Mandukya Karika Lecture 129 on 15-November-2023

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

We have entered into a very interesting debate. Gaudapadacharya wants to prove his theory, which is a Dwaitic theory, that there is no creation at all, and it is absolutely true. But it is just contrary to our experience. We are born, we are growing up, and we think we are going to die within this samsara, and we call it the world. How can anybody in his right mind say that it is all Mithya? Mithya means, since we are experiencing, it is real. But really, it is not real.

So if something is created, it must be having two causes: Material cause, an intelligent cause, additionally an instrumental cause. So a potter requires a potter's wheel and also clay. Clay is the material cause, Upadana Karanam. Potter is called an intelligent cause, Nimitta Karanam. And Karana Karanam. Karana means instrument, the potter's wheel. But important causes are intelligent as well as the material cause. Whatever object we see in this world must contain these two.

Since we are experiencing the world, we are bound by our very experience to accept that there must be an intelligent and a material cause. Since before creation, there is only one Brahman. There is no choice but to accept Brahman, both as the intelligent cause as well as the material cause.

Now Gaudapada is attacking this one. When does this causal relationship, cause and effect, where does this operate? Only when there is an effect. And that effect is what we call Jagat, the world, this Prapancha. And we are experiencing it. We are not experiencing Brahman. So there must be the cause, intelligent as well as the material cause. All quarrels come. Who is the cause?

But here to recollect what we have been discussing so far and what we are discussing is what Gaudapadacharya wants to establish. Since there is no effect, that means there is no world, the question of Karana Karya doesn't work here at all. For that, we have got the famous examples. Only two examples, if you remember, Advaita becomes very clear. One example is Rajjusarpa Brahmati and another example is Jagrat Swapna. So these are two examples if we keep in our mind, 99% of Advaitin's arguments become very clear.

So we have been discussing this point. There is no relationship at all. In that context, what were we discussing in our past class? A dream is the effect. And what is the cause? Every effect according to our experience must have a cause. Therefore, the effect is the dream and the cause cannot be other than the waking state, Jagrat.

Now what Gaudapada wants to establish is, once we analyse the dream and understand that such a thing is Mithya, is only Kalpana, is only our imagination, perhaps even this waking world which we 100% consider as real is also Mithya only. For that, several reasons have been given. So I know I am repeating what we have discussed and these have to be repeated until at least intellectually we are firmly grasping these concepts. This is very relevant to understand Advaita Vedanta, not Vishisthadvaita or Dvaita. So what are the arguments? First of all, clarify what is Mithya? What is the first reason which I have not given in the last class but in the previous classes? The most fundamental principle of Advaita is whatever is dependent is Mithya. According to this theory, if I the subject am not paying attention to the object, then the object will not exist at all, so far as I am concerned. You may be experiencing a tree. For you, the tree exists so long as you are experiencing it. But if I am thinking of an animal and completely forgot the tree, so far as I am concerned, the tree does not exist at all until I again start thinking about it.

What does that mean? That leads us to the conclusion that the existence of an object depends upon the awareness of the subject. So that is what we need to understand crystal clearly. This is the first fundamental principle of Vedanta. Whatever we are experiencing is Mithya. How come? Because our participation in the form of the experiencer alone lends existence to that object. If the subject is thinking of something else, everything else does not exist. So that which completely depends upon something else for its existence is Mithya. And that which always is independent, that is called Sathyam. Trikaala Abadhitam Sathyam. Marvellous definition. What does that mean? That whether I am paying attention, I am seeing a tree, next second I am seeing an animal, next second I am seeing a human being, next second I am seeing a mountain, all those objects become Mithya with relation to each other. But I, my awareness, my consciousness, that is unchanging. Whatever I am targeting as my object is changing. But that which is experiencer, consciousness, Chaitanyam, that is always there, 24 hours.

