Why the same dream?

Miguel Angel Carrasco nisargadata at MX3.REDESTB.ES
Tue Nov 25 12:08:04 CST 1997

On Mon, 24 Nov Greg Goode wrote,

        >I would SLIGHTLY re-phrase Pat's reply to remove the sting of solipsism.
        I'd say:
        >      "it is in THE dream that all the rest of us are having the same

I will sum up and expand the re-phrased Thesis D as stated by Greg:

The plurality of dreamers is imagined (in this, this position agrees with
Thesis C). But not only the dreamer is one, also the dream (this is unique
to Thesis D). The many dreams is something not only temporary but
fictional, a part of the one dream. One dreamer dreaming that It has many
dreams. The contents of the one dream is imaginary, and the contents of the
many dreams within the one dream are thus doubly imaginary. Although the
one dreaming (the whole of the manifestation) can be said to be unreal (not
permanent, not immutable, not independent), yet it has a provisional
reality: there is indeed a manifestation, however misunderstood: it is
there while it lasts. But this provisional, temporary reality is quite
absent in the contents of the many dreams, which just do not exist at all.
It would be a little like the ontological difference between Cervante and
Don Quixote. Cervantes (in our relative vew) is real but only
provisionally, temporarily. While Don Quixote never existed at all. There
never was any consciousness in him. He was absolutely fictional, not just
transient, dependent and relative.

And this Thesis D would not be a case of solipcism (which states that only
this my consciousness exists) because the one dream is not my individual
dream but the Universal Mind^Òs. Did I got it right?

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.
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. It is the only real experience so far. The
necessary starting point for any other statement. Because if I am not
conscious I cannot begin to state or deny anything else. 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. 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. Which is philosophically unassailable, agreed, but I
just do not like it. You can take it up, but I will not.

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?
At the point in the dream where it shows Shamkara^Òs moksha, or at the one
showing Ramana^Òs turiya, or at the point in the one dream showing
Nisargadatta^Òs mahasamadhi, or just at the very end of it all? Not that I
try to affirm that the sages mentioned were real independent beings. They
were not. But does this mean there was no consciousness in them? Obviously
not. Consciousness was in them, It is everywhere. Indeed the only One
Consciousness, agreed. But living different though very similar dreams
through their (apparent) body-minds. Otherwise, all these sages and all
other ^Óhuman beings^Ô would just be inanimate shapes shown on the only one
screen, with only one spectator seeing the same film without any variation.
Again, this cannot be refuted, but nobody has ever held this position.

Allan Curry (Re Who^Òs dream is it?) once asked an interesting question (on
Thu, 30 Oct 1997) that comes very to the point here:

^ÓIt is enjoyable to contemplate the totality whirling around composing our
entire existence. If this were true, I suppose everyone *would* be exactly
the same in the way all characters in a book are equally "composed".
But what about those characters in the book who supposedly know they are
mere characters in the book?

Are they *still* just characters *in* the book and is their "knowledge"
still as totally composed as any other part of the book? If that is so,
then enlightenment and unenlightenment would be on the same ontological
level, but perhaps that *is* the point, when it's said "there is only one
thing (ie. consciousness)" ?  Is that right?^Ô

Seen from the re-phrased Thesis B, this question should be answered Yes.
But then all these characters would have absolutely the same value, whether
enlightened or not. There would be no difference at all between having
lived as a Stalin or as  a Samkara. You would be in no position to say that
meditation is better than murdering children. All the sages^Ò wise words
would not be any worthier than my dog^Òs barks. After all, everything would
just be part of the same dream.  And statements like Tat Twam Asi, Aham
Brahmasmi, Soham, etc. would have a very different significance, if any.

You yourself, dear Greg,  said something interesting (Re Ego Returning) a
month ago (on Thu, 23 Oct 1997):

^ÓTo react to the arising of the ego by saying ^Ómy sadhana is not working^Ô
or some other judgement just encourages the ego and makes it that much more

Now, if there is only one dream, who is it that should not react like that?
Not the ego itself, which is only an object in your consciousness, not
thesubject. But not any consciousness in you either, since you have none.
You are just a part of THE one dream. You are nothing, according to Thesis
B, only the Universal Mind is. Therefore, if you are willing to leave any
trace of a subject, of consciousness in yourself, you must admit that you
are the Universal Mind living a particular part of the one dream in a set
of circumstances (imagined, agreed) named ^ÓGreg Goode^Ô. You will admit also
that you are not enlightened, won^Òt you? Neither am I. This fact makes ^Óus^Ô
different not only from enlightened ones, but from each other too. So
different dreams. Not identical. But very similar. Similar because they are
various versions of the same dream by the one Self. Different because the
centres of perspective, the points of observation, are different.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list