Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Kama (lovely things) in this passage means sons, &c., that are so called because they are beloved. — But may not the term 'kama,^' denote desires merely? — No, we reply; the word kama is here used with reference to sons, &c. ; for those form the general subject of discussion, as we see from some preceding passages, ' Choose sons and grandsons,' &c., and 'I make thee the enjoyer of all kamas' (Ka. Up. I, I, 23 ; 24). — And that that shaper is the highest Self (prAgna.) we infer from the general subject-matter and from the complementary sentence. That the highest Self is the general subject-matter appears from II, 14, ' That which thou seest as neither this nor that.' And to that highest Self there also refers the complementary sentence II, 5, 8, 'That indeed is the Bright, that is Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond.' — Now it is admitted that the world (creation) of our waking state of which the highest Self (pra^wa) is the maker is real ; hence the world of our dreaming state must likewise be real. That the same reasoning applies to the waking and the sleeping state a scriptural passage also declares, 'Here they say: No, this is the same as the place of waking, for what he sees while awake the same he sees while asleep' (Brt. Up. IV, 3, 14). — Hence the world of dreams is real. — To this we reply as follows.
23. But it (viz. the dream world) is mere illusion (maya), on account of its nature not manifesting itself with the totality (of the attributes of reality). The word 'but' discards the purvapaksha. It is not true that the world of dreams is real ; it is mere illusion and there is not a particle of reality in it. — Why? — 'On account of its nature not manifesting itself with the totality,' i.e. because the nature of the dream world does not manifest itself with the totality of the attributes of real things. — What then do you mean by the ' totality ' ? — The fulfilment of the conditions of place, time, and cause, and the circumstance of non-refutation. All these have their sphere in real things, but cannot be applied to dreams. In the first place there is, in a dream, no space for chariots and the like ; for Ill ADIIYAYA, 2 PADA, 3. 1 35
3those cannot possibly find room in the limited confines of the body. — Well, but why should not the dreaming person see the objects of his dream outside of his body ? He does as a matter of fact perceive things as separated from himself by space; and 6Vuti, moreover, declares that the dream is outside the body,' Away from the nest the Immortal moves; that immortal one goes wherever he likes ' (Brz. Up. IV, 3, 12). And this distinction of the conceptions of staying and going would have no good sense if the being (the soul) did not really go out. — What you maintain is inadmissible, we reply. A sleeping being cannot possibly possess the power to go and return in a moment the distance of a hundred yo^anas. Sometimes, moreover, a person recounts a dream in which he went to some place without returning from it, ' Lying on my bed in the land of the Kurus I was overcome by sleep and went in my dream to the country of the Pa;}>^alas, and being there I awoke.' If, now, that person had really gone out of his country, he would on waking find himself in the country of the Pa/7/^alas to which he had gone in his dream ; but as a matter of fact he awakes in the country of the Kurus. — Moreover, while a man imagines himself in his dream going, in his body, to another place, the bystanders see that very same body lying on the couch. Further, a dreaming person does not see, in his dream, other places such as they really are. But if he in seeing them did actually go about, they would appear to him like the things he sees in his waking state. vSruti, moreover, declares that the dream is within the body, cp. the passage beginning 'But when he moves about in dream,' and terminating ' He moves about, according to his pleasure, within his own body' (Br/. Up. II, i, 18). Hence the passage about the dreamer moving away from his nest must be taken in a metaphorical sense, as otherwise we should contradict scripture as well as reason ; he who while remaining within his own body does not use it for any purpose may be said to be outside the body as it were. The difference of the ideas of staying within the body and going outside must, therefore, be viewed as a mere deception. — In the second place we see that dreams are in conflict with
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Kama (lovely things) in this passage means sons, &c., that are so called because they are beloved. — But may not the term 'kama,^' denote desires merely? — No, we reply; the word kama is here used with reference to sons, &c. ; for those form the general subject of discussion, as we see from some preceding passages, ' Choose sons and grandsons,' &c., and 'I make thee the enjoyer of all kamas' (Ka. Up. I, I, 23 ; 24). — And that that shaper is the highest Self (prAgna.) we infer from the general subject-matter and from the complementary sentence. That the highest Self is the general subject-matter appears from II, 14, ' That which thou seest as neither this nor that.' And to that highest Self there also refers the complementary sentence II, 5, 8, 'That indeed is the Bright, that is Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond.' — Now it is admitted that the world (creation) of our waking state of which the highest Self (pra^wa) is the maker is real ; hence the world of our dreaming state must likewise be real. That the same reasoning applies to the waking and the sleeping state a scriptural passage also declares, 'Here they say: No, this is the same as the place of waking, for what he sees while awake the same he sees while asleep' (Brt. Up. IV, 3, 14). — Hence the world of dreams is real. — To this we reply as follows.
23. But it (viz. the dream world) is mere illusion (maya), on account of its nature not manifesting itself with the totality (of the attributes of reality). The word 'but' discards the purvapaksha. It is not true that the world of dreams is real ; it is mere illusion and there is not a particle of reality in it. — Why? — 'On account of its nature not manifesting itself with the totality,' i.e. because the nature of the dream world does not manifest itself with the totality of the attributes of real things. — What then do you mean by the ' totality ' ? — The fulfilment of the conditions of place, time, and cause, and the circumstance of non-refutation. All these have their sphere in real things, but cannot be applied to dreams. In the first place there is, in a dream, no space for chariots and the like ; for Ill ADIIYAYA, 2 PADA, 3. 1 35
3those cannot possibly find room in the limited confines of the body. — Well, but why should not the dreaming person see the objects of his dream outside of his body ? He does as a matter of fact perceive things as separated from himself by space; and 6Vuti, moreover, declares that the dream is outside the body,' Away from the nest the Immortal moves; that immortal one goes wherever he likes ' (Brz. Up. IV, 3, 12). And this distinction of the conceptions of staying and going would have no good sense if the being (the soul) did not really go out. — What you maintain is inadmissible, we reply. A sleeping being cannot possibly possess the power to go and return in a moment the distance of a hundred yo^anas. Sometimes, moreover, a person recounts a dream in which he went to some place without returning from it, ' Lying on my bed in the land of the Kurus I was overcome by sleep and went in my dream to the country of the Pa;}>^alas, and being there I awoke.' If, now, that person had really gone out of his country, he would on waking find himself in the country of the Pa/7/^alas to which he had gone in his dream ; but as a matter of fact he awakes in the country of the Kurus. — Moreover, while a man imagines himself in his dream going, in his body, to another place, the bystanders see that very same body lying on the couch. Further, a dreaming person does not see, in his dream, other places such as they really are. But if he in seeing them did actually go about, they would appear to him like the things he sees in his waking state. vSruti, moreover, declares that the dream is within the body, cp. the passage beginning 'But when he moves about in dream,' and terminating ' He moves about, according to his pleasure, within his own body' (Br/. Up. II, i, 18). Hence the passage about the dreamer moving away from his nest must be taken in a metaphorical sense, as otherwise we should contradict scripture as well as reason ; he who while remaining within his own body does not use it for any purpose may be said to be outside the body as it were. The difference of the ideas of staying within the body and going outside must, therefore, be viewed as a mere deception. — In the second place we see that dreams are in conflict with
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.