Gaudapada's Karika

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Sat, 24 May 1997, Allan Curry wrote:

[..]

> I can see that differences between waking state and dream state may be
> difficult to define, but I'm not sure that *proves* that all qualities of
> one apply equally to the other. If there were not at least some difference
> between the two states how could there be universal agreement that there
> *are* two states called waking and dreaming. Why does the world not
> universally agree that there is only deep sleep state and *the other one*?

It is indeed admitted that some properties of the dreaming state are
different from those of the waking state, (Sankara's brahmasUtra bhAshya),
but to argue that this makes the dreaming state less real than the waking
state is wrong.

The difference between the two states is that in the waking state there is
a large degree of correspondence in the world perceived by two observers,
which is why this state of the Atman is called viSva (meaning universal)
in the upanishad.

>
> I can see that "it is found out along the way" that things change and/or
> disappear but I'm not sure that anyone has conclusively *proven* that
> things are/were unreal. If there were not some reality to the world,
> how could any science be possible? Why do the same laws of physics seem to
> apply equally well in your waking world and in mine?  This is not the case
> with our respective dream worlds. Is that a "meaningful difference" between
> waking state and dream state?
>

The problem is one of epistemology. The world is almost always taken to be
real, without question, simply because the world feeds the sense organs
with input data, and one depends on the sense organs to 'know'.

The world is often described in advaita, not as simply unreal (asat), but
as false (mithyA). The world is held to be real only insofar as it is
based on a real substratum, i.e. brahman. Some take it to be an admixture
of real and unreal, while others take it to be of a third truth value,
that which is neither real nor unreal.

In fact, the chAndogya upanishad's sad-vidyA khANDa argues, "how can the
existent (sat, i.e. the world) have arisen from the non-existent (asat)?"

As for science and the laws of physics applying universally, read Nancy
Cartwright's extremely interesting essays in a book titled "How the laws
of physics lie" (more complete references in a later mail).

> I really hope you *can* prove to me that the physical world is unreal. I'm

That is a tough call indeed, especially if Sruti is to be resorted to at a
minimum. :-)

> on your side here... I *want* to be convinced of it!  :-)  I already know
> that the physical world changes and that it is perceived through the agency
> of the mind, but I don't see why that makes it unreal just because dreams
> also change and are perceived through the agency of the mind.

The main argument of the GK is not that dreams are unreal because they
change, and so is the waking world. Rather, the argument is against a
realist who holds the waking state to be real, and the dream unreal. The
intention is to demolish all naive notions about the relative unreality of
the dream state as compared to the waking state, and to show that both
partake of the same kind of (un)reality.

Vidyasankar