World-view as dream

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

Hari Om !!

--- Bhadraiah Mallampalli <vaidix at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Now the thought process works exactly the same way.
> We experience different
> objects at different times, like the flash flood met
> with different rocks.
> The objects that we see at one time and no way
> related to objects that we
> see at other times (but we see them as related, and
> this adhyaasa is
> precisely what we need to get rid of). One object
> does not become another
> object. One object does not cause another object.
> Even the perception of one
> object does not cause perception of another object.
> As a corollary the
> objects we see in waking state are no way related to
> each other and they are
> no way related to objects we see in dream state,
> even if they have same
> names.
>


?????????  In dream the dreamer ate 'sweet mangoes'.  On waking up
the 'waker' identifying himself with the 'dreamer' says he had 'sweet
mangoes'. Is the 'dreamer sweetness' different from 'waker sweetness' ??
If so, the waker should have used a word different word from waking state
sweetness. But, it is not so.

Also, we know that the 'dreamer' is not 'REAL' and it is
the 'Consciousness' which was projected as Dreamer, dream object, dream
experience/knowledge. It is essentially this reason that made us say 'I
dreamt'. In the absence of this 'commonness' the 'dreamer' would
be 'unknown' to the 'waker'.


We are not just worried about the 'names'. On what basis names are given,
anyway, in dream ? We are just establishing the 'continuity' of the knower.
The 'Knower principle' under the influence of tired mind, projected as
a 'tired person' can not apply itself so consistently as in waking state,
as it were due to identification.  But, it still has the same store house
of knowlege. Just like when a tired man can not have same sharp reflex like
a well awake person.

> If an object is indeed seen twice by some chance, it
> is the consciousness
> that has decided to see it again, whether in waking
> state first and then in
> dream, or in dream first and later in waking state.
> It is not the fault of
> the object itself, or any material knowledge
> concerning the object. Cause is
> more important than the effect.
>

There are no 'objects' other than the 'mind'. There is no fault of
the 'objects'. If one wishes, one may attribute the fault to the 'mind'.
Yes, 'mind' as the 'cause' is more important than the 'object',
the 'effect'.


> Consciousness is like the flash flood. What objects
> the flash flood meet
> with depends on how and where it rained, which in
> turn depends on how and
> where clouds gathered together and decided to rain.
> What the consciousness
> wants to see depends on what is known, knowable and
> unknown at that point of
> time.
>

'Consciousness' is not like 'flash flood'. If so your statements are no
different from 'Kshinika vada Budhism'. There can not be a 'flood'.
Consciousness is homogenous and is in contact with 'all objects' 'all the
time'. Otherwise such as obect would not have 'existed'.

In your above sentence by using the words 'known, knowable and unknown',
you have negated the 'time limitation'. What is 'unknown or known' gets
negated by time, in the presence of 'Consciousness'. Consciousness 'sees'
all things at all times.

> Yes, your original proposition is to some extent
> correct, that what the
> consciousness sees depends on the material knowledge
> (known)! But this
> dependency is only partial.

I believe, the Vedanta proposition is diagonally 'opposite' to what you
state. Consciousness is 'all knowing'. Probably you can say, 'Conditioned
Consciousness' sees depending on the upadhi's material knowledge. Mandukya
Karika elaborates on this word 'Conditioned'.

>The other parts are
> knowable, and more
> importantly the unknown. The presence of the unknown
> makes a mockery of
> whatever certainty we have about the material
> knowledge being the cause of
> objects seen in dreams.
>

Not knowing Physics, can not make mockery of what I know about 'Anatomy'.
My knowledge of 'Anatomy' is certain. In the parlance of 'knowledge' of
the 'Knower' who himself is a 'projection', why should we be concerned 'how
certain' the 'knowledge' is ? Ofcourse if we are talking from
the 'absolute' stand point we should negate 'both' the 'projected Knower'
and the 'Certainity of his Knowledge'.

> As they say, the unknowable in always in the
> background. It neither
> experiences nor is experienced.
>

Yes, the 'Unknowable' is the 'Atma' which is in the 'background'. It
neither experiences nor is experienced, as it is neither an obect of
experience nor an 'experiencer'. Experience of the 'mind' is superimposed
on the 'Atma'.

> I am not denying the karma theory here. If the river
> indeed hits the rock a
> little hard the rock may even move. Material
> knowledge is always logically
> perfect, because we are limiting the focus to what
> is known, and
> conveniently avoiding what is unknown.

No. We are not avoiding the unknown. We are accounting 'appropriately' for
the unknown, in the sphere of material knowledge.

>So it appears
> as if it we recycle the
> same objects in dream or waking state. What is known
> is always conserved,
> because if something is known to exist once it
> should exist forever, because
> nothing is ever born.

Ignorance 'exists' until 'knowledge' dawns. I know that 'I am ignorant'
of 'how you look'. Once I see your picture, that 'ignorance of how you
look' will not exist for ever.

>Existence itself is never
> born, so its dream is also
> never born, in other words the dream if it existed
> once always existed.
>

'Existance' existed 'always'. 'Sadeva Somya ..'. In that existance 'all'
mainifested, including what we call the dream.

> But then we also say "Oh, I forgot about that!".
> That is what is unknown.

How can it be ?? If I forgot the Schrodinger's equation solution which I
learnt 16 years ago, does it become 'unknown' ?? Or the number of stars in
the galaxy is 'unknown'. In the first case you did not say, "Oh, I unknown
about that!". You only said, "Oh, I forgot about that!". Forgetfulness is
the word used to indicate temporary loss of what is known once.

Even in Vedanta we say, "We forgot our own nature, and we can get back to
it". Just like I can take my old modern physics book and refresh
my 'memory' of Schrodinger's equation.

> Looking into the cause of perception or its loss is
> more powerful than
> studying the recurrence of the objects during
> perception.
>

We are making the same attempt. To establish  the 'recurrence' of the
waking/dream state objects in dream state perception, as the cause of
perception in dream state.

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna