RE: The Real and the Unreal - Part IV - The Dream Analogy - part I

[Guest guest]

Enjoying the series since it is forcing me to think - Here I present

some general comments, if I may, from my understanding. I recognize

that others might have already pointed out but due to outpouring

discussions on this topic and limited time at my disposal I have not

opened them. Hence my apologies to all if the comments are redundant.

 

To minimize the number of back and forth mails as well as reduce your

time, you could assemble the main points of each discusser and respond

in one mail for all. Of course there are always people like me who have

a large phase lag – the best thing to do is just ignore them. Dennis

learned it hard way when he sent his book for my comments. – now for

more seriousness:

 

 

CN-ji

 

I am glad you recognize that there is an apparent contradiction from the

point of B.S. Baashya related to mantra-s II-II-29 and Shankara’s own

statements in his prakarana texts. You chose to resolve the

contradiction in one way. But here is the way I would look at it.

 

Besides these choices, of course, we need to examine the issue

logically, epistemologically and ontologically – I am sure you are going

to address these in your posts at your pace.

 

First some general comments on the importance of Brahma sutra in

contrast to Shankara’s prakarana GrahthA-s.

 

BS is one specific text, and due to the importance given at that time-

Shankara has to constrain himself in his commentary – Hence he wrote

adhyaasa bhaashya as a preamble which is not really a part of BS. There

is no need of adhyaasa bhaashya, if BS echos the Advaita siddhanta.

Second, since it contains criticism of Buddhistic philosophy, equation

of Badaraayana with Vyaasa is never taken for real.

 

In contrast, it is obvious that in the prakaraNa granthAs which were

authored by Shankara, he was at full liberty to discuss the tenants of

Advaita without any need for accommodation. To extract Shankara’s own

opinion, it is proper to give more importance to his own texts than

politically constrained commentary on Badarayana’s opinions.

 

Even so, Badaraayana’s statement has to be looked at carefully - in

II-II-28 he uses a double negative (I discussed this some time back at

the request of Shree Bejamin) and II-II-29 follows ii-ii-28 and has to

be discussed in the context of the chapter. From overall point, since

1) he has already defined Brahman as the material cause for the universe

(waking world in particular) in the first chapter, and 2) that Brahman

is prajNaana Ghanam or mass of pure consciousness, and 3) by his own

sutra that cause and effect must be of the same nature, inert pillars in

the waking state cannot be any more real, even if they are not

comparable to the inert pillars in the dream state. Now let us examines

the following statements more closely. As you have pointed out already

we are taking about the shaastriiya anumaana-s and the vyaapti-s for

these anumaana-s are also shaastriiya rather than pratyaksha based.

 

 

DREAM AND REALITY

>For, Shankara denies that the

> appearance of objects can arise without there being real objects. In

> order to reveal the full import of Shankara's words, we shall cite

> here the three reasons given in the bhashya to show specifically that

> the waking state is not like the dream state, alongwith one other

> quote taken from a slightly different context, but equally applicable

> to the case.

>

> 1. The objects of the waking state are not sublated under any

> condition unlike those of the dream state.

 

Well – it depends on what one calls as sublation – as soon as one goes

to dream state, the waking world is already sublated. Since dreamer does

not see the waking world – and from whose reference we can talk of the

waking world? In deep sleep state both are sublated. If you say the

waking world has more permanency, then it is a question of degree not of

kind.

> "To a man arisen from sleep, the object perceived in a dream becomes

> sublated, for he says, 'Falsely did I imagine myself in contact with

> great men. In fact I never came in contact with great men; only my

> mind became overpowered by sleep; and thus this delusion arose.' So

> also in the case of magic etc., adequate sublation takes place. But a

> thing seen in the waking state, a pillar for instance, is not thus

>sublated under any condition." (BSB,II,II,v,29)

 

Reality of the dream pillars?

>From my understanding, comparison of the dream state with the waking

state is never done on an identity basis or on a one to one basis since

the reference states are different – it is like comparing apples and

oranges. The comparison is done taking its own states as its reference.

In fact I would say it is the glory of our scriptures that it takes

complete experience (or data) of human being – waking, dream and deep

sleep states to arrive at the truth behind the three states rather than

just one third of the human experience (waking state) to arrive at

philosophical conclusions which can never be conclusive.

 

For example, let us recognize that the statement about the reality of

the dream state is made by a waker and not by a dreamer. On the other

hand from philosophical stand point Shankara statements when he

compares the two states, he is very careful and very specific – To take

an example, in aatma bodha he says - sakAle satyavat bhaati, prabodhe

satyasat bhavet – while one is dreaming, the world appears to be real

and only when awaken to the higher state of reality, it is no more real.