So to put it shortly, I am the witness of the Jagratavastha. So long as I am experiencing a state, I call it Jagrat. If I am experiencing a completely different state, that is called Swapna. And if I am experiencing something else, that is called Sushupti. All of them are changing one by one, one after the other. But I can never be absent. So that is called subject and that is called Sathyam. This is the fundamental fact.

Based upon this, the second principle is whatever is changing. I see a tree and then I see an animal. So the tree has changed. Now it has become an animal. Then it becomes a human being. Then it becomes a mountain. Now I am in the waking state. Now I am in a dream state. Now I am in a deep sleep state. Everything is changing. Whatever is changing, that is called Mithya. And what is the psychological effect upon this? No human being, in fact no Prani ever depends upon something which is always changing. I gave many examples in the past.

If you love somebody and that somebody asks you, "Will you love me all the time?" Please know, only when I am conscious of you, I am loving you. When I am thinking of something else, you disappear from my view. When I am in the waking state, for some time I love you. When I am in the dream state, perhaps I am dreaming of a dream girl, not you. And of course, when I am in deep sleep state, I don't love anybody excepting myself. So, therefore, that which is changing is not acceptable even for us. Only we don't want to accept it, hoping against hope. "My parents love me all the time. My wife and husband, they also love each other permanently." Nothing is permanent. So this Bramah, this delusion, that love is unchanging, our same mood is unchanging, this is all one of the greatest delusions. And therefore, whatever is changing is undependable. And whatever is undependable is undesirable. I am seeking actually for something reality.

So this is a fundamental principle of Vedanta. Whatever is changing is Mithya because it cannot be dependent, dependable. Third, I mentioned it very briefly. This is a very deep analysis. And that is how we have to analyse. Does it help us in our practical life? Yes. Supposing you have a friend and you are always expecting the friend to be a friend. Suddenly that person may turn against you or you are thinking that person will vote for you. And then he doesn't vote for you. And then afterwards, you get terribly angry. So in nothing, that which is changing, everything that is changing is undependable. And something that is undependable produces an undesirable effect upon any one of us. So that is the fundamental point.

Now, are we aware, are we aware, intellectually at least, that everything is changing or not? Seemingly aware, not really aware. Why do I say so? Because if we have really accepted change is the reality, unchange is not there, then what happens? My whole philosophy, my whole action and reaction, both of them change a great deal. And that's what we need to do in sadhana. And therefore, for example, you know, you know that life is undependable. So our Vedanta gives, our poets give beautiful imagery, like a drop of water on a lotus leaf. How long will it stay? First of all, it doesn't stay at all. It is swaying all the time. Anytime it will drop off or it will dry off, either drops off or dries off. So like that, this whole life, budbudha, we say. budbudha means a small, what is called bubble, bursting of the bubble, we say. Bang! Bubble has burst. Like that, we say.

So anything that we are knowing a little bit, but hoping against hope, that is our concept of reality. In other words, even though the scriptures are telling us God alone is real, unchanging, this world is unreal. But we accept it a little bit intellectually. And that is what I call not real acceptance. Real acceptance means it must bring about a tremendous change.

Now, what are we talking here? Let us observe our action and reaction. So we know nobody is permanent, but we think as if my husband is permanent, my wife is permanent, my children are permanent, and they always are going to help me, love me, look after me, etc. Sometimes, yes, if there is enough amount of punyam, then yes, but otherwise, no. There are so many people, they are staying in Western countries and their parents are living here. And even though they love their parents and they are trying to do their level best, it is one thing to do remotely, it is another thing to be present and then trying to do something because it is the presence that is wanted by the parents, etc., not merely some conveniences arranged remotely because of money. And we are also helpless. Sometimes we do willingly, sometimes unwillingly. Whatever be the reason, the fact remains as a fact.

So, our action and reaction, that clearly indicates to us what is reality. Somebody knows this sweet can cause diabetes, but the person cannot give up an attachment for this sweet. So, he thinks, intellectually I know, factually I cannot resist it. So, this action and reaction, somebody had used some bad words towards me, I know they are wrong, perhaps the other person also knows it is wrong and yet I react as if what that person said is Parama Sathya. That is why every description of Sadhana, don't care whether it is Mana, Apamana, Jaya, Apajaya, Labha, Nashta, Victory, Defeat, anything, treat them alike. Means what? It means do not allow your mind to be ruffled, affected and become restless. And that is practically also very useful.

