Maya Dreamer Analogy

[sanathan]

a) The sufferer is the individualised Consciousness which is like a character acting in a dream. This "being" is imagined/created from the underlying pure consciousness as many imagined characters are created in a dream by the Consciousness of the dreamer. So, in the relative plane of the dream-like existence, the 'being' suffers but the Pure Consciousness which is the substratum of the 'being' remains unaffected, in the same way, as a dreamer is unaffected by the sufferings of the dream characters in his dream.

Pranamam!

I have few questions or doubts in this regard:

You have said dreamer is unaffected..that is not true..it is the dreamer who is actually being affected with his dreams..maybe not in the same way as the dream character is seen(for example a dreamer sees himself chased by a tiger and got injured in dream , though he is not injured really ..he has experienced the fear of the chasing and ill-feeling of injuries..and that fear makes him wake-up). Otherwise a bad dream can not make him wake-up.

Your statement "This "being" is imagined/created from the underlying pure consciousness" .. by whom it got imagined and to whom it is imagined ? I mean who is the creator of this imagination and who is the experiencer of this imagination?

b) This 'being' has apparent existence under the influence of MAyA i.e. it is a creation of MAyA just like the existence of dream characters in a dream of a dreamer. The dream characters in a dream has their own existence with their own 'i' as they have separate consciousnesses but their consciousnesses are nothing but a reflection of the Consciousness of the dreamer alone. We can clearly see that these consciousnesses don't exist in reality.

What is the substratum of "Maya" ?
dream characters don't have their own existence..those are being experienced by dreamer himself.. It is the same person who experiences in waking state..experiences dream and can co-relate both the experiences..that means there is a continuation . I didn't get what you are trying prove with this simple point. Every one knows that he is the experiencer of his own dream that is what he can say in waking state too.

c) Within the dream-like existence of this world the 'being' is bound by the laws of the Waking state and Dreaming state (Ref : MAndukya Up.). The sufferings and enjoyment of gross/subtle objects etc. are available to the 'being' as per its own Karmas in that realm.



OM

I can not see any logic here. Maybe I am not convinced..

First of dream-like existence can not be proved..because dream can not be identified as dream while you are in dream. Same applies to world if at all this is dream-like . I can only see one thing that you have imagined the world as dream like thing to pure consciousness by taking your dream state and waking state comparison. It is not either logical nor has any valid proof.

IF world is just an appearance on pure-consciousness.. then the very saying itself becomes dream. You can not say it is dream until you comeout from it..once you come out ..you can not communicate to dreamer.

Just little thinking is enough to show the hollowness of this theory(it is a kind of imagination of mind..isn't it?).

How does it become free ? It becomes free when it realises that it is nothing but the Self. This realisation comes from grace of God, grace of Guru, Meditation/SamAdhi, renunciation, contemplation on the teachings of the Upanishads and acting accordingly etc.

What becomes free? is it illusory conscious-being? or "Self"..conscious-being which is illusory in character as you said already can not become free..because its existence itself is false..then "Self" doesn't need to be free as it is always free or unaffected. So becoming free is an absurd as per your theory itself..

[devotee]

Namaste Sanatahan,

It is not either logical nor has any valid proof.

Just little thinking is enough to show the hollowness of this theory(it is a kind of imagination of mind..isn't it?).

So becoming free is an absurd as per your theory itself..

I would have loved to answer your questions which are certainly good questions from seeker's point of view. I can only assure you that each of your questions is either already answered which you have missed or have answers which can be provided if anyone is interested.

However, your language is too harsh. I am not used to such a language. Please forgive me. Moreover, if you are a confirmed dualist, then also I would ask for your forgiveness as I am not here to change the views of people who are on the path of duality ... as this has been forbidden by our Gurus.

In fact, it doesn't appear that you are seeking any answer, you are trying to prove superiority of your understanding over what I have posted. I am not interested in playing this game. Sorry !

