Sri dakshiNAmUrtistotram

[Guest guest]

Subbuji wrote::

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.

 

 

 

Namaste Subbuji.

 

"Please state the authority for these statements. In Siddhantabindu

Madhusudana Sarasvati says something quite different. Please see the

following extract from my translation of this book:

 

"It is an invariable rule that the mind can know external objects only with

the help of the external sense organs. Only when pure consciousness has as

its limiting adjunct the mind with modifications (vritti) can it be a

knower. So, even though the mind is present in the dream state, the jiva is

not a knower then".

 

I Though the mind is present in the dream state, it cannot have any

vrittis because the external organs do not function then, and the mind

cannot function without the help of the external organs. When the mind is

not a knower there can be no tripuTI. So the Atma alone illumines the

objects in dream. This has been stated in Br.up. 4.3.9—"atrAyam purusho

svayamjyotirbhavati". This has been interpreted to mean that in dream the

objects are experienced by the witness-consciousness directly

(sAkshi-bhAsya). The jiva can become a knower (pramata) only when there

are vrittis of the mind. Therefore in dream the jiva is not a knower. The

dream objects are illumined only by the witness. The witness is

consciousness limited by avidya, while the jiva is consciousness limited by

the mind.

 

If there is any other authority which contradicts the above view, I shall be

glad to know it.

 

You have said," The instrumentality of the dream senses is also in

evidence". Are there any dream senses differebt from the waking senses? The

waking senses do not function in dream.

 

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri wrote:

>Namaste Subbuji.

 

"Please state the authority for these statements.

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Shri Shastri ji,

 

Thanks very much for that response. That constitutes healthy

discussion on Vedantic topics.

 

In fact at the end of that lengthy paragraph, I did mention the

reference for all the ideas stated therein. Here is that sentence

from my post:

 

// 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.//

 

The reading of the verses IV- 63, 64,65 and66 of the Mandukya

kaarikaa will bring out the striking similarity between the waking

and dream situations: (I shall provide the original verses for you

to appreciate the similarity between the 63 and 65th verses and the

64th and 66th verses. After this the English translation is

provided for others to appreciate:

 

//Svapna-drik pracharan svapne dikshu vai dashasu sthitaan |

anDajAn svedajAn vaapi jIvAn pashyati yAn sadA ||

 

svapna-drik chitta-drishyaaste na vidyante tataH prithak |

tathA tad-drishyamevedam svapna-drik-chittam-ishyate ||

 

charan jAgarite jAgrad-dikshu vai dashasu sthitAn |

anDajAn svedajAn vaapi jIvAn pashyati yAn sadA ||

 

jAgrat-chittekshaNIyAste na vidyante tataH prithak |

tathA tad-drishyamevedam jAgracchittam ishyate ||

 

63 The dreamer, wandering about in all the ten directions in his

dream, sees the whole variety of jivas, born of eggs, moisture,

etc.

 

64 These entities, which are objects of the mind of the dreamer, do

not exist apart from his mind. Likewise, the mind of the dreamer is

an object of perception of the dreamer alone.

 

65—66 The waking man, wandering about in all the ten directions in

his waking state, sees the whole variety of jivas, born of eggs,

moisture, etc. They are the objects of the mind of the waking man

and do not exist apart from it. Likewise, the mind of the waking man

is an object of his perception alone. //

 

These may be appreciated by the Kaarikaas IV 61 and 62 which form a

prelude to the above ideas:

 

yathA svapne dvayAbhAsam chittam chalati mAyayA |

tathA jAgrad-dvayaabhAsam chittam chalati mAyayA ||

advayam cha dvayAbhAsam chittam svapne na samshayaH |

advayam cha dvayAbhAsam tathA jAgranna samshayaH ||

 

61—62 As in dreams the mind acts through maya, presenting the

appearance of duality, so also in the waking state the mind acts

through maya, presenting the appearance of duality. There is no

doubt that the mind, which is in reality non—dual, appears to be

dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that what is non—dual

i.e. Atman, appears to be dual in the waking state.

 

Now, these two verses above, appear in the III chapter as well (29

and 30). The Acharya has commented as follows there:

 

As the snake appearing on a rope, the mind vibrates in dream through

mAyA as if possessed of two facets – the cognizer and the thing

congnized. Just like that in the waking state the mind vibrates, as

it were, through mAyA.

 

There is no doubt that just as a snake….so the mind that is but non-

dual in its aspect of the Self from the highest stand point, appears

to have two aspects in dream. For apart from Consciousness, there

do not exist two things (congnizer and cognized) in dream -

elephants and so on that are perceived and eyes and the rest that

perceive them. The idea is that the case is similar in the waking

state also; for in either state there exists only the supremely real

Consciousness. [The mind fancied on Consciousness through

ignorance, vibrates on the supremely real and constant Consciousness

in the dream as well as the waking states. Though one only, (as is

very clearly evidenced in dream), the mind `divides' itself as it

were into the seer, the seeing (the instruments) and the seen.]

Apart from the Gaudapada kArikAs, we have the authority of the

Mandukya Upanishad itself for the common features of the dream and

the waking states. The mantra 2 of the Upanishad says:

 

jAgaritasthAno…saptAngaH yekona-vimshati-mukhaH…

 

The mantra 3 talks about the dreamer consciousness:

 

Svapnasthaano….saptAngaH yekona-vimshati-mukhaH…

 

(Both the waker as well as the dreamer experience the respective

states with the nineteen organs – doorways – five senses of

perception, and five organs of action make up ten, the vital forces –

prANa, apAna, etc. make up five and there are mind, intellect, ego

and chittam, four taking the total to nineteen. – as per the

Bhashyam.)

 

Thus, we have, apart from the authority of the Kaarika, the

Upanishad itself for the triputi – the experiencer, the experiencing

(with instruments), and the objects, in the waking as well as in the

dream. Moreover, we have our own dream experience as well to

corroborate this. In a dream I see friends, talk to them, hear

them, eat dishes of varied tastes, feel heat and cold, etc. I even

think, form opinions, etc. that are `internal' functions as opposed

to seeing friends, etc. which are `external' functions. What takes

place in the waking takes place in dream also exactly the same way.

 

You have said:

 

In Siddhantabindu Madhusudana Sarasvati says something quite

different. Please see the

following extract from my translation of this book:

"It is an invariable rule that the mind can know external objects

only with

the help of the external sense organs. Only when pure consciousness

has as

its limiting adjunct the mind with modifications (vritti) can it be a

knower. So, even though the mind is present in the dream state, the

jiva is

not a knower then".

 

Reply:

 

The above is the general view of the Vedanta taking the srishti-

drishti (creation precedes cognition) prakriya. indriyaiH

arthopalabdhir jaagaritam. There, a distinction is sought to be

made between the two states. The dream itself is held to be

vAsanAmaya as opposed to the `real' state of the waking. Hence, the

jiva cannot be held to be a knower there as he is not `knowing'

anything through a pramAna, instrument, there. After `seeing' a five-

hundred rupee note on my chair in dream, I cannot expect to find it

there after waking up. To state another example, after seeing an

outstation relative in my house in dream, I cannot expect to see him

sitting on the sofa when I wake up. In that sense, the dream jiva

is not a knower, jnAtA. He is only an `imaginer'.

 

Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule. There are cases

where `mantropadesham' is received in dreams and later when the

person goes to the Acharyal and reports and requests the complete

form of the mantra, the Acharyal gives it to him and he acknowledges

saying that `yes this is what I received then'. There is a case of

Acharyal conducting Bhagavadgita 6th chapter bhashyam on six

consecutive nights in dreams and the recipient grasping the lessons,

and remembering them and even expounding them, despite not having

had opportunity to even read the bhashyam prior to these dream-

lessons. In this case, we cannot rule out the `jnAtrutvam' of the

dreaming jiva.

