Mandukya Karika Lecture 128 on 08-November-2023

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

We have been studying the fourth and last chapter of the Mandukya Karikas. This fourth chapter is named Alatha Shanti. What is Gaudapada's main argument? Gaudapada's argument is nothing but an Advaitic argument. When Shankaracharya condensed the entire Advaitic teaching into three parts: Brahma Satyam, God alone is real; Jagat Mithya, meaning there is no world at all; what we call the world is nothing but Brahman with Nama and Rupa. Therefore, there is no world. Because there is no world, God is not the creator, and this world is not the created one. This causal relationship is automatically negated.

Then what about me? Well, you also do not exist as part of the world. Then is it complete annihilation? Complete Shunya? No. You are none other than Brahman. Brahman is alone there. That is the essence of Advaita Vedanta.

According to Visishtadvaita, three things are absolutely real: Ishwara is real; his creation called Jagat is real, known as Chit; and this objective world called Achit is also real. But this Chit and Achit are part and parcel of that one whole, which is Ishwara. Ishwara contains both the individual soul, called Jeevatma, and the world, which seemingly does not have consciousness. So the waking state is also real. The dream state is also real. And the deep sleep state is also real. No state is unreal. That is why it is called Visishta Advaita - Advaita with certain parameters, not one, but one in three, three in one.

These are all opinions, but some of the arguments given are marvellous in Advaita Vedanta. In fact, whether it is Visishtadvaita or Advaita, these are all philosophical views. In other words, this is called a world view - how one views the world. Is it real? If it is real, there must be a cause. Is it unreal? Even to say something is unreal, there must be a substratum for the unreality to be experienced. We require a very sharp intellect to make this distinction.

If anybody says, "I see a snake," later on, it proves to be there is no snake at all. But I have mistaken something else. In this case, it happens to be a rope. But there is a causal relationship. If there had been no rope, there would not have been any snake at all. But let us also not think that the snake is the only example. A rope can appear as a snake, as a garland, as a streak of water, or even as a crack in the earth. Or if somebody has a better imagination, he can think of anything else.

So suppose a Frenchman - just now I made it up - while bicycling, they will have a huge bread. It will be at least half a yard long. And they go on munching with one hand. So the fellow may be hungry, fond of this kind of bread. By the way, German bread is very hard. Indians always prefer very soft, sweet bread, etc. Germans are very hardy people. What we mistake something to be depends on what we imagine.

Another example is just for our enjoyment. A man was walking in quite a bit of darkness, not merely semi-darkness but quite an advanced darkness. Still, something can be seen. So a drunkard was walking. He saw, and then, "Oh, I am much better. At least I am able to walk. This fellow is unable to walk." And then a thief is walking. "Oh, I think the policeman got the news. They are waiting for me with a stick." And a lover is going. "My beloved could not wait for me at the appointed place. So he is waiting for me right on the way." Only a person who knows all these things goes near and then finds it is nothing but a stump of a tree. So imagination.

Whatever we imagine, either we are frightened or we like it very much. We can mistake many things, and that is what everyday experience is. Just to add a bit of spice, suppose somebody is very fond of fried things, like pakoda, for example, and he is going by the street, and the smell comes, a peculiar smell associated with pakodas. And he thinks pakodas are being made. He may be completely wrong. It may be some other thing being fried, nothing to do with pakodas. But that is how our imagination works. Especially marriage works only with imagination. When imagination is removed, marriage breaks down. So better keep some imagination, kalpana, then everything will be swarga loka. The whole swarga loka is nothing but pure imagination. Many times we see, I can't stop myself from recollecting these things, when swarga loka, Rambha, Urvashi, Tilottama are there, Indra gets disgusted, comes to Bhuloka to see some other woman. We are dreaming of swarga loka, and swarga lokavasi is dreaming of Bhuloka. What a contrast it is. Anyway, what is the point? There is no world at all. It is all unreal. Now we are experiencing it.

