 

Philosophical references: I'm not aware of anything in advaita vedanta

dealing with the question (Q) and (Q'') above. Whereas there is lots of

material dealing with (Q'), basically saying that they are not really

characters, they are really Brahman. As characters per se, they are not

real; only as Brahman are they real.

 

The notion of identity and difference is a big deal in Western logic and

metaphysics, probably in Indian metaphysics as well. Bertrand Russell,

Frege, logical positivists, idealists have all dealt with these

notions. In Indian advaita philosophy, Krishna Menon (Sri Atmananda of

Tivandrum) speaks a great deal about identity and difference. In his

privately published 2-part transcript of Satsangs, he answers (Q'') as

follows (I'm paraphrasing from memory here):

 

Two assess whether any two objects are the same or different,

we must strip away all incidental characteristics from each

object, and then compare what is left. For any object, when

we strip away all incidental characteristics, we are left with

just the background, Consciousness. Therefore, any two objects

are just Consciousness. In fact, all nouns, all names, are the

name only of Consciousness only.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gummuluru,

 

First of all, I agree with your comment in another post that only Prajapati

can say the world *is* illusion or dream because we humans are parts of

that illusion/dream/appearance. We can merge with Prajapati to the extent

we realize we are being continuously created by Prajapati (Narayana, etc.)

-- for us to say we can "choose" to think of ourselves as Prajapati

(Narayana, etc.) is like a character in a movie saying they can choose to

direct the plot -- this is a fallacy created by failing to realize the

different ontological level involved. God is UPSTREAM from our appearance

and is entirely responsible for it. Realizing this ends the illusion of

our separateness from God.

>

>My thinking is: there is no identity between the dream character X

>and the dreamer X. The dream character X takes the dream story to be

>real, but the dreamer X has no say whether the dream story is real

>or not. He is simply dreaming, completely unmindful that a dream

>story is taking place. If the dream story has a tiger chasing the

>dream character X, the dream character X takes it to be real and

>gets frightened. The dreamer X is unaffected by this tiger in normal

>experience.

>

>I like to clarify my own understanding of this. I searched through

>MAnDUkya kArikA, MAnDUkya and Br^hadAraNyaka upanishads and Shri

>Shankara's bhAshhyAs on the above for any discussion of this point.

>

>Do Shri sadananda and other learned members know of any discussion

>of this in Indian philosophical thought, or even in other philosophies,

>or even in scientific interpretation of dream ? Is there identity between

>the dreamer and the dream character in normal experience ?

>

>Any discussion of the views and any reference to literature is very

>much appreciated.

>

Steven LaBerge (maybe LaBarge?) has done some controlled lab studies on

lucid dreaming in which he has demonstrated the waking state person can

knowingly exercise control during the dream state. How? Because EEG

machines can establish when the brain is dreaming and although all other

physical functions are not available in sleep state the physical eyeballs

move around in sync with the dreamer's looking left right up down inside

the dream. So, test subjects who can have lucid dreams will "dream up"

something like a tennis game and watch the ball go back and forth over the

net -- meanwhile in the waking state world researchers monitor the peculiar

left right motion of the eyeballs during a time when EEG says the brain is

asleep and dreaming.

 

I also have lucid dreams and I know I am I (whatever that is :-) during

the time of the dream and I can therefore act *like* God inside the dream

because I know it is (in part) my creation. I cannot do this in the waking

state precisely because i know it is *not* my creation although God is

creating it *through* me (in part) as well as through all other sentient

beings. Anyone who thinks they can exercise control over the *illusory*

jagat world is welcome to demonstrate this if they can... :-))

 

As an aside... when the "awareness of awareness" (not sure what to call it

exactly) is strong and clear enough during the dream state it is like the

dream gets transparent -- as if a stronger light behind it shines through

it and the dream images fade out or dissolve into it. When dream images

fade completely out then something like turiya is revealed. At this time

there is no dream, no thought, no body, no world -- just consciousness

without subject or object. Somehow the body is awakened subsequently and

with it thought, perception, world returns *on top* of this background

consciousness. I say this from direct experience, not from reading books.

 

 

Praise be to the real Dreamer of us all..

 

Om Namo Narayanaya!

 

-A.

