Why the same dream?

Miguel Angel Carrasco nisargadata at MX3.REDESTB.ES
Tue Dec 2 14:16:14 CST 1997

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997 Greg Goode wrote:

        >At 09:06 PM 11/27/97 +0100, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

        >>The attacks to this position (which I have no particular interest in
defending), come mainly from those that say that there are no different
dreams, that it is all in the same dream watched by the same dreamer.From
this would logically follow that not only there is one Consciousness
(which nobody debates), but also only one point of consciousness, only one
experiencing centre (which is not the same). That is what, fool that I am,
I do not yet understand.>>
        >You can find a lot of material to support the
many-organisms/many-points-of consciousness view.  Often, this occurs in
the same text as the only-One Consciousness view.  So what?  Just go with
what is comfortable for you, that is why the variety exists in Sruti --
something for everyone to grab onto.>

I liked this a lot. I was a bit troubled sometimes at seeing apparently
contradictory statements in the Upanishads. Your comment clarifies that.

>The One Consciousness view is tied to the ajata-vada or non-creation view
of the world, just as the many organisms/many world-views theory is tied to
one of the various creation theories.>

Dear Greg, I never said I believed there ever was a creation. If by
creation we mean the production of something new, of a new being, then that
is for me a metaphysical impossibility. Not just a factual non-event, I go
beyond that : God just cannot create anything. Because there simply cannot
be God plus something else. I have said more than once that I think there
is only The One. Stop. And no other assertion I might make is to be
understood as contradicting this one fundamental idea. Ever. Sorry if I
might appear some time to contradict this, maybe my English is far from
good enough.

But this does not imply that Consciousness is necessarily at rest. It can
be active. It can imagine (I repeat, imagine, not create) the World, the
not-I, whereby there appears in Consciousness the sense I-am, and with it
the duality Subject-Object. Once again: not a real duality, but one
imagined by Consciousness.  As Nisargadatta said many times: ^ÓThe world can
be said to appear, but not to be^Ô. But once the world appears in
Consciousness, experiencing and self-knowledge begin. As Ramesh Balsekar
said: ^ÓConsciousness can be conscious of itself only so long a it has
manifested itself in a phenomenal form, a body, whether it is that of an
insect, or a worm, or an animal, or a human being. Without the body, in
unmanifested state, consciousness is not conscious of itself.^Ô (Pointers,
page 180-1)

This is not dualism, nor creationism. Because the experiencing is just a
partial, imaginary projection of the experiencer onto itself.  A + A = A.
I think so far there may be agreement.

The problem starts in the experiencing. Let´s remember again that properly
speaking, there is no duality observer / observed, just observation,
functioning of Consciousness, so no creation. And that functioning becomes
embodied, so to speak, immersed not in a real human (or otherwise) being,
but in an imagined (not created) body-mind, as Balsekar said. OK? And he
continues : ^ÓConsciousness in order to manifest itself needs physical forms
for its functioning and is constantly creating new forms and destroying old
forms.^Ô  (Pointers, p. 183)

So the apparent manifestation of Nirguna (onto Itself) is the many
imaginary forms, and in those imagined forms Consciousness  becomes
conscious of Itself as the Witness, the I. No objects, no subject. No
subject, no self-conscious Consciousness. OK?

But the forms are different (not real, imagined, so no real dualism). And
from different forms results different experiences (nor real, imagined).

^ÓThere are millions of psychosomatic forms but no two forms are exactly
alike in all respects [...] Consciousness acts through the physical bodies,
each of which has its own temperament and character.^Ô  (Pointers, p. 182)

^ÓConsciousness, limited by the confines of the physical form and not
finding any other support, deludes itself into an identification with the
particular body and thus creates a pseudo-entity^Ô.  (Pointers, p. 183)

Of course, there are no plurality of observers. But identification with a
particular (imagined, not real, so uncreated) body results in different
imagined unreal uncreated egos. These egos can be said to be just dreams,
particular dreams, individual delusions. Not because there is such a thing
as an individuum. There is not. But because the dreams, the egos are
anchored in different (imagined, not real) body-minds. So different dreams.

Unluckily, Sankara´s dream was not my (Miguel Angel´s) dream. I wish it
were not like this. I wish there was only one dream, only one universal
experiencing. Then I would cease to feel any responsibility for this my
particular dream. But, to my knowledge, there has not ever been a sage who
has not insisted on the disciples´ responsibility, earnestness, sadhana or
whatever you call it. If I (that is, Consciounsness in this particular
imagined body-mind) should do something to realize that my dream is just a
dream and my ego is non-existent, that means that this my dream is not the
universal dream. What a relief if it were not so! Please just convince me,
I am only too willing.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list