Dream and Waking States

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Bharat,

Thanks for the response. I have some doubts. Please clarify.

 

karma and dreams:

I agree that every suffering and comfort that the Atman experiences in this

life are due to its karma vinai. So in that sense, even the unreasonable

experiences through one's dreams could also be dictated by karma. Afterall the

dreams are dictated by one's waking state experiences.

But how do we explain the haphazard dreams which don't seem to make any sense

at all?) I am sure I am not the only person experiencing such dreams:) When I

contemplate on the contents of these dreams it more appears to me to be some

superfluous unconsequential mental images owing to weak or lack of

inner-control. We can let this one pass if we don't have much to discuss about

karma and dreams.

 

God and dreams:

Next one is regarding God being creator of the dreams. I wholly agree that

God is behind everything in this world subtle and gross equally. But please

clarify.

God commands the outcome of one's actions and inactions. But does He also

command what and how one should think and act ?

If the answer to this is Yes, then doesn't it give a sense of non-ownership

on the part of the jIva, of its actions ? This is what my problem is, I guess. I

totally agree that God is the basis of everything in all states. This is clearly

brought out in the divya nAmA viz., "thri kakubh dhAma" (vishnu sahasranama)

which means "substratum in all three avasthas". But does He also command the way

one should act etc., ?

If the answer is No, then same holds in the case of dreams too. In an ocean

if a boat gets tossed upside down, then to describe more specifically the cause

of the tossing, I tend to attribute it to the wave and not the ocean, while I

completely agree that the wave is part of ocean and the ocean forms the basis

for the wave. Similarly in the dreams and waking state thoughts, while the

brahman remains as Supreme monitor and basis for all that happens, the immediate

event that happens is owned by the jIva and hence it incurs the karma by that.

But while it enacts this, if it realises that it's afterall a part of the

brahman and sheds the sense of doership, it avoids effects of the karmas.

 

reality of dreams:

I actually gave the example of the burning house in the context of reality of

dreams and not for karmas. But I think you have quoted that for proving karma.

 

I request you to answer the following basic questions for me, so that I can fill

the gap in my understanding of the basics of this discussion on reality.

"what is unreal in this world if at all there is any such thing?";

"Shouldn't an object, to be called "real", be real in the True sense to one

and all and in all states?"

"If I think of a tree and make a mental picture of it, can that tree be

described as real?"

 

In this regard, I wish to draw similarities between dreams and thoughts.

Sometimes we will notice at the verge of falling asleep that, dream slowly

emerges and evolves and that dream happens to be centered around the thing that

we were thinking about just before falling asleep. This means that thoughts and

dreams are different manifestations of the same thing in the two states. So they

are similar in their characteristics.

 

I don't know if we are talking about the same thing. I agree that the images

in the dream are "real" as part of the dream because we know we dreamt. But as

objects they are unreal even during the dream. Similarly in the thoughts, "tree

as a thought" is real and as a tree-object is unreal. Is this what you also

mean? If yes, I think we have come to a conclusion.

 

I sincerely apologise if the above discussion seems naive and insignificant

and is wasting your time.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

adiyEn,

chandrasekaran.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Chandrasekharan

 

Your questions touch on so many points that it would be

impossible to deal with them all at the same length;nor

are they needed for the main subject of dreams.

 

ADiyEn's earlier posting made it clear that BhagavAn is the

giver of fruit for all Karma's;not the director of ALL

actions.JIva's freewill to do whatever he wants with the

equipment given to him is never disputed;provided he is

willing to take the consequences,which BhagavAn will give

strictly according to the desserts.Dreams come into this

category as consequences of actions too minute to be

given in the waking state.Mixed with them are past

impressions and future forebodings.

 

Secondly you seem to equate thoughts and dreams without

sufficient basis.If thoughts were dreams one could give

oneself pleasant dreams all one's life.You mention the

thought just before going to sleep;but does it STAY that

way a few seconds later?