Then what should be our attitude? You love others, unstintedly. You help others as much as you can. You can only do that much. Don't expect others also to behave exactly in the same way. So, now Gaudapadacharya wants to emphasize this point and what is the point? Karya Karana Vada. What is Karya Karana? If I do this, I must get this result sooner or later. If we are believers in Punar Janma, some things I hope to get in the next life or next life. But if I am a so-called ordinary person, I expect to get the results as soon as possible within my experience. Otherwise, I will not try to do those things at all. So, we are affected very deeply. Whether we are philosophers or not at all interested in philosophy, we are all behaving according to cause and effect Siddhanta. There is no doubt about it.

So, we will revert back to our class now. The Gaudapadacharya in these Karikas, these are all purely his own explanations because Mandukya Upanishad consisting of 12 mantras was over in the very first Prakarana itself called Agama Prakarana.

In our last class, we have been dealing with this Swapna. And Swapna, as long as Swapna means a dream, so long as we are dreaming, for us we don't say it is a dream. Means it is my imagination. For me, it is 100% reality. Somebody is coming and beating me up is 100% reality. And I am suffering 100% reality. Just as we behave in the waking state.

So, if you are a philosopher and you question that why do you react in this way even in your dream, you say first of all the dream is nothing but the effect of the waking state. And what is the waking state? It is the cause. And what is the nature of this cause? In the waking state, in spite of attending Vedanta classes, this world alone is real. Everything that is happening is real. And we can understand this, prove this by action and reaction. When somebody scolds you, you become depressed. When somebody praises you, you become elated. So, we are showing every moment of our life, we are affected by what is happening. That means what? External world is impinging 24 hours upon our mind and make us behave like a chess piece being played by the chess player.

So, that is why the very first thing is I should experience everything. I should react in the appropriate manner. But I should not allow my mind to be affected. So, the question, here comes the intellectual part. What is the question? The purvapakshi. Who is the purvapakshi? Purvapakshi means an opponent. Who is the opponent? We are not talking about some people from outside. We are talking about the possible doubts we ourselves can encounter, if not now, later on in life. And that is what is called purvapakshi.

But you see, what is the cause that we consider the dream as real? What is the cause? What is the cause of a dream? The waking state. And how do we look upon this waking state? As absolutely real. Therefore, if the cause is absolutely real, the effect also must be absolutely real. This is one of the arguments which we discussed.

In the 37th Karika,

ग्रहणाज्जागरितवत्तद्धेतुः स्वप्न इष्यते ।

तद्धेतुत्वात्तु तस्यैव सज्जागरितमिष्यते ॥ ३७ ॥

grahaṇājjāgaritavattaddhetuḥ svapna iṣyate |

taddhetutvāttu tasyaiva sajjāgaritamiṣyate || 37 ||

37. As the experience (of objects) in dream is similar to the experience (of objects) in the waking state, therefore it is thought that the waking experiences are the cause of the dream-experiences. On account of this reason, the waking experiences (supposed to be the cause of the dream) appear as real to the dreamer alone (but not to others).

As the experience of objects in dream is similar to the experience of objects in the waking state, therefore, mistakenly it is thought that the waking experiences must be the cause of the dream experiences. But Gaudapadacharya's ultimate goal is that when the world itself is not there, and if the world is not created, the three states of waking, dream, and dreamless do not exist at all. There is no creation, no three states. When there are no three states, where is the question of considering dream experiences also as real, as real as the waking state experiences? That is the point.

