© 2018 IJRAR December 2018, Volume 5, Issue 04 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138) The Concept Of Dreams From Upanishads Nandigam Jagan Mohana Laxmi * *(Research scholar,Applied Psychology,Gitam Deemed to be University,India) Abstract: The present paper narrates Upanishad approaches towards dreams. In the west there are several concepts, theories on dreams. From ancient days Hinduism have different concepts on dreams. Indian ancient scriptures explained how waking world exist, how the dream world exist. How Hindus’ approached this dreams area relatively unknown and unexplored to westerners. The main concept of dreams and dreaming is intimately related to Hindhu philosophy, mythology, and ancient writings like Purnas, Vedas and Upnishads. This paper presented about how dreams are described in Upanishads how it’s related to waking and dreams stated explained about it. Key words: Dreams, Dreaming, Upnishads. Introduction Upanishads gives a mindful comprehension of dreams according to ancient Indian scholars. Mandukya, Taitriya and different Upanishads have the accompanying to say in regards to dreams, attentiveness and dream analysis: Krishnananda, (1997), The Mandukya Upanishad states that the principal period of the Atman, as the waking cognizance, has been clarified. Inside to the waking awareness, and invading the waking cognizance, there is a subtler capacity of this extremely same awareness, which is subjectively known as the dream-cognizance, or Taijasa, and all around known as Hiranyagarbha , or the Cosmic Subtle Consciousness. This is the topic of the portrayal in the following Mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad, starting with 'Svapnasthanah', and so on. That which has dream as it’s habitation Svapnasthana. That which knows just of the inward and not of the outer is Antah-prajna. Aparna, (2014) That which has seven appendages is Saptanga. That which has nineteen mouths is Ekonavimsatimukha. That which assimilates just the inconspicuous into its being is Praviviktabhuk. This is Taijasa, the second stage, the second foot of the Atman. The mantra is more important in Mandukya Upanishad “ayamatma Brahma”. This mantra explains about oneness of Atman and Brahman and this Brahman is the whole, it consists of four quarters . The first quarter is named as ’vasivanara’ or ‘visva’ which means the universal as one, situated in waking state- IJRAR1944108 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 901 © 2018 IJRAR December 2018, Volume 5, Issue 04 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138) “Jagaritasthano Bahisprajna : Spatanga : Ekovimsatimukha : Sthulabhugvaisvanara : Prathama:Pada:” Vaisvanara is said as the perceiver of the outside world and own with seven limbs, nineteen mouths and enjoys the gross objects. The word vaisvanara implies the normal consciousness. The waking state is the combination of conscious and subconscious layers of mind. The waking state of mind is called ‘Virat’ is the universal or the macro cosmic aspect of Isvara and visva is individual or micro cosmic aspect. The second state is svapna or dreame state which constitutes a different level of human consciousness. The consciousness in this state is described as ‘taijasa’ in manduky upanisad. The word ‘Taijasa’ means intelligent. Presently we are in the dream awareness, the universe of inconspicuous observation. We respect, for the most part, dreams to be outcomes of waking discernment, and it is held that the articles found in dream are psychological instead of physical. We interact with genuine protests in the waking state, however we contact just envisioned things in the dream state. While there is genuine fulfillment, real joy and real torment in the waking scene, there is an envisioned delight, envisioned fulfillment and envisioned agony in the dream world. While the objects of the waking scene are not our creation, the objects of the dream world are our own psychological creation. This is the standard conclusion that we have about the dream world in connection to the waking scene. The Mandukya Upanishad (700BC) goes into an analysis of dream and holds a determination which is somewhat not the same as the standard supposition that we have about the connection between the two states. We view dream as unbelievable and waking as genuine. Be that as it may, it ought to be clear this is not every bit of relevant information. While we say that the dream world is nonexistent in contradistinction with the waking scene, we are not expressing all sides of the matter. The dream world has all the earmarks of being incredible in correlation with the waking scene. The waking articles seem, by all accounts, to be of more useful esteem than the dream objects, once more, by an examination of the two states. No such explanation about the truth of the waking scene in connection to the dream world is conceivable without this examination. Presently, who can make this correlation? Neither the person who is constantly alert can make such a correlation, or the person who is continually dreaming. That judge or observer of the two states can't be kept to both of the states. Similarly as a judge in a court does not have a place with either party fighting, the one that makes an examination between the waking and dreaming states can't be said to have a place with both of the states, completely. On the off chance that the judge of the two states completely has a place with the waking state, he would be a fanatic; thus additionally, would be his condition on the off chance that he entirely has a place with the dreaming state. IJRAR1944108 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 902 © 2018 IJRAR December 2018, Volume 5, Issue 04 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138) What makes you pass a judgment on the connection between the two states of waking and dream? It is done in light of the fact that you appear to have an attention to both the states, and you are not bound entirely to both of the states; and no correlation of any sort is conceivable, anyplace, unless one has a concurrent cognizance of the two gatherings, two sides, or two periods of the case close by. Presently, we go to the fascinating inquiry: who makes this examination? You can make a correlation between the two states through which you pass. Who is it that goes through the conditions of waking and dream? When you bounce from waking to dream, you are not in waking; you are just in dream. Also, when you originate from dream to waking, you are in waking, and not in dream. How might you be, all the while, in both the states? What's more, unless you have a concurrent awareness of two states, you can't make a correlation. In the event that you are totally inundated in one state alone, then, no examination is conceivable. In any case, we do make a correlation, and pass judgments of significant worth on the connection between the two states. This is demonstrative a sufficient truth which outperforms basic exact observation. We are not what is evidently related entirely to the waking state, nor are we that which is obviously associated just with the dreaming state. We are something else from the particular encounters of both the states. Neither can the waking encounters deplete us, nor can the dream encounters totally appreciate our being. We appear to be something that is fit for being an observer of both the states. This witness is not a gathering either to the waking state or to the dreaming state. We are basically, a third component inside and out, something autonomous of waking and dream. What is that third component? This subject is the very motivation behind the Upanishad, the center of examination concerning the truth of the matter. Similarly as they name a commission when there is an entangled case for examination, a commission wherein extremely capable people are named, we appear to be under the need of placing ourselves in the position of an impartial commission of enquiry into the cases exhibited by the two states, waking and dreaming. We don't have a place with the waking state, entirely; we don't, likewise, have a place with the dreaming state,completely. By an impartial separation of the judging awareness from the encounters of waking and dream, we put ourselves in a circumstance where analysis is practicable. When we judge the two states with no partiality in our psyches, the bias that waking is, maybe, superior to dream – without this preference, on the off chance that we approach this matter – we touch base at entirely startling conclusions.Why do we say that the objects of waking are genuine? Since they have a utilitarian esteem. The nourishment of the waking state, not the dream sustenance, can mollify our yearning of the waking state. That is the reason we say that the dream nourishment is not genuine and that the waking sustenance is genuine. In any case, we overlook that the dream sustenance can fulfill our dream hunger. Why do we make a correlation of the two stales wrongly? We keep the dream nourishment to the dream world and make a correlation of the dream hunger with waking craving, not similarly, additionally, making an examination of the other part of the matter, specifically the sustenance perspective. In the event that we say: we see individuals in IJRAR1944108 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 903 © 2018 IJRAR December 2018, Volume 5, Issue 04 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138) the waking scene in connection to whom we can talk and have dealings, in dream, as well, we can have similar dealings with the dream individuals.