 

Dream State like the waking state is a medium,a stage

where various activities can take place and they usually

take place without break,and hence the difficulty in

segregating them.It is like reading a continuous script

without punctuation.You say they are confusing.Why not?

The protocol for the Dream State is not the same as for

the waking state.If aDiyEn,used to driving on the left

side of the road here,were to complain about the topsy

turvy situation in the US wouldn't you laugh at me?

Why expect anything different between these two

States?

>In an ocean if a boat gets tossed upside down, then to

> describe more specifically the cause of the tossing, I tend to

> attribute it to the wave and not the ocean, while I completely

> agree that the wave is part of ocean and the ocean forms the

> basis for the wave.

 

I'm afraid your example is correct but your conclusions are

wrong.A wave doesn't stand alone.It's minutest action is the

direct result of its physical contents,its position in the

ocean,the wind position,pressure from other waves and the

basic movement of the ocean itself.IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER

everything that happens to a JIVA is the result of various

factors like his own karma,the karmas of people connected with

him,BhagavAn's AnugrahEchhA or NigrahEchha towards him etc.

Man's Free Will is there,but should one not grant the same

freedom to God also? This is discussed in detail in

ParAyattAdhikaraNam in SrI BhAshyam.

 

> "what is unreal in this world if at all there is any such thing?";

> "Shouldn't an object, to be called "real", be real in the

> True sense to one and all and in all states?"

> "If I think of a tree and make a mental picture of it, can

> that tree be described as real?"

 

All our consciousness of reality in the waking state also

is totally confined to the mental pictures which are formed

on the basis of the information received from the sensory

organs.The same holds good in the dream state too.If you

draw a distinction that only one person can see the dream

while many people see the tree- are all of them getting

identical pictures of that tree in their minds? If there

is even the slightest difference due to the fault of the

sensory organs how can you prove that the same tree is

being seen by all the persons?What about colour blindness,

double vision,numbness of fingers,blocked nose etc.We take

so many things for granted in this world.

 

So SrI EmberumAnAr says- Reality is that which produces an

impression on you.And dream objects certainly do

exactly like objects cognized in the waking state.

His words are- <EshAm samvEdanAnAm utpattimatvAt

artha-kriyAkaritvat cha satyatvam avasIyatE.>

(All these states of consciousness are real,from their

having a beginning and actual effects.-Tr.by Thibaut)

Then he asks himself,should those dream-objects not be

actually physical present to produce those reactions? No,he says,

Cognition needs some kind of support,(<budhInAm

sAlambanatva-mAtra niyamAt>) and that is present

in the dreams.So the cognition is real even though the

objects cannot be produced later.You can't deny the

cognition also after waking up.

 

SrI EmberumanAr TiruvaDigaLE SaraNam!

aDiyEn

BHARAT

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Bharat,

Thanks for your response.

> Dreams come into this

> category as consequences of actions too minute to be

> given in the waking state.Mixed with them are past

> impressions and future forebodings.

 

If a person beats a dog in his dream out of fear or anger, will he incur sin

and

accumulate karma vinai ? Even thinking about committing a sin makes one incur

sin.

This question has relevance to the claim here that "dreams are consequences of

actions". Are they purely consequences? I don't think.

 

By analysing the nature of many "vague dreams, haphazardly sequenced, drifting

person to person" I somehow don't tend to think they are merely consequences of

actions. It appears more like a chaotic work of the internal thinking machine

than

anything divine. By divine I mean "produced directly by God" like results of

actions. Thoughts are not produced directly by God, though He forms the

substratum

for that. There is no doubt, He and He alone is the basis and substrate for

everything that is happening here. But attributing directly the images that

appear

in our dream to Him is something I feel less convincing so far, for the

following

reason.

A person sometimes experience immoral things in dreams. Members, please don't

take offence with me here. Why would God, who instructs against such things,

induce such things in the dream. That's another point that makes me think that

this IS but the chaotic work of the crooked ego-centered "I" and has no divine

interference whatsoever. Please justify this from your angle.