[Guest guest]

AC: As an aside... when the "awareness of awareness" (not sure what to call

it

exactly) is strong and clear enough during the dream state it is like the

dream gets transparent -- as if a stronger light behind it shines through

it and the dream images fade out or dissolve into it. When dream images

fade completely out then something like turiya is revealed. At this time

there is no dream, no thought, no body, no world -- just consciousness

without subject or object. Somehow the body is awakened subsequently and

with it thought, perception, world returns *on top* of this background

consciousness. I say this from direct experience, not from reading books.

____________

 

Direct experience is the best and self-confirming source of knowledge.

............Harsha

______________

 

Praise be to the real Dreamer of us all..

 

Om Namo Narayanaya!

 

-A.

[Guest guest]

The dream is created by the jiva through the subtle "I "

The I/ego then falls asleep and dreams.

This means that the ego I goes into the dream after it is created

It is created to preserve the continuity of the cognition of time having

past.

 

In short, to preserve the continuity of the existence of the ego.

The Absolute does not dream. Rather, it is the I/ego that dreams a dream(s)

and in this way continues to be fooled by maya.

 

The only truly existent is the Absolute.

All other modifications occur as a result of the Absolutes' transcendence of

both existence and non-existence.

 

This is the spanda shakti. Thusly, with the psuedo existence of the jiva,

there is also the existence of the 3 states vis waking, dreaming and deep

sleep.

 

AC's comment

-----------------------

As an aside... when the "awareness of awareness" (not sure what to call it

exactly) is strong and clear enough during the dream state it is like the

dream gets transparent -- as if a stronger light behind it shines through

it and the dream images fade out or dissolve into it. When dream images

fade completely out then something like turiya is revealed. At this time

there is no dream, no thought, no body, no world -- just consciousness

without subject or object.

____

 

In the dream, you are merging the attention into itself (perception/senses

do not distract you).

 

 

AC's comment

----------

----------------------

Somehow the body is awakened subsequently and

with it thought, perception, world returns *on top* of this background

consciousness. I say this from direct experience, not from reading books.

______

 

 

Here, your perception/senses and your attachment/ascription to the body and

of the body as you has stolen your attention, rather again the attention

must be merged into the attention the same as in the dream state.

 

This means that you must pay attention to that in you which is (aware of

/conscious of) your mind, perception, body; it means to discover the witness

of the play in the waking state the same as you have in the dream state.

 

That said, from your mail:

----------

-----------------------

I cannot do this in the waking

state precisely because i know it is *not* my creation although God is

creating it *through* me (in part) as well as through all other sentient

beings.

___

 

This very statement is denial of your Oneness with the Absolute.

It is simply a matter of transcending one's belief system.

 

Simply applying your attention as stated above in your everyday life and in

meditation will bring about as a matter of course the transcendence as

stated above.

 

On the other hand, focussing on one's self (what one believes is one's self

ie mind-body is "me,i" or entity is me) requires that separation/existence

of "I" be real. Thusly, we are quickly removed from what you call the

Turiya. Whether in any state whatsoever.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

ac says --

>I cannot do this in the waking

>state precisely because i know it is *not* my creation although God is

>creating it *through* me (in part) as well as through all other sentient

>beings.

>___

>

>This very statement is denial of your Oneness with the Absolute.

>It is simply a matter of transcending one's belief system.

>

No sir, with respect -- it is a statement of my non-separateness from the

Absolute. Non-separateness only means identity for advaitins, not for all

Vedantins.

>Simply applying your attention as stated above in your everyday life and in

>meditation will bring about as a matter of course the transcendence as

>stated above.

>

When you can exercize control over the jagat world by taking your own

advice here will you let me know? :-))

>On the other hand, focussing on one's self (what one believes is one's self

>ie mind-body is "me,i" or entity is me) requires that separation/existence

>of "I" be real. Thusly, we are quickly removed from what you call the

>Turiya. Whether in any state whatsoever.

>

I am not focusing on my self, mind-body, etc. -- I am focusing on God who

recreates me and this world in each moment. I'm sorry if it seems

impolite, but I have more respect for God than I have for Advaita theory.

 

In case you're wondering how I equate

consciousness-without-subject-or-object (experienced directly in all 3

states) with God -- I'll tell you.... This

consciousness-without-subject-or-object is just the individual soul which

is God-like. It has an affinity with God because of it's origin in and

proximity to God but it is *not* God. It is not separate from God but it

is not God. I believe Advaitins have experienced this non-dual

consciousness in all 3 states and arrived at a philosophical conclusion

which is admittedly great "on paper". Other people have the same

experiences (in my opinion) but arrive at different conclusions which I

consider more accurate and helpful in the big picture.

