Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Subbuji wrote: 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. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Subbu ji, Peterji and all follower of this thread, There appears to be a consistency in the approach of Shankara in his commentaries. When comparing one state of awareness or mode of awareness with another he holds to the primacy of the waking state. When comparing any state of consciousness or consciousness in general on the one hand and the Absolute or Pure Consciousness on the other then the former pales into insignificance or becomes a dream as it were. I think it is essential to remember the simple point that if all states are dream then there is no dream. A state has been distinguished from all others and given the name of dream. To collapse all states in that states is to deny its reason for being. One may as well say that all states are waking or that we are in a permanent state of deep sleep which is absurd. I have looked up the references which you have given and I do not see that they establish the undifferentiability of dream and waking consciousness. I refer to the commentary of Shankara by the work in question: (1) Brh.Up.IIiv.7: [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.] The text under consideration is "As, when a drum is beaten, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the drum or in the general sound produced by different kinds of strokes." The analogy makes it clear; before we can distinguish the different strokes/sounds of the drum (the different modes of consciousness) we recognise it to be drumming. As he writes: "one cannot distinguish its various particular notes from the general note of the drum, but they are included in, taken as modifications of, the general note" There are then particular notes or modes of consciousness even if we view the whole as just consciousness. (2)Brh.Up IV.iii.19: [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.'] Looking at this it has to be that Shankara is speaking poetically. ' He has 3 abodes 3 dream states" is a clear indication of this. Consciousness under the sway of limiting adjuncts is reality deficient but that is not to assimilate or reduce the any one to any other. (3)Brh.II.i.18: [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.] If you go back to that sutra and its commentary you will find that the distinction between states of consciousness is clearly maintained. It's there throughout eg. "It then becomes an emperor ((in dream)) as it were. This apparent suzerainty - not actual suzerainty, as in the waking state - is its achievement. ......therefore in dreams worlds that never exist are falsely superimposed as being a part of the self. One must know the worlds experienced also as such. Here the idea is that limiting adjuncts obtain in both states but that is no reason to say that they are the same. (4) Brh.Up II.iv.12: [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).] The dream state is part of the relative world in the sense that we have dreams whilst existing in the relative world. Likewise we may suffer from illusions such as mirages whilst awake in the relative world. The unstrained purport of the sutra which is the famous lump of salt one; is, that all states and modes of consciousness dissolve into pure Intelligence in the liberated condition. (5)U.S.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] Here again he is talking about the states of consciousness in general vis a vis the Absolute Pure Consciousness. Swami Jagadananda's translation is: "Objects that come into being and are capable of being made the objects of Knowledge are as unreal as those known in dream. As duality has no (real) existence Knowledge is eternal and objectless." The title of that chapter is "Subtleness and Pervasiveness" and it about the general nature of consciousness as such and not interstate comparison. When there is specific focus on such comparison as in Brh.Up. IV.iii pass. then distinctions emerge. No doubt if I knew Sanskrit subtleties and nuances would be clear to me but I do think that the general purport of what Shankara means is not beyond the grasp of careful study. The more you read of any author the more his mind becomes familiar to you and a general knowledge of philosophy helps in giving an overview of the problems and the standard approaches. About translations Peter. I only have the Advaita Ashram publications and there seems to be an in house agreement on terminology which makes for less confusion. In a sense even in English we have to translate in the realm of philosophy. What does he mean by object or subject or the binding problem etc? The more you read of an author the more cross referencing or cross hatching limns out his lexicon. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Namaste Shri Madathil, In message #33818 of Oct 17, you wrote: "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." I have some sympathy with your pointing out that the Advaita sadhana of questioning dreams is conducted from the waking state. And it is this waking state examination that gives the sadhana its value. Your recent observations here have set me thinking a bit on this, and have resulted in a piece of verse that is reproduced at the end of this message. The idea is that by looking back at dream appearances, the mithya of the dream turns out to apply to the waking state as well. And it's by thus exposing our waking state confusion that a dream examination may lead to a more genuine awakening. Look forward to your promised paper. Ananda Dreams and awakening -------------------- What is the meaning of a dream? When waking from a dream to find that its events did not take place but were imagined in the mind, then what does this experience say that we may rightly understand? In waking from a dream, it's found that what appeared to be a world, outside the mind's imagining, was actually all dreamt inside. All objects and events, which seemed to be perceived outside the mind, were actually dreamt up inside a process that the mind conceived within its own imagining. And that imagining occurred through states of feeling, thought, perception that appeared and disappeared -- each state replacing previous states experienced passing, one by one, at every moment in the mind. What was thus felt or thought perceived was not located as it seemed externally, out in some world where objects co-exist in space. Instead, all that was shown occurred internally, in course of time whose moments pass in changing mind. At every moment in the mind, a single piece of seeming world appears perceived or thought or felt. In just that moment, there's no time for mind to differentiate. Whatever moment may occur, mind does not in this moment have the time to tell that different things have been experienced in a world which is made up from all of them. As mind conceives of different things that co-exist to make a world, the mind's experience in itself is always in the singular. At every moment mind appears, it actually experiences no more than just one single thing. As mind conceives of many things, this manyness is only thought. The very thought of manyness is, at the time when it occurs, experienced in the singular. Whatever state of mind occurs, it's present singly, on its own -- as actually experienced there, directly at the time when it is present to experience. It's only afterwards -- when what was present is no longer there -- that manyness gets attributed falsely to what was just one, as actually experienced. This is a trick of memory, remembering a manyness -- which is not now experienced, which never was experienced in actual fact, although it's somehow felt and thought and seen to show a world made up of different things. This world is made from bits and pieces of perception, thought and feeling -- seen imported from the past, here in some picture that's described or in some story being told. Each such picture or such story is a mind-imagined dream -- which tells some truth to which we wake, by asking what the picture means or what the story has to say. By asking what is truly meant, what's sought is an awakening from dreaming to reality. When dreams are rightly understood, they speak of a reality that is not just made up by mind, from seeming bits and pieces. It is instead a living truth that is found everywhere expressed -- in anything that gets perceived, or thought about or somehow felt, in anyone's experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Namaste Ananda-ji. Thanks. I read your poem packing for my trip. Interesting. I have to re-read and masticate it the Michael way. Will join you all early November. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: ............Your > recent observations here have set me thinking a bit on this, and > have resulted in a piece of verse that is reproduced at the end of > this message. ........> > > Dreams and awakening > -------------------- > > What is the meaning of a dream? > > When waking from a dream to find > that its events did not take place > but were imagined in the mind, > then what does this experience say > that we may rightly understand? >........................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Ananda-ji: Thanx for the wonderful poem. I SPECIALLY TREASURED THESE LINES FROM THE POEM (>> Dreams and awakening > -------------------- >>> When dreams are rightly understood, > they speak of a reality > that is not just made up by mind, > from seeming bits and pieces. > > It is instead a living truth > that is found everywhere expressed -- > in anything that gets perceived, > or thought about or somehow felt, > in anyone's experience.) MAY I ALSO SHARE THESE LINES FROM kHALIL GIBRAN'S VIEWS ON DREAMS FROM HIS BOOK 'WANDERER' CHAPTER 22 ? A man dreamed a dream, and when he awoke he went to his soothsayer and desired that his dream be made plain unto him. And the soothsayer said to the man, "Come to me with the dreams that you behold in your wakefulness and I will tell you their meaning. But the dreams of your sleep belong neither to my wisdom nor to your imagination." ENJOY THE WISDOM IN THESE LINES FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF A POET AND A PHILOSOPHER ! > 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.