So on account of this reason, what is it? The waking experiences, supposed to be the cause of the dream experiences, appear as real to the dreamer alone, but not to others. That is, the dreamer is experiencing the dream as absolutely real until he wakes up. Then only he understands there is no correlation between the waking and dream. Whereas waking is real, the dream is absolutely imaginary. This is the fun, the effect of maya. But we don't argue in the reverse way. Just as we consider the dream experiences as unreal, so also we must consider the waking experiences as equally unreal.

That argument doesn't come into our brains at all. What is the reason? If you recollect, I mentioned the reason. I mentioned the reason because every day when we come out of the dream state or deep sleep, we find ourselves, same house, same people, same age, and of course a little bit, a few hours of age by that time. We don't take it is what great deal. Few hours is nothing. I am going to live a hundred years. When you say a few minutes, it doesn't matter. And therefore, a hundred years becomes as if I am Brahma. I am going to live for a long time. And all our plans, insurance plans especially, and our dreams, everything depends upon this fact of forgetting death can come at any given moment. This is the most wonderful thing. That is what Yudhishthira answers in the Yaksha Prashna.

''ahany ahani bhutani gacchantiha yamalayam

sheshaḥ sthavaram icchanti kim ashcaryam atah param''

“Hundreds and thousands of living entities meet death at every moment, but a foolish living being nonetheless thinks himself deathless and does not prepare for death. This is the most wonderful thing in this world.”

So if we analyse a dream state, we know it is a Kalpana. And if we analyse our waking state, no, it is not my imagination. It is a fact. It is a reality. For that, our own intellectual mind, Purvapakshi, raises an objection. What is the objection? How do we know a dream experience is unreal while waking experience is very real? What is the criteria? Criteria is one is private, another is public. What does it mean? For example, when you see a mango tree in the month of January, full of ripe Bunganapalli mangoes, it is considered to be an absolute bunk imagination. But only the person who is dreaming, only he is seeing. His wife doesn't see, his children do not see. They see their own mangoes. It may be pizza or it may be something else they will see. But they don't see. So it is private. Whereas, when I see a tree really in the waking state, everybody is seeing. This requires a little bit of intellectual sharpness to understand.

Gaudapada squashes these arguments and Shankaracharya elaborates a little bit upon that. That no, you think that the dream is private while waking state is public. That means I see a tree, you see a tree. Everybody who has eyes to see, if they happen to be there, they see the same tree. And Gaudapada smashes that argument and says, really, really everybody sees? No, everybody does not see it. So, a beautifully young lady, this is my favourite illustration, decorates herself nicely and thinks that I am the Miss Universe and walks into a forest. Walks into a forest. Promptly, a young person, a young man from a distance looks at her and a hungry tiger also looks at her. Now, is it a private view or is it a public view? Both are seeing, yes. Are they seeing in the same way? No. The young man thinks one way and if there happens to be a thief, he will see in another way. And if another woman who is jealous of this woman looks at her, she will see in another way. Of course, a hungry tiger, if there are some people around this beautifully decorated young woman, her father, her mother, or great grandfather or grandmother, better illustration. And the tiger has got these old chaps, not much flesh is left out. This young is very, very good. I will aim at her. Is it a public view or a private view? And this is a tremendous fact. The same event can affect each one of us or those who are involved in that event in different ways. And every day this is our experience. And that is what happens. In fact, I told many times, reading the newspaper can open our Divya Chakshu, 3rd Neta. So I was saying sometime back, probably a few months back, there was a young man who was loved by his mother very much. So he hired another man to kill his own mother. Why? The mother happened to be an orthodox Muslim. She doesn't want her son to go anywhere. He must come home very strictly. These are very nice rules, actually. Some of them are very nice rules. Wants him to come home just before 8 o'clock or something and not go out of the house. Saturdays, Sundays, and Fridays must go to the mosque, pray regularly, read Quran. In other words, behave like a religious person. But this young man, he has his own friends and he wants complete freedom. This religion is bunk, especially, you know, if given freedom, most young people in the Muslim countries will kick and kill all the clerics there. But unfortunately, they are controlled strictly and they are not given freedom. We know it very well. So his mother became a great hated enemy, obstructing the young man's freedom to behave as he wants to behave, to live, in other words, as he wants to live. So he hired and then paid money for that and then somebody, his own friend actually, came and killed this woman. Everything happened. Later on, police pieced together the whole thing and then they found out. Now, what am I talking about? Are we living in a private world or a public world? Is the mother's view of the son and the son's view of himself are the same or completely different? This is a point we have to take into consideration. What I love, others may not. What I dislike, others may not, including our sisters, our brothers, our parents, etc. If we can accept this fact, everybody has only a private view. External object is only 1% of the experience. 99% of the experience is what is our private view, our private action and reaction. If we can accept this, it will be marvellous and also a little bit of fun.

