Notion of stability in waking objects is illusory

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari om,

In dreams, even though the objects are momentary, there appears a notion of permanency/stability/ancient-ness (cirantanatva) in them. When we see a mountain in dream, we perceive them to be there from immemorial past. We do not qeustion that. We don't treat them as momentary.

Similar is the case for objects in this so called waking state. This is the cornerstone of Advaita Vedānta.

Sri Ramana Maharshi says:

Permanency and constancy in the world is seen on account of wrong ideas. When someone says that he took a bath in the same river twice he is wrong, because when he bathed for the second time the river is not the same as it was when he bathed for the first time. On looking twice at the brightness of a flame a man says that he sees the same flame, but this flame is changing every moment. The waking state is like this. The stationary appearance is an error of perception.

[Be As You Are]

Vicāra Sāgara says in page 218:

स्वप्ने तत्क्षणोत्पन्नेषु पदार्थेषु इमे गिरिनदीसमुद्रादयो मम जन्मनः प्रागेवोत्पन्ना वर्षसहस्रकालादारभ्य वर्तन्ते इति प्रतीतिर्भवति केषांचित् । तत्र तत्क्षणोत्पन्ने स्वाप्नपदार्थे या चिरन्तनत्वप्रतीतिः सा भ्रान्तिरेव । तस्माद्ययाऽविद्यया स्वप्ने मिथ्याभूताः गिरिनदीसमुद्रादयः पदार्था उत्पादिता: तथैवाविद्यया तत्तत्पदार्थानां चिरन्तनत्वं तादृश चिरन्तनत्व-विषयकज्ञानं चानिर्वचनीयतयोत्पाद्यते । एवमेव जाग्रत्पदार्थेषु वस्तुतश्चिरन्तनत्वाभावेऽपि अविद्यावशादेव तत्तत्पदार्थैः सहैव मिथ्याभूतं स्थिरत्वमप्यनिर्वचनीतयोत्पद्यते । अतश्च जाग्रत्पदार्थानामपि स्थिरत्वप्रतीतिर्भ्रान्तिरेव ।

For some people, when objects are instantaneously created in a dream, a perception arises that "these mountains, rivers, oceans, etc., were created even before my birth and have existed for thousands of years." In that situation, the perception of long-standing existence (ancientness) in a dream object that was actually created at that very moment is nothing but an illusion.  

Therefore, just as the false objects like mountains, rivers, and oceans are produced in a dream by ignorance (Avidya), in the exact same way, the long-standing nature of those respective objects, as well as the knowledge regarding such long-standing nature, is produced in an indefinable (Anirvacaniya) manner by ignorance.  

In this very manner, even though there is actually no real long-standing existence in waking-state objects, a false stability/permanence is produced along with those respective objects in an indefinable manner, purely due to the power of ignorance. Consequently, the perception of stability/permanence in waking-state objects is also nothing but an illusion.  

(Translation by Genmini - checked and concurred with).

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,  I thought the fact of object transience rendered them unreal by definition. So I took your post here and fed it to Claude along with my own supposition and asked for Sankara's teaching in PTB on the same topic. I thought you might find the response interesting. No argument here. Claude, perhaps reflecting my own study, relegated DSV to post-Sankara. Let it be, I know the arguments and don't wish to challenge your position here. 

respectfully,. michael 🙏🙏🙏

Śaṅkara grounds unreality in neither horn as you've posed them.

Objects are not unreal because they are momentary — Śaṅkara is the tradition's most relentless opponent of kṣaṇikatva — nor does the false ascription of permanence constitute their unreality. The mark of the unreal in the prasthānatraya-bhāṣya is bādhyatva, and more precisely vyabhicāra: deviation from the form in which a thing was ascertained (Taittirīya-bhāṣya 2.1: yad-rūpeṇa yan niścitaṃ tad-rūpaṃ na vyabhicarati tat satyam … vyabhicarati tad anṛtam). The real is the non-deviating; the object is nāma-rūpa-vikāra superimposed on sat (Chāndogya-bhāṣya 6.1.4: the vikāra is vācārambhaṇa, mere speech-handle — mṛttikety eva satyam). Unreality is anātmatva / adhyastatva, not brevity.