If you compare each in its own reference they are identical. If you

ignore the reference states and compare the contents, then one can

arrive at wrong conclusions. If you extend the arguments on the

philosophical grounds, the conclusion based on the analogy is that when

one is awakened to the higher state the unreality of the lower states

becomes obvious – this does not mean that two states are identical – The

samskaara that helps to project the world in each state is different.

That makes the structure and content of the dream and the waking worlds

are different, but that does not negate the analogies.

 

For a dreamer the dream objects such as pillar etc. in his dream are as

real as for a waker about his pillars in his state. Only a waker

considers that the dream pillars are not real. That is the knowledge

gained after awakened to the higher state of consciousness. When a

dreamer bumps into the dream pillar very hard, his dream-head will have

all the bumps and he may have to be rushed to dream emergency room and

wait for many dream hours (if he is dreaming American dream hospitals)

before he sees the doctor, just the same way, when a waker bumps into

his pillar in the waking state. The vedantin-dream-subject thinks his

world of dream has been created by the great Lord who pervades all the

dream world of objects and beings and who transcends the dream world of

space-time continuum or pancha bhuuta-s of the dream world! (He may

running his own advaitin list there with the dream !)

 

In that sense the analogy in their own states are comparable. The

analogy is intended only in that sense. Sankara makes identical

statements in Dakshana muurthy strotram and Prof. V.K. just pointed out

in the Shata slokI. The conclusion from the analogy of the dream and

the waking worlds considering their respective references, is only to

show that neither one is real –both get sublated in the deep sleep

state. The usefulness of the dream is only to emphasize this point that

no-thing is real just in the dream. In both the dream world and the

waking world both are pervaded by the consciousness which is substantive

for both and hence real. And the Real is that which never gets sublated

in any state and that is the self that I am. I am a waker, I am a

dreamer and I am a deep sleeper –‘I am’ runs through all the states –

and is independent of any state and that never gets sublated any time

and therefore the only reality.

 

Anyway that is where the analogy begins and that is where the analogy

ends. One can of course discuss the samskaara that provides the basis

for projection of the respective worlds and come up with theories –

there is vyashTi and samashTi samskaaras that play a role in the

projections. VyashTi for the dream and complex combination of vyaShTi

and samashTi for the waking state. The point is both need samskaara –

which of course is beginningless.

> 2. Dream vision is a kind of memory whereas those of the waking state

> are perceptions of objects.

>

> "Moreover, dream vision is a kind of memory, whereas the visions of

> the waking state are forms of perception (through valid means of

> knowledge). And the difference between perception and memory,

> consisting in the presence or absence of objects, can be understood

> by oneself, as for instance when one says: 'I remember my beloved

>son, but I do not see him, though I want to see'." (BSB,II,II,v,29).

 

Now we are getting into epistemological questions. I submit that in both

cases there is samskaaka as the basis and within each frame of reference

there is janma, sthiti and laya – birth, growth and death – the three

aspects involved in any creation until pralayam for that state takes

over! This is only a difference of microcosmic and macrocosmic nature of

the problem – but in essence a best parallel system for analysis.

Without going into the analysis of the perception process at this stage,

perceptions and the means of knowledge available or pramaaNa are

identical in both states. Dream subject sees the dream pillar through

pramaaNa- valid means of knowledge for a dreamer, just as for the waker

in the waking state. If the dream subject closes his dream eyes, he may

not see the pillar in front of him and if he walks closing this eyes he

will definitely bump into it unless some pour soul stops him from

bumping, The dreamer may also see a dream snake where there is a rope in

his dream due to lack of sufficient light in his dream and get

frightened away until he finds that it is adhyaasa when he sheds dream

light on it. The dream snake disappears while the rope still remains,

which he can use to tie some poor soul in his dream.

 

What you may be saying is that samskaara for a dream world comes from

the waking state. That is true. Similarly there is samskaara for the

waking world too. Some total of vaasana-s of all beings put together

becomes the seed for the waking world – just as sum total of all the

beings in the dream world is the samskaara for the dream world that you

are referring to.

 

In addition, in the analysis of the objects seen in the mind, we

differentiate even in the waking states the object that one is seeing

directly – pratyaksha and the objects that one recalls from memory. In

both cases the mental vision is involved.

 

Now one have identical situation in the dream too – the objects such as

pillars that he is seeing right in front of him and objects that are

snakes where there are rope due to adhyaasa. Dream-rope may be more

real than the dream snake that the dreamer imagined while seeing the

dream rope. Hence I submit to your consideration that direct comparison

of two states on one common reference such as waking state is

inappropriate and Shankara is extremely careful in his wording – sakaale

satyavat bhaati prabodhe satyasat bhavet – he has used the vat

pratyayam.

 

The last statement in your paragraph - 'I remember my beloved

Son, but I do not see him, though I want to see' - one can be making

that statement in the dream state as well or in the waking state to his

respective friends in each state –and both are valid in their respective

states.