So the whole debate, if we have to squeeze the essence of all the four prakaranas, according to Advaita Vedanta, what is the essence? That there is no world. That means there is no bondage. That means there is no jeeva. That means there is no sadhaka. That means there is no siddhi. That means there is no guru. There is no disciple. There is no God. There is no sadhana. Nothing. This is what in the second chapter, Vaitatya Prakarana, 32nd karika, I think. In that shloka, karika, Gaudapada summarizes. All these arguments that follow in the third prakarana, and now also the fourth prakarana, and most of the fourth prakarana, is a rehashing, as we call it, of the earlier prakaranas. But the essence is this. Is this world satyam or mithya? And it is mithya. It is not satyam.

So I am reminding you of some of the basic arguments. Whatever is changing, that is mithya. Whatever never changes, that means beyond time, that is called satyam. Trikala abadhitam satyam. Trikala badhitam mithya. Mithya means, under the subjugation of time, there is a past, there is a present, and there is a future. Time means changing. So whatever we may experience, if it is changing, it is mithya. For example, a person sees a snake. He gets frightened naturally, so long as he knows it is a real serpent. But when light is brought up, he understands there is no snake at all. With that, all the effects of the mithyatva are gone.

The point here is, our seeing the snake has a beginning, and it continues for some time. How long? Until the light is brought up. And then we perceive the substratum. Once we perceive the substratum, then the changeful thing comes to an end because the substratum never changes. Relatively speaking, the rope, as an example, is satyam. No change is there. But really speaking, the rope is also made up of fibers, and fibers are made up of some basic raw materials from some plants. The plants have their own birth, growth, death, etc. Then pancha bhutas are the cause. Pancha bhutas are always changing. When pancha bhutas are changing, there must be a substratum. That substratum is Atman. What is Atman? Pure consciousness. What is pure consciousness? Awareness. That I am lighting up. There is a pancha bhuta. There is a mango tree. There is a person. Unless I cognize, and that cognizer can cognize only because of the endowment of pure consciousness or awareness, and without that power of cognition, a person will not be able to cognize anything. Everything depends upon our cognition.

Ultimately, we are cognizing the waking state, dream state, as well as the dreamless state continuously. How do we know we are cognizing the dreamless state? Simple. We are, for some time, in the waking state. So the waking state has a beginning. When does it begin? When the deep sleep comes to an end. When does it end? When our dream state starts. The dream state continues, and then the dream state ends. How do we know? We don't dream anymore. So we go into the deep sleep state, and then the deep sleep has a beginning. And then there is an end. So there is an end of something, there is a beginning of something. This continuous Brahma Chakra is going on all the time.

Whatever is changing is called Mithya. Not non-existence, but Mithya. How do we know that it is changing? There is a changeless witness called Consciousness. That changeless Consciousness must be changeless because, to cognize change, there must be an unchanging power of cognition. This is the entire Advaita Vedanta Vada. Ultimately, pure Consciousness. Pure Consciousness doesn't have a beginning. If it had a beginning, there must be some other Consciousness witnessing a beginning, continuation, and end. By this time, we should understand that the waking state starts, and the deep sleep state ends. When the dream state starts, the waking state comes to an end. When the deep sleep starts, the dream state comes to an end. Again, when the deep sleep state ends, the waking state starts. And I, the continuous witness, am witnessing the beginning, the end of any number of states—whether it's 3 or 300, it doesn't matter.

Now, what is the point? The point is, we are witnessing everything changing. I was born, then my body was changing, my mind is also changing, and death will come. We all know there is no fool on this earth who says, "I will be deathless." Everybody knows, sooner or later, death will come, and then things change. Sometimes I am happy, sometimes I am not happy. Sometimes I exist, sometimes I do not exist. That is to say, sometimes I am manifest, sometimes I am not manifest. So, everything is changing. This fact of changing is everybody's experience. Nobody can say, "I don't see any change," unless the person is dead. This is the main argument of Gaudapadacharya, nicely presented in the second Prakaranam called Vaithathya Prakaranam. Tathya means truth, Vaithathya, Vithathya, that is untruth, Mithya.

