The Mandukya Upanishads - 4.2. Swami Krishnananda

-----------------------------------------------------
Sunday, August  16, 2020.8:35. PM.
Section 4: The Mystery of Dream and Sleep-2.
---------------------------------------------------

1.
And, unless you have a simultaneous consciousness of two states, you cannot make a comparison. If you are entirely immersed in one state alone, then, no comparison is possible. But we do make a comparison, and pass judgments of value on the relation between the two states. This is indicative enough of a truth which surpasses common empirical perception. We are not that which is apparently related wholly to the waking state, nor are we that which is apparently connected only with the dreaming state.

We are something different from the specific experiences of both the states. Neither can the waking experiences exhaust us, nor can the dream experiences completely comprehend our being. We seem to be something that is capable of being a witness of both the states. This witness is not a party either to the waking state or to the dreaming state. We are essentially, a third element altogether, something independent of waking and dream.

What is that third element?

This subject is the very purpose of the Upanishad, the core of investigation into the reality of the matter. Just as they appoint a commission when there is a complicated case for investigation, a commission wherein very competent persons are appointed, we seem to be under the necessity of putting ourselves in the position of a dispassionate commission of enquiry into the cases presented by the two states, waking and dreaming.

We do not belong to the waking state, wholly; we do not, also, belong to the dreaming state, wholly. By a dispassionate dissociation of the judging consciousness from the experiences of waking and dream, we place ourselves in a situation where analysis is practicable.

2.
When we judge the two states without any prejudice in our minds, the prejudice that waking is, perhaps, better than dream – without this prejudice, if we approach this matter – we arrive at wholly startling conclusions.

Why do we say that the objects of waking are real?

Because they have a utilitarian value. The food of the waking state, not the dream food, can appease our hunger of the waking state. That is why we say that the dream food is not real and that the waking food is real. But we forget that the dream food can satisfy our dream hunger.

Why do we make a comparison of the two stales wrongly?

We confine the dream food to the dream world and make a comparison of the dream hunger with waking hunger, not equally, also, making a comparison of the other aspect of the matter, namely the food aspect. If we say: we see people in the waking world in relation to whom we can speak and have dealings, in dream, too, we can have the same dealings with the dream people. We can shake hands with a dream friend, fight with a dream enemy, and experience even a dream death in a battle of dream. We can have a dream court case. We can have a dream property acquired after winning a case. We can have a dream office in which we may be big officers. We may become dream kings in a dream world.

What is the difference, whether we are in dream or in waking, when the relations between us and the world outside us are the same in both the states?

What makes you say that the dream world is unreal and the waking world is real?

The comparison that you make is unjust. You are not a good judge of the parties, and so you pass partial judgments. Sometimes you pass ex-party judgments, without considering the cases of the two sides. Now, here, the Mandukya Upanishad is not willing to accept the proposal of any ex-party judgment. You have to dispassionately go into the root of the matter, and cannot take sides, either on the part of waking or on the part of dreaming.

A philosopher said: If a king in the waking state is to dream for twelve hours every day that he is a beggar, and if a beggar in the waking state is to dream everyday for twelve hours that he is a king, what is the difference between the two persons?

Who is the king and who is the beggar?

You may say that the waking king is the real king. Here, again, you are making a wrong comparison. Such comparisons will not hold water, because they are prejudiced by partisanship. It is the waking mind that passes judgment on the waking world and says that it is real. It is like one party in a case saying, 'I am right', not considering the rights of the other 'party. The dreaming subject may make an equally valid assertion in relation to the dream world. You regard the dream world as unreal because you have woken up. When you are in dream, you never pass such a judgment. You are happy in dream; you laughed in dream; and you wept in dream.

Why do you weep in dream if the dream pains are unreal?

You may say 'it is a dream; why should I worry?'

If you see a dream snake in dream, you jump over it, then.

Why do you jump over the dream snake?

It is unreal! You have tremor of the body. If a tiger in dream attacks you, you wake up with perspiration in the body. You may even cry, actually.

This is possible. You may fall from a dream tree and have dream-breaking of the legs, and you feel real pain. Sometimes, the legs start trembling even when you wake up. You start touching them and seeing as to what has happened to them. You take some time to realise that nothing happened, and then say, 'I was imagining'.

To be continued ....

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