OM

[sanathan]

In fact, it doesn't appear that you are seeking any answer, you are trying to prove superiority of your understanding over what I have posted.

OM

Pranamam!

I have posted the reply on my stand y'day, but couldn't see that still here..anyway let me explain it again.
I am not here to prove my superiority , in fact all the points I have raised are just kind of questions to know what exactly TRUTH is. I don't consider myself as learned first..then where is the point of consider myself as superior.

Maybe my way of putting the points is little harsh..pardon me for that.

My intention is very clear that how do we accept if something looks illogical ..so I want to know the logical explanation for everything whatever been told by anyone.

I am following the concept of "Sruthi-Yukthi-Anubhava" of vedic learning.

[devotee]

Namaste Sanathan,

Believing your words in your last post, the following is the explanation of questions raised by you :

You have said dreamer is unaffected..that is not true..it is the dreamer who is actually being affected with his dreams..maybe not in the same way as the dream character is seen(for example a dreamer sees himself chased by a tiger and got injured in dream , though he is not injured really ..he has experienced the fear of the chasing and ill-feeling of injuries..and that fear makes him wake-up). Otherwise a bad dream can not make him wake-up.

Dreamer is unaffected unless he imagines that he is affected because all events are nothing but imagination within his own mind. Moreover, the analogy of Brahman and World has no parallel, so the dream and dreamer is only a close approximation of the way the reality really acts.

Your statement "This "being" is imagined/created from the underlying pure consciousness" .. by whom it got imagined and to whom it is imagined ? I mean who is the creator of this imagination and who is the experiencer of this imagination?

You have to come out of the fixation of there being an eternal "who" and "whom" for anything to take place. The being isn't imagined by "someone" ... the imagination occurs and that causes "someone" born with a distinct 'i". What is imagination ? Imagination is nothing but subtle creation of objects, events and thoughts etc. within consciousness. This is the nature of the consciousness to imagine or to create a world on its canvas.

What is the substratum of "Maya" ?

Let's first understand what we mean by MAyA ? MAyA is slightly different from magic or creation of unreal thing out of thin air. MAyA is the nature of Brahman when it is not in the Fourth state i.e. Turiya. The power of MAyA when the Brahman is not in the fourth state, creates apparently three states i.e. Waking, Dreaming and the God-state.

The hardness and sparkle of diamond is attribute of Carbon in its diamond state. The softness and blackness are attributes of Carbon in Graphite state. Is Carbon substratum of Hardness of Diamond or Softness of Graphite ? Is Carbon substratum of sparkle of Carbon or the blackness of Graphite ? Actually, the nature of Carbon works and creates Diamond and Graphite in different states.

dream characters don't have their own existence..those are being experienced by dreamer himself.. It is the same person who experiences in waking state..experiences dream and can co-relate both the experiences..that means there is a continuation . I didn't get what you are trying prove with this simple point. Every one knows that he is the experiencer of his own dream that is what he can say in waking state too.

The very fact that you are unable to understand doesn't prove that it was so simple and meaningless as you want to say above. If you really try to understand, you can understand how the consciousness works by the above example. Science has not worked enough on how the Consciousness works but by adopting the same tool as Science uses i.e. by close and critical observation of natural phenomena we may try to understand how it works. Mind is not brain ... it works through brain and is the individualised consciousness which sees itself as a different being from the world. See, there is actually one individualised consciousness in the phenomenon of dreaming i.e. that of the dreamer. Now, in the dream there are many characters which don't identify themselves with the individuality of the dreamer i.e. they have different "i"s than the "i" of the dreamer. What is the substratum of the "i" of his dream friend in the dream (let's mark that the friend acts as an independent individual in the dream without taking any help from the dreamer on how to act in the dream, so it has apparently its own independent "i" ) ? As there is only one Consciousness i.e. that of the dreamer, the substratum of the "i" of the dream friend must be Consciousness of the dreamer. Similarly, if there is any dream enemy in the dream, the substratum of the "i" of the dream enemy also has the same consciousness of the dreamer.

Please pause for a minute and try to find answer to these questions :

a) How the same substratum of consciousness of the dreamer creates separate consciousnesses of the various characters of the dream world ?

b) How does the Consciousness of the dreamer create an enemy character which acts against its own individualised consciousness ?

c) Who decides what role each of the dream character would play in the dream ? It is certainly not decided by the dreamer, as the dreamer is not aware how a particular dream character is going to act the next moment. In fact, if the dreamer would have known, he would have never allowed his dream enemy to stab him in the dream ... but it happens. How ?

d) Are the characters real or imaginary ? They are certainly not real but if they are unreal/non-existent, then how are they able to think and act in their own capacity as real characters in the dream ?

I can not see any logic here. Maybe I am not convinced..

If you try then there are chances that one can understand but if one doesn't want then there is no hope as the subject is really very difficult to understand.

First of dream-like existence can not be proved, because dream can not be identified as dream while you are in dream. Same applies to world if at all this is dream-like . I can only see one thing that you have imagined the world as dream like thing to pure consciousness by taking your dream state and waking state comparison. It is not either logical nor has any valid proof.

I am unable to understand what you want to say. It appears that you have just to disapprove what has been proposed without making any effort in trying to understand.

I would like you seek scientific answers to these day-to-day-phenomena :

a) Take a large piece of iron slab. We know that more than 99 % of the space within every atom is space. In fact, there is no proof that the rest of the balance volume of the matter is rock-solid if we enter into the sub-atomic particles (quarks and anti-quarks) and see their structures. If we consider the string theory, then there is nothing which can be considered rock-solid in the atoms. Why do we not see the huge space in the iron slab or experience the space when there is hardly anything within the slab which is not space ?

b) We all know that the light is nothing but electromagnetic wave. There is actually no color in the universe in absolute sense as the difference is only in wavelengths of the light-waves. How do we see color in absence of any color in the universe ? Let's remember that two people can see different color for the same wavelength of light ... it is another issue that you try to brand the other person color-blind !

c) We all know that no two atoms can actually touch each other ... there always remains a distance between the two. If that is so, how do we get the feeling of touch and feeling of hardness and softness of anything ?

d) There is actually no smell in the world ... there are various particles with special characteristics. A slight disturbance in your brain may make you completely free from all smells. Now, is the smell in the particles or in the mind ?

e) The atomic particles have neither the property of a food nor of a poison, a gem or a piece of common sand rock. How just a change in the spatial arrangement of the same particles give rise to completely different objects ? Does it look logical ? But it does happen. How ?

Think deeply before you brush aside all the above questions as meaningless if you really want to know the answer.

IF world is just an appearance on pure-consciousness.. then the very saying itself becomes dream. You can not say it is dream until you come out from it..once you come out ..you can not communicate to dreamer.

You have to change your understanding of the word, "appearance". Moreover, the dream cannot be said to be either real or unreal.

Just little thinking is enough to show the hollowness of this theory(it is a kind of imagination of mind..isn't it?).

This is no way to discuss. If you really think it so, there is no point in discussing Advaita with you. Please be happy with your own understanding. I have nothing to prove here.

What becomes free? is it illusory conscious-being? or "Self"..conscious-being which is illusory in character as you said already can not become free..because its existence itself is false..then "Self" doesn't need to be free as it is always free or unaffected. So becoming free is an absurd as per your theory itself..

The word "illusion" has to be carefully understood. Your understanding is wrong. Let's see how it is : When we say that there is snake where actually the rope is that doesn't mean that "nothing exists where snake was seen" ... this is case of wrong-identification. So, the "being" in reality doesn't exist as the dream characters in reality don't exist but it doesn't mean that they are completely unreal as their substratum is something real. So, the "being" is real and rock-solid in the waking state and the dreaming state but it loses its reality/existence in Turiya state e.g. there is no graphite in the diamond state of Carbon and there is no diamond in graphite state of carbon and both are unreal from Coal state of carbon but that doesn't mean that graphite/diamond are completely unreal and are born out of nothing.