As I many times said, we see each other. Oh, a friend comes gushing with love. I love you. You are my most beloved friend. And that gushing, as you know, whenever you see any gushing, it is nothing but pure foam. Nothing is there. No substance is there in that. So, you know very well that it is just a social behaviour, nothing to do with reality. But if you are a fool, you think this person loves me very much and then the problems will be solved. So, as I used to say many times, thank God, we don't know really what others are thinking about oneself. So, my devotees come and sit and smile at me. I am not sure what they are thinking about me. Of course, they are also thankful don't know what I am thinking about them. Blissfully, we are happy, ignorant of each other's view.

What is the point? The point is, what we call Jagrat Anubhava is as private as the dream experience. So, it doesn't matter. Final thought is, just as in the Jagrat Avastha, in the dream state also, exactly the same thing happens. You meet somebody and that person gushes, I love you, I love you. And a hundred times the person bores you to death, declaring undying love, deathless love. And you know it. And sometimes you put up, sometimes you don't put up and you want to run away. You look at the time, oh, I forgot and there is some appointment, try to escape from the situation as soon as possible, which I have to confess, I myself have practiced quite a number of times. What is the point? The point is, nothing is private. Nothing is private and nothing is public. Each one of us puts on a particular dress, a particular specs, and we are looking at the world and we are thinking that we are looking at the same world. That is called delusion.

But the ultimate point is, everything is changing. My body is changing. My mind is changing. My birth, after that growth, after that death will come. So, this is a fact. Changefulness is a fact. And whatever is changeful is not the reality. That's what Gaudapada wants to say. And if it is not real, it is uncreated because whatever is created must be real. So, if the curds, yogurt as they call, came out of milk, milk is real. So, the yogurt or curds must also be real. This is the point. And if the milk itself is unreal, then the curds also must be totally unreal. This is what Gaudapada wants to establish. Now, he is labouring so much for what? There is no causal relationship between the waking and then dream state. And that is, then we will proceed further. I am taking time because these arguments are immensely helpful in sharpening our intellectual powers of reasoning it out. It definitely helps.

उत्पादस्याप्रसिद्धत्वादजं सर्वमुदाहृतम् ।

न च भूतादभूतस्य संभवो'स्ति कथंचन ॥ ३८ ॥

utpādasyāprasiddhatvādajaṃ sarvamudāhṛtam |

na ca bhūtādabhūtasya saṃbhavo'sti kathaṃcana || 38 ||

38. All these are known as unborn, as their creation or evolution cannot be established as a fact. It is ever impossible for the unreal to be born of the real.

Now, different types of philosophical views are brought out. Really speaking, practically speaking, they are not of much use for us. But since it is there and they are interesting, we will go through it anyway. So, all the objects that we experience in what we call the world are known as unborn because their creation or evolution cannot be established as a fact. It is ever impossible for the unreal to be born of the real. Now, a lot of arguments, intellectual arguments are involved here. Why are they involved? I have already mentioned to you. People were never busy in those days and especially these teachings were not given for devotees publicly as we are doing it now. It was purely given to brahmacharis or would-be sannyasins or newly ordained sannyasins and they have to pass their time. But good reasonings are there. That is what Gaudapada Advaita's view on this world is. It is unborn. But instead of saying, what do they say? Anything that is changing is unreal. Whatever is unreal, just like a snake, just like a mirage, just like a silver shell, just like the son of a barren woman, these are all completely unreal. They do not exist. If they do not exist, that means the Jagat does not exist. And Jagat is called an effect. If there is no effect, who is going to talk about the Karana? Only I, the Jeevatma, think that I am in this world. I am born. My parents are there. So my existence is real. And therefore, I want to trace who is the cause of my birth, my parents, and wherefrom they came, from their parents, etc. So this cause and effect relationship is very much dependent upon acceptance of one fact that this world is real. It is an effect. Real means it is an effect.