So where does transience sit? As a liṅga, not the definiens. In the Gītā-bhāṣya Śaṅkara does run the come-and-go argument — the dvandvas are āgamāpāyino 'nityāḥ (2.14), and nāsato vidyate bhāvaḥ (2.16) is unpacked through the constancy of the "asti, asti" cognition that abides while the objects it illumines lapse. But note what does the work: not that objects flicker, but that sattā is the one term that never deviates while forms deviate through it. Transience is symptomatic of vikāratva, and vikāratva — becoming-other — is the disqualification. This is emphatically not the Sautrāntika point-instant, which Śaṅkara dismantles at BSB 2.2.28–31 precisely because pratyabhijñā refutes it: a momentary object cannot even be known to be momentary.

Now the more interesting half, and where I'd resist the Vicāra Sāgara framing. The perceived permanence is not the falsity's locus; it is the satya-aṃśa mislocated. What lends an object its felt "is-ness" and continuity is the borrowed sattā of Brahman — adhyāsa being atasmiṃs tad-buddhiḥ, the mutual transfer of ātmānātma-dharmas. The permanence you detect in the dream-mountain is the nityatva of the draṣṭṛ — the very avināśitva of BU 4.3.23 you were just reading — misattributed to the dṛśya. The error is not that permanence is perceived but that it is mislocated: read onto the perishable name-form instead of recognized as the abiding sat. Strip the mislocation and you do not arrive at flux; you arrive at kūṭastha being.

That is the caveat against Niścaladāsa's move, congenial as it is. Making the object tat-kṣaṇotpanna and cirantanatva a separate anirvacanīya superimposition (note the doubled anirvacanīyatayotpādyate) foregrounds cirantanatva-adhyāsa as the salient falsity and leans on a dream-waking momentariness-parity harder than Śaṅkara's own hand allows. Śaṅkara guards the asymmetry: vaidharmyāc ca na svapnādivat (BSB 2.2.29) — waking is not dream, because the dream is sublated within vyavahāra by waking, whereas waking yields only to jñāna. And Ramana's river-and-flame, taken at the letter, makes flux the fact and stability the error — which quietly inverts the mukhya siddhānta, where nitya-sat is the truth and the deviating forms are the unreal. As upāya it is unimpeachable; as ontology it drifts toward the very kṣaṇikavāda Śaṅkara spent BSB 2.2 refuting. The felt permanence is not an error to be dissolved into flux; it is Brahman's own avināśitva awaiting relocation.

Sharpest form: for Śaṅkara, objects are mithyā as bādhya nāma-rūpa upon sat. Transitoriness is a symptom of that (Gītā-bhāṣya register), and perceived permanence is a misplaced trace of the real, not the ground of unreality. The VS/Ramana emphasis — permanence-as-the-locus-of-falsity — is a later, DSV-anirvacanīya recentring: not false to Śaṅkara, but not his ordering, and it carries the standing risk of terminating in flux rather than in the kūṭastha the draṣṭṛ-vākyas were framed to secure.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBegg1CC4Ot2eo8AMKrrWHFFvxCP%2BYA8QhHzR9iEu%3DoGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Accepting the Ishwara srushti in Advaita vedAnta as per bhagavatpAda is ‘vedAnta maryAda’, I repeat it_is_vedAnta maryAda. Yes the similarity between waking and dreaming states reiterated at various places in PTB but it does not anyway mean that Ishwara srushti is just like snake on the rope, it only (the similarity between jAgrat and Svapna) conveys the fact that our svarUpa is avasthAteeta and it pervades all avasthA-s in ekarUpa.  The similarity between waking and dream states does not deny the creation of Ishvara (the Creator) at any stretch of our imagination in bhagavatpAda’s theistic Advaita vedanta. That is the reason why bhagavatpAda states what we see in the waking world is a projection of Ishvara’s mind (brahma mAnasa pratyaya), where as Svapna is an individual mind’s projection (jeeva maanasa pratyaya).  One is vyAvahArika another is prAtibhAsika.  Shankara states elsewhere that there is not even an iota of pAramArthika in individual’s dream world whereas for this vyAvahArika jagat brahman is the ONLY abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  Shankara asks us : do I have to tell you again & again that Ishwara who is nitya Shuddha  

possesses nitya jnAna about the srushti-sthiti & laya??

 

bhAshyakAra, in sUtra bhAshya, also particularly emphasizes that the tiny jeeva who is not srushtikarta Ishwara is not at all capable of creating the many and varied names and forms of

mountains, rivers, oceans and the like. For that matter even the siddha-s who have acquired the siddhis (supernatural powers) like  aNimAdi ashta siddhi-s etc., cannot effect the manifestation of the creation and manage its affairs!! Creation if at all there is any talk about creation is an exclusive power of Ishwara. 

