[Advaita-l] Sri Shankara Declares

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Adityaji,
​
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:31 PM Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com> wrote:
​


>
> A : Please refer to my other email. An object by definition, needs to be
> perceived. Objects are only perceived by their respective senses. So there
> is no other object is a dream or sushupti save the mental vritti.
> ​
> That itself is a big difference between dream and jagrat.
>

​ Are you saying that there are no sense organs and perception in dream?​! The
entire Mandukya tries to tell us that waking is also a mental vRtti like
dream. Bhagavan Bhashyakara quotes in His KenapadabhAShya about the organ
of speech so which is quite like an upalakShaNa for all sense organs: सा
वाग्यया स्वप्ने भाषते (that is organ of speech through which one speaks in
dream)!


> By valid means of knowledge, we understand the true nature of things. What
> could be the reason we study and do sadhana in jagrat and not swapna?
> ​
>
I disagree. ​One who feels bound in svapna is free to do sAdhana in svapna
too. Those who have prolonged sAdhana in waking do the same in dream too.
​


> ​
> A swapna state is not truly an objective world, it is just a mental
> modification. An objective world is perceptible and only jagrat qualifies
> as such.
>
​The waking world is also subjective as per the Karikakara. The objective
world cannot be proven. The other in the waking that sees the same as you
see in waking is seen and endorsed by you as real waking person, etc. The
same is true in dream as the dreamer you sees the other and that other sees
the dream world you see. How is it not objective during dream? The dream is
as objective during dream as the waking. All of this is discussed in detail
in the Mandukya bhAShya and Tika and the difference between the two refuted.
​


> I understand the non-utility of wealth obtained in the dreams when I wake
> up.
>
​By the same token, you also understand the non-utility of your wealth
obtained in waking ​when you dreamt.

Hence, to infer utility or non-utility, we require pratyaksha as pramana.
>
​pratyakSha of waking is useless in dream just like pratyakSha of dream is
not a pramANa for wak​ing.


> Hence the pratyaksha pramana always serves our practical utility so that
> we don't get confused by remembering a dream and imagining it to be real.
>
​If one has had an experience of dreaming exactly the same things that one
is doing right now, one won't be able to tell the difference, be it during
dream or on waking up. (I had posted such experiences on this list years
back).​


> The pramANatva of waking is also w.r.t. to waking which is equally true of
> a dream during the dream.
>
> A : So how can the study of Shastras eliminate the other two states?
>
You have suddenly jumped from pratyakSha pramANa being compared between
dream and waking to shabdapramANa! Anyway, the answer is: by vidyA and its
result in the form of removal of avidyA; it continues across states.

By your argument, it should only nullify samsara in waking state.
>
​!! How so? On the contrary, to me, both waking and dream are same, so
whether mokSha is in dream or waking, it removes both = one saMsAra. The
onus would be on you to show how and why should waking knowledge remove
dream saMsAra in your case where both are completely different, if that!

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */​
​