Let us remember, the nature of the cause subsists in the effect also. If the cause is gold, gold and ornament also is nothing but gold. However much we pay attention to the shape, to the form, etc., but it is nothing but gold only. So if it is wooden furniture, it is nothing but wood, etc., etc. So here he wants to tell that if you want to establish causal relationship, then there can be four different what arguments. Very briefly, what are those four different arguments? This will be elaborated in the next Karika. But what I wanted to tell you here, so there are only two things. In our experience, in a Maya-bound experience, in a Jeevatma, of course, these problems do not come to non-human beings. They come only to human beings and not to all human beings. Only Gaudapadacharya's disciples will have these problems. Ramanujacharya's disciples will never have this kind of problems.

The four arguments presented by the Purvapakshi or our deep intellect are as follows:

1. Real cannot give birth to the real.
2. Real cannot give birth to the unreal.
3. Unreal cannot give birth to the real.
4. Unreal cannot give birth to unreal.

So real, real cannot be the cause of anything. Unreal also, because it is unreal, cannot give birth. This idea is elaborated, but I want to quote a little bit of Shankaracharya here. Though the waking experiences seem to be the cause of the dream ones, still the former cannot be unreal like the latter. Who is telling? Purvapakshi, objector. Why? What is the reason? The dream is extremely evanescent. It is changing. In five minutes, you have roamed the whole world on a world cruise and came back. Whereas the waking experiences are seen to be permanent. Means persistent. Means you wake up in the same room, the same house, the same place, the same job. Whether you like your boss or not, there is no question of changing the boss. In a dream, of course, you can, but not here. In a dream, you can even bash your boss or he can also bash you. Don't forget that one. So what is the reply to this Purvapakshi who says dreams are of short duration and waking is a long duration? That is 100 years if you live. What is the reply? So, first Shankara says it is true. That is what you say is absolutely true. But for whom? Those who do not possess discrimination. That means buddhihena. That means brainless. No, it doesn't mean there is no brainless person. But that brain is absolutely unused. Just as the birthday brain, the same brain remains until the death date also. But men of discrimination do not see the production or the birth of anything as creation or evolution cannot be established as a fact. Hence, all this is known in the Vedantic scriptures. That is the Brahman which is unborn. And for supporting this statement, Shruti quotation is given. For the Shruti declares, 'He the Atman is both within and without and is at the same time unborn.' What does it mean? That means if you are so dull that you see this creation, he is within the body, he is outside the body. Within the body as the mind, buddhi, etc. Outside the body as the physical world. But if you contend, that is Advaitin is replying to the objector. If you contend that the illusory dream is the effect of the real waking state, we say that it is absolute bunk. Your contention is untenable. In our common experience, we never see a non-existing thing produced from an existing one. Such a non-existing thing as the horn of a hare is never seen to be produced from any other object. As I mentioned earlier, so this is what he is trying to tell us.

We will proceed to the 39th Karika.

असज्जागरिते दृष्ट्वा स्वप्ने पश्यति तन्मयः ।

असत्स्वप्नेऽपि दृष्ट्वा च प्रतिबुद्धौ न पश्यति ॥ ३९ ॥

asajjāgarite dṛṣṭvā svapne paśyati tanmayaḥ |

asatsvapne'pi dṛṣṭvā ca pratibuddhau na paśyati || 39 ||

39. Being deeply impressed with the (reality of the) unreal objects which a man sees in the waking state, he sees those very things in dream as well. Moreover the unreal objects cognised in the dream are not seen again in the waking state.