 

Perhaps I'm just not at the absolute stage yet so imagine only God could be

there. If you are at the stage where God is for me, then I bow to you and

beg your patience with my lesser path which seems so wonderful to me.

 

all the best to you all... :-))

 

-A.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends

 

After much hesitation I am writing this as usually I dont discuss my

spiritual experiences or dreams with anyone. But this I think may not cause

any harm.

I would like to share something regarding this dreamer,dreamed charachter

and the dream. This I say directly from my own experiences and I dont know

what pyschology or vedanta says on this. Well usually I go through two

phases,first is the dream ,where I intially identify my self with the

dream(dream charachter),like I had a dream in which I was sick and going to

die initally this "I" thought that "I Ganesh" was sick and dying and people

crying over me ,slowly "I" awareness expanded and seperated itself from 'the

dying ganesh' and started witnessing the dream and fully aware that this is

a dream.

And I dont know the pychological terms involved with this,but usually I dont

get dreams(may be I am not aware of it??) but If I get a dream I am fully

aware of it. And in most of the dreams there is this "I" emerging out of the

'dream character' and assures itself that it is only a dream and thereof

start witnessing it.

Your opinions regarding this are most welcome. I usually do the 'savasan'

and then go to sleep. And I also found that by doing little meditation

before sleep has helped me lot to avoid bad vibrations(cause of dreams). And

goto sleep with the thought of God/Guru and wake up with the thought of

God/Guru helps me a lot.

 

Hari Om

Ganesh Deivasikhamani

[Guest guest]

namaste. This is in response to Grag's views on this topic.

 

First the terminology we are using:

 

Greg's notation GM's notation

the dream character X dream character X

the dreamer Y dreamer X

the waker Z awake X

 

 

I will use Greg's notation in the following.

> Greg's posting >> GM's earlier posting

 

On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Greg Goode wrote:

> Greg Goode <goode

>

> [...]

>

> The question seems to be:

>

> Q: are X and Y really the same character?

>

> To say that Z believes they are the same is not sufficient for identity.

>

> >My thinking is: there is no identity between the dream character X

> >and the dreamer X. The dream character X takes the dream story to be

> >real, but the dreamer X has no say whether the dream story is real

> >or not. He is simply dreaming, completely unmindful that a dream

> >story is taking place. If the dream story has a tiger chasing the

> >dream character X, the dream character X takes it to be real and

> >gets frightened. The dreamer X is unaffected by this tiger in normal

> >experience.

>

> I tend to agree with this way of thinking. I don't think any of X, Y and Z

> are the same at all. Primarily, because of this - for any X and Y to be

> really the same, they must be real as X and Y. But any reality they share

> is because they are both Brahman, and in that case they are

> identical. Just because we say there is a waking character Z who takes X

> and Y as the same certainly isn't sufficient for them to really be the

> same. And then, if we aren't asking if they are REALLY the same, but only

> whether they are (conventionally) the same, then it becomes just a matter

> of what is said according to various models and theories.

>

 

The underlying substratum of X, Y, Z is the same, the Atman. But the

upAdhis X, Y, Z are not the same. I think, even Z cannot take X and Y to

be the same. Neither X, nor Y, nor Z are the same (in their own time

frame) from one moment to the next, because the thoughts change. However,

the underlying Consciousness that is responsible for the very existence

of X, Y, Z is the same throughout. This underlying Consciousness pervades

through not only X, Y, Z (which are presumed to be the same jeevA going

through the three states) but also through all the characters of the dream

of Y, all characters of the jagat of Z

 

> Another thing is (pace Advaita Vedanta teachings), the evidence for even

> the conventional existence of dreamer Y is not very good. Dreamer Y is not

> present during the dream, and is not present during the waking

> state. Indeed, that entity cannot be found by even casual investigation,

> never mind rigorous analysis. At best, it is a fabrication or belief

> arising to a waker Z.

>

 

I agree with what you said above about Y. Now let us apply the same analysis

to Z as well and look at Z from the Y's perspective. Z does not exist from

the Y's perspective. Y is the dreamer , and creator of the "dream" world.

