Arunachala, blossoming tree, stars painting, art print on canvas - Wieslaw Sadurski
âJust as dream and magicâŚâ (12)
âThere is no alternative for you but to accept the world as unreal, if you are seeking the Truth and the Truth alone.â
[From: âMaharshiâs Gospelâ, Pg 60-69; extracts from Chapter III âThe Jnani and the Worldâ (pdf)]Â
âIs it the world that seeks to decide the issue about its reality? The doubt arises in you. Know in the first instance who the doubter is, and then you may consider if the world is real or not.
You talk of seeing and knowing the world. But without knowing yourself, the knowing subject, (without whom there is no knowledge of the object), how can you know the true nature of the world, the known object? No doubt, the objects affect the body and the sense organs, but is it to your body that the question arises? Does the body say âI feel the object, it is realâ? Or is it the world that says to you âI, the world, am realâ?
First realise the Self. What does it matter if the world is perceived or not. Do you gain anything to help you in your quest by the non-perception of the world during sleep? Conversely, what would you lose now by the perception of the world? It is quite immaterial to the Jnani or ajnani if he perceives the world or not. It is seen by both, but their viewpoints differ.
Seeing the world, the Jnani sees the Self which is the substratum of all that is seen; the ajnani, whether he sees the world or not, is ignorant of his true Being, the Self.
Take the instance of moving pictures on the screen in the cinema-show. What is there in front of you before the play begins? Merely the screen. On that screen you see the entire show, and for all appearances the pictures are real. But go and try to take hold of them. What do you take hold of? Merely the screen on which the pictures appeared so real. After the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The screen again!
So with the Self. That alone exists; the pictures come and go. If you hold on to the Self, you will not be deceived by the appearance of the pictures. Nor does it matter at all if the pictures appear or disappear.
There is no alternative for you but to accept the world as unreal, if you are seeking the Truth and the Truth alone.â
âFor the simple reason that unless you give up the idea that the world is real, your mind will always be after it. If you take the appearance to be real you will never know the Real itself, although it is the Real alone that exists. This point is illustrated by the analogy of the âsnake in the ropeâ. As long as you see the snake you cannot see the rope as such. The non-existent snake becomes real to you, while the real rope seems wholly non-existent as such.â
D. Â Is then the world nothing but a dream?
âWhat is wrong with the sense of reality you have while you are dreaming? You may be dreaming of something quite impossible, for instance, of having a happy chat with a dead person. Just for a moment you may doubt in the dream saying to yourself, âWas he not dead?â, but somehow your mind reconciles itself to the dream vision, and the person is as good as alive for the purposes of the dream. In other words, the dream as a dream does not permit you to doubt its reality. Even so, you are unable to doubt the reality of the world of your wakeful experience. How can the mind which has itself created the world accept it as unreal? That is the significance of the comparison made between the world of wakeful experience and the dream world. Both are but creations of the mind and so long as the mind is engrossed in either, it finds itself unable to deny the reality of the dream world while dreaming and of the waking world while awake.â
D: As I said before, we see, feel and sense the world in so many ways. These sensations are the reactions to the objects seen, felt etc., and are not mental creations as in dreams, which differ not only from person to person but also with regard to the same person. Is that not enough to prove the objective reality of the world?
âAll this talk about inconsistencies and their attribution to the dream world arises only now, when you are awake. While you are dreaming, the dream was a perfectly integrated whole. That is to say, if you felt thirsty in a dream, the illusory drinking of illusory water did quench your illusory thirst. But all this was real and not illusory to you so long as you did not know that the dream itself was illusory. Similarly with the waking world; and the sensations you now have, get coordinated to give you the impression that the world is real.
If, on the contrary, the world is a self-existent reality (that is what you evidently mean by its objectivity) what prevents the world from revealing itself to you in sleep? You do not say you have not existed in your sleep.â
D: Neither do I deny the worldâs existence while I am asleep. It has been existing all the while. If during my sleep I did not see it, others who are not sleeping saw it.
âTo say you existed while asleep, was it necessary to call in the evidence of others so as to prove it to you? Why do you seek their evidence now? Those âothersâ can tell you of having seen the world (during your sleep) only when you yourself are awake. With regard to your own existence it is different. On waking up you say you had a sound sleep, so that, to that extent you are aware of yourself in the deepest sleep, whereas you have not the slightest notion of the worldâs existence then. Even now, while you are awake, is it the world that says âI am realâ, or is it you?
You want somehow or other to maintain that the world is real. What is the standard of Reality? That alone is Real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging.
Does the world exist by itself? Was it ever seen without the aid of the mind? In sleep there is neither mind nor world. When awake there is the mind and there is the world. What does this invariable concomitance mean?
Of yourself you can say âI existâ. That is, yours is not mere existence, it is Existence of which you are conscious. Really, it is Existence identical with Consciousness.â
D: The world may not be conscious of itself, yet it exists.
âConsciousness is always Self-consciousness. If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself. Unselfconscious existence is a contradiction in terms. It is no existence at all. It is merely attributed existence, whereas true Existence, the Sat, is not an attribute, it is the Substance itself. It is the Vastu. Reality is therefore known as Sat-Chit, Being-Consciousness, and never merely the one to the exclusion of the other. The world neither exists by itself, nor is it conscious of its existence. How can you say that such a world is real?
And what is the nature of the world? It is perpetual change, a continuous, interminable flux. A dependent, unselfconscious, ever-changing world cannot be real.â
D: I accept. But why should they give cosmological descriptions spun out at great length, unless they consider the world real?
âAdopt in practice what you accept in theory, and leave the rest. The sastras have to guide every type of seeker after Truth, and all are not of the same mental make-up. What you cannot accept treat as artha vada or auxiliary argument.â Â
Source: Blog âYou have been told; why have you not realized?â - http://bhagavan-sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.pt/2013/02/just-as-dream-and-magic.html