Gaudapadacharya is elaborating a little bit. What is it? Being deeply impressed with the reality of the unreal objects which a man sees in the waking state, he sees those very things in dream as well. Moreover, the unreal objects organized in the dream are not seen again in the waking state. Marvellous psychological fact which can help us in our sadhana, everyday sadhana. That is why I am going a little bit slow here so that we can really take and understand and use it to progress in our spiritual life.

So supposing, let me read again then I will explain. Being deeply impressed with the reality of unreal objects which a man sees in the waking state. We have to be very careful in analysing this sentence. For a wise man, everything in this jagrat avastha is unreal. That is what we have to see. But some of the unreal objects, everything is unreal but some classification is done. Some unreal objects are not impressive. Some unreal objects are very impressive. Supposing, you see, there are, let us say, two men, young men. Both of them are young and full of vigour and good position, etc. And a young girl, naturally, like a young man, dreams of dream boy, etc. So one person, one girl, sees this boy, deeply impressed. Oh, how caring, how loving and he does not think of any other girl excepting me, etc., etc. She goes through, you must mark, I changed a little bit this metaphor. So, is deeply impressed and then she goes to dream state. What do you think? She is dreaming of that young man and he comes magically and they have wonderful dance. I do not know in cinemas where from they get such beautiful gardens and the full moon. I rarely see the moon anywhere. And they are dancing and suddenly this marvellous background music. I do not see any musician but great background music is there. You see any movie, you will see suddenly these fellows are dancing. How suddenly in Vrindavan gardens this background music is going on with hundreds of musicians. That is real magic. And they are absolutely rhythm, shruti, laya, thala, everything is going on. You must see that one. So these persons are seeing and then this girl goes on dreaming and then she was very happy. And then she wakes up with that happy impression. And then she happens to meet her dream boy. Now you have to remember that dream boy has changed now into waking boy. And he is scolding her left and right. You could not cook properly and your preparation of tea and coffee and masala dosa is horrible. And this is what happens. And do you think that girl is going to see what she saw in the dream state as well in the waking state? Never. So if she sees something very evil things in her dream that also she will not see. What is the point? What we see in the dream states never tally with the waking state. And what we see in the waking states never tally with the actual dream states. And this is what is the fact. This is what the siddhanti that is Gaudapada and his followers they say. Then the objectionist is going to say something. If the dream be the effects of the waking state experiences, how can Vedantins declare that the law of causality is false? The answer is that in order to create a delusory effect the cause need not be real. That is to say very very interesting subject. Supposing we always think, not supposing, we always think there is a person, is a wonderful person. It is real. So long as we are in the waking state whatever we experience is absolutely real. And when we go to dream state we think we dream of the same person and so the objectionist that is our own deeper thinking raises an objection. After all waking state is the cause of the dream state. So you yourself are telling this one. Because Advaita is forced to accept waking, only the impressions gathered in the waking state are seen in the dream state. So if the waking state is real, dream state also must be real. And there is a tremendously deep meaning involved in this argument. What is it? In order to dream that something is real doesn't necessarily mean that in waking state also such a thing should be real. There is no such cause-effect relationship.

For that Shankara gives a beautiful example. Suppose one day at night and there is nobody around, you are walking near a crematorium, suddenly you see a ghost and you get frightened. So the ghost itself is unreal and you have experienced the ghost and then that night you go home somehow escaping the ghost and that ghost is real ghost. So you think is haunting you in your dream also. What is this example for? The ghost you thought you saw in the waking state is unreal. Therefore whatever we see in the waking state is real and that real experience alone is the cause of the real experiences in the dream. There it is completely false argument. So real objects what we call normal objects also can create dream objects and your imaginary non-real, unreal objects in the waking state can also cause real objects. I know today's class is a little bit tough. We will talk about it a little more, a few more shlokas. Hopefully we will cross over them. I will stop here.