(note it is called dream world from the Z's perspective). Once in a while,

Y moves into the Z state and the Z-state (and the jagat of the Z state)

dissolves back into the Y-state again. So from the Y-state's perspective,

Z does not exist and the present jagat is a dream for the Y. That is, the

wake-up state and the dream-state simply roll into each other alternately,

no state being more real than the other. X, Y, Z cannot co-exist in any

one state. They are mutually exclusive of each other.

 

We have examples given by a c and ganesh where there may be instances of

co-existence, but that is, in my understanding, not a normal experience.

Further, dream-yoga and other experiences seem to be there and hence,

there may be a vast field which is unknown (or need interpretation).

I am interested in knowing more about these experiences.

> Before the above question (Q) ("Are X and Y the same?") can be answered, we

> must investigate two other questions:

>

> Q': Are X and Y really characters at all?

> Q'': What is it for ANY two things to be identical?

>

> [...]

 

 

Thanks for the references. I will pursue them.

> Regards,

>

> --Greg

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, su wrote:

> "su" <sulea

>

> The dream is created by the jiva through the subtle "I "

> The I/ego then falls asleep and dreams.

> This means that the ego I goes into the dream after it is created

^^

> It is created to preserve the continuity of the cognition of time having

^^

> past.

>

> In short, to preserve the continuity of the existence of the ego.

> The Absolute does not dream. Rather, it is the I/ego that dreams a dream(s)

> and in this way continues to be fooled by maya.

>

 

namaste.

 

Thanks for the insight provided. Now, I have a doubt. If the ego is the

one that dreams, how about for mahAtmAs that do not have ego, or for whom

the ego does not arise (ahambhAvodayAbhAvo) ? Do not the jeevanmuktAs

dream ?

 

I agree it is some antahkaraNavr^tti that is responsible for the dream,

but is it the ego ? Ego is also an antahkaraNavr^tti, but I am not sure

how it is responsible for the dream ?

 

I would be grateful if you can expand on your above post.

 

Also, what are you referring to when you say "it" that I underlined (two

places) in your quote above ?

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

This is a continuation of the discussion Gummuluru and I have been on. I

will keep the notation we'va adopted:

 

the dream character.....X

the dreamer.............Y

the waker...............Z

>The underlying substratum of X, Y, Z is the same, the Atman. But the

>upAdhis X, Y, Z are not the same. I think, even Z cannot take X and Y to

>be the same.

 

For advaita, I might agree with this, if we're taking X, Y, and Z as

upAdhis. But I think that Y, the dreamer, might never be an upAdhi, but

more like a theoretical construct within advaita. Before studying advaita,

one might never really think of a "one who dreams the dream" as an

entity. One might attribute it to Z.

 

But overall, I can agree that if we take these to be upAdhis, then they are

not the same. Furthermore, seeing these as upAdhis basically deconstructs

them as entities, as a "waker,dreamer," etc. Which is as it should be,

one of the ways that advaita sublates concepts. So if we agree they are

upAdhis, then we no longer need to speak of them (in this discussion!) as

entities that do anything, such as manufacture thoughts.

>Neither X, nor Y, nor Z are the same (in their own time

>frame) from one moment to the next, because the thoughts change. However,

>the underlying Consciousness that is responsible for the very existence

>of X, Y, Z is the same throughout. This underlying Consciousness pervades

>through not only X, Y, Z (which are presumed to be the same jeevA going

>through the three states)

 

This presumption of the jeevA undergoing states, yes, is part of the

teaching, but that's another construct (like the dreamer Y), for which

there is not a lot of evidence.

> Another thing is (pace Advaita Vedanta teachings), the evidence for even

> > the conventional existence of dreamer Y is not very good. Dreamer Y is

> not

> > present during the dream, and is not present during the waking

> > state. Indeed, that entity cannot be found by even casual investigation,

> > never mind rigorous analysis. At best, it is a fabrication or belief

> > arising to a waker Z.

> >

>

>I agree with what you said above about Y. Now let us apply the same analysis

>to Z as well and look at Z from the Y's perspective. Z does not exist from

>the Y's perspective. Y is the dreamer , and creator of the "dream" world.

>(note it is called dream world from the Z's perspective).