 

To KISS : Comparing jAgrat prapancha to a Svapna prapancha doesn't say Ishwara’s creation is fake like rope on the snake (vide chAndOgya), but rather points out that it isn't absolutely real and nirvikAri brahman.  But at the same time vyAkruta prapancha which was/is/will always be one with brahman in avyAkruta rUpa is NOT different from brahman. Though waking world changing each and every minute it is in it’s svarUpa brahman only and nothing but brahman. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 9:46 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Accepting the Ishwara srushti in Advaita vedAnta as per bhagavatpAda is ‘vedAnta maryAda’, I repeat it_is_vedAnta maryAda. Yes the similarity between waking and dreaming states reiterated at various places in PTB but it does not anyway mean that Ishwara srushti is just like snake on the rope, it only (the similarity between jAgrat and Svapna) conveys the fact that our svarUpa is avasthAteeta and it pervades all avasthA-s in ekarUpa.  The similarity between waking and dream states does not deny the creation of Ishvara (the Creator) at any stretch of our imagination in bhagavatpAda’s theistic Advaita vedanta. That is the reason why bhagavatpAda states what we see in the waking world is a projection of Ishvara’s mind (brahma mAnasa pratyaya), where as Svapna is an individual mind’s projection (jeeva maanasa pratyaya).  One is vyAvahArika another is prAtibhAsika.  Shankara states elsewhere that there is not even an iota of pAramArthika in individual’s dream world whereas for this vyAvahArika jagat brahman is the ONLY abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  Shankara asks us : do I have to tell you again & again that Ishwara who is nitya Shuddha  

possesses nitya jnAna about the srushti-sthiti & laya??

Dear Bhaskar ji,

What you say about Ishwara's unique power is not denied and Shankara's great regard for that power.  However, Shankara does not differentiate the Ishwara-created world from the jiva-created dream:

BSB 3/2/4  सूचकश्च हि श्रुतेराचक्षते च तद्विदः ॥ ४ ॥  In the swapna adhikarana: where the earlier sutra is:  मायामात्रं तु कार्त्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात् ॥ ३ ॥   

पारमार्थिकस्तु नायं सन्ध्याश्रयः सर्गः वियदादिसर्गवत् — इत्येतावत्प्रतिपाद्यते । न च वियदादिसर्गस्याप्यात्यन्तिकं सत्यत्वमस्ति । प्रतिपादितं हि ‘तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः’ (ब्र. सू. २ । १ । १४) इत्यत्र समस्तस्य प्रपञ्चस्य मायामात्रत्वम् । प्राक् तु ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शनात् वियदादिप्रपञ्चो व्यवस्थितरूपो भवति । सन्ध्याश्रयस्तु प्रपञ्चः प्रतिदिनं बाध्यते — इत्यतो वैशेषिकमिदं सन्ध्यस्य मायामात्रत्वमुदितम् ॥ ४ ॥    

(On the unreality of the dream-creation)

"But this creation that has the dream-state (sandhyā) as its locus is not, in the ultimate (pāramārthika) sense, a real creation like the creation beginning with space (ākāśa)." This alone is what is intended to be established here.

Nor, indeed, does even the creation beginning with space possess absolute reality. For it has already been established in the aphorism 'tad-ananyatvam ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ' (Brahma Sūtra 2.1.14) that the entire phenomenal universe is nothing but māyā.

However, prior to the realization that Brahman is the Self, the empirical universe beginning with space appears as a well-established and orderly reality. The dream-world, on the other hand, is sublated every single day upon waking. Therefore, it is only in this special sense that the dream has been declared to be merely an appearance produced by māyā.

And Shankara says in the BGB 2.16: 

(Verse 16 Commentary)

The intention is this: You too, Arjuna, adopting the standpoint of the knowers of Truth (tattva-darśins), should abandon grief and delusion. Recognizing firmly in your mind that the pairs of opposites—such as heat and cold—which are of fixed or occasional occurrence, are merely modifications, that do not really exist, but falsely appear like the water seen in a mirage (marīci-jala), should cultivate forbearance (titikṣā).

So, Shankara calls the Ishwara-created world māyāmātram.  And says, 'It does not really exist but appears to exist.'  