Advaita tells us that this world is a reality from VyAvaharika point of view but is unreal from the parmarthika point of view. When you say that something is "real" or when you say that "something is unreal" ... you must know from what state you making the statement. You cannot claim from Waking and Dreaming states that the world is unreal ... this statement is true only from Turiya state.

OM

[sanathan]

Pranamams!

Thanks for the answers.

Dreamer is unaffected unless he imagines that he is affected because all events are nothing but imagination within his own mind.

In my opinion, the person who is dreaming doesn't have any choice to imagine (that he is affected )or not to imagine. am I wrong?
In general when I dream, I experience various feelings , and I call that experiencing is effect on dreamer.

Maybe dream objects are imaginations, but the experience they are generating are not imaginations. Also we will know that the objects are imaginary only after we come out from dream, isn't it?

You have to come out of the fixation of there being an eternal "who" and "whom" for anything to take place. The being isn't imagined by "someone" ... the imagination occurs and that causes "someone" born with a distinct 'i". What is imagination ? Imagination is nothing but subtle creation of objects, events and thoughts etc. within consciousness. This is the nature of the consciousness to imagine or to create a world on its canvas.

As per my knowledge,

In our current state , when we think something..that thought is related to a being (i.e experiencer of it), so in general , when something is imagined..we conclude that there is a being who does that and experiences(knows) it. With this view I have asked "to who /on whom " this imagination taken place.

Now you have clarified that there need not be a being to something gets imagined, my doubt is how come imagination is known as such without there being "knower" of it. is my point clear?

Let me be more clear:

for example if I think or imagine something..I know that I have imagined such and such..and then only I call that as imagination. so all the while a knower(being) is present to generate , experience and to establish the existence of very imagination.

If you say "imagination is subtle creation of objects etc., within consciousness" , then generally I tend to ask "who calls that as imagination if there is no experiencer(being) of the same exists to whom that imagination belongs to".

Not sure if I made my points clear yet, and we both are common plane to discuss.

I am trying to contemplate on the line you have said i.e "The being isn't imagined by "someone" ... the imagination occurs and that causes "someone" born with a distinct 'i". "
Will come up with more doubts if my mind generates any

thanks for the patience.

[sanathan]

Let's first understand what we mean by MAyA ? MAyA is slightly different from magic or creation of unreal thing out of thin air. MAyA is the nature of Brahman when it is not in the Fourth state i.e. Turiya. The power of MAyA when the Brahman is not in the fourth state, creates apparently three states i.e. Waking, Dreaming and the God-state.

I have asked "what is the substratum of Maya" .

So from your explanation, it seems like "Maya" is the nature of Brahman when it is not in Turiya state..am I right? if so , then how Brahman has come out from Turiya state and having Maya as its nature? I think Brahman is nothing but consciousness itself.

See, there is actually one individualised consciousness in the phenomenon of dreaming i.e. that of the dreamer. Now, in the dream there are many characters which don't identify themselves with the individuality of the dreamer i.e. they have different "i"s than the "i" of the dreamer. What is the substratum of the "i" of his dream friend in the dream (let's mark that the friend acts as an independent individual in the dream without taking any help from the dreamer on how to act in the dream, so it has apparently its own independent "i" ) ? As there is only one Consciousness i.e. that of the dreamer, the substratum of the "i" of the dream friend must be Consciousness of the dreamer. Similarly, if there is any dream enemy in the dream, the substratum of the "i" of the dream enemy also has the same consciousness of the dreamer.

Dream characters don't identify themselves with the individuality of the dreamer, that is right..but then why do we need to assume that they have individuality at all?, they are just characters being experienced by dreamer as different from himself, what is the need to assign an "i" to the characters, which is subjective term. All that you know is your existence by your experience(subjectivity) and others existence by their activities(objectivity), I can not see any need to assume some "i"ness to dream characters and then deduce their substratum to dreamer's consciousness.

