Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Subbuji wrote: advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > > Namaste Peterji, > what Shankara has to say about the dream > in his commentary on the Karika of Gaudapada has to be > balanced with that which is in B.S.B. II.ii.29. > "With regard to this we say, the perceptions of the > waking state cannot be classed with those in a dream. > Why? > Because of difference of characteristics; for waking and > dream states are really different in nature." >> The extreme sceptical position which proposes that > all this might also be a dream has its proponents both > East and West. Generally this springs from an idealist > viewpoint which makes the experience of the individual > the cornerstone. In other words we construct our > conceptual schema on the basis of what we are > directly in contact with namely our own personal > experience. It is an influential doctrine but it is > riddled with paradoxes. Again Shankara specifically > dismisses it in B.S.B. > > Some have settled on the position of Gaudapada in > the Karika as a point to defend. Others, learned > historians of Indian thought, hold that there > was influence of Madhamika thought in there. > In that case the idealist bias is explained and > Shankara's commentary amounts to 'it says here'. > There would also be the reluctance to directly > contradict his revered grand-guru. > > Best Wishes, > Michael. > ShrIgurubhyo NamaH Namaste Michael ji, Does the above suggest that Shankara has not spoken about the equating of the waking with dream anywhere outside of the Karika ? Warm regards, subbu Om Tat Sat |||||||||||||| Namaste Subbuji, I suspect that you have just such a locus in your back pocket. The position of B.S.B.II.ii.29 is consistent with that in Brh.Up.IV.iii . Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > Subbuji wrote: > advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Peterji, > > what Shankara has to say about the dream > > in his commentary on the Karika of Gaudapada has to be > > balanced with that which is in B.S.B. II.ii.29. > > "With regard to this we say, the perceptions of the > > waking state cannot be classed with those in a dream. > > Why? > > Because of difference of characteristics; for waking and > > dream states are really different in nature." > >> The extreme sceptical position which proposes that > > all this might also be a dream has its proponents both > > East and West. Namaste Michael-ji, I feel your approach seems to be of a partial advaitic nature. I seem to remember that you negatively commented on Ajativada. If one does that then one can examine all the states with some validity attributed to them. Sankara and the Upanishads sometimes speak figuratively about dream. The essence being if dreams are real then why are there bad ones? Even the Veda talks of the immortal one leaving the body and moving about etc. It seems to me that the dream state and the waking state are similar with the waking state being more stable in time. They are just different states of the mind and Jiva, but one 'the waking' mainly, can influence the other,,'the dream' and does. This indicates their connectiveness and combined status. With regard to the 'deep sleep state', this is just the sub stratum of the illusion.............Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > Subbuji wrote: > advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Peterji, > > what Shankara has to say about the dream > > in his commentary on the Karika of Gaudapada has to be > > balanced with that which is in B.S.B. II.ii.29. > > "With regard to this we say, the perceptions of the > > waking state cannot be classed with those in a dream. > > Why? > > Because of difference of characteristics; for waking and > > dream states are really different in nature." > >> The extreme sceptical position which proposes that > > all this might also be a dream has its proponents both > > East and West. Generally this springs from an idealist > > viewpoint which makes the experience of the individual > > the cornerstone. In other words we construct our > > conceptual schema on the basis of what we are > > directly in contact with namely our own personal > > experience. It is an influential doctrine but it is > > riddled with paradoxes. Again Shankara specifically > > dismisses it in B.S.B. > > > > Some have settled on the position of Gaudapada in > > the Karika as a point to defend. Others, learned > > historians of Indian thought, hold that there > > was influence of Madhamika thought in there. > > In that case the idealist bias is explained and > > Shankara's commentary amounts to 'it says here'. > > There would also be the reluctance to directly > > contradict his revered grand-guru. > > > > Best Wishes, > > Michael. > > > > > ShrIgurubhyo NamaH > > Namaste Michael ji, > > Does the above suggest that Shankara has not spoken about the > equating of the waking with dream anywhere outside of the Karika ? > > Warm regards, > subbu > Om Tat Sat > |||||||||||||| > > Namaste Subbuji, > I suspect that you have just such a locus in > your back pocket. The position of B.S.B.II.ii.29 is consistent with that > in Brh.Up.IV.iii . > > Best Wishes, > Michael. > Namaste Michael ji, Thanks for your response. There are a number of instances where Shankaracharya conveys the idea of the similarity of the waking and dream states. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya (BUB) for II.iv.7, for instance has this to say: [it is seen in the world that whatever is never apprehended apart from the essential character of something surely has the latter as its very nature....Likewise, in the states of waking and dream, nothing particular is grasped distinct from Consciousness. Therefore, it is logical that they (specifics) have no existence apart from Consciousness.] Again, in BUB IV.iii.19, He says: [The Upanishad holds that even the perception of the waking state is but a dream. And it accordingly said in another Upanishad, `He has three abodes, three dreams (waking, dream and deep sleep) (Aitareya Upanishad I.iii.12.'] There are verses to support the BUB in Sureshwaracharyas Vartika of that Upanishad as well. Ref. BUBV (IV.iii.1072, 1073). In BUB II.i.18 the Shankara bhashyam is: [Therefore, in the dream state, worlds that are not at all real are falsely superimposed as being of the self. One must understand that such is the case in the waking state too.] In BUB II.iv.12 we have in the commentary: [Though an object of the world may be big (mahat), it is akin to the Himalayas and other mountains brought about by a dream or magic; it is not something quite true. Hence, the text specifies that This (Brahman) is, on the other hand, great (mahat) as also real (bhUtam).] Even in the Brahmasutra bhashyam we come across statements to the effectthat the world of waking is unreal like a dream and it gets sublated upon awakening to the Truth. In the UpadeshasAhasrI there occurs this verse: //janimaj-jnAnavijneyam svapnajnAnavad-ishyate nityam nirvishayam jnAnam tasmAd-dvaitam na vidyate // (Metrical Part IX.7) [That which has origin and that which is an object of knowledge is regarded as being on par with (an object of) knowledge in a dream. Duality does not (really) exist. Therefore, consciousness is eternal and objectless] Explaining this verse, the commentator Anandagiri wites: // On the ground of being an effect and because of being perceived, the host of objects of the waking state is false like n object of knowledge in a dream.// The commentator Raamtiirtha's clarification too is concurrent with the above. There is another (of the several verses of this kind) occurring in the UpadeshasAhasrI : [The painful series of body, senses and intellect is neither related to Me (the Atman), nor is it Myself, for I am changeless. Further, this is indeed so because there is a reason for the series being false. Its falsity is like that of what is perceived in dream.] Again, the two commentaries concur with the above view. To sum up, it would be improper to conclude that Bhagavatpada holds the waking as real. His unequivocal position is that the world of waking too is unreal, like the dream, and the awakening to the Truth gives rise to this truth experientially. What He has repudiated in the BSB II.ii.29 is a position of the Vijnanavadin (that there are no objects in the waking apart from perception) and what He has established in the Karika (that objects in the waking are false, because of being perceived, just as in the dream) is quite another. The ground of repudiation in the former and the ground of establishing in the latter case are quite different from each other. Upon reading the texts concerned carefully, most preferably with the Sanskrit original, perhaps with a qualified guide, one will see the `difference' pertaining to the two positions in the two texts. The two positions that the Bhashyam (for the two texts) holds only `appear' to be contradicting each other, but the truth is not such. With warm regards, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Namaste AvastAtrayaites. My promised paper might be delayed until after the first week of November as I am travelling to India due to certain developments on the personal front which have caught me unawares. In the meantime, I find that Subbuji has come with many scriptural references to illustrate the similarity of dream and waking. May I humbly point out to him that similarity is not the issue we are debating. All of us are Advaitins and we have no doubt that Brahman is the Real Real. The rest all are miThyA. We are debating on this miThyA and my contention is that the miThyA called waking, wherever it is, has more useful validity and superiority over the miThyA called dreams. So, kindly don't mix issues. Brahman remains the substratum of both. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair wrote: > > In the meantime, I find that Subbuji has come with many scriptural > references to illustrate the similarity of dream and waking. Namaste Nair ji, Let me assure you that my post was purely intended as a reply to Michael ji's observation. In fact, i had long forgotten the discussion that you have in mind. Hence, there is no mixing up of issues at all. With best wishes and warm regards, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.