These are just two examples of many where Shankara holds the Ishwara-created world to be a mere appearance like a dream or a rope-snake. 

warm regards

subbu

 

bhAshyakAra, in sUtra bhAshya, also particularly emphasizes that the tiny jeeva who is not srushtikarta Ishwara is not at all capable of creating the many and varied names and forms of

mountains, rivers, oceans and the like. For that matter even the siddha-s who have acquired the siddhis (supernatural powers) like  aNimAdi ashta siddhi-s etc., cannot effect the manifestation of the creation and manage its affairs!! Creation if at all there is any talk about creation is an exclusive power of Ishwara. 

 

To KISS : Comparing jAgrat prapancha to a Svapna prapancha doesn't say Ishwara’s creation is fake like rope on the snake (vide chAndOgya), but rather points out that it isn't absolutely real and nirvikAri brahman.  But at the same time vyAkruta prapancha which was/is/will always be one with brahman in avyAkruta rUpa is NOT different from brahman. Though waking world changing each and every minute it is in it’s svarUpa brahman only and nothing but brahman. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66255A95617D35C1DD86408284F12%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

What you say about Ishwara's unique power is not denied and Shankara's great regard for that power. 

 

• Kindly elaborate in what sense Ishwara’s unique power which is NOT possessed by any normal jeeva or  even siddha-s, when there is  absolutely no difference between Ishwara’s mAyA srushti and jeeva’s  avidyA parikalpita drushti or srushti!!?? 

 

However, Shankara does not differentiate the Ishwara-created world from the jiva-created dream:

 

Ø      I have already said creation by Ishwara and accepting the Ishwara hetukatva is vedAnta maryAda.  Yes as far as the ‘creation’ as a common word  is concerned there is no difference between Ishwara’s and that of jeeva’s.  But Ishwara’s creation is at macro level (samashti) it is meant for the jeeva-s.  And for this creation Ishwara himself is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  It is governed, managed and maintained by omniscient and omnipotent Ishwara himself for the sake of jeeva-s and this is the stage on which Jeevas will perform actions and experience the results of their respective karma. 

Nor, indeed, does even the creation beginning with space possess absolute reality.

•  Yes we have already seen this we are not saying creation is absolute reality.  But this vyAvahArika jagat is NOT independent from that pAramArthika reality.  But by this we cannot deny the role of srushti by Ishwara.  In the saNdhyAdhikaraNa which you have quoted, itself bhAshyakAra clearly differentiate the Ishwara srushti jAgrat prapanch and jeeva’s srushti Svapna prapancha and clarifies that the srushti of Ishwara is universally perceived in the waking state such as AkAsha etc. and it is objective whereas the dream creation is not objective and it is not publicly on the common platform transactionable. And in that sence the Svapna prapancha, the dream world is indeed unreal. There is not even the smell of reality in it. 

 

For it has already been established in the aphorism 'tad-ananyatvam ārambhaṇa-śabdādibhyaḥ' (Brahma Sūtra 2.1.14) that the entire phenomenal universe is nothing but māyā.

• And that mAya (shakti) is not different from Ishwara (shakta). 

However, prior to the realization that Brahman is the Self, the empirical universe beginning with space appears as a well-established and orderly reality. The dream-world, on the other hand, is sublated every single day upon waking. Therefore, it is only in this special sense that the dream has been declared to be merely an appearance produced by māyā.

• Yes, that is the reason why shankara’s Advaita reiterates that there is sarvashakta and sarvajna Ishwara who is having the exclusive power of creating this phenomenal world.  And he does so for the sake of jeeva-s karma bhOga and apavarga.  This is the justification given for the Ishwara’s vishama srushti. 

And Shankara says in the BGB 2.16: 

(Verse 16 Commentary)

The intention is this: You too, Arjuna, adopting the standpoint of the knowers of Truth (tattva-darśins), should abandon grief and delusion.

Ø     Can be noted here it is all about Arjuna’s rAga-dvesha-bhrAnti etc.  It is merely problem of ours seeing the snake (jeeva srushti) in place of rope (Ishwara srushti) and deluded.  For jeeva’s avidyA srushti (seeing the snake, resultant suffering like fear etc.) is due to mAya srushti, the rope which is having its svarUpa as brahman.  Tattva drushti is sama drushti…vidyAvinaya sampanne brAhmaNe gavihastini etc. seeing the brahman in everything is sama drushti / Samyak jnAna seeing the srushti independently from brahman is avidyA drushti or mithyA drushti. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

I wish to state the following points:

1. In the Sandhyādhikaranam itself, Shankara says, 'The entire creation, including the dream and waking states, is māyāmātram. Note that the sutra used this term only for the svapna. 