If I am not mistaken, the same you have said above can be applied to waking state world, and deduce all the persons you are interacting to your consciousness right? .

If at all that is true, then the person who knows as such shouldn't any more interact with the others as separate from his consciousness and can never respond in different ways..but you and me who are already came to know this fact..still acting as we are different and debating. That is the reason I have asked is this really TRUE? or again just an imagination of mind?

What ever you speak or think , that just again coming from your mind/brain..so the thought or idea that says "there is only one consciousness exists, and world is just an appearance due to MAYA" is also coming from his mind which perceives world as different from him..

So he is perceiving the world with same mind and thinking that world as illusory with same mind, how can the second thought(world is illusory) of same mind which negates the first thought(experience of world as different from him) can be proved as TRUE? you know what I am saying?

How can a thought negate another thought while both are at the same plane.

Now you may say world is "vyavaharika satya" and TURIYA is absolute, but they are identified as vyavaharika and paramartha from mind only. am I wrong?

My whole point is that "world is just vyavaharika" can not be known now while we are in world..so why we are speaking so? even it can not be known to TURIYA because TURIYA is that which doesn't have any thing else but itself, so TURIYA state doesn't know the existence of world..so how can TURIYA speak about the nature of world ?

That is what I asked as "can a person who is in waking state communicate to his own dreaming state?" , that is not possible as all we know , then why do we negate the dream state as false while we are in waking state..it is of no use right? even we negate it now, again when we go to sleep, we still dream and experience it, so negating the dream as false from waking state is of no use..and using this simile to show the world's relative reality is also not logical in my opinion.

I would like you seek scientific answers to these day-to-day-phenomena :

a) Take a large piece of iron slab. We know that more than 99 % of the space within every atom is space. In fact, there is no proof that the rest of the balance volume of the matter is rock-solid if we enter into the sub-atomic particles (quarks and anti-quarks) and see their structures. If we consider the string theory, then there is nothing which can be considered rock-solid in the atoms. Why do we not see the huge space in the iron slab or experience the space when there is hardly anything within the slab which is not space ?

What does it prove?
Are you trying to use the nature of atoms at sub-atomic level to deny your own experience of it as an iron slab? the material is same only the person's experience changes based on his perception of it..

That is my whole point in raising the concerns in first post against your post.

You have to change your understanding of the word, "appearance". Moreover, the dream cannot be said to be either real or unreal.

why it can not be said to be real or unreal?

if it is unreal , then the very concept is not known to you now..but we are discussing about dream as such and such..that itself proves "dream" is real.

So, the "being" is real and rock-solid in the waking state and the dreaming state but it loses its reality/existence in Turiya state

If being itself loses its existence, then who is saying there is such a state called "TURIYA" ?

Now you are saying that there is "TURIYA" that mean as a being you are aware..how? someone has told to you..how that someone knows it? so there is some one who knows that state..if there is no being at all..nothing to be told ..and that knowledge have not been known to you.

Advaita tells us that this world is a reality from VyAvaharika point of view but is unreal from the parmarthika point of view. When you say that something is "real" or when you say that "something is unreal" ... you must know from what state you making the statement. You cannot claim from Waking and Dreaming states that the world is unreal ... this statement is true only from Turiya state.

OM

from turiya state there is no chance of making statements..so even "world is unreal" can not be spoken from turiya.

[devotee]

Namaste Sanathan,

In my opinion, the person who is dreaming doesn't have any choice to imagine (that he is affected )or not to imagine. am I wrong?
In general when I dream, I experience various feelings , and I call that experiencing is effect on dreamer.

I have already given you the definition of the word, "Imagination" and yet you are asking this question, is surprising. All the effects on the dreamer is meaningless as actually nothing is happening except the act of sleeping which is the reality. Therefore, the characters, the events and all feelings are "imagination" (creation of images) within mind. The dreamer is sleeping only ... why should he be affected by anything which is just an imagination in mind ... but yet he is affected which is only mental.

