waking/dream/deep-sleep

[Guest guest]

Sri Chandrasekaran wrote:

 

< I am not clear how objects that appear in the dream are "real"

....>

 

This is my response. Please pardon errors and more importantly

correct them.

 

It appears to me that a conclusive understanding of this from

the visistadvaita standpoint will inevitably require a correct

understanding of the visistadvaita theory of knowledge and the theory

of truth and error.

 

But even from a non-technical standpoint, we can easily accept that the

experience of a dream is very real. The question is only about the

objects in the dream.

 

Ramanuja's sribhasya on the vedanta sutras 3.2.1 - 3.2.6 deal with the

topic of dreams. I am just quoting Thibaut's translation of

Ramanuja's bhasya on 3.2.3. This takes a clear stand on the dream

objects. (The term `illusory' as we use it is rather broad and we

have to understand its sense in the context.)

 

[ Ramanuja on 3.2.3:

 

The things appearing in dreams -- chariots, lotus tanks, and so on --

are absolute mAyA, i.e., things created by the supreme person. For

the term `mAyA' denotes wonderful things, as appears from passages

such as `She was born in the race of Janaka, appearing like the

wonderful power of the divine being in bodily shape' (devamAyA).

The sense of the passage `there are no chariots,' &c. ** then is --

there are no chariots and horses to be perceived by any other

person but the dreaming one; and then `he creates chariots,' &c.

-- i.e. the supreme person creates things to be perceived by

the dreamer and persisting for a certain time only. Those things are

of a wonderful nature (but not illusions). And the creation of such

wonderful things is possible for the supreme person who can immediately

realise all his wishes; but not for the individual soul. The latter

also, indeed, fundamentally possesses that power; but as in the samsAra

state the true nature of the soul is not fully manifested, it is then

incapable of accomplishing such wonderful creations. ....

 

end of quote from Ramanuja]

 

 

** The passage quoted is from brihad. upanishad and is translated as

`There are no chariots in that state, no horses, no roads. There are

no blessings, no happiness, no joys; then he creates blessings,

happiness, joys, and so on. For he is the creator.'

 

1. Please note that in the commentary to 3.2.1 -- 3.2.6,

Ramanuja gives very good reasons for why the dream objects are only

created by the supreme person and not the individual soul.

 

2. I also feel that `things to be perceived by the dreamer and persisting

for a certain time only' is a satisfactory description of the

objects in a dream.

 

3. I think there is a minor grammatical glitch in the translation.

 

-Kasturi

[Guest guest]

Dear Anbil Swamigal:

 

Pardon me for this question. I agree that the experiences are as real

during the dream as in the waking state. But are the objects real or did it

really happen. Suppose you visit some place in a dream did you actually

visit it. Or if you meet a person in a dream did you actually meet him.

Certainly not from the other person's standpoint. Objects in dream are but

mental impressions and if you say God creates these impressions it is more

plausible. Once again pardon me for these questions as coming from a

simpleton and would be really interested in knowing what exactly is the

position of our siddhAntam.

 

dAsan

 

Vijayaraghavan

Buffalo, NY

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagawathas,

This is in reply to Sri Anbil's posting on the dreams and the reality.

> ( i ) The question arises how can we conclude that they are

> created by God?

> And, why not say that the jeevAtma itself could create the dreams?

> The answer is, for one thing - The jeevAtma has no power of creation.

> For another, if it had the power, it will not create

> unpleasant dreams for

> itself.

> We see tigers, fire, flood, etc., in which the dreamer

> appears as a victim.

> No body would indulge in creating even in a dream such

> self-threatening,

> self-destructive and unpleasant experiences to one's self.

 

At the outset I feel it is misleading to use the term "creation" in

the context of thoughts and dreams. We should probably

say "imagination". Please read on.

One thing we invariably notice is that though the dreams are self-

threatening many a times, the victim or the dreamer never gets hurt

in any danger. So can't these dreams be likened to unpleasant

thoughts that one undergoes in the waking state. These thoughts

during waking state are indeed imagination(creation) of the ego-

centered "I". So I am not clear why the dreams can't be also the same

way?