2. In 2.16  नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः । उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ॥ १६ ॥   bhashya Shankara does not differentiate between jiva srushti and Ishwara srishti.  He says: all *vikāras* found or experienced in creation are *mithyā*.  न हि शीतोष्णादि सकारणं प्रमाणैर्निरूप्यमाणं वस्तुसद्भवति । विकारो हि सः, विकारश्च व्यभिचरति । यथा घटादिसंस्थानं चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं मृद्व्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसत् , तथा सर्वो विकारः कारणव्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसन् ।   Cold, heat, etc, are not jiva's creation; they are in the prakriti. He uses the example of a pot and clay.  तस्माद्देहादेः द्वन्द्वस्य च सकारणस्य असतो न विद्यते भाव इति ।  तथा सतश्च आत्मनः अभावः अविद्यमानता न विद्यते, सर्वत्र अव्यभिचारात् इति अवोचाम ॥  The body, etc. duality is asat, mithya and Brahman, Sat, alone is satyam, he says. 

3. In the G.Karika we have:  मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा । उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथञ्चन ॥ १५ ॥ 

अन्यार्थत्वादुत्पत्तिश्रुतीनाम् । He says the srishti vakyas have a different purport/purpose. The utpatti shrutis (giving examples like clay or metal) have a different purport. For instance, the Chandogya passage, 'tadaikshata bahu syaam...' indicates Ishwara's sankalpa is also present. But Shankara says:  यदि हि वादः परमार्थ एवाभूत् , एकरूप एव संवादः सर्वशाखास्वश्रोष्यत, विरुद्धानेकप्रकारेण नाश्रोष्यत ; श्रूयते तु ; तस्मान्न तादर्थ्यं संवादश्रुतीनाम् । तथोत्पत्तिवाक्यानि प्रत्येतव्यानि । He gives the example of prana samvada that is told in different ways in different Upanishads, and says: If srishti was real, the Upanishads would have stated it in the same way everywhere; but it is not so, they talk of srishti, method, in different ways. So, it's not with a view to teach us that 'srishti happened,' but rather to teach us Advaita.  Thus, even based on the Ishwara srishti vakyas, with sankalpa, sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva, karma phala daatrutva, etc., Shankara/Gaudapada do not accept that creation ever occurred.  For them it's ajātivāda, no-creation.  The talk about srishti in shrutis is a thesis. 

warm regards

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625A283257D479F8874EB3584FF2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

हरे कृष्ण भास्कर प्रभु जी, सुब्बु जी।

It is the considered position of sampradāyavit ācāryās that distinction of waking as Īśvara-sṛṣṭi and swapna as jīva-sṛṣṭi is upheld in bhāṣya within the purview of SDV. However, the identity of waking and dream is the hallmark of DSV.

Let us see some of the bhāṣya-vākya from Māṇḍūkyà wherein waking is equated completely to dream:

स्वप्नदृश्यवज्जागरितदृश्यानामप्यसत्त्वमिति …. अतो मन्यामहे तेषामप्यसत्त्वं स्वप्नदृश्यवदनाशङ्कनीयमिति । [2.7]

Just as dream-seen-objects are non-existent (asat), similarly waking-seen-objects are non-existent….. Therefore, we hold that one should not doubt that (how can) waking-seen-objects are non-existent like dream-seen-objects.

अतः कल्पिता एव जाग्रद्भावा अपि स्वप्नभाववदिति सिद्धम् ॥ [2.15]

Therefore, it is established that objects-in-waking-world are imaginary just as the objects-in-dream-world.

बाह्यं पृथिव्यादि तत्त्वमाध्यात्मिकं च देहादिलक्षणं रज्जुसर्पादिवत्स्वप्नमायादिवच्च असत् । [2.38]

The external elements like prithivī etc and internal elements like body etc are non-existent like illusory-snake-in-the-rope, dream and Māyā.