 

I agree, in a general manner of speaking, with what can be known between

states: outside of lucid dreaming and dream yoga, not much. But that is if

we take X, Y, and Z as characters. Well, since we have already seemed to

agree - all three, X, Y, and Z as upAdhis, then they aren't even

characters!! That is, if something is an upAdhi, then it cannot create,

see, know, act, or suffer bondage or achieve liberation. It is inert, and

can't be or have a perspective.

 

>X, Y, Z cannot co-exist in anyone state.

>They are mutually exclusive of each other.

 

As far as these being temporally non-co-extensive goes, I agree with this

too. Partially because our everyday definitions of these things seem to

make them exclusive. But in the case of dream yoga itself, we might be

mixing models to talk about X, Y, and Z, along with dream yoga. Dream yoga

seems to depend on a person of some sort who undergoes these states. It

probably doesn't posit a separate dreamer-character Y or dreamed character

X. I do think our everyday definitions of sleep, dream, deep sleep make

these things mutually exclusive, but almost certainly not exhaustive (there

are also comas, trances, mornings before our first coffee, samadhis, lucid

dreams, etc. :-) )

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

> Greg's most recent post > > GM's earlier post > > > Greg's earlier post

 

On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Greg Goode wrote:

> Greg Goode <goode

>

> the dream character.....X

> the dreamer.............Y

> the waker...............Z

>

> >The underlying substratum of X, Y, Z is the same, the Atman. But the

> >upAdhis X, Y, Z are not the same. I think, even Z cannot take X and Y to

> >be the same.

>

> For advaita, I might agree with this, if we're taking X, Y, and Z as

> upAdhis. But I think that Y, the dreamer, might never be an upAdhi, but

> more like a theoretical construct within advaita. Before studying advaita,

> one might never really think of a "one who dreams the dream" as an

> entity. One might attribute it to Z.

>

> But overall, I can agree that if we take these to be upAdhis, then they are

> not the same. Furthermore, seeing these as upAdhis basically deconstructs

> them as entities, as a "waker,dreamer," etc. Which is as it should be,

> one of the ways that advaita sublates concepts. So if we agree they are

> upAdhis, then we no longer need to speak of them (in this discussion!) as

> entities that do anything, such as manufacture thoughts.

>

 

namaste.

 

I think, taking them as upAdhis is an acceptable way of understanding.

We cannot take them as upAdhis if we look at them from the wake-up state

only. But looking at them in their own natural existing state, they are

upAdhis on the same substratum which is there for all in all the states.

 

In the wake-up state, Z is an upAdhi of Brahman. In the dream state, X has

exactly the same status as Z in the wake-up state. In the wake-up state,

Z in ignorance considers him/herself to be real; with intellectual

knowledge, Z considers him/herself to be an upAdhi. In the dream state,

X in ignorance considers him/herself to be real; with intellectual

knowledge, X considers him/herself to be an upAdhi. The status of Y,

as I understand, is a bit uncertain. Y is the Ishwara of the dream state.

Z in the wake-up state cannot be directly transformed to Y in the dream

state.

> >Neither X, nor Y, nor Z are the same (in their own time

> >frame) from one moment to the next, because the thoughts change. However,

> >the underlying Consciousness that is responsible for the very existence

> >of X, Y, Z is the same throughout. This underlying Consciousness pervades

> >through not only X, Y, Z (which are presumed to be the same jeevA going

> >through the three states)

>

> This presumption of the jeevA undergoing states, yes, is part of the

> teaching, but that's another construct (like the dreamer Y), for which

> there is not a lot of evidence.

>

 

Jeeva undergoing states would be acceptable if we consider the jeeva to be

the same from birth to death; i.e. if we accept that a jeeva is born,

grows up, and gives up physical body at time of death, i.e. jeeva goes

through the wake-up state, sleeps, and dreams sometimes while sleeping,

wakes up and so on. The world would function if this concept is accepted.

 

Alternately, one can question, is it the same jeeva that goes from birth

to death? The basis of this questioning is: Yes, the Consciousness is the

same, which does not go through either birth or death, but the jeeva (i.e.

the Consciousness + gross + subtle body combination) is not the same from

one moment to the next. The physical body continues to change, the subtle

body certainly changes with the change of thoughts. Thus, how can we say

it is the same jeeva that goes through wake-up, dream and deep sleep

states? If this understanding is accepted, functioning of the jagat as

we know, would stop.