Bhagavan Buddha was called Tathagata. Tatha, that word came from this Tathya. Tathya means satya. That happened. So, he became enlightened; he became awakened. That is why he is called Buddha. Buddha means an awakened person. Tathagata means he reached that state of realization, Aham Brahmasmi. Call it Brahman, call it shunyam, call it nirvana; it doesn't matter. This is what has been. Gaudapada presented it. Representation is not a defect because, until we are convinced, everything is changing, and nobody likes a change. This is something extraordinary, a psychological fact. If I love somebody, somebody loves me; I never want to commit to change it. Change is stopping loving, and somebody else stops loving me. I was happy, and now I am not happy. I don't like this state, but so long as this continues, I have to accept the fact. Even when I accept, my heart doesn't accept. I want to be continuously in a state of happiness. I was healthy, and now I am not healthy. I was young, and now I am old. Many things are changing. Change is not welcomed by any one of us, but one type of change is welcomed eagerly. When I am unhappy, I definitely want a change to this state of happiness. When I am unhealthy, I definitely want to be healthy. When I am ignorant, I definitely want to be knowledgeable. There is something called better, and that betterness is always welcome. But if things are normally changing, this betterness also will become bitterness one day, and it will definitely change. This is the essence of not only what we discussed but what we are going to discuss. In our last class, we dealt with what is called two Karikas, the 34th and 35th.

What is it? Just very briefly, just to recollect for our memory. Perhaps a person is dreaming. This is a dream example. And he has gone to a distant country. It doesn't take a long time in a dream because from the waking point of view, the time measurement in the dream is very short. One can go to America, Australia, hopefully not to Canada or to Mars within a few seconds, twinkling of an eye. When we wake up, not in the dream. In the dream, nothing is unnatural. When we wake up, what we have experienced in the dream is not rational, unreasonable because he has gone to America, Australia, and came back. But Pratibuddhashya, as soon as he wakes up, enters into the waking state. Sarvaha, anybody who is dreaming, Tasmeendeshe, the countries he visited and where somebody had woken him up or somebody slapped him in America and he wakes up. He doesn't find himself in America, fortunately for the other person. This is what we have discussed. That is, time and space, they do not reflect our experience of time and space in the waking state.

And then the next, 35th,

मित्राद्यैः सह संमन्त्र्य संबुद्धौ न प्रपद्यते ।

गृहीतं चापि यत्किंचित् प्रतिबुद्धो न पश्यति ॥ ३५ ॥

mitrādyaiḥ saha saṃmantrya saṃbuddhau na prapadyate |

gṛhītaṃ cāpi yatkiṃcit pratibuddho na paśyati || 35 ||

35. The dreamer on being awake, realises as illusory all the conversation he had had with friends, etc., during the dream state. Further, he does not possess, in the waking state, anything which he had acquired in dream.

He is a waking person. And he just woke up from what? From the dream state. And then what did he see in the dream state? He went and then had a nice time, quality time with his friends. It could be next door, next country, Mars, anywhere. Mitra Adhyayasaha Friends, what is Adhya? It could be inimical also. So they also had a quarrel there. A fellow who had quarreled in the waking state with his neighbor and he is still raging with him and he goes to dream state and there also there is a possibility he and the other fellow are still continuing the shouting match. So, Saha, Sambandhriya had a beautiful time or worst time. Sambuddhau and as soon as the person wakes up, he does not see his friends there and then his friends also never recollect we have met anywhere. Naprapadyate It is not possible. Not only that. And when you are coming back after meeting your friends and out of love they give you something and you are very happy to bring it back as a loving token. And then when you wake up, you don't see that token at all. Pratibuddhaha Grihetanchapi Napashyate This is what we have discussed in our last class just for our recollection. Now we will proceed further.

And it the argument goes in a similar way. So, it should not be difficult. But some of the most marvellous deeply penetrating reasonings are given which I find extraordinarily enlightening. That is what I will underline, highlight when we are looking.

36th Karika

स्वप्ने चावस्तुकः कायः पृथगन्यस्य दर्शनात् ।

यथा कायस्तथा सर्वं चित्तदृश्यमवस्तुकम् ॥ ३६ ॥

svapne cāvastukaḥ kāyaḥ pṛthaganyasya darśanāt |

yathā kāyastathā sarvaṃ cittadṛśyamavastukam || 36 ||

36. The body active in dream is unreal as the other body, quite distinct from it, is perceived. Like the body, everything, cognised by the mind, is unreal.