 

 

3. Objects cannot appear from mere internal impressions.

I submit that the above statement can be made by CNji in his dream about

the dream objects with his advaitin friends in his dream – one would not

know the difference. The statements following this if one examines

carefully are equally valid in each state as reference, independently.

One would not know whether waker is talking to his friends in the waking

state or dreamer is talking to his friends in the dream state. To

confuse further one can imagine a dreamer going to sleep in his dream

and dreaming (a second order dream) and getting up from that dream and

making about the dream objects that he dreamt and how they differ from

his waking state (first order dream). Anyway the point has been made.

>

> 4. Objects are not unreal because they have distinguishing

> characteristics.

>Objects of the waking state are not like those of a dream.

 

I am not sure this is correct either. Each object in its reference state

has its characteristics that distinguish the other objects in that

reference state. If I am dreaming as a fire man and you are all watching

as spectators and I am trying to put out the blazing fire of a tall

building, the characteristics of the building, the hose that I am

holding, the fire and the water that I am putting out as you, the

spectators all have their distinguishing characteristics. Only when I

am awakened to the higher state, they all resolve into me, the waking

mind. I submit that the last statement is valid in the waking state as

well as dream state. Hence Krishna statement of that higher state –

sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutanicha aatmani or yo maam pasyati

sarvatra sarvancha mayi pastyati. The systems are parallel in their

analogy.

 

> These are not provisional statements. They are to be resolved with

> other statements in the bhashya through samanvaya, reconciliation, by

> finding the higher truth in which the seeming contradictions are

resolved.

 

Yes I would say not just Bhaashya that is pourusheyam, but with Vedanta.

That is exactly what Shankara does all his prakarana grantha-s.

>I believe that the dream analogy has been used with a

> certain lack of caution to 'prove' that the world is unreal. It is

> true that in Advaita the world is considered unreal in a certain

> sense, but it is this very meaning that is to be illuminated in the

> light of the discriminative knowledge of the real and the unreal.

> Until then the meaning of unreality lies hidden by darkness, as much

> as does the meaning of reality.

 

Beautiful. The last statement I full endorse and I would add that dream

world provides a nature’s way of showing us a parallel system for

comparison and the glory of Upanishad is using this parallel model to

inculcate how to use the nithya anitya vastu viveka to recognize the

reality of the worlds that we experience.

 

I would stop with this, since my eyes are burning looking at the monitor

and my fingers lagging behind my mind in typing – I am very bad speller

and have good excuse for it.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Enjoying the series since it is forcing me to think - Here I

present

> some general comments, if I may, from my understanding.

.......

> That is exactly what Shankara does all his prakarana grantha-s.

>

> >I believe that the dream analogy has been used with a

> > certain lack of caution to 'prove' that the world is unreal. It

is

> > true that in Advaita the world is considered unreal in a certain

> > sense, but it is this very meaning that is to be illuminated in

the

> > light of the discriminative knowledge of the real and the

unreal.

> > Until then the meaning of unreality lies hidden by darkness, as

much

> > as does the meaning of reality.

>

> Beautiful. The last statement I full endorse and I would add that

dream

> world provides a nature's way of showing us a parallel system for

> comparison and the glory of Upanishad is using this parallel model

to

> inculcate how to use the nithya anitya vastu viveka to recognize

the

> reality of the worlds that we experience.

>

> I would stop with this, >

>

 

Namaste, Sada-ji,

 

That was wonderful. I enjoy reading your clarification. I am

relieved that you pointed out why Shankara is more relaxed in his

prakaraNa granthas and we are able to get better clarity through his

exposition of advaita in his prakaraNa granthas.

 

I particularly want to emphasize your very last statement above

about the dream being a unique nature's way of showing us the

comparative reality and unreality of our world experiences. In fact,

it would be worthwhile to ponder on the following lines:

 

What indeed is the Creator's purpose of the dream phenomenon? God

could have as well created the world and its beings without the

dream phenomenon being a part of nature. He could have made us all

pass from the waking state to the deep sleep state, back and forth,

without ever having to go through the dream state!

 

Why did He then create the concept of 'Dream'? There is no obvious

purpose. The only purpose seems to be to tell us all what it is 'to

dream' and thus give us a first-hand taste of a 'lower' order of

reality than our world of experience. If the dream phenomenon was

not there in nature, would we ever comprehend that the 'real' world

of experience is after all only a passing phase and it could be, at

least in theory, sublated by a 'higher' state of reality?