As per my knowledge,
In our current state , when we think something..that thought is related to a being (i.e experiencer of it), so in general , when something is imagined..we conclude that there is a being who does that and experiences(knows) it. With this view I have asked "to who /on whom " this imagination taken place.

You have to think slightly differently. There is consciousness and there are mind-waves within consciousness. Having mind-waves on consciousness is like generation of thoughts in our mind. Now, this creates ahamkar i.e. "i" or the being that you are referring to. The "i" thought is the mother-thought in the consciousness which gives birth to a being. Let's remember that this "i" thought is not permanent i.e. the existence of a "being" is not necessary for the consciousness to work within or outside us. When we are in deep sleep, this "i" vanishes i.e. it merges into the Consciousness that we are. When we are awake, it rises again. Within one individualised consciousness i.e. mind, there may be different "i"s sometimes, acting at different times through the same consciousness which gives rise to "multiple personality disorder".

Now you have clarified that there need not be a being to something gets imagined, my doubt is how come imagination is known as such without there being "knower" of it. is my point clear?

Oh ! It is we who are discussing this issue are terming those mind-waves as imagination. What is so difficult about it ? There is vast ocean of consciousness and it is having mind-waves on it. "i" thought within the mind-waves gives rise to individuality and the being.

for example if I think or imagine something..I know that I have imagined such and such..and then only I call that as imagination. so all the while a knower(being) is present to generate , experience and to establish the existence of very imagination.

Please refer above, If it is not clear, I can't help any more.

If you say "imagination is subtle creation of objects etc., within consciousness" , then generally I tend to ask "who calls that as imagination if there is no experiencer(being) of the same exists to whom that imagination belongs to".

This is already answered above and if it is still not clear, I can't help any more.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Sanathan,

I have asked "what is the substratum of Maya" .
So from your explanation, it seems like "Maya" is the nature of Brahman when it is not in Turiya state..am I right? if so , then how Brahman has come out from Turiya state and having Maya as its nature? I think Brahman is nothing but consciousness itself.

How Brahman has come out of Turiya state ? This is not the right question. Nature of anything is nature of that thing. The Brahman has four states and the nature of Brahman in the four states is as has been described in MAndukya Upanishad or as experienced by the Rishis who wrote these Upanishads. There is no answer to this question.

Dream characters don't identify themselves with the individuality of the dreamer, that is right..but then why do we need to assume that they have individuality at all?, they are just characters being experienced by dreamer as different from himself, what is the need to assign an "i" to the characters, which is subjective term. All that you know is your existence by your experience(subjectivity) and others existence by their activities(objectivity), I can not see any need to assume some "i"ness to dream characters and then deduce their substratum to dreamer's consciousness.

This is no logic. How can a character act independently without its own individuality ? The character must first distinguish itself from others to be able to act against others and if it does that it must have individuality.

If it is not clear to you, I can't help you further. I don't think it is so difficult to understand. It appears to me that you are arguing for the sake of an argument, you don't really want to understand this.

If I am not mistaken, the same you have said above can be applied to waking state world, and deduce all the persons you are interacting to your consciousness right? .

If at all that is true, then the person who knows as such shouldn't any more interact with the others as separate from his consciousness and can never respond in different ways..but you and me who are already came to know this fact..still acting as we are different and debating. That is the reason I have asked is this really TRUE? or again just an imagination of mind?

That is where you got it completely wrong. This is different from "intellectual knowing". This knowing is actually "feeling oneness with everyone's consciousness". On Self-realisation, you feel one with the entire world's consciousness, so at the time of feeling one-ness, there is total cessation of individuality and no interaction can occur. When you regain your individuality after coming out of that state, you can interact again.

What ever you speak or think , that just again coming from your mind/brain..so the thought or idea that says "there is only one consciousness exists, and world is just an appearance due to MAYA" is also coming from his mind which perceives world as different from him.

This is what is experienced by the self-realised persons and you too can realise the same Truth. The statement does comes from mind which carries an impression after coming from the state of One-ness of mind ... just like our mind carries the impression of a good sleep even when there is no "i" in deep sleep.

So he is perceiving the world with same mind and thinking that world as illusory with same mind, how can the second thought(world is illusory) of same mind which negates the first thought(experience of world as different from him) can be proved as TRUE? you know what I am saying?

I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.

How can a thought negate another thought while both are at the same plane.

How do you say that both are on the same plane ? Then there won't be any necessity to differentiate between VyAvhArikA satyam from ParmArthikA satyam.

Now you may say world is "vyavaharika satya" and TURIYA is absolute, but they are identified as vyavaharika and paramartha from mind only. am I wrong?

No, there is a difference. The individualised Consciousness sees this world as world (i.e. VyAvhArika) whereas the pure unconditioned sees the world as "Self" (i.e. ParmArthika).

My whole point is that "world is just vyavaharika" can not be known now while we are in world..so why we are speaking so?

The Self-realised saints belonged to this world and experienced Turiya in this world alone.

even it can not be known to TURIYA because TURIYA is that which doesn't have any thing else but itself, so TURIYA state doesn't know the existence of world..so how can TURIYA speak about the nature of world ?

I have already answered this if you can locate.

That is what I asked as "can a person who is in waking state communicate to his own dreaming state?" , that is not possible as all we know , then why do we negate the dream state as false while we are in waking state..it is of no use right?

I think I used the term "VyAvharikA satyam and I think you discussed on this point too. I told you that this world cannot be negated from Waking or the Dreaming states.

even we negate it now, again when we go to sleep, we still dream and experience it, so negating the dream as false from waking state is of no use..and using this simile to show the world's relative reality is also not logical in my opinion.

I don't think there is any use discussing this subject with you. Why do you want to discuss this issue at all ?

What does it prove?
Are you trying to use the nature of atoms at sub-atomic level to deny your own experience of it as an iron slab? the material is same only the person's experience changes based on his perception of it.

Ah ! I don't think it was so difficult to figure out. What I am trying to tell you that the world is actually not as we perceive it by our mind and our sense organs. It appears so because of our mind. Our mind creates the perception of "seeing" something different than what the object really is. Our mind creates the illusion of colors where there is none. Our mind creates the illusion of "hearing" where there is only vibration within a certain range in the medium. Our mind creates the illusion of "touch" and "taste". If you can understand what I am trying to say .... this world is not really as we perceive and yet we so strongly cling to its being a "reality".

why it can not be said to be real or unreal?

How can an unreal object acts in its own capacity different from others without a conscious effort acting on it ?

if it is unreal , then the very concept is not known to you now..but we are discussing about dream as such and such..that itself proves "dream" is real.
If being itself loses its existence, then who is saying there is such a state called "TURIYA" ?
Now you are saying that there is "TURIYA" that mean as a being you are aware..how? someone has told to you..how that someone knows it? so there is some one who knows that state..if there is no being at all..nothing to be told ..and that knowledge have not been known to you.

from turiya state there is no chance of making statements..so even "world is unreal" can not be spoken from turiya.

To tell you the truth, I don't think there is any use discussing Advaita with you. What is the harm if you accept that the world is the only Truth and the whole of Advaita is completely illogical and that the Advaitins are crazy people who have fancy ideas without any substance ? There are more people like you than there are Advaitins. Believe me, there is absolutely no harm.

I quit this discussion here.

OM

[sanathan]

I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.

Right,
While we are in dream, we act along with that..we don't even have a choice of thinking whether the happenings there are true or not.
When we come out from dream, then we realize that ..whatever has been experienced till now is just a dream(and we have given a name 'dream' to it after we come out from there..), but we experienced that during that time as reality only. Remember one thing that all this discrimination about dream and waking state is happening at waking state only.

By using this example, you(who is not yet realized or liberated) are assuming the current waking state will be a dream-like state to realized self.