 

> > Another thing is (pace Advaita Vedanta teachings), the evidence for even

> > > the conventional existence of dreamer Y is not very good. Dreamer Y is

> > not

> > > present during the dream, and is not present during the waking

> > > state. Indeed, that entity cannot be found by even casual investigation,

> > > never mind rigorous analysis. At best, it is a fabrication or belief

> > > arising to a waker Z.

> > >

> >

> >I agree with what you said above about Y. Now let us apply the same analysis

> >to Z as well and look at Z from the Y's perspective. Z does not exist from

> >the Y's perspective. Y is the dreamer , and creator of the "dream" world.

> >(note it is called dream world from the Z's perspective).

>

> I agree, in a general manner of speaking, with what can be known between

> states: outside of lucid dreaming and dream yoga, not much. But that is if

> we take X, Y, and Z as characters. Well, since we have already seemed to

> agree - all three, X, Y, and Z as upAdhis, then they aren't even

> characters!! That is, if something is an upAdhi, then it cannot create,

> see, know, act, or suffer bondage or achieve liberation. It is inert, and

> can't be or have a perspective.

>

>

 

Yes, but can we discuss X, Y, Z as upAdhis *in isolation from the

substratum* ? If we discuss them separately, we will end up with a

dry answer which is not a solution. The upAdhis *cannot* create, see,

know, act or suffer bondage or achieve liberation. The substratum

*does not* create, see, know, act or suffer bondage or achieve

liberation. So, what is the solution we end up with? Without the

substratum, the upAdhis are nothing. It is the substratum that gives

the total entity the power to create, to see etc. In the wake-up state,

Z has to see him/herself as a total(substratum + upAdhI) entity and

understand what he/she is. Exactly in the same way, X has to see

him/herself as a total (substratum + upAdhI) entity. The only conclusion

we can come to is that there is no difference between the two states.

The two states are exactly similar and parallel to each other. From

the wake-up state, Z can conclude that X *is* a dream character. As

an extension, Z can also conclude that the wake-up state is *like*

the dream state.

>

> Regards,

>

> --Greg

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

At 11:41 AM 8/11/99 , Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

 

>I think, taking them as upAdhis is an acceptable way of understanding.

>We cannot take them as upAdhis if we look at them from the wake-up state

>only.

 

Yes, I agree. And if we truly look at them as upAdhis, then it follows

that we can't look at them from any state. The state itself is one of the

upAdhis, and therefore can't be seen from.

>In the wake-up state, Z is an upAdhi of Brahman. In the dream state, X has

>exactly the same status as Z in the wake-up state. In the wake-up state,

>Z in ignorance considers him/herself to be real; with intellectual

>knowledge, Z considers him/herself to be an upAdhi. In the dream state,

>X in ignorance considers him/herself to be real; with intellectual

>knowledge, X considers him/herself to be an upAdhi. The status of Y,

>as I understand, is a bit uncertain. Y is the Ishwara of the dream state.

>Z in the wake-up state cannot be directly transformed to Y in the dream

>state.

 

This is a systematic way of saying that X and Z are not equal. I'm

forgetting who was it who thought they were equal? Was it Allan (a c)?

>> This presumption of the jeevA undergoing states, yes, is part of the

>> teaching, but that's another construct (like the dreamer Y), for which

>> there is not a lot of evidence.

>>

>

>Jeeva undergoing states would be acceptable if we consider the jeeva to be

>the same from birth to death; i.e. if we accept that a jeeva is born,

>grows up, and gives up physical body at time of death, i.e. jeeva goes

>through the wake-up state, sleeps, and dreams sometimes while sleeping,

>wakes up and so on. The world would function if this concept is accepted.

 

But just what is the jeeva? Is it:

 

1. identical with all or some of the 5 sheaths?

2. different from all or some of the 5 sheaths?

3. the same shape as all or some of the 5 sheaths?

>Alternately, one can question, is it the same jeeva that goes from birth

>to death? The basis of this questioning is: Yes, the Consciousness is the

>same, which does not go through either birth or death, but the jeeva (i.e.

>the Consciousness + gross + subtle body combination) is not the same from

>one moment to the next.

 

Yes, this is why the jeeva-concept makes no sense to me. It is held to be

identical through time, yet it changes as the elements change.

