Why the same dream?

Greg Goode goode at DPW.COM
Tue Nov 25 15:41:56 CST 1997

At 07:08 PM 11/25/97 +0100, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Nov Greg Goode wrote,
>        >I would SLIGHTLY re-phrase Pat's reply to remove the sting of
>        I'd say:
>        >      "it is in THE dream that all the rest of us are having the
>        dream."
>I will sum up and expand the re-phrased Thesis D as stated by Greg:

[...summation deleted...]

>Did I got it right?

Pretty good!!

>I must admit that this re-phrased Thesis impressed me a lot, for its
>simplicity (that is something I like) and thus also for by its beauty. I
>must also reckon that it is irrefutable. It can^Òt be proved wrong.
>However, once you take this position, you must also take its consequences.
>And it is here I find the problem.
>If there is only one dream, only one point of consciousness, what follows?
>1.  There is only one thing that is absolutely sure for me: I am conscious.

Yes, but what is the *I*?  If it's Brahman, then what's wrong with the

>I may not be sure of what I am, or of what I perceive, or of anything else,
>but I can never deny that I am and I know it. So this my consciousness is a
>fact, not a quixotical dream.

With the *my* there, you've now got an owner and an owned, e.g., *me*, and
then *my consciousness*.

>It is the only real experience so far. The
>necessary starting point for any other statement.

How about something shorter than "I am conscious"?  How about "I am"?  Or
"I"?  Or "am"?  Or "is-ness"?

>Because if I am not
>conscious I cannot begin to state or deny anything else.

You really needn't worry about proving whether you are conscious or not.
Any effort either to confirm or deny it will result in its confirmation.

>But if you say
>that there is only one point of consciousness, only one dreaming, then it
>is Mine.  I can never say that the one dreaming is someone else^Òs. That just
>cannot be held.

Why not?  By capitalizing "Mine," you are speaking from the standpoint of
the Absolute.  This is not just another anthropomorphic entity -- it is the
unseen seer, without personal attributes.  It is the Only thing that is
truly real.  To say this is not to assert solipsism.  To say that the
Absolute is the only source and substance of consciousness is not
solipsism.  The Absolute can never be accused of solipsism!

> If the only point of consciousness, the only dreaming is
>the Universal Mind^Òs, then my dreaming is that One Dreaming. So here again
>we have solipcism.

Not at all.  Only if you "steal" concepts from a personal entity and
attribute them to the Absolute.  Left to itself, the Absolute doesn't worry
about individuals' minds or whether it is

>2.  If there is only one dream, only one life, only one point of
>consciousness, then there is also only one delusion, only one
>enlightenment, only one awakening for the one dreaming. When does it occur?

Why think that life, death, phenomenal points of consciousness, delusion,
and events of enlightenment are any more real than anything else?  Ramana
Maharshi said that none of these exist, and so does the Gaudapada Karika:

    (2.32) There is neither dissolution, nor birth;
           neither anyone in bondage, nor any aspirant
           for wisdom; neither can there be any seeker
           for liberation, nor any liberated as such.
           This alone is the Supreme Truth.

To this I can't add anything.  I bow before the wisdom of Sri Gaudapada!!


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list