I am objecting this comparison , because we are now in waking state(i.e dream-like when compared to paramarthika level) , and can not know it is illusory and there is some other paramarthika state exists. You may say , realized saints have told that ..but how does a waking person(i.e realized) can communicate to dreamer(i.e waking i.e us ).

We all know that waking state person can not communicate to dreamer, but then why we are thinking that a realized person can communicate to waking person.

You may say realized person will talk to us after he is coming out from realized state, but that is again not logical..since the world is dream-like thing..the very sayings of realized person are nothing but dream-like ..after all the very concept of realization is dream-like.

Simple fact is we can not prove anything if we negate our own experience of world as illusory or vyavaharika or whatever you may call, because the very thought says so itself belongs to the same mind and it becomes illusory eventually.


I can conclude from your words and knowledge one thing that "world is not true in the sense that the current experience of world is not "full", we are just experiencing it very little and there is more to experience it ".

Thanks any way for all your teachings, and sorry that some times my questions irritated you. But I don't stop searching ultimate TRUTH..

[sanathan]

I have already given you the definition of the word, "Imagination" and yet you are asking this question, is surprising. All the effects on the dreamer is meaningless as actually nothing is happening except the act of sleeping which is the reality. Therefore, the characters, the events and all feelings are "imagination" (creation of images) within mind. The dreamer is sleeping only ... why should he be affected by anything which is just an imagination in mind ... but yet he is affected which is only mental.

Nothing is happening except sleeping? strange..then we we call him as dreamer? we should use sleeper rather, in that case . What do you mean by effect? I guess your definition of effect is "physically effected" .. yeah?
If there is no effect on dreamer..then we don't need to have this much discussion.. but the very fact that we are discussing on the nature of dream itself proves there is some effect on dreamer. Also what do you mean by effect is only mental? where is mind..is it isolate? not so..so the very being himself having mind has been affected. that is what I call effect..

You have to think slightly differently. There is consciousness and there are mind-waves within consciousness. Having mind-waves on consciousness is like generation of thoughts in our mind. Now, this creates ahamkar i.e. "i" or the being that you are referring to. The "i" thought is the mother-thought in the consciousness which gives birth to a being. Let's remember that this "i" thought is not permanent i.e. the existence of a "being" is not necessary for the consciousness to work within or outside us. When we are in deep sleep, this "i" vanishes i.e. it merges into the Consciousness that we are. When we are awake, it rises again. Within one individualised consciousness i.e. mind, there may be different "i"s sometimes, acting at different times through the same consciousness which gives rise to "multiple personality disorder".

How come consciousness has mind-waves in it? mind-wave as the name itself suggests is the wave in mind..not in consciousness..if consciousness itself contains mind waves..that itself proves there is a being always.
You said "i" thought is just production of mind wave and it is ahamkara..but mind itself can not exist with out a being(i) .

Next you mentioned "i" vanishes in deep-sleep..that is also not right, if "i" itself vanishes..the person after waking from deep-sleep can not say that he had sound sleep, so there must be someone who experiences deep sleep also thought he doesn't have the knowledge during that time..so "i" is not vanished..but his knowledge of knowing outside objects doesn't shine forth.
ANother logical reason is , if "i" vanishes in deepsleep, then after waking up a new "i" should have been created and the person's indivduality should change, but that is not the fact.

Oh ! It is we who are discussing this issue are terming those mind-waves as imagination. What is so difficult about it ? There is vast ocean of consciousness and it is having mind-waves on it.

But how we came to know that there were mind waves dear? where 'we' themselves not exist.
"There is vast ocean of consciousness and its having mind waves"..is being said by you who is the knower of it, so without being you to know that ..how does that consciousness and mind waves' existence is said by you..

I don't know why my point is not understandable .

My point is very simple that any fact can not be known as a fact without being a knower of it. but you are iterating something as fact and denying the knower of the fact at that state..that is really hard to understand for me.