>Yes, but can we discuss X, Y, Z as upAdhis *in isolation from the

>substratum* ? If we discuss them separately, we will end up with a

>dry answer which is not a solution. The upAdhis *cannot* create, see,

>know, act or suffer bondage or achieve liberation. The substratum

>*does not* create, see, know, act or suffer bondage or achieve

>liberation. So, what is the solution we end up with?

 

Ajata-vada!!

 

>In the wake-up state,

>Z has to see him/herself as a total(substratum + upAdhI) entity and

>understand what he/she is. Exactly in the same way, X has to see

>him/herself as a total (substratum + upAdhI) entity. The only conclusion

>we can come to is that there is no difference between the two states.

>The two states are exactly similar and parallel to each other.

 

I'd say the same thing about all states, including memory and imagination.

They are all self-referential in that they actually point to nothing but

themselves and Brahman. Any seeming pointing outside themselves, as memory

seems to do when it "recalls" another state, is just another appearance

that happens NOW. Same as a dream!

 

Swami Nikhilananda of the Ramakrishna Math has one of the best analyses

I've ever read of the parallelism between the waking and dream states.

It's in the Appendix to Vol. 4 of his 4-volume set of Upanishads.

Published by the Ramakrishna organization. He proposes 8 reasons that the

dream state might be different from the waking state, and then answers each

argument. Basically, his strategy is that anything you say to argue that

the dream state is different, amounts to not fairly or adequately taking

the dream state on its own evidence. A great essay!

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Some final thoughts from me on this topic, and my thanks to Greg for the

discussion.

 

In ChAndogya upanishad, PrajApati teaches what is the SELF to Indra

(leader of the surAs) and Virochana (leader of the asurAs). Virochana

is satisfied very early in the teaching and leaves with the wrong

impression that what is seen by the eye (in the eye) that is the SELF.

The true notion of the SELF is distorted when seen through the impure

mind, whereas, what is experienced by the pure mind of the enlightened

is true.

 

Indra persists on and successively gets the teaching. PrajApati's teaching

to Indra *successively* is

 

1. The person that is seen in the eye - that is the SELF, the immortal,

the fearless, that is Brahman.

 

[The instruction is concerned with the gross physical body as it functions

in the waking state.]

 

On further persistence from Indra, prajApati teaches (after further

austerity by Indra)

 

2. He who moves about, exalted, in dreams, that is the SELF, the immortal,

the fearless, that is Brahman.

 

[The instruction is concerned about the SELF, which functions in dream

through the subtle body]

 

Indra is satisfied and leaves. But he soon discovers that is not the

complete teaching because as Indra further contemplates "It is true

the dream SELF does not experience the defects of the waking state,

but in dream also one sees the defects. Therefore the soul identified

with the subtle body, as in a dream, cannot be the true SELF".

 

Indra returns to PrajApati in quest of further teaching. After further

austerity by Indra, PrajApati gives the next teaching:

 

3. When a man is asleep, with senses withdrawn and with no dream, that

is the SELF, the immortal, the fearless, that is Brahman.

 

Indra is satisfied and leaves. But he soon discovers that is not the

complete teaching because "In deep sleep, one is completely unaware

of the objects. There was no subject either, to experience them.

Therefore how can the SELF realized in deep sleep be immortal?"

 

Indra returns to PrajApati for further teaching. PrajApati has been

explaining the same SELF through waking, dream and deep-sleep states

but because Indra's mind is not completely pure, he could not grasp

It. After further austerity by Indra, PrajApati says

 

"O Maghavan (Indra), this body is mortal, always held by death. But

it is the support or home of that deathless, bodiless SELF. The embodied

soul is the victim of pleasure and pain. So long as one is identified

with the body (gross, subtle or causal), there is no ending for this

pleasure and pain. If one does not identify with the body, there is

neither pleasure nor pain."

 

PrajApati goes on explaining how the life is attached to the body and

how the soul identified with the body rises above the body and attains

its true form.

 

In context of the present discussion, the above teaching by PrajApati

to Indra is relevant in seeing that in both the dream and the waking

states, the SELF is the basis. Even though in my last post, I said

Y is the Ishwara for the dream state, that Ishwara (Y) is also a

superposition on the SELF. The wake-up and the dream states are the

functionings of the body (either gross or subtle) and as long as we

do not identify with these bodily activities, we are above pleasure

and pain.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------