The Philosophy of the Upanishads c11.s3.t3.6

c11.s3.t3.6

These two conceptions which are derived only from poetical imagination and do not essentially differ are taken up seriously in Bṛih. 2. 1. 18, and are reconciled with one another by limiting the wanderings of the dreamer to his own body:—“Where then he wanders in dreaming, these are his worlds; for he is as it were a great king or a great Brâhman; or he ascends as it were or descends.¹ And just as a great king takes his subordinates with him, and journeys throughout his land at will,² so he takes with him those vital spirits, and journeys about at will in his body.” This extraordinary theory which has no natural foundation of a journeying about in the body during dreams, finds its explanation as an attempt to reconcile the different conceptions of the fundamental passage above quoted. The comparison also with the great king and great Brâhman seems to be based on the succeeding words of Bṛih. 4. 3. 20, which describes as follows the transition from the dreaming consciousness of being this or that to the deep sleep consciousness of being another:—“When now (in a dream) it is as though he were slain, as though he were flayed, as though he were trampled upon by an elephant (vic'châyayati), or plunged into a pit,—everything of which he was afraid in his waking hours, that very thing in his ignorance he regards as real; or, on the other hand, when it is as though he were a god or a king, on becoming conscious I alone am this universe,—this is his highest state.” That is to say, as the paragraph goes on to state, it is the condition of deep sleep, in which a man knows himself to be one with the universe, and is therefore without objects to contemplate, and consequently without individual consciousness.¹ And when in Chând. 8. 10. 2 it is said of the dreamer :—“It is still however as though he were slain, as though he were trampled upon (vic'châyayanti), as though he experienced hardship, as though he lamented,” the connection with the passage quoted from Bṛih. 4. 3. 20 is obvious. The meaningless vic'châdayanti of Chând. 8. 10. 2 was changed by M. Mûller² into vic'châyayanti. An almost inevitable consequence of this change, bearing in mind the great rarity of this expression, is that Chând. 8. 10. 2 is immediately dependent on Bṛih. 4. 3. 20. The converse supposition, or even the idea of an interpolation of Bṛih. 4. 3. 20 from Chând. 8. 10. 2,³ is scarcely probable in view of the general character of the two passages.