The body which is active in a dream as soon as we wake up. So we perceive that dream body as unreal because as the other body, that is to say, as soon as we wake up, we find ourselves exactly where we were lying down before we started dreaming, quite distinct. So the body which was very active in the dream state was quite different. And this body, which is lying like a log or a corpse, is quite distinct from it. And that is what we see when we are lying down. So you go somewhere, but you don't see yourself somewhere upon waking up. Like the body, that means like our experience of the waking body, and dreamer's body from the waking point of view, everything that is experienced by the mind in the dream state is unreal. I want to give this analogy just like that; the same thing happens when we end this waking state and go into the dream state so we don't see this waking state as real. For the dreamer, the waking world is unreal just as for the waker, the dream experience is unreal. So upon waking up, we perhaps can remember some of our dream experiences and then we look into that and say, "that is all unreal, whatever happened.

So you met somebody whom you love and you won a lottery ticket, and then you are very happy. I am very happy if you can dream such things. At least I don't need to see your castor oil face in the waking state. At least for some time, you are made happy, at least in your dream, and that is why the stupid fellows go on singing 'dream girl,' 'waking state girl' never gives them happiness; only 'dream boy,' 'dream girl,' they only give happiness, at least for some time. Let them be happy. So this is what Gaudapada is telling: the body which is active so long as the dream lasts can be clearly perceived as unreal when not in the dream, but as the other body. What is the other body? Waker's body and dreamer's body are compared here. So the waker's body will be in the waking world, in the same place, on the same cot, with the same family members, etc. It is quite distinct when it is perceived. Like the body, the body is only an example; everything that we experience in the mind is unreal.

So what is the significance of this chapter? This is what Shankaracharya sums up: that even the waking experiences, on account of their being similar to the dream experiences, are unreal. And Anandagiri's take is extraordinarily enlightening to grasp the subtleties of these arguments. What I just now explained is a very gross meaning, and Anandagiri explains: the body which is active in the waking state is lying motionless in the bed, but when the dreamer perceives that he is wandering at various places, so the dreamer's body is moving from place to place, maybe went on a holiday and taken a camera hanging around his neck, and he is taking every photograph. That body is totally different. When he suddenly wakes up from the dream, he finds exactly where his dream began in the waking state. Therefore, from the standpoint of the waking state, this dream body is unreal. This is very important for us to understand. So long as we are dreaming, the dream state is absolutely real, just like the waking state.

Similarly, from the standpoint of the ultimate reality, why do we all feel dream when we wake up from the dream? It is all unreal, unsubstantial, mere what is called imaginations, but we never lose that sense that what we see in the waking state is unreal. We don't see that. Why don't we see that? Because there is a long-standing argument, which I will recollect for you. We have discussed it in earlier chapters. What is it? One of the opponents says, 'Look, you cannot compare dream and waking state.' And we ask, 'Why not?' Why? Because when you are dreaming, every day the dream is different. In the same night, also, one day you see you are in America, and another day, that is the dream's day, not waking day, so you find yourself in Australia or Canada or anywhere else, even the neighbourhood, it doesn't matter. But you are thinking it is all real so long as you are in the dream. But every day you may have any number of dreams; as soon as you wake up, you find exactly the same house, same place, same family members, same boring job, same thundering perhaps. Nothing changes. You see, dream is changing; waking is not changing. This is the argument. Then what was the answer? The first answer given was, 'Sir, when you are in the waking state, do you ever pause and ask, 'Yesterday I found myself in another house, in another bed, but today I am finding myself in another house, another bed?' Do you ever question yourself? Absolutely you take for granted, forever from your very birth, you have been in the same house. Wherever you find, even every two minutes if your dream changes, you will never question that you are exactly in the right place with the right persons, with the right everything. It is absolutely real because you consider it as real. The question that something has changed, that question will not come. I hope you are getting what I am driving at. What is it that we call real? That which never changes is real. This dream state, that everything is changing, that experience we never have. When do we have that experience? Upon waking up. 'Oh, yesterday's dream I saw myself in Pune, and today's dream I found myself in Bangalore.' You never question this one upon waking up. But this question doesn't arise in the same way. This is the first answer.

The second answer, even more interesting. Supposing a person, for whatever reason, has exactly the same dream repeated. He finds himself from the waking state in the same house with the same people. Suppose the dream never changes; now you will have a terrible problem. So there, the boss is so dear, the wife is so endearing, and your children are the greatest children in the world. Everything is absolutely swargaloka there. And so, is that real, or is this real?