न हि स्वप्ने हस्ती हस्तिचित्तं वा विद्यते ; तथा इहापि विवेकिनामित्यभिप्रायः। [4.67]

In a dream, there exists neither the elephant nor the citta-of-elephant. Similarly, here also is the case for people with discrimination. This is the purport

स्वप्नमायानिर्मितका अण्डजादयो जीवा यथा जायन्ते म्रियन्ते च, तथा मनुष्यादिलक्षणा अविद्यमाना एव चित्तविकल्पनामात्रा इत्यर्थः ॥ [4.70]

Māyāmayaḥ (of 4.69) means that which is created by a magician. Nirmitakaḥ (of 4.70) means that which is created by mantra and medicine. Such jīvās created by dream, magic, medicine or charms, born of eggs etc take birth and die. Similarly, these jīvās such as humans etc are non-existent and are merely the vibrations of mind.

One has to reconcile such statements with statements such as वैधर्म्यात् च न स्वप्नादिवत्।

The way of reconciliation in sampradāya is through explicit postulation of different prakriyā namely SDV and DSV for a sādhaka at different stages of his spiritual evolution. I find it to be completely convincing. 

Regards, 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te214ypNSN64_BmUoKMHMzaJrUkb5Wbpz8sXA6UDGq_xpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

If we see the following at page 189 from Māṇḍūkya Rahasya Vivṛti of SSSS ji, it is clear that he is also saying the same. 

स्वप्नजागरयोर्वैधर्म्याभावः --

नन्वन्तःस्थानादिभिर्हेतुभिस्त्वयैव जागरितवैलक्षण्यं स्वप्रस्य प्रदर्शितम् । बाध्यमानत्वं चाशक्यापह्नवं स्वप्रस्य । तत्कथमिदानीमात्थ सर्वथा साम्येन सममेवोभयोर्वैतथ्यमिति ? अत्रोच्यते | सत्यमुक्तं वैलक्षण्यम् । तत्तु जागरितदृष्ट्या मन्दबुद्धीनां परमार्थप्रतिपत्त्युपायत्वेन, न वस्तुदृष्ट्या | वस्तुतस्तु नायमपि विशेषो विद्यते । यतोऽयमेव श्लोकः स्वप्नजागरितयोः सर्वसमताप्रतिपादनपरत्वेनापि योजयितुं शक्यते । 

Translation by Gemini (Checked and concurred by me)

The Absence of Heterogeneity (Difference) Between the Dream and Waking States:

(Objection): By citing reasons such as "being confined to the internal space," you yourself have previously demonstrated that the dream state is different from the waking state. Furthermore, the fact that dreams are sublated (contradicted upon waking) cannot be denied. So, how can you now claim that both states are entirely identical and that their unreality is exactly the same?

(Reply): To this, it is said in response: What you say about their difference is true. However, that difference was stated from the viewpoint of the waking state for the benefit of less intelligent minds (dull-witted persons) as a means to help them understand the ultimate reality—not from the standpoint of truth.

In reality, even this distinction does not exist. Because this very verse can also be applied to establish the complete equality (identity) between the dream and waking states.

==================================

Here, SSSS ji is accepting that the distinction of waking and dream is stated in shāstra for manda-buddhi people for their evolution. So, for followers of SSSS ji, this should be a point of consideration to revisit their penchant with Īśvara-sṛṣṭi etc.

Regarding usage by SSSS ji of vastu-dṛṣṭyā, it should be understood that in Brahman, there is neither waking nor dream. So, the question of their identity or dissimilarity does not arise.

So, basically, it is an advanced knowledge. Both DSV and SDV are teachings to the very same jīva. In one, he is given the concession and his belief in the distinction of waking and dream is allowed. In DSV, his this belief is shattered and he remains alone - in his own glory - and as Buddha said -- walks alone like a rhino. एको चरे खग्गविसाणकप्पो।

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Frankly I don’t have enough time to correct your each and every mis-representation of Sri SSS’s stand.  It is once again quite evident that you are just picking here and there Sri SSS quotes randomly (like you did in avidyA Ashraya in kUtastha brahma!!) just to float your pet theories. 

 

Here, SSSS ji is accepting that the distinction of waking and dream is stated in shāstra for manda-buddhi people for their evolution.

