Fwd: Selections from TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI-80

[Guest guest]

ThePowerOfSilence , " saikali6362 "

<saikali6362 wrote:

 

Selections from TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI-80

 

TALK 399:

 

Mr. Bose, the Bengali Engineer, has since read Gaudapada Karikas and

Sir S. Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy and so asked questions as

follows:

 

D.: Is there any genuine difference between dream experience and

waking state?

 

M.: Because you find the dream creations transitory in relation to

the waking state there is said to be a difference. The difference is

only apparent and not real.

 

D.: Is the waking state independent of existing objects?

 

M.: Were it so, the objects must exist without the seer; that is to

say, the object must tell you that it exists. Does it do so? For

example, does a cow moving in front of you say that she is moving?

Or do you say of your own accord " There is a cow moving " ? The

objects exist because of the seer cognising them.

 

D.: Gaudapada in Mandukya Karikas says that there is no difference

between the two states from the standpoint of Reality-Absolute.

 

M.: Of course not.

 

D.: I believe Bhagavan also says so. Prof. Radhakrishnan in his

Indian Philosophy says that in his Brahma Sutra Commentary Sri

Sankara makes a distinction between the two states. Is it a fact? If

so, what is it? How can there be any distinction from the viewpoint

of reality? So long as the mind exists in any form there will be

distinction. But from the standpoint of Atman, non-dual Brahman,

can there be any distinction?

 

M.: The dream is for the one who says that he is awake. In fact,

wakefulness and dream are equally unreal from the standpoint of the

Absolute.

 

D.: In pure Advaita can evolution, creation or manifestation have

any place? What about the theory of vivarta according to which

Brahman appears as the world without forgetting its essential

nature, like the rope appearing as snake?

 

M.: There are different methods of approach to prove the unreality

of the universe. The example of the dream is one among them. Jagrat,

svapna and sushupti are all treated elaborately in the scripture in

order that the Reality underlying them might be revealed. It is not

meant to accentuate differences among the three states. The purpose

must be kept clearly in view.

 

Now they say that the world is unreal. Of what degree of unreality

is it? Is it like that of a son of a barren mother or a flower in

the sky, mere words without any reference to facts? Whereas the

world is a fact and not a mere word. The answer is that it is a

superimposition on the one Reality, like the appearance of a snake

on a coiled rope seen in dim light.

 

But here too the wrong identity ceases as soon as the friend points

out that it is a rope. Whereas in the matter of the world it

persists even after it is known to be unreal. How is that? Again the

appearance of water in a mirage persists even after the knowledge of

the mirage is recognised. So it is with the world. Though knowing it

to be unreal, it continues to manifest.

 

But the water of the mirage is not sought to satisfy one's thirst.

As soon as one knows that it is a mirage, one gives it up as useless

and does not run after it for procuring water.

 

D.: Not so with the appearance of the world. Even after it is

repeatedly declared to be false one cannot avoid satisfying one's

wants from the world. How can the world be false?

 

M.: It is like a man satisfying his dream wants by dream creations.

There are objects, there are wants and there is satisfaction. The

dream creation is as purposeful as the jagrat world and yet it is

not considered real.

 

Thus we see that each of these illustrations serves a distinct

purpose in establishing the stages of unreality. The realised sage

finally declares that in the regenerate state the jagrat world also

is found to be as unreal as the dream world is found to be in the

jagrat state.

 

Each illustration should be understood in its proper context; it

should not be studied as an isolated statement. It is a link in a

chain. The purpose of all these is to direct the seeker's mind

towards the one Reality underlying them all.

 

D.: Is there that difference in the philosophy of Sankara and

Gaudapada which the learned Professor wants us to believe?

 

M.: The difference is only in our imagination.

 

D.: Sir S. Radhakrishnan writes:

 

" The general idea pervading Gaudapada's work that bondage and

liberation, the individual soul and the world are all unreal, makes

a caustic critic observe that the theory which has nothing better to

say than that an unreal soul is trying to escape from an unreal

Supreme Good, may itself be an unreality. It is one thing to say

that the unchangeable reality expressing itself in the changing

universe without forfeiting its nature is a mystery, and another to

dismiss the whole changing universe as a mere mirage. If we have to

play the game of life we cannot do so with the conviction that the

play is a show and all the prizes in it are mere blanks. No

philosophy can consistently hold such a theory and be at rest with

itself. The greatest condemnation of such a theory is that we are

obliged to occupy ourselves with objects the existence and value of

which we are continually denying in theory. It only shows that there

is something else which includes and transcends the world but it

does not imply the world is a dream. "

 

M.: As was already said, the purpose of the whole philosophy is to

indicate the underlying Reality whether of the jagrat, svapna and

sushupti states, or the individual souls, the world and God.

 

There are three outlooks possible:-

 

(1) The Vyavaharika: The man sees the world in all its variety,

surmises the creator and believes in himself as the subject. All

these are thus reduced to the three fundamentals, jagat, jiva and

Isvara. He learns the existence of the creator and tries to reach

him in order to gain immortality. If one is thus released from

bondage, there are all other individuals existing as before who

should work out their own salvation. He more or less admits the One

Reality underlying all these phenomena. The phenomena are due to the

play of maya. Maya is the sakti of Isvara or the activity of

Reality. Thus, existence of different souls, objects, etc., do not

clash with the advaitic point of view.

 

(2) The Pratibhasika: The jagat, jiva and Isvara are all

cognised by the seer only. They do not have any existence

independent of him. So there is only one jiva, be it the individual

or God. All else is simply a myth.

 

(3) The Paramarthika: i.e., ajatavada (no-creation doctrine)

which admits of no second. There is no reality or absence of it, no

seeking or gaining, no bondage or liberation and so on. The

question arises why then do all the sastras speak of the Lord as the

creator? How can the creature that you are create the creator and

argue that the jagat, jiva and Isvara are mental conceptions only?

The answer is as follows:-

 

You know that your father of this jagrat state is dead and that

several years have elapsed since his death. However you see him in

your dream and recognise him to be your father, of whom you were

born and who has left patrimony to you. Here the creator is in the

creature. Again, you dream that you are serving a king and that you

are a part in the administrative wheel of the kingdom. As soon as

you wake up all of them have disappeared leaving you, the single

individual, behind. Where were they all? Only in yourself. The same

analogy holds good in the other case also.

 

D.: In the Vyavaharika, above mentioned, how does maya come in?

 

M.: Maya is only Isvara-Sakti or the activity of Reality.

 

D.: Why does it become active?

 

M.: How can this question arise? You are yourself within its fold.

Are you standing apart from that universal activity in order to ask

this question? The same Power is raising this doubt in order that

all doubts may finally cease.

 

D.: The dream world is not purposeful as the jagrat world, because

we do not feel that wants are satisfied.

 

M.: You are not right. There are thirst and hunger in dream also.

You might have had your fill and kept over the remaining food for

the next day. Nevertheless you feel hungry in dream. This food does

not help you. Your dream-hunger can be satisfied only by eating

dream-food. Dream-wants are satisfied by dream-creations only.

 

D.: We recollect our dreams in our jagrat but not vice-versa.

 

M.: Not right again. In the dream you identify yourself with the one

now speaking.

 

D.: But we do not know that we are dreaming as apart from waking as

we do now.

 

M.: The dream is the combination of jagrat and sushupti. It is due

to the samskaras of the jagrat state. Hence we remember dreams at

present. Samskaras are not formed contrariwise; therefore also we

are not aware of the dream and jagrat simultaneously. Still everyone

will recollect strange perplexities in dream. One wonders if he

dreams or is awake. He argues and determines that he is only awake.

When really awake, he finds that it was all only a dream.

 

--- End forwarded message ---