In this connection, recollect that beautiful story several times I repeated. There was a king, and he went to bed after eating royal food, a royal dinner. He went to sleep, he had a dream, and he found that the neighbouring king had invaded his kingdom. This king lost the battle, and the other king was chasing him. So this king ran and ran for two days, and then he found himself in a village in the next kingdom where, of course, the enemy king could not pursue. He had no right to enter another country. So this fellow, terribly hungry, dream hunger because he has been running in the dream for two and a half days or three days. So he entered into a village, he found somebody was feeding poor people. He also stood in the queue because a driven-out king is none other than a poor man. And then, when his turn came, the whole food was finished, and there was nobody left out behind him. And then, when he reached the server, said, 'Sir, I am so terribly sorry, the food is exhausted.' Then this so-called king, now no more a king, lost his kingdom, so he was a beggar. He looked into the pot, saw something, what is called glued at the bottom, burnt-out food. 'You give me that food, I don't care, I am so hungry.' So the other person took pity upon him, scooped up a good lot, and then put it, I have to add a bit of masala mine, supposing that food is prepared with first-class cow's ghee, I think, 'What is at the bottom?' The person who gets it is the luckiest person in the whole world. You have seen so many times, the last remnant, you are trying to scoop up with your big finger, thumb, and that tastes heavenly. So this person scooped up, gave it in a leaf plate, and as the king was about to swallow it, a big bird came from the sky, and it wanted to take it away, but unfortunately, it fell into the dust, and it could no more be eaten. At that time, at the same time, that former person who lost his kingdom woke up, and then it was so real what he saw. Waking up state and where his dream ended, waking up state started. He could not still distinguish, so he started shouting, 'Is this real? Is that real?' The queen got up, the ministers came, and this went on for three days. The king was only asking, 'Now he is the king, because it was only a dream, and then, is that real, or is this real?

Fortunately, a great rishi happened to be passing by, and the ministers got the news. They brought him to the king, who cried out, 'Is that real? Or is this real?' The sage replied, 'Oh, king, neither that is real nor this is real. You alone, the experiencer of what you call the dream state and the waking state, both are unreal. You, who is the experiencer alone, is the reality.' What a marvelous story!

So, when we are in the dream state, that is real. When we are in the waking state, that is real. Which is the reality? If we are intelligent, we will not know this. The same doubt will come: 'Was that real, or is this real?' And this is what Sai Ramakrishna illustrates beautifully.

Whether he heard it from somebody, I will just briefly remind you. There was a farmer who was a gnani and had only one son. One day, the son died while he was working in the fields. Someone came and informed him. He hurried home, saw his only son lying dead, and he was not shedding any tears. His wife got terribly angry, saying, 'What type of person are you? Your only son died, and there is not one tear in your eye.' The farmer, being a gnani, replied, 'Yesterday, I had a dream. I was a king with not one but seven beautiful princesses. Then I woke up, and my kingdom was gone, my kinghood was gone, my beautiful wife was gone. I did not weep then, and now my children are all gone—intelligent, beautiful, extraordinarily endowed children. Now, shall I weep for those seven children whom I have lost, or shall I weep for this one son?' A lot of masala can be added to this story because he was a gnani. Both the dream and waking state are equally unreal; there is no difference at all.

But for our consolation, Shankaracharya says, or Anandagiri adds, that from the standpoint of ultimate reality, the waking state appears to be unreal. But really, even from our point of view, what is the definition of unreality? Whatever is changing is unreal. First, try to fix in our minds this truth—what is changing should be considered as the definition of unreality.

I was born long back, lived nearly 80 years, and I am looking forward. I don't know when Shiva will give Moksha; he is delaying, dilly-dallying like our central government with all our appeals for funds and donations. Anyway, we think this waking state is real. But, no, if we are intelligent, if we analyze the dream state and compare it to the waking state, the waking state is absolutely as unreal because things are different in the dream, and things are different in the waking state. We don't need to wait for that ultimate realization. This is what Gaudapada wants to drive into us.