 

Yet another difference between what Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati says

and the Kaarikaa says is this:

 

Sri MS has taken the case of the person lying down on the bed and

dreaming. He, as is evident, is not dreaming with the eyes, ears,

etc. `open'' they have all resolved in the mind and just the mind is

active (prior to sleep). Thus, this lying-down person cannot be

called the knower as he is not functioning through the instruments

of knowledge. What the Kaarika talks about is the happenings within

the dream. Here, the triputI, the knower, known, knowing, cannot be

denied as per our own experience.

 

What the Mandukya Upanishad teaches and the Kaarika/bhashya expound

is the consideration of the two states as they happen to us. The

Acharya states in the sutrabhashyam: adya aham svapne hastinam

adrAksham, na idAnIm tam pashye' = today I beheld an elephant in my

dream. I do not see it now.' Surely, the beholding of the

elephant, although an imagination, is with the eyes (of the dream)

only. The seer, I , the seeing eyes and the seen elephant, are all

different components, all dream-created, that bring about the dream

experience.

 

You say:

 

Though the mind is present in the dream state, it cannot have any

vrittis because the external organs do not function then, and the

mind cannot function without the help of the external organs. When

the mind is not a knower there can be no tripuTI. So the Atma alone

illumines the objects in dream. This has been stated in Br.up. 4.3.9—

"atrAyam purusho svayamjyotirbhavati". This has been interpreted to

mean that in dream the objects are experienced by the witness-

consciousness directly (sAkshi-bhAsya). The jiva can become a knower

(pramata) only when there are vrittis of the mind. Therefore in

dream the jiva is not a knower. The dream objects are illumined only

by the witness. The witness is consciousness limited by avidya,

while the jiva is consciousness limited by the mind.

 

Reply:

 

The above Br.Up. statement and the conclusion is not at all in

doubt. But can we say that the mind will not have vrittis when the

external organs are not functioning? There is the Upanishadic

statement: anyatra manA abhUvam na ashrousham' etc. A person says:

Even though you are talking to me, I did not hear you because my

mind was engaged in something else.' Here, we see even when the

person is awake, he is not aware of the surroundings as he is deeply

thinking of something else. So, vrittis can be there even in

the `absence' of sense perceptions. There is the case of `saguna

dhyanam' , meditation of a deity with forms. The meditator cuts

himself off from the outside world and is able to deeply concentrate

on the `keshAdi-pAdAntam' (head to toe) of the IshTa devata, form of

the chosen deity. This exercise does involve vritti generation as

he is aware of mentally seeing and appreciating part after part of

the deity. The Manasa-puja exercise itself is based on this

possibility.

 

You have concluded:

 

If there is any other authority which contradicts the above view, I

shall be

glad to know it.

 

You have said," The instrumentality of the dream senses is also in

evidence". Are there any dream senses different from the waking

senses? The

waking senses do not function in dream.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

Reply:

 

Regarding the instrumentality of dream senses, I think the Kaarikaas

that I have quoted above and the Upanishad mantras are explanatory.

Thanks once again, and pranams, Sir,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Pranams Dear Subbu-ji and Shri Sastri-ji

 

Perhaps this sentence from the Upadesha Sahasri will

shed some light, on the current discussion, as well.

 

14.8

karanam karma kartaa cha kriyaa svapne phalam cha

dheeh

jaagratyevam yatodrshtaa drshtaa tasmaadatonyatha

 

It is the intellect that becomes the object, the

agent, actions and their results in dream. So also in

the waking state.The Seer is therefore different from

the intellect and its objects.

 

 

So if we take seeing a flower in the dream, then the

object(flower) the agent(the faculty of sight) the

action(of seeing) and the result are all from the

intellect alone, illumined by the light of

consciousness the Seer. In this way are both dream and

waking considered similair.

 

This has of course been expressed in more detail in

the karikas kindly referenced by Subbuji

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> 61—62 As in dreams the mind acts through maya,

> presenting the

> appearance of duality, so also in the waking state

> the mind acts

> through maya, presenting the appearance of duality.

> There is no

> doubt that the mind, which is in reality non—dual,

> appears to be

> dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that

> what is non—dual

> i.e. Atman, appears to be dual in the waking state.

>