ADVAITA-L Digest - help locating source

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

vidya at cco.caltech.edu wrote:

>However, it must be pointed out that the jAgrat and svapna states differ in
>some crucial aspects. In today's svapna, I find myself jumping from an
 aeroplane
>over the desert in Africa. This svapna experience is real enough, so long as
>the svapna lasts. On waking up, I find myself in my room in Pasadena. However,
>in tomorrow's svapna, I could as well dream about being in the Australian
>outback, there is no guarantee that I will dream about being in Africa again.
>And on waking up, I will find myself in the same room in Pasadena.

But does the question arise in the svapna state itself? No. The differences in
the three states are perceived only when you wake up. It is unfair to compare
the dream and waking state in the waking state. If you want to know whether
there is any difference in the jaagrat and svapna state, then you should
compare the characteristics of each as perceived in their _respective_ states.
Certainly, it is admitted that _in_ the jaagrat state the svapna state has some
differences. But then the reverse also holds does it not?

Again, you cook food and put it in your refrigirator. When you wake up you find
it still there (if your rommmate hasn't eaten it off :-)). However, if you feel
hungry in the dream you have to eat the dream food from your dream refrigirator
only. When you eat in your dream, does any question arise about the validity of
the dream food? Or say, if you sleep in your dream, you'll still find the food
after you wake up (while still in the dream).

gauDapaada also points out the bizzare experiences in dreams are not questioned
in the dream itself. It is like seeing a thousand eyed Indra in heaven in the
waking state. shrii saMkara also correctly points out that the differences in
the three states are perceived only in the waking state.

>In other words, objects of the dream state are completely spun out of one's
>own imagination, and are real so long as the svapna lasts. However, objects

This is exactly what GYaanis say about the waking state! In shrii ramaNa's
words his experiences are like "kaanaak kaNdaarpOl" (like seeing a dream).

>of the jAgrat state seem to exist beyond one's own imagination. I can
>legitimately claim that the parachute I used in today's svapna is an object
>created totally out of my own imagination. But I cannot legitimately claim
>that the computer I am using right now, is an object created out of my
>imagination, or my own power to create. This computer here is perceived as
>apart from and separate from me in the jAgrat state. And this perception is
>reinforced by my seeing the computer in the same place every day I come into
>this room.

Fine, but the continuity of the dream should be questioned in the dream itself,
for a fair comparison. This is exactly pointed out by shrii shaMkara in the
kaarikaa bhaashhya.

>It is only when the self is sought to be known, that the words "jagan mithyA"
>can be understood properly. If one uses logic alone, without seeking to know
>the self, jagan mithyA will always be misunderstood. This is in response to
>the second point above.

In one sense the jagan mithyaa has potential for misunderstanding. We can
certainly deduce by logic alone that the jaagrat and svapna avasthas are
equivalent. However if one is not enlightened, one is still subject to the law
of causality (in both the states). Some people may take the jagat mithya to mean
that they have approval to do anything without being affected. It is true if
one is realized, but not otherwise, since vyavahaarika satya still holds.
A famous example of this misinterpretation is one of the asuras - I think
hiraNyakashipu (sp?). I have myself seen a person claiming such things!

>Re: authorship of the prakaraNa granthas:
>philosophical positions taken, but also in an analysis of literary style,
>preference for some terms and styles of sentence construction, etc. Of course,
>such stylistic arguments can sometimes lead to wrong conclusions, if used
>alone. But accepting the brahmasUtra bhAshya, and the principal upanishad
>bhAshyas to be undisputedly Sankara's own works, some basic features stand out.

I have read a book by shrii Aurobindo on the mahaabhaarata, where he says that
the mahaabhaarata consisted originally of only 8000 verses and the rest were
added by some one else. Here he makes a case of examining the work based on
"poetry" style, which he claims is a very good indicator. Prose, he says, is
very misleading. He cites reasons and examples to back up his statements. I
have not read the arguments for examining shaMkara's works by the westerners.
Maybe they are quite scientific. But my point was that the works of shaMkara
cannot be "authenticated" based on differences in the advaita philosophy, like
shR^ishTi-dR^ishTi and ajaata vaada. shaMkara adopting these different
positions in different works is perfectly natural. OTOH, if a work of shaMkara
says eternal bheda is the truth, then you can safely say that it is actually
not his work without any other consideration :-).

Ramakrishnan.

PS: I am not saying that I have completely "realized" that the two states are
equivalent. In that case I'd be a GYaani! My intellectual understanding of this
fact has not translated into practice.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate