Guest guest Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I recently posted a comment from Shankara’s bhAShya on the gauDapAda kArikA on mANDUkya upaniShad (in the thread on ‘Matter’). Commenting on GK 2.4, he rephrases Gaudapada’s statement into the form of a syllogism. He says that the proposition to be established is that ‘objects perceived in the waking state are illusory’. The reason (hetu) for the inference is ‘being perceived’. The example or illustration is that ‘objects perceived in dream (are illusory)’. He says (Nikhilananda translation): “The common feature of ‘being perceived’ is the relation (upanaya) between the illustration given and the proposition taken for consideration. Therefore the illusoriness is admitted of objects that are perceived to exist in the waking state.” The first point I wanted to make is that the argument seems very flimsy. Suppose I have a flat-screen TV on one wall of my room and a window on the other and looking at both I see a car. I could take the TV off the wall and walk around the back of it and establish that the ‘car’ is in fact two-dimensional and not usable for transport. It would seem that I could then use exactly the same argument to say that, since the car that I see on the TV wall is two dimensional, therefore the one I see out of the window is also two-dimensional. There is a common feature of being perceived in just the same way. It seems that the validity/invalidity of the argument rests on the word ‘perceived’. In fact, I would argue that the objects in dream are not ‘perceived’ at all (unless it is by the ‘dream senses’). I would rather say that they are ‘imagined’ or ‘mentally reconstructed from memory’. If we change the wording, it then becomes perfectly reasonable to say that ‘objects *imagined* in the waking state are illusory, just like those imagined in dream’. But, since the objects are not really ‘perceived’ at all during dream, the argument falls apart. The way that I could rationalize this is by saying that what is meant is that the objects ‘perceived’ by the dreamer are found *by the waker* to have been illusory. Therefore, the waking state objects will be found to be illusory upon enlightenment. But this does not seem to be what Shankara is saying, according to the translations that I have. I think that the confusion may have something to do with Gaudapada’s habit of lumping the waking and dreaming states together and treating them the same but it is clearly not appropriate in this situation. The second point I wanted to make is more serious though. In BSB II.ii.29, Shankara seems to totally contradict what he has said in the GK commentary. The sutra itself says that: “And because of the difference in nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc.” Shankara says (Gambhirananda translation) that: “It has been said by those who deny the existence of external things that perceptions of things like a pillar etc. in the waking state occur even in the absence of external things, just as they do in a dream; for as perceptions they are similar. That has to be refuted. With regard to this we say, the perceptions of the waking state cannot be classed with those in a dream.” Later, he makes the very clear statement, in direct contradiction to the GK commentary: “…it cannot be asserted by a man… that the perception of the waking state is false, merely on the ground that it is a perception like the perception in a dream. (And it is not logical for those who consider themselves intelligent to deny their own experience.)” I would be interested to hear observations on this, especially from anyone having access to (and understanding of) Shankara’s original Sanskrit statements. Best Wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 On 6.12.03 I wrote and I would still be of a similar opinion: Hello Dennis, The Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada seems to run counter to the view expressed in II.ii.29 eg. As the dream objects are unreal in a dream, so also, because of that very reason, the objects in the waking state are unreal. But the objects (in the dream state) differ because of existence inside (the body) and because of contraction (in the dream). II.4 Sankara's notes on the text say that what is common to both is the fact of being perceived. Being perceived puts them both on an identical reality footing. What Sankara says in the B.S.B. loc.cit. runs contrary to this " Moreover, dream vision is a kind of memory, whereas the visions of the waking state are forms of perceptions (through valid means of knowledge). I conjecture that this varience can be understood if you view the first mentioned as mere notes, sort of 'it says here' taking them at their face value without challenging them. It would not be on really to challenge a guru of his own lineage. Mohanty in his entry on Vedanta in the Ency.Britt. describes Gaudapada as illusionistic. It is notable that the text is sprinkled with references to Maya a word which Sankara himself uses sparingly. Obviously not being acquainted with the original this is an impressionistic observation. I take your point that the realised man sees the world as only name and form. Best Wishes, Michael. On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:17:45 -0000, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > I recently posted a comment from Shankara's bhAShya on the gauDapAda > kArikA > on mANDUkya upaniShad (in the thread on 'Matter'). Commenting on GK 2.4, > he > rephrases Gaudapada's statement into the form of a syllogism. He says > that > the proposition to be established is that 'objects perceived in the > waking > state are illusory'. The reason (hetu) for the inference is 'being > perceived'. The example or illustration is that 'objects perceived in > dream > (are illusory)'. He says (Nikhilananda translation): " The common feature > of > 'being perceived' is the relation (upanaya) between the illustration > given > and the proposition taken for consideration. Therefore the illusoriness > is > admitted of objects that are perceived to exist in the waking state. " > > > The first point I wanted to make is that the argument seems very flimsy. > Suppose I have a flat-screen TV on one wall of my room and a window on > the > other and looking at both I see a car. I could take the TV off the wall > and > walk around the back of it and establish that the 'car' is in fact > two-dimensional and not usable for transport. It would seem that I could > then use exactly the same argument to say that, since the car that I see > on > the TV wall is two dimensional, therefore the one I see out of the > window is > also two-dimensional. There is a common feature of being perceived in > just > the same way. > > > It seems that the validity/invalidity of the argument rests on the word > 'perceived'. In fact, I would argue that the objects in dream are not > 'perceived' at all (unless it is by the 'dream senses'). I would rather > say > that they are 'imagined' or 'mentally reconstructed from memory'. If we > change the wording, it then becomes perfectly reasonable to say that > 'objects *imagined* in the waking state are illusory, just like those > imagined in dream'. But, since the objects are not really 'perceived' at > all > during dream, the argument falls apart. > > > The way that I could rationalize this is by saying that what is meant is > that the objects 'perceived' by the dreamer are found *by the waker* to > have > been illusory. Therefore, the waking state objects will be found to be > illusory upon enlightenment. But this does not seem to be what Shankara > is > saying, according to the translations that I have. I think that the > confusion may have something to do with Gaudapada's habit of lumping the > waking and dreaming states together and treating them the same but it is > clearly not appropriate in this situation. > > > The second point I wanted to make is more serious though. In BSB > II.ii.29, > Shankara seems to totally contradict what he has said in the GK > commentary. > The sutra itself says that: " And because of the difference in nature (the > waking state is) not (false) like dream etc. " Shankara says > (Gambhirananda > translation) that: " It has been said by those who deny the existence of > external things that perceptions of things like a pillar etc. in the > waking > state occur even in the absence of external things, just as they do in a > dream; for as perceptions they are similar. That has to be refuted. With > regard to this we say, the perceptions of the waking state cannot be > classed > with those in a dream. " > > > Later, he makes the very clear statement, in direct contradiction to the > GK > commentary: " .it cannot be asserted by a man. that the perception of the > waking state is false, merely on the ground that it is a perception like > the > perception in a dream. (And it is not logical for those who consider > themselves intelligent to deny their own experience.) " > > > I would be interested to hear observations on this, especially from > anyone > having access to (and understanding of) Shankara's original Sanskrit > statements. > > > Best Wishes, > > Dennis > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Namaste, Sw. Nikhilananda does have a footnote to II:5, that Gaudapada did not make a distinction between prAtbhAsika and vyAvahArika levels. In any case, the argument has to be taken in the context of the dRRik-dRRishya paradigm; also, what is unmanifest in the beginning (before perception) and in the end, cannot be substantive - and therefore mithyA - during the period of manifestation. Regards, Sunder advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > > The way that I could rationalize this is by saying that what is meant is > that the objects 'perceived' by the dreamer are found *by the waker* to have > been illusory. Therefore, the waking state objects will be found to be > illusory upon enlightenment. But this does not seem to be what Shankara is > saying, according to the translations that I have. I think that the > confusion may have something to do with Gaudapada's habit of lumping the > waking and dreaming states together and treating them the same but it is > clearly not appropriate in this situation. > > > > The second point I wanted to make is more serious though. In BSB II.ii.29, > Shankara seems to totally contradict what he has said in the GK commentary. > The sutra itself says that: " And because of the difference in nature (the > waking state is) not (false) like dream etc. " Shankara says (Gambhirananda > translation) that: " It has been said by those who deny the existence of > external things that perceptions of things like a pillar etc. in the waking > state occur even in the absence of external things, just as they do in a > dream; for as perceptions they are similar. That has to be refuted. With > regard to this we say, the perceptions of the waking state cannot be classed > with those in a dream. " > > > > Later, he makes the very clear statement, in direct contradiction to the GK > commentary: " .it cannot be asserted by a man. that the perception of the > waking state is false, merely on the ground that it is a perception like the > perception in a dream. (And it is not logical for those who consider > themselves intelligent to deny their own experience.) " > > > > I would be interested to hear observations on this, especially from anyone > having access to (and understanding of) Shankara's original Sanskrit > statements. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 PranAms Dennis-ji The following commentary by Adi Shankara that occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad is quite illuminating about the point you have raised: Chandogya Up Chapter 8.Section 5.4 Objection: The scenes in a dream are the forms of the impressions of the waking state. But it is not that women and others exist there in the dream Reply: What you say amounts to very little. Objects perceived in the waking state are also accomplished by mental ideas only, because they are made of fire, water, and earth, accomplished by the vision of Existence...........Therefore it is surely admitted that things mental and external are related to each other as cause and effect like a seed and its sprout. Although the mental images originate from external things and external things originate from the mind, still, in one's own Self, they are never false. Objection But things seen in dream become false to the awakened man Reply: Truly so. But their falsehood is in relation to the perception of the waking state, but not so far as they themselves are concerned. Similarly the perception of things in the waking state is unreal in relation to dream perception but not in itself. But the special forms of all things are only due to unreal ideas as stated in the texts.......considered in terms of their special forms even they are unreal but considered in themselves they are true in their nature as pure Existence. Before realizing them as identical with Existence they do exist in themselves, like the things seen in a dream.Thus there is no contradiction. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: Dennis Waite <dwaite An apparent contradiction in Shankara's comments"Advaitin (AT) (DOT) Com" <advaitin >Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 11:17 AM The way that I could rationalize this is by saying that what is meant is that the objects ‘perceived’ by the dreamer are found *by the waker* to have been illusory. Therefore, the waking state objects will be found to be illusory upon enlightenment. But this does not seem to be what Shankara is saying, according to the translations that I have. I think that the confusion may have something to do with Gaudapada’s habit of lumping the waking and dreaming states together and treating them the same but it is clearly not appropriate in this situation. Best Wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: It seems that the validity/invalidity of the argument rests on the word ‘perceived’. In fact, I would argue that the objects in dream are not ‘perceived’ at all (unless it is by the ‘dream senses’). I would rather say that they are ‘imagined’ or ‘mentally reconstructed from memory’. If we change the wording, it then becomes perfectly reasonable to say that ‘objects *imagined* in the waking state are illusory, just like those imagined in dream’. But, since the objects are not really ‘perceived’ at all during dream, the argument falls apart. You are right in that the conundrum is here. But I believe that your interpretation doesn't follow. You assume (for the sake of your argument) that the world is real, and that we are " perceptive beings " inside this " real universe " . Then you assume that " perception " is a process between a " perceiver " and " a real world " . With this in mind, it is easy to see why you can't accept " dream perceptions " as perceptions, because.. there is not a world to perceive. But Shankara does not uses the same premises. He parts from something that can be called " phenomenal world " and establishes that this PW is " the real world " . Now, notice that there are no separation or boundaries between " an observer " and " the observed " . I hope this helps...Manuel Delaflor _____The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.-George Bernard Shaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Thanks for that Michael – you’ve certainly got a better memory than I have! I do wonder sometimes whether one ought to do a search of the archives first to see if a topic has been discussed before. But then there are lots of new members and, after all, we are essentially discussing the same stuff over and over anyway so… Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of ombhurbhuva Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:26 PM advaitin Re: An apparent contradiction in Shankara's comments On 6.12.03 I wrote and I would still be of a similar opinion: _._,___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Hi Manuel, I’m not quite sure what you are saying here. I am taking the view that I believe is taken by the MU, namely that the dream world is real for the dreamer and the waking world is real for the waker. In the dream world, the dreamer perceives dream objects via his dream senses and transacts to all intents and purposes with what he (the dreamer) believes to be a real world. It is only when one ‘steps up a level’ that the respective worlds are seen as not real. Thus, the waking world becomes pAramArthika for the dreamer and turIya is pAramArthika for the waker. From the standpoint of absolute reality, the waking world is vyAvahArika and the dream world is prAtibhAsika. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Manuel Delaflor Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:09 AM advaitin Re: An apparent contradiction in Shankara's comments You are right in that the conundrum is here. But I believe that your interpretation doesn't follow. You assume (for the sake of your argument) that the world is real, and that we are " perceptive beings " inside this " real universe " . Then you assume that " perception " is a process between a " perceiver " and " a real world " . With this in mind, it is easy to see why you can't accept " dream perceptions " as perceptions, because.. there is not a world to perceive. But Shankara does not uses the same premises. He parts from something that can be called " phenomenal world " and establishes that this PW is " the real world " . Now, notice that there are no separation or boundaries between " an observer " and " the observed " . _,___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Dear list mates, I hope you all do not mind me butting in. I am not a scholar, but I am a seeker of truth. I like to learn more from you all. And I am expressing my views, so that I can learn and also earn more knowledge from all of you. Guide me wherever I am wrong. With respect and regards Santthhosh As per my personal research without the aid of any scriptures: When one analyzes all the three states, then he becomes aware of the fact that, the formless substance and witness of the all the three states [which appear and disappear in succession] is the same and it is formless. That formless witness is Ataman/sprit and is the true self. Man is aware that dream world is unreal, when waking takes place, because man and his world are present only in waking. Only when wisdom dawns the waking becomes unreal. Sri, Sankara has declared the spiritual truth in waking experience, when he and his world were present. Thus, it means that his body including the world is unreal. Thus what remains without the body and the world is reality, which is Ataman/spirit. Ataman itself is Brahman. Therefore, one has to trace the formless witness of the three states mentally, and view and judge the worldview on the base of formless witness, to realize the fact that, the waking is also unreal. Only when one learns to view and judge the worldview on the base of Ataman the truth will start unfolding and Sri, Sanakara was right in declaring the world is unreal. I do not want to argue in this matter, but I like to listen, what all of you say, which helps my inner work in my pursuit of truth. Santthhosh advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:>> Hi Manuel,> > I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.> > I am taking the view that I believe is taken by the MU, namely that the> dream world is real for the dreamer and the waking world is real for the> waker. In the dream world, the dreamer perceives dream objects via his dream> senses and transacts to all intents and purposes with what he (the dreamer)> believes to be a real world. It is only when one 'steps up a level' that the> respective worlds are seen as not real. Thus, the waking world becomes> pAramArthika for the dreamer and turIya is pAramArthika for the waker. From> the standpoint of absolute reality, the waking world is vyAvahArika and the> dream world is prAtibhAsika. > > Best wishes,> > Dennis> > > > advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf> Of Manuel Delaflor> Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:09 AM> advaitin > Re: An apparent contradiction in Shankara's comments> > > > > You are right in that the conundrum is here. But I believe that your> interpretation doesn't follow. You assume (for the sake of your argument)> that the world is real, and that we are "perceptive beings" inside this> "real universe". Then you assume that "perception" is a process between a> "perceiver" and "a real world". With this in mind, it is easy to see why you> can't accept "dream perceptions" as perceptions, because.. there is not a> world to perceive.> > But Shankara does not uses the same premises. He parts from something that> can be called "phenomenal world" and establishes that this PW is "the real> world". Now, notice that there are no separation or boundaries between "an> observer" and "the observed".> > > > > _,___> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthosh wrote: > > > Dear list mates, > > I hope you all do not mind me butting in. I am not a scholar, but I am a > seeker of truth. I like to learn more from you all. And I am expressing > my views, so that I can learn and also earn more knowledge from all of > you. Guide me wherever I am wrong. > > With respect and regards > > Santthhosh Namaste,IMO, Even perceiving is illusory as the perceiver and the perceived are illusory. The only difference between the waking and dream state is time and density, that's if we give any validity to both, for argument's sake. The 'stuff' of dreams is also material but finer and more subtle than gross physical. Stuff in dreams is not subject to time although there is an appearance of time in the dream. Dream objects deconstruct into dream stuff just as gross physical deconstruct into disorganised matter after a while...time being the difference.( And time itself is an illusion). Even the deep sleep state is a continuous thought of nothingness but a thought all the same. Hence we have mind looking at mind, both illusory and never happened..............Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 From; H.N.Sreenivasa MurthyPranams to all.advaitin , "Tony OClery" <aoclery wrote:" Even the deep sleep state is a continuous thought of nothingness but a thought all the same."Dear Sri Tony OClery, Your above quoted statement is not in tune with the thought position of the Upanishads and your statement goes against anuBava also. I request you to study mantras 4-3-21, 4-3-22 to4-3-32 and also mantras 5 and 6 0f Mandukya Upanishad . A study of the mantras will help you to evaluate the correctness of your statement.with warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 H.N Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote: > > From; H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams to all. > advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: " > Even the deep sleep state is a continuous thought of nothingness but a > thought all the same. " > > Dear Sri Tony OClery, > Your above quoted statement is not in tune with the thought position > of the Upanishads and your statement goes against anuBava also. I > request you to study mantras 4-3-21, 4-3-22 to > 4-3-32 and also mantras 5 and 6 0f Mandukya Upanishad . A study of the > mantras will help you to evaluate the correctness of your statement. > > with warm and respectful regards, > Sreenivasa Murthy. Dear Sri Tony OClery, The sentence, " I request you to study mantras 4-3-21, 4-3-22 to 4-3-32 and also mantras 5 and 6 0f Mandukya Upanishad " of the above quoted posting of mine, should read as " I request you to study mantras 4-3-21, 4-3-22 to 4-3-32 of Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad and also mantras 5 and 6 0f Mandukya Upanishad " . The error is regretted. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > I recently posted a comment from Shankara's bhAShya on the gauDapAda kArikA > on mANDUkya upaniShad (in the thread on 'Matter'). Commenting on GK 2.4, he > rephrases Gaudapada's statement into the form of a syllogism. He says that > the proposition to be established is that 'objects perceived in the waking > state are illusory'. The reason (hetu) for the inference is 'being > perceived'. The example or illustration is that 'objects perceived in dream > (are illusory)'. He says (Nikhilananda translation): " The common feature of > 'being perceived' is the relation (upanaya) between the illustration given > and the proposition taken for consideration. Therefore the illusoriness is > admitted of objects that are perceived to exist in the waking state. " > > > > The first point I wanted to make is that the argument seems very flimsy. > Suppose I have a flat-screen TV on one wall of my room and a window on the > other and looking at both I see a car. I could take the TV off the wall and > walk around the back of it and establish that the 'car' is in fact > two-dimensional and not usable for transport. It would seem that I could > then use exactly the same argument to say that, since the car that I see on > the TV wall is two dimensional, therefore the one I see out of the window is > also two-dimensional. There is a common feature of being perceived in just > the same way. > > > > It seems that the validity/invalidity of the argument rests on the word > 'perceived'. In fact, I would argue that the objects in dream are not > 'perceived' at all (unless it is by the 'dream senses'). I would rather say > that they are 'imagined' or 'mentally reconstructed from memory'. If we > change the wording, it then becomes perfectly reasonable to say that > 'objects *imagined* in the waking state are illusory, just like those > imagined in dream'. But, since the objects are not really 'perceived' at all > during dream, the argument falls apart. Dear Dennis-ji, Your questions have already been answered by some of the members. But it appears that the specific point raised by you in the above paragraphs has not been touched upon. I am therefore dealing with this. The word in Sanskrit, which has been translated as `having the feature of being perceived' is dRishyatvam. This word is derived from the verb meaning `to see' and so it has been translated as `being perceived'. But actually what is meant by the word dRishyatvam here is ` the feature of being objectified'. This is in contrast ro adRishyam, which is one of the words used to describe brahman. It has been interpreted in the bhAShya as , `what cannot be objectified'. Brahman is always the subject and can never be objectified. Everything other than brahman can be objectified and is therefore dRishyam. In dream also various objects become the objects of the witnessing consciousness, and so they are also dRishyam, though they are not seen by the eye. In the waking state sounds, smell, etc., are also experienced, and these are also called dRishyam, because they are all objects of the witnessing consciousness. Thus your question as to how the same word dRishyam can be used for dream as well as waking experiences is answered. > > > > The second point I wanted to make is more serious though. In BSB II.ii.29, > Shankara seems to totally contradict what he has said in the GK commentary. > The sutra itself says that: " And because of the difference in nature (the > waking state is) not (false) like dream etc. " Shankara says (Gambhirananda > translation) that: " It has been said by those who deny the existence of > external things that perceptions of things like a pillar etc. in the waking > state occur even in the absence of external things, just as they do in a > dream; for as perceptions they are similar. That has to be refuted. With > regard to this we say, the perceptions of the waking state cannot be classed > with those in a dream. " What Shankara says in GK 2.4 is that dRishyatvam and unreality are common to both the states and so they are similar. Everything that is dRishyam is unreal, because it is different from brahman which alone is adRishyam and real. Here he does not go into the difference between the two states. This he brings out only in BSB. II.ii.29. So there is actually no contradiction. The similarity alone is pointed out in GK 2.4. The difference is pointed out in BSB II.ii.29. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Dear Sastri-ji, Thank you for the analysis. Your post arrived about one minute after I had just finished listening to Swami Paramarthanda-ji’s analysis of BSB II.ii.28 - 29, wherein he gives the same explanation! As you say, in the GK commentary, he is pointing out the similarities (sadharma-s) between the waking and dream states. He says that both are objects of experience (dRRiShya), transient (anitya), limited (parichchinna) and negatable by pramANa. Therefore both are mithyA. In the BSB sutra, the yogachAra philosopher is attempting to argue that the waking world (jAgrat prapa~ncha) and the dream world (svapna prapa~ncha) are the same because both are inside the mind. Shankara argues that this is not the case; that the waking world is very much outside the mind. I.e. he is addressing the differences (vaidharmya-s). Interestingly, Swami P. also emphasizes at some length that this also applies equally to the j~nAnI and jIvanmukta… (I thought this was worth mentioning but do not want anyone to take it as an invitation to re-open this thread!) Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of snsastri Friday, March 27, 2009 1:58 PM advaitin Re: An apparent contradiction in Shankara's comments What Shankara says in GK 2.4 is that dRishyatvam and unreality are common to both the states and so they are similar. Everything that is dRishyam is unreal, because it is different from brahman which alone is adRishyam and real. Here he does not go into the difference between the two states. This he brings out only in BSB. II.ii.29. So there is actually no contradiction. The similarity alone is pointed out in GK 2.4. The difference is pointed out in BSB II.ii.29. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri _ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 --- On Fri, 3/27/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: Swami Paramarthanda- ji’s analysis of BSB II.ii.28 - 29, wherein he gives the same explanation! ..... In the BSB sutra, the yogachAra philosopher is attempting to argue that the waking world (jAgrat prapa~ncha) and the dream world (svapna prapa~ncha) are the same because both are inside the mind. Shankara argues that this is not the case; that the waking world is very much outside the mind. ---------- Dennis - PraNAms The second chapter of Brahma suutra is centered on dismissing the aastika philosophies and should be correctly understood with that reference in mind. I think, it is one of the reasons why it is simpler to understand Shankara's interpretations (without any apparent contradictions)through the prakaraNa granthaas. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Obviously I meant naastika philosophies not aastika philosophies. Sadananda--- On Fri, 3/27/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisadaRE: Re: An apparent contradiction in Shankara's commentsadvaitin Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 12:44 PM --- On Fri, 3/27/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite (AT) advaita (DOT) org.uk> wrote:Swami Paramarthanda- ji’s analysis of BSB II.ii.28 - 29, wherein he gives the same explanation!....In the BSB sutra, the yogachAra philosopher is attempting to argue that the waking world (jAgrat prapa~ncha) and the dream world (svapna prapa~ncha) are the same because both are inside the mind. Shankara argues that this is not the case; that the waking world is very much outside the mind. ----------Dennis - PraNAmsThe second chapter of Brahma suutra is centered on dismissing the aastika philosophies and should be correctly understood with that reference in mind. I think, it is one of the reasons why it is simpler to understand Shankara's interpretations (without any apparent contradictions) through the prakaraNa granthaas.Hari Om!Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote: > > H.N Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams to all. > advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145@> wrote: > > > > From; H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > > Pranams to all. > > advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: " > > Even the deep sleep state is a continuous thought of nothingness but a > > thought all the same. " > > > > Dear Sri Tony OClery, > > Your above quoted statement is not in tune with the thought position > > of the Upanishads and your statement goes against anuBava also. I > > request you to study mantras 4-3-21, 4-3-22 to > > 4-3-32 and also mantras 5 and 6 0f Mandukya Upanishad . A study of the > > mantras will help you to evaluate the correctness of your statement. > > > > with warm and respectful regards, > > Sreenivasa Murthy. Namaste,SM, Yes I am familiar with the mandukya of course; However if deep sleep is not of the mind or thought it would result in liberation but it doesn't..........Sushupti is a state of ignorance, the veil to be sundered before realisation.........Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > --- On Fri, 3/27/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > > Swami Paramarthanda- ji’s analysis of BSB II.ii.28 - 29, wherein he gives the same explanation! > .... > In the BSB sutra, the yogachAra philosopher is attempting to argue that the waking world (jAgrat prapa~ncha) and the dream world (svapna prapa~ncha) are the same because both are inside the mind. Shankara argues that this is not the case; that the waking world is very much outside the mind. > ---------- > Dennis - PraNAms > > The second chapter of Brahma suutra is centered on dismissing the aastika philosophies and should be correctly understood with that reference in mind. > > I think, it is one of the reasons why it is simpler to understand Shankara's interpretations (without any apparent contradictions)through the prakaraNa granthaas. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda Namaste Dennis and Sadananda, We have semantics here methinks....The world may appear to be outside the individual illusion of mind, but this total illusion is nothing but mind. In that way the waking, dream and deep sleep states are the same thing to a different degree. For example which plane is this on? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7967575.stm It is the waking looking at a dream bardo.......I think one has to not take things out of context with Sankara and Ramana because they reflect the immediate audience in many cases.........Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Dear Sada-ji, Yes – you are quite right. The Brahma Sutras are really for consolidation of knowledge, questioning and rationalizing – nididhyAsana in fact. There is clearly a danger in ‘dipping into’ BSB and taking sutras out of context. For example, in topic 6 in the first chapter (I.i.12-19), he initially argues the case of the vRRittikAra (the one opposing the Vedantin’s view) and only at the end refutes this position and establishes the correct view. If one picked one of the earlier verses, one could be really confused! Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda Friday, March 27, 2009 4:45 PM advaitin RE: Re: An apparent contradiction in Shankara's comments --- On Fri, 3/27/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: Swami Paramarthanda- ji’s analysis of BSB II.ii.28 - 29, wherein he gives the same explanation! ..... In the BSB sutra, the yogachAra philosopher is attempting to argue that the waking world (jAgrat prapa~ncha) and the dream world (svapna prapa~ncha) are the same because both are inside the mind. Shankara argues that this is not the case; that the waking world is very much outside the mind. ---------- Dennis - PraNAms The second chapter of Brahma suutra is centered on dismissing the aastika philosophies and should be correctly understood with that reference in mind. I think, it is one of the reasons why it is simpler to understand Shankara's interpretations (without any apparent contradictions)through the prakaraNa granthaas. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > > As you say, in the GK commentary, he is pointing out the similarities (sadharma-s) between the waking and dream states. > Best wishes, > Dennis > Hari Om Shri Dennisji, Pranaams! Please refer to the fourth pAdA of the same kArikA(2.4) saMvrtatvena bhidyate - (But objects (in the dream state) differ because of existence inside(the body) and because of the smallness (of space) - tr. by Sw. GambhIrAnandaji. It deals both sAdhAraNa and visheShaNa aMshAs - similarity and difference. The hetu samvrtatvena is discussed in first kArikA. In that shloka take the analysis as objects existing both inside(sukha-dukhAdi) and outside(usual objects) in the dream, for the dreamer. Usual declaration is what is seen outside have reality and what is inside(antasthAnIyAH) are false. So are the dream objects which are seen outside the dreamer in dream state are real? This proposition is taken up by AcAryAji and thro kaimutika nyAya as he comments, na dehAntar nADIShu parvatahastyAdInAM sambhavaH asti. na hi dehe parvataH asti. For mountains and elephants cannot possibly exist within the limited space inside the nerves in the dreamer's body. A mountain does not surely exist within the body. (kaimutima or kAvyArthApatti nyAyaH : The maxim of how much more-how much less, much more-much less) If there is no possibility of elephant and mountain existing in the body, how come it is possible to be inside the nerves wherein the dream objects are supposed to be seen by the dreamer in the dream state. This explanation is as per Anandagiriji's tIkA. In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Namaste. And in which world (prapanca) is the mind please? MN __________ advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > In the BSB sutra, the yogachAra philosopher is attempting to argue that the > waking world (jAgrat prapa~ncha) and the dream world (svapna prapa~ncha) are > the same because both are inside the mind. Shankara argues that this is not > the case; that the waking world is very much outside the mind. I.e. he is > addressing the differences (vaidharmya-s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Namaste Shri Dennis-ji, On the subject of equation of the two states, also please refer to verses 100 and 172 of Vivekachudamani (verse numbers may vary a little in other versions), where Shri Shankara seems to make contradictory statements. Here are the verses: Dream is a state different from this (waking state) where the buddhi shines by itself by taking the role of the agent etc. by the various vaasanaas derived from the waking state. In it the supreme Atman is self-resplendent. [Verse 100] Raising the question as to how the antaHkaraNa (the mind), which is jaDa (insentient) could have the power to create, the commentator Swami H.H. Chandrasekhara Bharathi, gives a beautiful explanation, using the reference to Shruti verses like " na tatra sUryo bhaati " (Ka/Mu) and " yadAdityagatam ... " (Gita). Later, on the question of " Why is the dream is being singled out? when the Shruti says Atman is self-effulgent " , the AchArya refers to jyotirbrAhmaNa of B.U. [1]. In the absense of external objects in the dream, the mind alone creates everything, i.e., the enjoyer etc., by its power. So too, there is no difference in the waking state. All this is an expansion of the mind. [Verse 172] (Shri Nair-ji, concluding the commentary of verse 172, Swami-ji says " the entire universe is the expansion of the mind. " ) == It should also be noted that this apparent equation of the two states by Shankara in verse 172 has led scholars to conclude that it is not a work of Shankara (!!!), though Swami Dayananda explains that it is more like " Collection of Miscellaneous Verses authored by Shankara. " Shri. John Grimes in his excellent introduction to Vivekachudamani raises this same point of this apparent contradicttion, and says that the above mentioned equation of the two states is not enough reason to raise a question of authorship. He further says the following: <QUOTE> " .... But this [shankara clearly making a distinction between the dream and waking states or even vyAvahArika (empirical) and prAtibhAsika (illusory) obects] does not necessarily imply that he could not or did not equate these two states when making another point. The discipline of an enquiry into the three states of existence (avastha-traya-vichAra) may also be for the explicit purpose of liberation and not just for establishing ontologial theories " . </QUOTE> In this section, Shri John Grimes also asks the reader to refer to U.S. 2.2.109, Ch. Up. 8.6.3, Ch. Up. 8.11.1. As Shri Sada-ji and you pointed out, the prakaraNa-granthas do have a place. praNAms to all Advaitins, Ramakrishna [1] I request any member to point out where can I find the original sanskrit commentary of V.C by Swamiji, as I want to know if a sentence in English in the commentary of verse 100 is by the AchArya, or by the translator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Dear Nair-ji, Pardon my sloppy exegesis! I believe we (BSB) are talking about the difference between the objects (elephants etc) that are seen in waking as opposed to those that are seen during dream. The latter are realized (after waking up) to have been inside the mind, since there is “insufficient space and time” for them to have been ‘really’ there. Those seen during waking, on the other hand, have the usual waking properties of being seen by others, still being there after going away and coming back again etc. So they are deemed to be ‘outside the mind’, despite the pedantic fact that the mind also is part of the vyAvahArika manifestation. Best wishes, Dennis (Please excuse the ever-so-slight sarcasm, gauged to match your own!) advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil Rajendran Nair Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:48 AM advaitin Re: An apparent contradiction in Shankara's comments Namaste. And in which world (prapanca) is the mind please? MN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Namaste. My question was a valid one. There was no sarcasm. Just business. By the explanation now proffered, the same mind is implied to exist in both the dream and waking states. This would mean that it is the waker who entered the dream state quite contrary to the non-inter-dependence (insularity) of the states held sacrosanct by some of our scholars. Besides, it sounds like mind exists, outside and inside, independent of the two worlds perceived, which means it is rather other worldly. Shri Ramakrishna Upadrasta-ji, you are closer to plausibility. Whatever is made out of MU / GK, there is only Awareness in which exists both dreams and waking. Mind is awareness in relation to objectification. It is Awarenes per se when objectification ceases. That is why it is stated that mind is transcended in self-realization. I don't also wish to open the old Pandoras box by saying so. MN _____________ advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: >> I believe we (BSB) are talking about the > difference between the objects (elephants etc) that are seen in waking as > opposed to those that are seen during dream. The latter are realized (after > waking up) to have been inside the mind, since there is " insufficient space > and time " for them to have been 'really' there. Those seen during waking, on > the other hand, have the usual waking properties of being seen by others, > still being there after going away and coming back again etc. So they are > deemed to be 'outside the mind', despite the pedantic fact that the mind > also is part of the vyAvahArika manifestation. > > (Please excuse the ever-so-slight sarcasm, gauged to match your own!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta " <uramakrishna wrote: > > where can I find the original sanskrit > commentary of V.C by Swamiji, as I want to know if a sentence in English > in the commentary of verse 100 is by the AchArya, or by the translator. > The text is available at: http://www.advaitin.net/Vedanta%20Classics/VivekaChudamani_bhashya_Chandrasekhar\ a_bharati.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/5f5cru [The file has a size of 29.7MB, taking a while to view it.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Dear Nair-ji, That is a very interesting point. But it does have to be the same mind, otherwise the advaitin explanation of dream – namely that it is events, desires etc in the waking world that are manifest in the dream – would make no sense. The memory-vAsanA-s have to be available for this to work. I don’t know that anyone (scholars-scriptures etc) says that the waking mind differs from the dreaming mind do they? This is not the same as differentiating the waker-ego and dream-ego (i.e. ‘waker’ and ‘dreamer’). We differentiate gross waking objects from ‘gross’ dream objects but is there anywhere that a distinction is made between subtle dream thoughts and waking thoughts? In fact, the assumed ‘gross’ dream objects turn out to be subtle, mind projected ‘objects’. No one ever suggests that the mind that is projecting these is itself not real in a vyAvahArika sense. (If it were not, then where would it come from? Projected from another mind? But then where would that mind come from? And so on…) Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil Rajendran Nair Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:52 PM advaitin Re: An apparent contradiction in Shankara's comments By the explanation now proffered, the same mind is implied to exist in both the dream and waking states. This would mean that it is the waker who entered the dream state quite contrary to the non-inter-dependence (insularity) of the states held sacrosanct by some of our scholars. Besides, it sounds like mind exists, outside and inside, independent of the two worlds perceived, which means it is rather other worldly. 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.