 

And that, I think, is the only purpose of a dream!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

 

While I am thankful to you, Sadanandaji, for your thought-provoking

post, I am afraid that I will have to disagree with your thesis that

Shri Shankaracharya was constrained by the Brahma Sutras into

expressing a 'politically correct' version of Advaita in the bhashya

as compared to his writings in the parakarana granthas. I believe

that the bhashya on the Brahma Sutras is the central text of Advaita

philosophy, and is the reference text against which other texts such

as the prakarana granthas are to be interpreted -- for such is the

position that the bhashya traditionally holds. The prakarana granthas

are the primers and guides that have a more prescriptive role while

the bhashya has the role of laying out the philosophical doctrine of

Advaita. When the prakarana granthas are interpreted accordingly, I

believe there is no conflict between them and the bhashya.

 

Again, there has never been any voice in old-India that says that

Vyasa and Badarayana were two different persons. He was called

Badarayana because he resided at Badari in the Himalayas. He was

known as Dvaipayana because he was born on an island. He was known as

Krishna because he was of dark complexion. How can Sri Krishna

Dvaipayana Badarayana be separated from Veda Vyasa? None of our

traditions holds that Badarayana and Vyasa were different. It is only

modern scholarship that makes duality out of non-duality.

 

 

ON NON-SUBLATION OF OBJECTS IN THE WAKING WORLD

 

Shankara says that objects in the waking world are not sublated. What

does it mean?

 

I dreamt yesterday and I shall dream again tonight when I sleep. My

dream tonight will intervene between today and tomorrow, and when it

comes it will have sublated the world that is now around me. But I do

not, on that account, think that this world will not be there

tomorrow. I do not believe that the dream will sublate this world

that I now see. It will be there tomorrow as much as it was there

today and yesterday. Its being there is not given by my philosophical

speculations; it has been there all these years and it will be there

for many years more. Every dream interrupts it with its own dream-

world, but the world around me continues to be. It is not only that

the world continues as before, but it is also that I cannot help

believing that it will continue. I cannot make myself not believe

that it will continue. Where does this irresistible belief come from?

I must recognize that there is a deeper reflex within me which gives

to me my own convictions. It is the springs of this 'unconscious'

reflex that we must acknowledged as a given fact of experience. Our

thoughts that break upon the reefs of the world are driven by a

deeper current than we can see or comprehend. Our experience is the

weft and weave of a tapestry. How can the weft and weave deny the

fibres of which it is made? How can the tip of the fountain deny the

very spring from which it gushes forth? We are conditioned by the

currents of subterranean springs that gush out as the waking and

dream states, and it is no more possible for us deny each in its

respective sphere without making such denial into a warp of the mind –

because it is affirmed from a level that is deeper than the level of

intellectual denial. We must abide by the direction of the current

when we speak. It is the intellect's incapability of surmounting this

deep current of Reality that establishes the order of the pramanas –

pratyaksha cannot take precedence over anumana because when anumana

goes against the grain of the current of experience it is liable to

become a warp of the mind. Therefore the world seen in the waking

state is real because that is how the current of Reality bring it

forth inexorably to our eyes and mind.

 

Again, what do we gain by saying that the waking world is like the

dream world? We may say this repeatedly, but we again go back to the

next dream-world and forget all that we said and see the dream-

objects as real. We say the world is unreal and yet plan to refurnish

our houses. The unreality that is pointed out in the dream analogy is

the falsity of the existential independence of the world, and this

pointing out carries with it a certain message. It tells us that we

are not within the body in the waking state even as we were not

within the dream-body. It is only if we can see this truth that the

correct meaning of unreality shines forth because the avidya that has

placed us within the body is present in us as long as we see

ourselves trapped within the body, and it will not let us see things

aright. The body has an important connection to the dream analogy

because the dream object is seen to be unreal in relation to its

impossibility of residence within the space of the body. But that

very condition of seeing the impossibility of dream objects as

existing things is dependent on us seeing ourselves within the body

in the waking state i.e., it is because we see ourselves as embodied

that the dream-world is thought to be within the body, and it is

because the dream-world is thought to be within the body that it is

considered unreal. If we say that the waking world is unreal like the

dream world even when embodiedness is persisting, then it is liable

to cause WORMs (Warps Of Reasoning Mind). The dream objects and

waking objects become equated in existential status only when the

avidya of embodiedness is killed and not otherwise. But what that

existential status is is what this discussion is about.

 

 

DREAM OBJECTS ARE A KIND OF MEMORY

 

Are dream objects existent? No. Since they are not existent and since

waking objects are existent, dream objects are a kind of memory. It

is as simple as that. The reply is in direct conformance with the

experiential state that we are placed in when we ask the question. We

do not try to go down to the garage to start our dream-cars, but we

do open the refrigerator to get ourselves a drink.

 

 

OBJECTS AND IMPRESSIONS

 

Objects are not impressions; they are objects. Again, it is as simple

as that. The question of vasanas is really not valid here because

that is a question on causality – on what causes vasanas, or on how

the manifestation of the world comes about from vasanas, etc. The

question here is: `what is an object?' and the answer is that an

object is an object and not an impression.