Another point in support of the above arg., is that, the dreams are

always based on what one had experienced/seen in his/her waking

state. Nothing new to the self appears in one's dream. For eg., a

child won't dream of a flood or a fire because its ego-centered "I"

has no knowledge of those things. For all we know almost all nights a

child might have only deep-sleep. Only when the child goes through

life's traumas viz., studies, teacher, family pangs etc., does it

start getting dreams in its sleep. Till then it gets only deep-sleep.

I am sure bhagawathas will agree with me on this one.

 

Thoughts/dreams are subtle and don't have physical forms except

what the imaginer/dreamer imagines. Yes, the plane of consciousness

while one imagines/dreams is different from the physical plane. But

how else can one say between reality and imagination? The thrill,

fear, sorrow experience could be real since the imaginer feels it,

but the source of the experience is unreal. A real experience from an

unreal object is indeed possible. For eg., when we see mirage, the

thought about water is real but its true that there is no real water

there. So the object of imagination is unreal. I agree that the water

is real to the viewer of the mirage at that moment. But to talk of

the Truth, "water is unreal; thought about water is real".

 

I feel the thoughts in the waking state are similar to incidents in

the dreaming state. Say, a person has an important examination the

next day. He is very anxious and sits quiet and owing to his lack of

self-confidence some unfavourable happenings flash through his mind

thus: "he leaves for the exam hall the next day; on the way his

vehicle gets punctured; he gets delayed on the way; somehow manages

to make it 5 mts after the exam starts; he is admitted in and gets

the question paper; first question is the one he hated the most; to

his agony he finds that he forgot his pen etc..." his thoughts go

thus into unpleasant realms. Though he himself never wanted to get

tormented by these tough situations, his manas with intelligence

which is a very queer process working on memory cooks up all these...

But all through this the person is really unaffected by the thought

process. In some cases even we undergo mental trauma and

sleeplessness due to odd imagination of future events when someone

dear to us is seriously ill though we never wanted tragic events to

take place in our life... This happens in one's waking state itself.

In the same way the dream works regardless of the pleasantness of the

events. But in the waking state manas is aware of this. Thus I feel

the incidents in one's dream are like thoughts in one's waking state.

So can't both have the same imaginer/creator?

 

> ( ii ) The dreams are real so far as the person who dreams is

> concerned and

> real so long as the duration of the dream. That the objects

> in the dream

> vanish when the person wakes up underlines the temporariness

> of the objects

> and not that the experience itself was unreal. The joy, the

> fear, the thrill,

> the excitement are all real for the person dreaming who may

> even be able to

> remember and relate them subsequently.

 

 

This is a very tricky one to argue.

Why should we call an imaginative event real? If we call this real,

then what is unreal? Please explain.

Is it just a terminology issue here?

It's no wonder one could relate to events in a dream after waking

up. Because the ego-centered "I" is aware of it all the time.

 

> ( iii ) Why should God create dreams at all is the next question.

> The answer is-The jeevAtma does some small good deeds and

> some small bad

> ones. They are not big enough or significant enough to

> attract a palpable

> reward or a palpable punishment. God gives the jeevAtma a

> little pleasure

> through pleasant experiences in the dreams so that he is

> happy for the

> duration of the dream enjoying pleasant things; Similarly,

> for the small bad

> ones that are not significant enough, a mild punishment is

> imposed by the

> Lord by making the jeevAtma feel the pain by dreaming

> unpleasant things and

> unpleasant experiences for the duration of the dreams"

 

If God creates these incidents in one's dream, why are they so

arbitrary and vague in sequence. For eg., some dreams start at one

point with certain persons involved in it, say in one's house with

father and brother; suddenly we will see that the persons have

changed and place has changed; instead of our brother we will find

ourselves with one of our classmates or old friend.. The place of

dream could be classroom instead of house... Why does this happen in

an improper manner?

 

Why/How would one's past karma dictate this vagueness?

 

I hope that Bhagawathas will not misunderstand my intent here. I am

basically trying to resolve my doubts and not to raise anti-list

debates.

Please pardon me for any anti-visishtadvaithic opinions above. And

please clarify in the above context.

 

adiyEn,

chandrasekaran.