The Mandukya Upanishad with Gaudapada’s Karika and Shankara’s Commentary
Kārikā, verse 2.9-10
स्वप्नवृत्तावपि त्वन्तश्चेतसा कल्पितं त्वसत् ।
बहिश्चेतोगृहीतं सद्दृष्टं वैतथ्यमेतयोः ॥ ९ ॥
जाग्रद्वृत्तावपि त्वन्तश्चेतसा कल्पितं त्वसत् ।
बहिश्चेतो गृहीतं सद्युक्तं वैतथ्यमेतयोः ॥ १० ॥
svapnavṛttāvapi tvantaścetasā kalpitaṃ tvasat |
bahiścetogṛhītaṃ saddṛṣṭaṃ vaitathyametayoḥ || 9 ||
jāgradvṛttāvapi tvantaścetasā kalpitaṃ tvasat |
bahiśceto gṛhītaṃ sadyuktaṃ vaitathyametayoḥ || 10 ||
9-10. In dream, also, what is imagined within by the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside (by the mind) appears to be real. But (in truth) both these are known to be unreal. Similarly, in the waking state, also, what is imagined within by the mind is illusory; and what is experienced outside (by the mind) appears to be real. But in fact, both should be rationally held to be unreal.
Having refuted the contention of the opponent that there exists no similarity between objects of the waking state and the abnormal (unusual) objects seen in dream, (the text proceeds to point out) the truth of the objects of waking state being (unreal) like those of dream. In the dream state also those which are mere modifications of the mind, cognized within, are illusory. For, such internal objects vanish the moment after they are cognized. In that very dream such objects as pot, etc., cognized by the mind and perceived by the sense-organs, eyes, etc., as existing outside, are1 held to be real. Thus, though all the dream experiences are, without doubt, known2 to be unreal, yet they arrange themselves as3 real and unreal. Both kinds of objects (in dream), imagined by the mind internally and externally, are found to be unreal. Similarly in the waking experience objects known as real and imaginary (mental) should be rationally held to be unreal. Objects, internal and external, are creations of the mind (whether they be-in the dream or in the waking state). Other matters have already been explained.
Ānandagiri’s Ṭīkā (glossary):
1 Are held to be real— That is, by the subject in the dream.
2 Known, etc.—We know the illusoriness of the dream experiences from the waking state.
3 As, etc.—i.e., at the time of dreaming.
This is another ground for proving the similarity of the dream and the waking states and the consequent unreality of the latter. It may be contended that in the waking state we make a distinction, between “real” and “unreal” and that the latter corresponds to all dream objects. To this the reply of the Vedāntist is: In dreams also we make a distinction between “real” and “unreal We see unreal objects in dream and feel surprised when the picture wears off, which impression we consider unreal in dream itself. Therefore there exists a sense of distinction between the “real” and the “unreal” in the one state as in the other. For, while the dream lasts, to the dreamer not only are dream objects real but also is the dream state a waking one. The whole of dream experiences is known to be illusory only from the waking standpoint. Similarly the whole of waking experiences, including its so-called subjective imaginations and objective realities, is equally unreal, from the standpoint of true knowledge.