Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX –e)

[Guest guest]

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part IX –e)

 

shrIharim paramAnandam updeShTaaram Ishvaram |

vyApakam sarvalokaanAm kAraNam tam namAmyaham ||

 

(I bow to the Lord ShrIhari who is - the Highest bliss, the

Preceptor, the Ishvara, pervading all the worlds as their cause.)

(Invocatory verse by Sri Shankaracharya in His

work `aparokShAnubhUtiH')

 

Dream world illusory:

 

The Brahmasutra (III.ii.1.3) mAyA-mAtram tu…….means: But the dream-

creation is a mere MAyA, because of its nature of not being a

complete manifestation of the totality of requisites (as found in

the waking state.) In the Bhashya it is said:

 

//What then do you mean by the 'totality'?--The fulfillment of the

conditions of place, time, and cause, and the circumstance of non-

refutation. All these have their sphere in real things, but cannot

be applied to dreams.//

 

It is pointed out that a dreamer should not be construed to have

experience of objects that are traceable to regions outside of the

gross body of his waking state. Whatever be size, form etc., of the

objects and whoever the people that are contacted in a dream, they

must all be traced only to activity of the internal organ or its

material cause, Avidya. The huge sizes of the objects such as

mountains, rivers, townships, etc., argue against their being

accommodated within the confines of the body. The rapidity with

which objects are seen to arise argues against their actual

production involving the necessary causal complement. As the

external organs, both sensory and motor, remain quiescent in that

state, they cannot be regarded as instruments of knowledge and

activity therein. Again, while some of the objects seen disappear

in a moment with new ones appearing in their places within the dream

itself, the entire dream itself is sublated on waking. It is thus

clear that the phenomenon of the dream is to be regarded as having

only prAtibhAsika-sattA i.e., an illusion, in tune with the

generality of opinion. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iii.30

says: // There are no chariots, no animals to be yoked to them, nor

roads there. But he creates the chariots, animals and roads. //

Says the Mandukya Karika (II- 1,2,3):

 

//1 Harih Aum. The wise declare the unreality of all entities seen

in dreams, because they are located within the body and the space

therein is confined.

 

2 The dreamer, on account of the shortness of the time involved,

cannot go out of the body and see the dream objects. Nor does he,

when awakened, find himself in the places seen in the dream.

 

3 Scripture, on rational grounds, declares the non—existence of the

chariots etc. perceived in dreams. Therefore the wise say that the

unreality established by reason is proclaimed by scripture. //

Dream and waking states: Non-distinguishable identical twins:

Having stated the above, the Karika proceeds to establish the

untenability of the common view that while the objects perceived in

dreams are unreal, the objects seen in the waking state are real:

 

//II.4 The different objects seen in the confined space of dreams

are unreal on account of their being perceived. For the same reason

i.e. on account of their being perceived, the objects seen in the

waking state are also unreal. The same condition i.e. the state of

being perceived exists in both waking and dreaming. The only

difference is the limitation of space associated with dream

objects. //

 

The Bhashya thereon says, the things seen in the waking are

illusory `because they are seen' – dRRiShyatvAt - like the things

seen in a dream. This is the kaarika:

/

/II.5 The wise speak of the sameness of the waking and dream states

on account of the similarity of the objects perceived in both states

on the grounds already mentioned. //

 

The hetu (ground), dRRiShyatvAt (being cognized), has been employed

above for establishing the illusory nature of the waking world by

inference. Other grounds like jaDatvAt (inertness), sApekShatvAt

(being related) and paricchinnatvAt (finitude), or vyAvRRittatvAt

(being different) referred to previously, lead to the same result.

Attention may be drawn to the words `vishwam pashyati, sambandhataH,

bhedataH' in the current verse (VIII) of the Stotram which are

suggestive of the above inference. Another reason for classing the

world of waking with the contents of the dream is that it is also

evanescent:

 

//II.6 If a thing is non—existent both in the beginning and in the

end, it is necessarily non—existent in the middle (present). The

objects that we see are really like illusions; still they are

regarded as real. //

 

Closer scrutiny, however, shows that the experience of the so-called

waking state can in no way be distinguished from the experience of

the so-called dream state.

 

To start with, it might be noted that the dream state is spoken of

as such, only in the waking. During the dream it is experienced

only as waking. The experience of dream within a dream makes this

clearer. Sri Shankaracharya expresses this by saying that each of

the dream and the waking experiences is real in its own sphere:

 

//Earlier to the realization of the identity of the Self with

Brahman, all activities can justly be real like the activities in

dream before waking up.// (Sutrabhashya: II.i.14)

 

The dream contents and cognitions appear to be private only from the

waking standpoint. This, however, is a misjudgment of the

experience one has then. The experience is that they are shared by

the other dream people as much as the things of the waking state are

shared by the people in the waking state.

 

The tripuTI, triad – the dRRik (seer), chitta (the mind) and

dRRishya (the seen object) – is experienced in dream as much as it

is experienced in the waking. The distinction between the mind and

the ideas therein, and the outside objects are there in the dream as

in the waking. The instrumentality of the dream senses is also in

evidence. The distinction between fancies of the mind, as for

example, in day-dreaming and the so-called real objects outside, is

maintained in the dream as also that between the real and the

illusory, the latter being exemplified by the rope-snake.