 

• Yes, Sri SSS quite emphatically argues that there is absolutely no difference between waking and dream world in his works like paramArtha chintaamani, avasthAtraya Viveka, avasthAtraya Chandrika, gaudapAda hrudaya etc.  But mind you it is not at all at the cost of Ishwara srushti or to propagate the buddhist vijnAnavAda or kshaNika vAda.  No, for your information neither bhagavatpAda nor gaudapAda nor Sri SSS deny the existence of external objects in the same way you are projecting them like they are prachanna Buddhists of vijnanavadins who say it is all mind game!!  I am just quoting one of his observation from one of his own works :
• // quote//  the universe is not an illusion according to bAdarAyana as explained by Shankara. vyavahAra (human procedure in common life)  has its own criterion for testing reality and unreality.  It is the Buddhists who deny reality to external objects.  The vijnAnavAdins say that the object is identified with the idea, since both of them are experienced together.  Since the independent existence of the outside object, is inconceivable, he (vijnAnavAdi) concludes that it is the idea within alone that appears as though it were outside.  BUT Shankara draws our attention to the principle in  sUtra bhAshya that : it is on the evidence or want of evidence of some valid means of knowledge that we have to determine the conceivability or the inconceivability of the existence of a thing and not vice verse (su.bh.2-2-28). Shankara does not however deny the validity of pramANa in the empirical field.//unquote//

He also observes that the ultimate reality is non-dual, the views on the everyday physical world are fundamentally carrying some purpose and cannot be denied like Buddhists due to this bhagavatpAda criticizes  buddhists’ shruti bAhira nAstikavAda or  subjective idealism, which claims that the external world is merely an illusion projected by the mind.  And this view point of buddhist is what exactly you are trying to put in the mouth of Shankara, gaudapAda and Sri SSS.  See what he says in that same work :

//quote// Atmaikatva or the unity of Atman (or brahman) is the ONLY absolute truth according to the shruti-s as shown by bAdarAyana interpreted by Shankara, even while the distinction of sentient and non-sentient nature remains quite real from the empirical standpoint.  The universe as an effect is non-different from the cause or brahman and is essentially ONE WITH brahman.//unquote//

 

So, for followers of SSSS ji, this should be a point of consideration to revisit their penchant with Īśvara-sṛṣṭi etc.

 

• This again exposes your poor fund of knowledge about Sri SSS’s position on Ishwara srushti. 

 

So, basically, it is an advanced knowledge. Both DSV and SDV are teachings to the very same jīva. In one, he is given the concession and his belief in the distinction of waking and dream is allowed. In DSV, his this belief is shattered and he remains alone - in his own glory

 

• BTW, SDV is not concession that advanced student compassionately given to beginners, it is vedAnta maryAda and shruti &  bhAshyakAra have given more than 90% of verdicts on this shruti pratipAdita siddhAnta and nowhere shruti or Shankara declare that SDV is just for beginners and they have to elevate themselves and leave/ignore SDV and replace it with more advanced module DSV.  If you see kArika with little bit of open mind you will come to know this. 

 

- and as Buddha said -- walks alone like a rhino. एको चरे खग्गविसाणकप्पो।

 

• Please note Advaita jnAna mArga  that should not be tried on your own at your home…This sAdhana needs the IshwarAnugraha/kAruNya and shrotreeya brahmanishTa guruupadesha, paapa kshaya and puNya saMchayana as well just to tread the path of jnAna mArga and to attain mOksha.  If you are thinking you are the only lion all alone and can master this jnAna through mere dry logic you are definitely ditched forever (it is somewhere called Atma’s adhaH patana).

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Bhaskar Prabhu ji.

Yes, Sri SSS quite emphatically argues that there is absolutely no difference between waking and dream world in his works like paramArtha chintaamani, avasthAtraya Viveka, avasthAtraya Chandrika, gaudapAda hrudaya etc.  But mind you it is not at all at the cost of Ishwara srushti or to propagate the buddhist vijnAnavAda or kshaNika vAda.  No, for your information neither bhagavatpAda nor gaudapAda nor Sri SSS deny the existence of external objects in the same way you are projecting them like they are prachanna Buddhists of vijnanavadins who say it is all mind game!!  

He himself stated that the distinction of waking and dream is postulated for manda-buddhi people. So wherever he stated the distinction of waking and dream, as you quoted or as you may quote -- you can understand that to refer to manda-buddhi people. सत्यमुक्तं वैलक्षण्यम् । तत्तु जागरितदृष्ट्या मन्दबुद्धीनां परमार्थप्रतिपत्त्युपायत्वेन, न वस्तुदृष्ट्या |

Not responding to rest of the points for want of merit.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Bhaskar YR]

Not responding to rest of the points for want of merit.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Yes I should have exercised this caution too when trying to address your claims on Sri SSS…thanks for your timely advice…that would save my time in addressing your verdicts on Sri SSS’s works.