 

My next part is related to some of the points discussed here and I

think it is now time for it to be put up.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Enjoying the series since it is forcing me to think - Here I

present

> some general comments, if I may, from my understanding. I

recognize

> that others might have already pointed out but due to outpouring

> discussions on this topic and limited time at my disposal I have not

> opened them. Hence my apologies to all if the comments are

redundant.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

 

A correction. I wrote:

 

"....pratyaksha cannot take precedence over anumana...."

 

I had meant to write:

 

"... anumana cannot take precedence over pratyaksha...."

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

our beloved Chitta writes....

 

( Again, there has never been any voice in old-India that says that

Vyasa and Badarayana were two different persons. He was called

Badarayana because he resided at Badari in the Himalayas. He was

known as Dvaipayana because he was born on an island. He was known

as Krishna because he was of dark complexion. How can Sri Krishna

Dvaipayana Badarayana be separated from Veda Vyasa? None of our

traditions holds that Badarayana and Vyasa were different.

 

Chitta-ji, You are CORRECT- 100%.

 

here it is in Swami Sivanandana's own words ... the Invocation prayer

reads ...

 

" I worship the great Rishi Vyasa, who is called Krishna-dvaipayana,

who is worshipped by gods, men and Asuras alike, who is the form of

Vishnu, who is like the light of the rising sun to the darkness of

the impurities of the age of Kali, who belongs to the family of

Vasishtha, who divided the Vedas into different sections, who is the

seed of Dharma, who wrote the Puranas, the Brahma Sutras, the

Mahabharata and the Smriti. "

 

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_3/bs_3-2-01.html - 41k - Cached

Dreams

 

 

Btw, for those who want to understand more about Dreams , HOW REAL OR

UNREAL, they are ... and the interpretation of Dreams in

Brahmasurtras, this is a brilliant exposition which supplements our

beloved chitta-ji's excellent presentation.

 

and chiia-ji observes on a humorous note ...

 

It is only modern scholarship that makes duality out of non-duality.

 

more like "duel-ity" out of non-duality-

 

IN VIVEKA-CHUDAMANI, Adi Shankara says ...

 

I am verily that Brahman, the One without a second, which is the

support of all, which illumines all things, which has infinite forms,

is omnipresent, devoid of multiplicity, eternal, pure, unmoved, and

absolute. I am verily that Brahman, the One without a second, which

transcends the endless differentiations of Maya, is the in-most

essence of all, beyond the range of consciousness, – which is Truth,

Knowledge, Infinitude, and Bliss Absolute.

 

( try to understand this at any level - paramarthika, vyavaharika or

whatever ... )

 

Finally,

 

Chitta proclaims ...

 

"I dreamt yesterday and I shall dream again tonight when I sleep."

 

but one dreams also in the waking state. that is day dreaming!

smiles.

 

Keep on dreaming dear-heart! One day we will all wake up to the Truth

 

"sarvam kalvidham braHman"

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

Dear Adi mA,

 

"sarvam kalvidham braHman"

 

Do you know what the next word is ? and may I know why you dropped it

from the quote ?

 

Let me know.

 

Regards,

Jay N.

 

-

"adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16

<advaitin>

Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:29 PM

Re: The Real and the Unreal - Part IV - The Dream Analogy -

part I

 

 

our beloved Chitta writes....

 

( Again, there has never been any voice in old-India that says that

Vyasa and Badarayana were two different persons. He was called

Badarayana because he resided at Badari in the Himalayas. He was

known as Dvaipayana because he was born on an island. He was known

as Krishna because he was of dark complexion. How can Sri Krishna

Dvaipayana Badarayana be separated from Veda Vyasa? None of our

traditions holds that Badarayana and Vyasa were different.

 

Chitta-ji, You are CORRECT- 100%.

 

here it is in Swami Sivanandana's own words ... the Invocation prayer

reads ...

 

" I worship the great Rishi Vyasa, who is called Krishna-dvaipayana,

who is worshipped by gods, men and Asuras alike, who is the form of

Vishnu, who is like the light of the rising sun to the darkness of

the impurities of the age of Kali, who belongs to the family of

Vasishtha, who divided the Vedas into different sections, who is the

seed of Dharma, who wrote the Puranas, the Brahma Sutras, the

Mahabharata and the Smriti. "

 

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_3/bs_3-2-01.html - 41k - Cached

Dreams

 

 

Btw, for those who want to understand more about Dreams , HOW REAL OR

UNREAL, they are ... and the interpretation of Dreams in

Brahmasurtras, this is a brilliant exposition which supplements our

beloved chitta-ji's excellent presentation.

 

and chiia-ji observes on a humorous note ...

 

It is only modern scholarship that makes duality out of non-duality.

 

more like "duel-ity" out of non-duality-

 

IN VIVEKA-CHUDAMANI, Adi Shankara says ...

