वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत् ॥ २९ ॥
vaidharmyācca na svapnādivat || 29 ||
vaidharmyāt—Owing to the difference of nature; ca—and; na—is not; svapnādivat—like dreams etc.
29. And owing to the difference of nature (in consciousness between the waking and the dream state, the experience of the waking state) is not like dreams etc.
This Sutra refutes the alternative view given in the previous Sutra. The Bauddhas may say that perception of the external world is to be considered similar to dreams and the like. In a dream there are no external objects; yet the ideas appear in a twofold form as subject and object. The appearance of an external world is similarly independent of any objective reality. This Sutra refutes that view. There is a difference between the dream state and the waking state. What is seen in a dream is contradicted by waking experience, it is unreal. The dream state is a kind of memory, but the waking state is a real perception; so it cannot be rejected as untrue. Moreover, what is the proof of the existence of consciousness except experience? If that is so, why should not an object which is experienced be taken also as existing ? It may be said that even the Vedantins acknowledge the unreality of the external world, since it is contradicted by the knowledge of Brahman, and that this view is based on the Srutis. But if the Bauddhas accept the authority of the Vedas, then they would be included within the Vedantic school and no longer remain outside it, but as a matter of fact they do not accept the Vedas.