Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX –f)

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Subbuji wrote:

>

>

> Thus, in the above analysis, we see: (a) In the

>

> waking, with regard

> to the common objects, the `pramanas' reveal the

>

> `adhishThAna'

> (Substratum) alone; the `is'ness of the object is what

>

> comes to

> light. (b) In the dream, the pramanas do not reveal

>

> any `real'

> objects. They, the pramanas, become sublated along

>

> with the objects

> upon waking. © Even in the case of an illusion like

>

> rope-snake,

> the pramana that reveals the substratum, the rope, is

>

> deemed to be

> revealing the Super Substratum, the Atman alone, as

>

> in the case of

> the dream-pramanas which actually are revealing the

>

> Atman alone

> which are wrongly seen in a dream as the various

>

> objects.

>

> |||||||||||||||

>

> Namaste Subbuji,

> When you go back to B.S.B. II.ii.29 and read it

> carefully you will find that Shankara specifically

> rejects and refutes the idea that there is operative in

> the dream any pramana.

> "Moreover, dream vision is a kind of memory,

>

> whereas the visions of the waking state are forms

> of perception (through valid means of knowledge)."

>

> It's all a perfectly straightforward position

> and is also stated in his commentary on the Brh. Up.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

Namaste Michael,

 

The position of the BSB could be looked at this way:

 

For the complete Bhashyam of II.ii.29 read here:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sanka

ra_34205.php

 

Or

http://tinyurl.com/y5d3qx

 

 

What Shankara is repudiating here is the contention of the opponent:

The waking perceptions are without objects, just as dream

perceptions, where there are no objects. The common ground for the

dream and the waking is that they both are perceptions.

 

Shankara repudiates this contention by showing that the dream is not

a perception. It is of the kind of a recollection. And it is quite

in order.

 

What is stated by me in the Stotram explanation is a position quite

different. There the similarity between the waking and the dream is

made on the ground of the objects in the dream are perceived by a

perceiver through the instrumentation of pramanas. This operation

is the same way it happens in the waking as well. What is

considered here is the experience/happening `in' a dream. What is

considered in the BSB above is the experience of the person who is

lying down asleep and dreaming vs. the person awake and active. For

the former, sensory inputs do not occur. What is happening is just

a projection, an activity confined purely to the mind without the

operation of the senses. But in the case of the latter, the waking

man, he does all the activity through the operation of the senses.

The sensory inputs are there. There is the interaction between the

outside objects and the senses resulting in his experiencing them.

 

That there is such a difference (between a dreamer – of BSB- and a

perceiver –of say, the Kaarika) has to be admitted. This difference

is explicitly brought out in the Bhashyam as well as the gloss of

Anandagiri for the Mandukya Karika II.4 and 5 Bhashya of Shankara

thus:

 

In fact, in the MK II.4, both the dissimilarity and the similarity

between the two states, waking and dream, are spelt out:

 

The KaarikA 4:

Similarity: As the dream-objects are unreal in a dream, so also,

because of that very reason, the objects in the waking state are

unreal.

Dissimilarity: But objects (in the dream state) differ because of

existence inside (the body) and because of the smallness (of space).

 

The bhashyam:

 

//The proposition to be established is the unreality of objects seen

in the waking state. `Being perceived' is the ground of inference.

(Michael ji, pl. note that `being perceived' is quite different

from `perceptions' of the BSB) And the illustration (in

confirmation) is `like an object seen in a dream'. And the

assertion is made thus: As (objects `perceived') there in a dream,

are false, so also are they false in the waking state; the fact

of `being perceived' being equally present. And the concluding

reiteration is: therefore falsity is admitted of objects jn the

waking state as well. The DIFFERENCE of the dream-objects from the

objects of the waking state is because of the former being confined

within and because of the smallness of space. And the common

features in both the states are the facts of being perceived and

being false.//

 

The KaarikA 5:

 

Inasmuch as the diverse things are found to be similar on the

strength of the familiar ground of inference, the wise say that the

dream and the waking states are one.

 

The bhashyam:

Inasmuch as there is similarity of the diverse things, on the

strength of the familiar ground of inference, namely that things (in

dream and waking states) are equally related as the PERCEIVER and

the PERCEIVED (on the logical ground of `being perceived'),

therefore the discriminating people speak of the sameness of the

states of waking and dream. This is only a corollary of what was

arrived at through the earlier means of proof.

 

The Anandagiri-gloss:

 

//The perceiver-perceived relationship is common to both the states.

The diverse objects that are present In the (two states) are

perceived by the persons who are present in the two states: dream

and waking. These persons are the perceivers of those objects.//

 

Thus there is this relationship of the perceiver-perceived between

the persons and the objects (termed totally as `diverse objects')

which is common to both the states. Surely, reverting to the BSB

case, Shankara is repudiating the contention of the opponent that

dreams are perceptions like the waking state. That such is the case

is clearly known from Shankara's arguments that: dreams are akin to

recollections, dreams are falsified later, that they are like maya,

hallucinations etc.

 

In the light of the above, it would be proper to conclude that the

BSB II.ii.29 is talking about a person who is dreaming. The MK and

what I have mentioned in the Sridakshinamurti-Stotram explanation

are from the standpoint of the person `in' the dream. The two are

quite different. If we see this vital difference, we can at once be

free from the confusion pertaining to the stand of Advaita/Shankara

as between the BSB II.ii.29 and the Karika.

 

To say more of this might only add to the confusion. I shall

however, in the conclusion, give a hint. In the Yoga vasishtha (?)

there is an episode about Narada asking Lord Vishnu to give a

demonstration of Maya. The Lord `innocently' asks Narada to fetch

Him a glass of water. When Narada finds a water-source, he is

accosted by a low-caste woman. He becomes infatuated by her charms

and follows her and there starts a long relationship between the

two. He sires many children through her and lives a wretched life

for several years. There comes a calamity and the woman and all the

children perish. Narada, terribly grief-striken weeps. He suddenly

feels someone shaking him holding his shoulders. `Awakened' by the

jolt, Narada realizes himself seated near the pond, the Lord

standing next to him and asking: Narada, where is the glass of water

I asked for? Narada acknowledges his lesson in Maya, so

realistically demonstrated by the Lord.

 

Now, the point I am making is this: Is the Narada, seated by the

pond the same as the Narada living a family life with that woman?

This is the significance of Shankara alluding to `maaya , etc…'

while talking about the recollection-similarity with a dream in the

BSB II.ii.29.

 

With warm regards,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

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

>

> Namaste Subbuji,

> When you go back to B.S.B. II.ii.29 and read it

> carefully you will find that Shankara specifically

> rejects and refutes the idea that there is operative in

> the dream any pramana.

> "Moreover, dream vision is a kind of memory,

 

Namaste,

 

To back up to 'Descarte's Error' in commenting on this; Descarte made

the error of being ignorant of the Vedanta really. He apparently

assumed the mind was separate and different from the body, and now it

is being shown that the body and brain are completely integrated with

the mind and in fact are the mind. Just as ice, water, vapour and

steam are the same thing. There really is no separation between the

bodies, it is just so for argument's sake.

So whether we think, muse, daydream or dream in sleep it is all the

same thing. It is all a total illusion, like arguing about how many

angels can fit on the head of a non existant needle.

Even our daily actions and karmas can be overcome totally by

realisation...........Tony.