Why the same dream?

[Miguel Angel Carrasco]

I find myself in a pretty strange situation: I started wondering at the
similarity of dreams to later having to defend their difference. Now I am
at the same time trying to show that what different persons see (or, more
exactly, what apparently different body-minds dream) is both the same and
different. The same in sofar as for example we are using the same language
and sharing the same basic ideals. Different (at least slightly) in sofar
as for example we have different opinions in some points, like this one. I
see it is proving to be a difficult stand to hold.

The attacks to this position (which I have no particular interest in
defending), come mainly from those that say that there are no different
dreams, that it is all in the same dream watched by the same dreamer. From
this would logically follow that not only there is one Consciousness (which
nobody debates), but also only one point of consciousness, only one
experiencing centre (which is not the same). That is what, fool that I am,
I do not yet understand.

But if I am still holding this battled position it is because that is what
I have breathed in various sages´ writings (mainly Nisargadatta, who I will
put to rest for a while, but also others including the Upanishads). For
example, the Maitrayana-Brahmana Upanishad, Second Prapathaka:

^Ñ^Ò 6. ^ÑIn the beginning Pragapati (the lord of creatures) stood alone. He
had no happiness, when alone. Meditating on himself, he created many
creatures. He looked on them and saw they were, like a stone, without
understanding, and standing like a lifeless post. He had no happiness. He
thought, I shall enter within, that they may awake. Making himself like air
(vayu) he entered within. Being one, he could not do it. Then dividing
himself fivefold, he is called Prana, Apana, Samana, Udana, Vyana. [...]
Now he, having divided himself fivefold, is hidden in a secret place
(buddhi), assuming the nature of mind, having the pranas as his body,
resplendent, having true concepts, and free like ether. Feeling even thus
that he has not attained his object, he thinks from within the interior of
the heart, ^ÓLet me enjoy objects.^Ô Therefore, having first broken open
these five apertures (of the senses), he enjoys the objects by means of the
five reins. This means that these perceptive organs (ear, skin, eye,
tongue, nose) are his reins; the active organs (tongue (for speaking),
hands, feet, anus, generative organ) his horses; the body his chariot, the
mind the charioteer, the whip being the temperament. Driven by that whip,
this body goes round like the wheel driven by the potter. This body is made
intelligent, and he is the driver thereof. ^Ñ^Ò

>From this text I would conclude that the Self dwells in and gives life to
each creature, which otherwise would be not only unreal (created within
consciousness) but also devoid of life. And through the particular organs
of each different creature, the Self watches the rest of Creation in
different ways. This may sound naive, if taken literally. But not so much
with the proper refining (for example, of course Creation is not something
physically existent out there, but the contents of Consciousness, and the
creatures are not real entities but rather points of observation, etc etc).
But the fact would remain that the Self is embodied (refined: imagines
Itself surrounded by a set of imagined circumstances) and experiences the
world
(refined: the rest of the contents of Dual-Consciousness) from the point of
view of each ^Ñcreature^Ò . That would explain the initial
self-identification with each body-mind (each observation post), and the
subsequent disvovery of
Oneself.

As the Khandogya-Upanishad, Eighth Prapathaka, Twelfth Khanda says :

^Ñ^Ò  1. ^ÑMaghavat, this body is mortal and always held by death. It is the
abode of that Self which is immortal and without body. When in the body (by
thinking this body is I and I am this body) the Self is held by pleasure
and pain. So long as he is in the body, he cannot get free from pleasure
and pain. But when he is free of the body (when he knows himself different
from the body), then neither pleasure nor pain touches him.
2. ^ÑThe wind is without body, the cloud, lightning, and thunder are without
body (without hands, feet, &c.) Now as these, arising from this heavenly
ether (space), appear in their own form, as soon as they have approached
the highest light, 3. ^ÑThus does that serene being, arising from this body,
appear in its own form, as soon as it has approached the highest light (the
knowledge of Self). He (in that state) is the highest person (uttama
purusha). He moves about there laughing (or eating), playing, and rejoicing
(in his mind), be it with women, carriages, or relatives, never minding
that body into which he was born. Like as a horse attached to a cart, so is
the spirit (prana, pragnatman) attached to this body.  ^Ñ^Ò

This process of Self-discovery (of finding what was never lost) is similar
(the same but somewhat different) in each body-mind (Sankara was not
Nagarjuna),
therefore different dreams.

As Sankara said (Ar. III, 1, 1, Introd.) :

 ^ÑThere are three classes of men who want to acquire knowledge. The highest
consists of those who have turned away from the world, whose minds are
fixed on one subject and collected, and who yearn to be free at once. For
these a knowledge of Brahman is intended, as taught in the Ait. Ar. II,
4-6. The middle class are those who wish to become free gradually by
attaining to the world of Hiranyagarbha. For them the knowledge and worship
of Prana (breath and life) is intended, as explained in the Ait. Ar. II,
1-3. The lowest class consists of those who do not care either for
immediate or gradual freedom, but who desire nothing but offspring, cattle,
&c. For these the meditative worship of the Samhita is intended, as
explained in the third Aran-yaka. They cling too strongly to the letter of
the sacred text to be able to surrender it for a knowledge either of Prana
(life) or of Brahman.^Ò

Would it not be possible to conclude from all these texts that the Self
experiences
the (imagined) Not-Self in different ways according to the (imagined)
body-minds it inhabits?
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Sat Nov 29 09:48:06 1997
Message-Id: <SAT.29.NOV.1997.094806.0600.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:48:06 -0600
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <msr at ISC.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: New member: Introduction
Comments: To: Advaita-l <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:10:44 -1000
From: "S.C." <stevec at hilo.org>
Reply-To: "S.C." <steve at hilo.org>
To: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <msr at isc.tamu.edu>
Subject: Re: ADVAITA-L: stevec at HILO.ORG requested to join

Dear Ravisankar,
    Thank you for the welcome. I am a student of the teachings of Sri Ramana
Maharshi and while looking on the net for more info on him I stumbled on
your newslist. I worked the Course In Miracles for 10 years and then moved
up in consciousness to experience the Oneness of Advaita. Ramana Marharshi
helped me the most and continues to be my guiding light. I am starting a
weekly study group of his teachings here in Hawaii and look forward to any
help that I might get here to be more efficient in communicating the Advaita
way.

Aloha,
Steve Cotten
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Mon Dec  1 08:28:17 1997
Message-Id: <MON.1.DEC.1997.082817.0200.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:28:17 +0200
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Charles Wikner <WIKNER at NACDH4.NAC.AC.ZA>
Subject: :-)
Comments: To: ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

   Abstracted from a recent thread on
   the sci.philosophy.meta newsgroup:


Daniel Jacob:   Got a favorite Metaphysical or Spiritual Quote?

the_walrus:     God is real unless declared integer.

Bert Clanton:   God is complex. People who say He is real
                are leaving out the imaginary part.


Happy New Month,
Charles.