 

I am verily that Brahman, the One without a second, which is the

support of all, which illumines all things, which has infinite forms,

is omnipresent, devoid of multiplicity, eternal, pure, unmoved, and

absolute. I am verily that Brahman, the One without a second, which

transcends the endless differentiations of Maya, is the in-most

essence of all, beyond the range of consciousness, - which is Truth,

Knowledge, Infinitude, and Bliss Absolute.

 

( try to understand this at any level - paramarthika, vyavaharika or

whatever ... )

 

Finally,

 

Chitta proclaims ...

 

"I dreamt yesterday and I shall dream again tonight when I sleep."

 

but one dreams also in the waking state. that is day dreaming!

smiles.

 

Keep on dreaming dear-heart! One day we will all wake up to the Truth

 

"sarvam kalvidham braHman"

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Jay,

 

 

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

> "sarvam kalvidham braHman"

> Do you know what the next word is?

>

> Regards,

> Jay N.

 

The next word is 'tajjalan'. I must thank you for pointing it out in

a previous discussion.

 

The full quote is "sarvam khalvidam brahma tajjalAn iti shAnta

upAseeta" meaning "All this universe is indeed created, maintained

and destroyed by Parambrahman".

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

> I had meant to write:

>

> "... anumana cannot take precedence over pratyaksha...."

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

 

You are right for all loukika anumana where in pratyaksha becomes the

basis for the vyapati-s or concomitant relationships. For issues where

shaastra becomes a pramaaNa, by definition it has the precidence. One

can establish anumaana vaakyam based shaastra too and vyaapti for that

has to come from shaastra only. - it cannot relay on pratyaksha. Hence

Baadaraayana's thrid suutra too.

On ontological issues that are beyond indriya-s, the role of pratyaksha

can only be secondary.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

Thank you CHITTA for coming to my rescue.

 

Yes! jay has been my upaguru , trying his best to enlighten me on

many aspects of Vedanta.

 

it is nice to see this young man so enthusiastic and eager in his

pursuit of vedantic Truth.

 

There are always questions and answers. ALL questions will come to an

end once one realizes the Truth. (i hope)

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Jay,

>

>

> advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

>

> > "sarvam kalvidham braHman"

> > Do you know what the next word is?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Jay N.

>

> The next word is 'tajjalan'. I must thank you for pointing it out

in

> a previous discussion.

>

> The full quote is "sarvam khalvidam brahma tajjalAn iti shAnta

> upAseeta" meaning "All this universe is indeed created, maintained

> and destroyed by Parambrahman".

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>I am afraid that I will have to disagree with your thesis that

> Shri Shankaracharya was constrained by the Brahma Sutras into

> expressing a 'politically correct' version of Advaita in the bhashya

> as compared to his writings in the parakarana granthas.

>I believe that the bhashya on the Brahma Sutras is the central text

of Advaita

> philosophy, and is the reference text against which other texts such

> as the prakarana granthas are to be interpreted -- for such is the

> position that the bhashya traditionally holds.

 

CNji, problem comes when there is an apparent controversy that you also

noted in Shankara's statements. One has to say Shankara contradicted

himself - which is not the right conclusion when he is so precise in

his analytical treatment of the shaastra-s. If the choice comes to

which you relay more - on his bhaasya of pourusheya vaakya or baashya on

apourusheya vakya where he is self-consistent. Obviously I give

preference to his prakarana grahthaas which are based on the Upanishadic

statements and not on BS. BS is only a secondary text to provide

samanavaya for the vedantic statements.

 

Anyway I have presented alternate view for consideration along with the

justification for that. By all means please do disagree. That is the

purpose of these discussions too - to provide alternate views - as long

as it is within the realm of list serve objective - Adviata, as taught

by Shankara.

 

>The prakarana granthas

> are the primers and guides that have a more prescriptive role while

> the bhashya has the role of laying out the philosophical doctrine of

> Advaita. When the prakarana granthas are interpreted accordingly, I

> believe there is no conflict between them and the bhashya.

 

Yes I agree fully with the your statement if I take the meaning for

bhaasya for bhashya-s on apourusheya upanishads than pourusheya BS.

There is no conflict between his prakrana granthaa-s and his upanishadic

bhaashya-s.

> Again, there has never been any voice in old-India that says that

> Vyasa and Badarayana were two different persons. He was called

> Badarayana because he resided at Badari in the Himalayas. He was

> known as Dvaipayana because he was born on an island. He was known as

> Krishna because he was of dark complexion.

 

CNji -All you said is ture about Krishna dvaipaayana Baadaraayana which

no one is disputing here. My question pertains to mostly about the

author of BS. The question is only if this Badarayana is the same as

the Krishna dvaipaayana Baadaraayana.