 

The distinction sought to be made from the standpoint of `pragmatic

efficiency' by pointing out that the dream water does not quench the

waking thirst or the dream wealth does not procure anything in the

waking state, is also wide of the mark, since the waking water and

the riches do not answer the needs of the dream state, while the

dream water and riches do.

T

he so-called abnormalities like an individual endowed with four

hands and other strange features seen in dream are regarded as such

from the waking standpoint. They are not experienced as abnormal in

the dream and are to be regarded as characteristics – sthAni-

dharmaaH – belonging to individuals by virtue of the positions they

occupy namely, the dream conditions as in the case of the denizens

of heaven.

 

Even the witnessing of one's own corpse or such phenomena as one's

own head that is severed from the body being carried in one's own

palm, do not appear strange in a dream and are due to the

imagination of the dreamer on account of the peculiar condition of

the dream state, much in the same way as the experience of the rope-

snake or the mirage. Each state has its own notion of propriety and

stands stultified by the other. Thus no distinction can be made on

the ground of experience between the waking state and the dream.

This is clearly brought out in detail in the Bhashya on the Mandukya

kArikAs, a few of which are: IV . 63, 64,65,66, II.9,10,14, 15, 7,8.

 

Along with `shapes' and `forms', is also experienced the expansive

space of the dream locations, distances etc., involving, for

example, a township with buildings, roads, etc., as also the time-

intervals, sequences etc., each with a notion of measure which may

not agree with that of the waking state. The Mandukya kArikAs:

 

// II.3 Scripture, on rational grounds, declares the non—existence

of the chariots etc. perceived in dreams.

II.2 The dreamer, on account of the shortness of the time involved,

cannot go out of the body and see the dream objects (places).//

as also the Bhashya thereon, quoted already, make this clear. So it

is in respect of causation as well, which may be at variance with

what is associated with it in the parlance of the waking state:

 

//III.10 All aggregates are produced by Atman's maya, as in a

dream.//

 

The notion of origination, though used in parlance, is seen to have

no meaning whatsoever and the discussion culminates in ajAtivAda:

 

//IV.40 The unreal cannot have another unreality for its cause, nor

can the real have the unreal for its cause. The real cannot be the

cause of the real. And how utterly impossible it is for the real to

be the cause of the unreal! //

 

The Bhashya on it is: // No other causal relation is possible nor

can any be conceived of. The import of the Kaarika is that the wise

see that the causal relation between any objects whatsoever is not

established.//

 

Also, the VedAnta-siddhAnta-muktaavaLi (16) says:

 

//Just as production cannot be explained as proceeding from

something previously existing, so also production from something

previously non-existent cannot be explained. The bare fact of

production proves that the product is the work of Maya.//

 

The material cause of the pot or the cloth is thus not the mud or

the threads but the `satpadArtha' which is seen as pot or cloth

because of Maya as already explained. The ill-considered belief

that the dream which is an illusion is the `effect' of the waking

state would result, on investigation, only in affirming that its so-

called cause, the waking state, is itself illusory. No cause-effect

relationship can be maintained in respect of dream and waking. This

is made clear in the Bhashyas on the Kaarika-s IV – 37, 38:

 

37 Since the experience of objects in dreams is similar to the

experience of objects in the waking state, waking experience is

regarded as the cause of dream experience. It is only by him who

admits waking experience to be the cause of dream experience that

waking experience can be regarded as real.

 

38 All entities are said to be unborn, since birth cannot be

established as a fact. It is utterly impossible for the unreal to be

born of the real.

 

The slightest possibility of the causal relation between the waking

and the dream states, though both are unreal, is removed by the

kArikA IV.41:

 

// As a person in the waking state through false knowledge appears

to handle objects, whose nature is inscrutable, as if they were

real, so also, in dreams, he perceives, through false knowledge,

objects whose existence is possible in the dream state alone.

 

Bhashya: //As in the waking state, one, through want of proper

discrimination, imagines the snake seen in the place of the rope as

real - the nature of which (snake), in fact, cannot be really

determined – so also in dream, one, through want of

discrimination, imagines as if the one really perceives such objects

as elephants etc. These dream objects, such as elephants, etc., are

peculiar to the dream conditions alone; they are not the effect of

waking experiences.//

 

Thus the refutation of the dream state in the so-called waking is

merely a case of one `waking' experience being refuted by

another `waking' experience. The dream continually suggests that

the waking world, though different, has no higher value than the

dream world. Illusions such as rope-snake etc., forming a part of

the waking state are not to be regarded as exceptions; the entire

waking state experience is as much an illusion. It is not mere

coherence or correspondence or practical efficiency that is to be

accepted as the criterion of reality, but absolute, eternal,

unchanging existence, uncontradicted and uncontradictable by

anything else at any time. Imagination is thus seen to be at the

root of world-phenomena in which are included both individual souls

and their experiences.

 

Thus in accordance with one's experience, it must be recognized that

the waking and dream states must be placed in the same category,

their internal structure being the same as the YogavAsishta (Ni,Pra.

Up. 165-6) says . For purposes of common parlance, the two names,

the waking and the dream are employed in the manner of

distinguishing identical twins.

 

(end of Part IX – e)

(to be continued)

 

Om Tat Sat