[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

[V Subrahmanian]

Even if the object, person and events seen in a dream seem real at the
time, on waking up it is known that they are not real. Vedanta takes this
experience as an example and concludes that the samsara/bandha experienced
in the waking is not real.

In the Bhagavatam and Brahmasutras, Veda Vyasa has called dream as Mayika,
illusory. The meaning of 'maayaa' as God's will, Ishwarecchaa, does not
hold good here.

Dream creation is by the jiva - Srimad Bhagavatam

In this chapter of the Bhagavata, as an analogy for the Supreme Lord
creating the world and entering into it, is said to be akin to the creation
of the Jiva creating the dream by his mind out of his Avidya shakti:

श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः १०/उत्तरार्धः/अध्यायः ८६
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/v4e

श्रुतदेव उवाच -
नाद्य नो दर्शनं प्राप्तः परं परमपूरुषः ।
यर्हीदं शक्तिभिः सृष्ट्वा प्रविष्टो ह्यात्मसत्तया ॥ ४४ ॥
यथा शयानः पुरुषो मनसैवात्ममायया ।
सृष्ट्वा लोकं परं स्वाप्नं अनुविश्यावभासते ॥ ४५ ॥

Just as a sleeping man appears to have created the world with his own
illusion (ignorance) and entered it, so the Supreme Lord dwells as if he
has created this world with his magical power and entered it. From this
illustration, the Srimad Bhagavatam reveals that the creation of the world
and the entry of the Supreme Being into it is also illusory and not real.

This premise is accepted only in Advaita.  .

The Brahmasutra also says the same:

मायामात्रं तु कार्त्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात् ॥ ३ ॥ 3.2.3

Shankara's commentary for the fact that the creation in a dream is
illusory; not real:

तुशब्दः पक्षं व्यावर्तयति । नैतदस्ति — यदुक्तम् , सन्ध्ये सृष्टिः
पारमार्थिकीति ; मायैव सन्ध्ये सृष्टिः, न परमार्थगन्धोऽप्यस्ति ।

सूचकश्च हि श्रुतेराचक्षते च तद्विदः ॥ ४ ॥ 3.2.4

Upanishad and Shankara Bhasya passages on the creation of dream is by the
jiva himself:

श्रुत्यन्तरे ‘स्वयं विहत्य स्वयं निर्माय स्वेन भासा स्वेन ज्योतिषा
प्रस्वपिति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ३ । ९) इति जीवव्यापारश्रवणात् । इहापि ‘य एष
सुप्तेषु जागर्ति’ (क. उ. २ । २ । ८) इति प्रसिद्धानुवादाज्जीव एवायं कामानां
निर्माता सङ्कीर्त्यते । तस्य तु वाक्यशेषेण ‘तदेव शुक्रं तद्ब्रह्म’ इति
जीवभावं व्यावर्त्य ब्रह्मभाव उपदिश्यते — ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६ । ९ । ४)
इत्यादिवत् — इति न ब्रह्मप्रकरणं विरुध्यते ।
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: 4.3.9:

स्वयं विहत्य स्वयं निर्माय स्वेन भासा स्वेन ज्योतिषा प्रस्वपित्यत्रायं
पुरुषः स्वयं ज्योतिर्भवति ॥ ९ ॥
Dhruva says:

श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः ४/अध्यायः १२
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/aw4

मन्यमान इदं विश्वं मायारचितमात्मनि ।
अविद्यारचितस्वप्नगन्धर्वनगरोपमम् ॥ १५ ॥

Dhruva realizes that this world is imagined in him by the Maya power of
Ishwara. He gives an illustration for this: Just as a dream, Gandharva
nagara (a phantom city) is created by ignorance, so the world is created by
the maya power of Ishwara.
From this statement we know incidentally: The dream-creation is by the
jiva, endowed with avidya.

Even in the Garuda Purana, Veda Vyasa elaborately says that dream is
illusory and unreal, the waking world is also the same. For this the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad gives the well-known illustration 'Chariot, horse,
road - all imagined in a dream':

यथा रथादयः स्वप्ने सन्तो नैव च सत्यतः ॥ १,२३६.३६ ॥
तथा जाग्रदवस्थायां भूतानि न तु सन्निधौ ।

Chariots, etc. seen in dreams are not real. Thus the objects of
consciousness are not real ones. (Bru. Upa. न तत्र रथा, न रथयोगा, न पन्थानो
भवन्त्यथ रथानरथयोगानप्तः सृजते ..the Advaita meaning of this famous mantra
can be seen here in this Puranic verse.)

द्वैरूप्यं मायया याति जाग्रत्स्वप्नपदज्ञ (क्ष) योः ॥ १,२३६.३७ ॥

Objects take different forms in waking and dream (vasanamaya).

एवमेतत्परं ब्रह्म स्वप्नजाग्रत्पदद्वये ।
सुषुप्तमचलं रूपमद्वयं पदमुच्यते ॥ १,२३६.३८ ॥

Similarly, Para Brahman takes different forms in the waking state.