 

True all bhaashyakaara-s assumed that both are the same - that showed

the importance give to the BS. It is also true in our tradition to

attribute lot of things to Vyaasa. I have in fact discussed these in my

own notes on BS stored in the files. It is also true that all

bhaashyakaara-s (also as you have noted in your notes related to

II-II-29 ) discuss the second Chapter of BS is essentially as

Badaraayana's reputation of Bhuddhistic doctrins such as vijnaana vaada.

 

We cannot have both – One side all achaarya-s endorsing that BS ch.II

deals refutation of buddhistic doctrine or this Baadaraayana is

different from Vyaasa. Either we are forced to put Krishna Dwaipaayana

Badarayaana in the post-Buddhistic period or contend with a satisfaction

that Krishna Dwaipaayana Baadaraayana is Vyaasa and pre-historic, and

Baadaraayana, the author of BS, is different from Vyaasa.

 

Pray, explain to me how you resolve this issue.

> ON NON-SUBLATION OF OBJECTS IN THE WAKING WORLD

>

> Shankara says that objects in the waking world are not sublated. What

> does it mean?

>

> I dreamt yesterday and I shall dream again tonight when I sleep. My

> dream tonight will intervene between today and tomorrow, and when it

> comes it will have sublated the world that is now around me. But I do

> not, on that account, think that this world will not be there

> tomorrow. I do not believe that the dream will sublate this world

> that I now see. It will be there tomorrow as much as it was there

> today and yesterday. Its being there is not given by my philosophical

> speculations; it has been there all these years and it will be there

> for many years more. Every dream interrupts it with its own dream-

> world, but the world around me continues to be. It is not only that

> the world continues as before, but it is also that I cannot help

> believing that it will continue. I cannot make myself not believe

> that it will continue. Where does this irresistible belief come from?

> I must recognize that there is a deeper reflex within me which gives

> to me my own convictions. It is the springs of this 'unconscious'

> reflex that we must acknowledged as a given fact of experience. Our

> thoughts that break upon the reefs of the world are driven by a

> deeper current than we can see or comprehend. Our experience is the

> weft and weave of a tapestry. How can the weft and weave deny the

> fibres of which it is made? How can the tip of the fountain deny the

> very spring from which it gushes forth? We are conditioned by the

> currents of subterranean springs that gush out as the waking and

> dream states, and it is no more possible for us deny each in its

> respective sphere without making such denial into a warp of the mind –

> because it is affirmed from a level that is deeper than the level of

> intellectual denial. We must abide by the direction of the current

> when we speak. It is the intellect's incapability of surmounting this

> deep current of Reality that establishes the order of the pramanas –

> pratyaksha cannot take precedence over anumana because when anumana

> goes against the grain of the current of experience it is liable to

> become a warp of the mind. Therefore the world seen in the waking

> state is real because that is how the current of Reality bring it

> forth inexorably to our eyes and mind.

 

Yes - what all you said is beautiful and all that experiences of dualty

is accounted for in the prakarana Granthas without contradicting

adviatic doctrin.

 

viswam darpana drisyamaana nagarii tulyam nijaantargatam

pasyannaatmani maayayaa bahirivod bhuutam yathaa nidryayaa

yat saaskhaat kurute prabhoda samaye svaatmaanmevaadvayam

tasmai shree guru muurthaye nama idam shree dhakshiNaamuurthaye||

 

He who expriences at the time of realization his own immutable self - in

which the self alone plays as universe of names and forms, like a city

seen in mirror, due to the power of maya as though produced outside,

JUST AS IN A DREAM, to him, the divine teacher, Sri Dakshninamoorthy, is

this prostration - sloka 1 -Traslation by Swami Chinmyananda.

 

The point is - the unreality of objects of the dream is established by

the waker and not by the dreamer – all your statements above only

endorse the above statement not contradict it. There are no

discontinuties from dreamer's point just as there is no discontinuities

from waker's point. If what is real is only conscious entity and not

inert, the reality of the all objects is fundamentally questionable,

even though one feels by pratyaksha based on sensory input that they

are real. Anyway please go ahead with your series, I will just stand by

and step in if I have something else to say.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> You are right for all loukika anumana where in pratyaksha

> becomes the basis for the vyapati-s or concomitant

> relationships. For issues where shaastra becomes a pramaaNa,

> by definition it has the precidence.

 

I agree, that is the proper order of pramanas in Advaita

epistemology.

 

> One can establish anumaana vaakyam based shaastra too and

> vyaapti for that has to come from shaastra only.

 

I am not sure if the shruti statement can be taken as a component of

anumana. I believe the shruti statement has to be interpreted

by 'seeing' into its meaning rather than be employed as a vyapti in

anumana. The knowledge to be derived from shruti is hermeneutical

rather than syllogistical. If the shruti statement is used in anumana

when the meaning of the statement is yet in question, then the one

who is employing it does not establish an invariable concomitance

because atleast one component in the relationship is still unknown.

Thus it becomes a case of speaking not knowing what one is speaking.

 

> - it cannot rely on pratyaksha. Hence Baadaraayana's third

> sutra too. On ontological issues that are beyond indriya-s,

> the role of pratyaksha can only be secondary.

 

Yes, I agree. The role of pratyaksha is secondary when the subject of

the shruti pertains to what is beyond the indriyas (i.e., beyond

pratyaksha).

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Anyway I have presented alternate view for consideration

> along with the justification for that. By all means please

> do disagree. That is the purpose of these discussions too

> - to provide alternate views - as long as it is within the

> realm of list serve objective - Adviata, as taught by Shankara.

 

Sir, it is not my intention to disagree with you. As I have mentioned

earlier, I have learnt a lot from you, and I also admire your

catholicity. If I am saying anything contrary here, it is only

because I am trying to be coherent in what I am saying. If I am

wrong, I shall learn in the process.

 

 

> We cannot have both – One side all achaarya-s endorsing that

> BS ch.II deals refutation of buddhistic doctrine or this

> Baadaraayana is different from Vyaasa. Either we are forced

> to put Krishna Dwaipaayana Badarayaana in the post-Buddhistic

> period or contend with a satisfaction that Krishna Dwaipaayana

> Baadaraayana is Vyaasa and pre-historic, and Baadaraayana,

> the author of BS, is different from Vyaasa.

> Pray, explain to me how you resolve this issue.

 

This can be explained in two ways:

 

1. The Brahma Sutras are extremely cryptic statements, so much so

that they may be considered timeless. The refutations of other

darshanas in the Brahma Sutras are not directed to the historical

manifestations of these darshanas, but to the archetypes of the

darshanas as they exist perennially in Reality. This timelessness of

the Brahma Sutra may actually be seen in the very nature and

structure of the sutras. It is the bhashyakaras that expand on the

sutras and evocate its meaning taking into consideration the

darshanas that have historically irrupted into the realm of creation.

Thus there is no contradiction involved between the historical dates

of Vyasa and Buddha and the perennial archetypes of the darshanas

that are encountered in the Brahma Sutras.

 

 

2. When we bring history into the argument, it is necessary to ask

about the meaning of history itself. History as it is conceived today

has grown out of the schism between the divine and the human - a

schism that has its roots in the writings of Herodotus. Modern

history is based on the framework of a materialistic metaphysics and

is heavily coloured by Darwinian conceptions. These words of Will

Durant from his book, 'Heroes of History', may illustrate what I mean:

 

"Human history is a fragment of biology. Man is one of countless

millions of species and, like all the rest, is subject to the

struggle for existence and the competition of the fittest to survive.

All psychology, philosophy, statesmanship, and utopias must make

their peace with these biological laws."

 

This materialistic-biological conception of man that characterises

history is perhaps a reaction of historians to the medieval European

tendency that sought to look at the entire unfoldment of history

through purely Judeo-Christian motives. One may read

St.Augustine's 'City of God' to see what I mean. In recent years, the

philosopher-historian, Eric Voegelin, has done commendable work to

take history back to a conception wherein it is the story of a human-

divine participation. Unfortunately, Voegelin gets his data only from

restricted theatres of history.

 

I am of the opinion that if we are convinced by Vedanta metaphysics,

then we must look at history from a Vedantic perspective. I admit

that that may not be easy given the nature of our modern education,

but there is no harm trying. Accordingly, I would look at the advent

of Vyasa in the following manner:

 

Vyasa is not merely a person – he is the soul that occupies a

position in the manifestation of Reality, just like Indra and Varuna

are positions occupied during a cycle of creation by souls with the

requisite merits. The Vyasa-position has the role of compiling the

Vedas and Puranas at the cusp of history when the world undergoes

transition from Dvapara Yuga to the Kali Yuga and human intelligence

becomes incapable of continuing the tradition of oral transmission.

This cusp of history is the turning point when the world becomes dis-

enshrined, as it were, and darkness enters the hearts of men to make

the world appear completely insensate. It is the point at which the

Life that ensouls the universe becomes hidden to human eyes. It is

the transition point at which whatever was hitherto a part of human

history thenceforth slowly becomes mythology. Vyasa is the amsha of

Ishwara that manifests at this point in human history to compile the

wisdom of Sanathana Dharma so that the light of the Vedas may not

flicker out in the dark age of Kali. That is His Leela.

 

Such is the cultural backdrop of the Vedic tradition that believes in

the apourushiyata of the Vedas and in the divinity of Veda Vyasa.

Vyasa is he that knows the past and the future. That is how he is

able to write the smriti, for smriti is 'what is remembered' – it

comes from the anamnetic nature of consciousness.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan