misunderstanding/peter

[Guest guest]

Subbuji wrote:

It is not that this position puts one in a situation where he does

not know whether he is dreaming or perceiving. Shankara makes all

efforts only to clarify this point in the BSB II.ii.29 which happens

to be enigmatic to many people when contrasted with the Shankaran

position in the Karika. Shankara teaches that the waking which is

where conscious endeavour in sadhana is taking place has to be

distinguished from the dream state. (He goes on to show the

distinguishing features of the two states). If a sadhaka makes an

error of judgement in this, he is doomed. His sadhana will go

helter skelter. But, when it comes to practicing the vision of the

Absolute, it is incumbent upon the teacher to point out the

similarity of the two states and enable appreciation of their non-

distinguishable unreal nature. This balance, holding the

distinction between dream and waking at one level and recognizing

their sameness at another level, has to be an integral part of one's

sadhana. One level takes care of the sadhana and the other

strengthens the visioning of the absolute. When the sadhana attains

due maturity, the former fades into or gets submerged into the

latter.

|||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Subbuji,

There is some measure of agreement

between us. Let me state what I think this is. The

pramana operates at the level of the pramana, it

fails or suceeds or is acceptable at that level.

By bringing up the case of mistaking dream for waking

reality you have accepted that such is the case.

Does that mistake, if there be such, hold as a critique

of the waking state or does it serve to establish that

there is no divergence between dream and waking? Shankara thinks not.

cf. B.S.B. II.ii.29. This is a commentary on a scripture

and may I think be more weighty that a commentary on the

Karikas which are not.

 

If one insists on holding that the one is really the

other at its own level (the relative) then you cannot

avoid the unwelcome conclusion that perception is no

longer a pramana.

 

The use of the word 'real' is merely an analogical

extension from the domain of the relative. We can

think of many valid uses of the word which are

interconnected on that plane. 'Is that real ghee?,

a real rolex, real leather etc. When we come to

the use of Real as meaning unchanging, neccessary,

non-contingent we are projecting beyond the

experiencable. The absolute surpasses language and

its polar concept of real/unreal.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.