मायाविचारसिद्धैव विचारेण विलीयते ।
आपातरहिता सापि कल्पनाकालवर्तिनी ॥ १,२३६.३९ ॥

We believe things to be real without questioning that they are made of
maya. By reflection it is evident that they are false: vicharena viparyeti.
They exist only in our imagination.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Yashoda marvels at the sight of the entire
universe in the child Krishna's mouth and muses:

ŚB 10.8.40
किं स्वप्न एतदुत देवमाया
किं वा मदीयो बत बुद्धिमोह: ।
अथो अमुष्यैव ममार्भकस्य
य: कश्चनौत्पत्तिक आत्मयोग: ॥ ४० ॥

'Is it a dream, God's Maayaa or my own imagination?' From this too we know
that dreams are not real. Because as an analogy for impossible happenings
in the world we say 'What, are you dreaming ?' There is very popular.

The Upanishads themselves call the three states including sleep as the
'three dreams':
Aitareya Upanishad:

1.3.12 त्रय आवसथाः त्रयः स्वप्नाः

Thus in many places the Upanishads and the Puranas say that dreams are not
real and by that example, the waking world is also not real.

A short video in Kannada by the Puthige Mutt (Madhwa) Seer on dreams:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kVxgL_63KUuGMpMHJrWaEpM5d88hCNVS/view?usp=sharing



Om


On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 1:23 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar ji.
>
> I will answer all your questions. First you explain what is the difference
> between vijnAnavAda and drishTi-srishTi-vAda.
>
> //If you want to argue that what is being refuted here is ‘entirely’
> different from your superior DSV module you have to be clear in your
> assertion before giving higher rank to DSV and contrasting the same from
> vijnAnavAda, is it not!!??  I doubt I have seen anything of this order in
> your mails,  OTOH elsewhere in one of your statements, you said ( I may be
> wrong) in this particular issue (mind is all)  shankara is in agreement
> with vijnAnavAdins//
>
> Sir, there are agreements between SDV and DSV also. So? Does it mean that
> DSV and SDV are same? VijnAnavAda has got nothing to do with VedAnta or
> DSV. In some respect, there may be identity of conclusion in both. That
> does not prove that they are same.
>
>  //If the heart and soul of vedAnta is mere DSV and SDV is inferior to DSV
> not fit for mOksha, again you have to prove DSV is entirely different from
> Advaita pUrvapaxi vijnAnavAdi who endorses the view upalabdhi itself
> Vishaya (both jnana and Artha) and this upalabdhi itself comes and goes
> (kshaNika) etc.  Till that time you don’t have any valid point to defend
> your stand as shrutyanugraheeta tarka/yukti.//
>
> You learn about the difference of DSV and vijnAvAda from texts if you feel
> like. If you think they are same, carry on with the idea.
>
>
> //with the same logical inference why don’t I say even dream world also as
> real as waking world and both are capable of giving me mOksha and right
> place of doing sAdhana!!  Why on the earth I should ignore and tag it as
> illusory instead using the same logic I can treat both states are  as
> reality only.//
>
> Sir ji. The illusoriness of dream is well-accepted to both parties. Hence,
> it is eligible to become an example in logic to deduce inference. The
> reality of waking world is not acceptable to both parties. Hence, you
> cannot take that as an example. This is Logic101.
>
> //Anyway in kArika itself kArikAgaara agreed that the worlds of Vishwa,
> taijasa and prAjna’s world are real!! //
>
> News!!
>
> //And again, to assert and prove the oneness of Atman why should I reject
> the existence of world ( for which Ishwara is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa)
> as non existent for me it is clear sign of immaturity and illogical coz.//
>
> Your dream world was created by abhinna-nimitta-upadan-kAraNa Ishwara? Test
> your conclusion on the litmus test of identity of waking and dream.
>
> //Knowingly or unknowingly you are attributing some existence to
> ‘something’ apart from Atman and asking us to negate it as illusory.//
>
> There is no existence to anything except Atman. Illusion ka definition hi
> hai -- traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam.
>
> //Oneness is not at the cost of duality but it is the very essence of
> duality, the jnAni-s realization is I am myself in many forms but they are
> not in me (see Lord’s declaration in geeta) and  is the bhUma drushti or
> Samyak drushti of jnAni-s as well and please note they are not the poor
> students in the module of SDV as you reckon.  Even an idiot (dehAtmavAna)
> does feel his ‘oneness’ despite the existence of his different body
> parts!!  You should first realize in shankara’s Advaita vedAnta :
> perception of dvaita is not opposed to Advaita jnana, coz. Of the simple
> fact dvaita perception is pratyaksha pramANita and Advaita darshana is
> shAstra pramANita and shAstra janita vyavahAra bAdhita jnana and NOT
> vyavahAra abhAva jnana both pramANa-s are not mutually contradicting and
> advocating what is valid in its own sphere of pramANa.//
>
> Pehle aap ye prove kijiye ki you are not in a dream, then we can see what
> Gita says and what shAstra says. Your reliance on Shruti and Gita is same
> as your reliance on dream-Shruti and dream-Gita.
>
> //Anway, all these things said umpteen times just to hear the concluding
> illogical statements like : ‘to be ignored or just stepping stone and good
> only in some initial stages / module etc.’’.//
>
> You try your level best to distinguish dream and waking. If you cannot
> distinguish, then appreciate the implication of their identity.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>