So, why all this? Why is this world unreal? He says, from the standpoint of ultimate reality, the body perceived in the waking state, whether honored or insulted, is also unreal. How is it unreal? Because this body is also an idea in the mind of the perceiver. The body is an idea because it is a beautiful body, but who says? The mind says. However, there may be people who consider this very body as the ugliest in the world, or some might consider this body the tastiest in the hands of a cannibal. What a marvelous thing!

As dream objects are unreal on account of being perceived by the mind (the first argument we have discussed: whatever is changing, and who is observing the change? It is the mind), even when we observe, do two people perceive any object exactly in the same way? Absolutely not. At least, do we perceive the same object exactly in the same way? We may consider a person a friend for some time, then a deadliest enemy at other times. We are also changing our opinion about every object. The same object is a deer at one point; the same object we feel like killing or murdering at some other point of view. Our perception is absolutely unreliable.

Ananda Tirtha gives a beautiful example, and Ananda Giri provides the first argument: whatever is perceived is changing, and change is perceived by the mind. Time, space, and causation are characteristics of the mind. Therefore, whatever the mind observes, whether in the dream state or dreamless state, is unreal. For that matter, if you have a vision of God and the mind perceives the vision, that is also unreal.

There is a beautiful story about a great soul named Krishna Premi, a devoted sadhu of Krishna. Once, he met Ramana Maharshi, and having had several visions of Krishna, he eagerly shared his experiences with Ramana Bhagwan. Ramana Bhagwan, however, responded by looking above his head and through his head. At the end of the narration, Ramana Maharshi remarked, 'Whatever comes also will go.'

Disheartened by this remark, Krishna Premi returned home to his ashram in North India, perhaps Pune or Meerut. Interestingly, all his visions started to fade away, and he never had any visions again. He eventually understood the significance of Ramana Maharshi's remark: whatever comes will go, and whatever is perceived by the changing mind is unreal.

Moving on to the 37th point,

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 a dream is similar to the experience of objects in the waking state, we all tend to think that waking experiences cause dream experiences. This is why waking experiences seem real to the dreamer alone but not to others.

This verse challenges our understanding. Why do we perceive dream experiences as real? The primary reason is that dreams arise from our waking state experiences, which we never consider unreal. The concept of reality from the waking state seamlessly extends into the dream state. The subtlety of this argument lies in the causal relationship.

Consider cause and effect: if milk turns into curds, milk is the cause, and curds are the effect. The material of the cause determines the nature of the effect. Applying this to the waking state, if we consider it real, we must also consider the dream state as real. Why? Because the waking state is the cause that produces the dream state. There is a causal relationship between the waking and dream states. If the waking state is real, the dream state can't be considered unreal. However, while dreaming, we have no doubt that what we experience is absolutely real. How do we know it is real?

Another point we have to consider, although I have discussed this many times, is how we determine something to be real. I am repeating this because it's crucial. How do we know something is real? We infer the reality of something based on our reaction.

For example, imagine you are watching a cinema. On the screen, you see invaluable diamonds and gems, including the Kohinoor diamond on the crown in the UK. Do you run to grab it? No. Similarly, if you see a beautiful dish in a restaurant on the cinema screen, do you rush to order and eat it? No. Why? Because you are fully aware that this is only seemingly real, not really real. This illustration helps us understand the causal relationship. If we think the waking state is real, then the dream state must also be considered real.

However, what happens when we wake up? We declare the dream as unreal. This is the crux of the argument. This leads us to the second argument: just as upon waking up, which is a change from the dream state to the waking state, we consider what we experienced in the dream state as unreal because it bears no resemblance to the waking state. Similarly, when we are in the dream state, the waking state is also nullified. Just as we consider the dream unreal upon waking up, we consider the waking state unreal while in the dream state. Both do not tally.

We don't need to wait for the ultimate reality. Sometimes we wonder how we came to America when yesterday we were in Bangalore. But we don't deeply ponder that thought. Questions also arise, such as thinking we failed an exam, only to find out later that we passed. Today, we have established this deeper thought: the dream is unreal upon waking up, and similarly, the waking state is unreal when we are in the dream state.

Comparatively, one makes the other unreal. However, there is a deeper point, a concept of reality, and that is what we will discuss in our next class.