> Secondly you seem to equate thoughts and dreams without

> sufficient basis.If thoughts were dreams one could give

> oneself pleasant dreams all one's life.You mention the

> thought just before going to sleep;but does it STAY that

> way a few seconds later?

 

I have gone over the unpleasantness of dreams earlier. But may be I was

unconvincing. You seem to be saying that we don't think about unpleasant things

at

all. This is a wrong opinion. Owing to lack of self-confidence and weak morale,

one, under dire personal situations, will tend to go on imagining about

unpleasant

outcomes of something. For eg. when someone dear to us is seriously ill, our

mind

starts imagining about death and such tragedies ensuing thereafter. When someone

dear to us is travelling that night to a distant city and it's a stormy night,

we

tend to imagine about accidents and such unpleasant things. We hardly want ever

to

get tormented by such tragedies. But still we imagine unpleasant things. It's

nothing different from dreams in this sense either. Our thoughts are not just

roses. They can get thorny easily. Thoughts can even go to suicidal extremes

under

adverse conditions.

 

I am not clear how it matters if dream stays or not beyond a few seconds. In

many cases the dream continues with the thing that we were thinking about. What

I

am trying to say is that the mental images at the verge of sleep is just a

transition from thought to dream while we transition from waking state to dream

state. Is this not enough to conclude that thoughts and dreams are similar thing

manifested in different states of manas and intellect of the individual?

>> In an ocean if a boat gets tossed upside down, then to

>> describe more specifically the cause of the tossing, I tend to

>> attribute it to the wave and not the ocean, while I completely

>> agree that the wave is part of ocean and the ocean forms the

>> basis for the wave.

>I'm afraid your example is correct but your conclusions are

>wrong.A wave doesn't stand alone.It's minutest action is the

>direct result of its physical contents,its position in the

>ocean,the wind position,pressure from other waves and the

>basic movement of the ocean itself.IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER

>everything that happens to a JIVA is the result of various

>factors like his own karma,the karmas of people connected with

>him,BhagavAn's AnugrahEchhA or NigrahEchha towards him etc.

>Man's Free Will is there,but should one not grant the same

>freedom to God also? This is discussed in detail in

>ParAyattAdhikaraNam in SrI BhAshyam.

 

Actually the choice is between ocean and wave. Ofcourse the wind etc., are

always there. I didn't deny explicitly. Here the crux is

"Is jIva active or passive agent during a dream?" . You seem to say passive.

I

asserted above as active by giving example of "immoral dreams" etc., If you

agree

that jIva is also active, then the more closer agent is the jIva and so he

should

be attributed with the object like in the case of wave and ocean. No one

questions the dependency of the wave on the ocean for its existence, though.

God never needed freedom. He is the giver of freedom. What I am saying is,

the dream is an outcome of "jIva's freedom of thought and action" and not that

of

Iswara. Iswara just monitors as he does so the actions of the jIva during the

waking state.

> So SrI EmberumAnAr says-

> Reality is that which produces an

> impression on you.And dream objects certainly do

> exactly like objects cognized in the waking state.

 

adiyEn's intention is not to question the authorities of this list. With

humble namaskarams to the pAdhareNu of the AchArya, I wish to put forth the

following point:

I have always attached very sacred importance to the term "Reality" in our

dharma. But looking at the definition, I tend to feel this is not a very special

or sacred term. Is this what is the definition of the term "sathyam" in the

three important qualities of the Supreme viz., "sathyam jn~Anam anantham" also?

I am confused.

>So the cognition is real even though the

>objects cannot be produced later.You can't deny the

>cognition also after waking up.

 

I think here we both agree that "dream objects are "real" as delusive images"

I added the word delusive going by your statement "objects cannot be produced

later".

 

 

In summary, these are my observations,

1.thoughts and dreams are different manifestations of the same thing.

2.these are outcomes of the freedom of thought and action of the jIva and not

that of Iswara.

 

 

adiyEn,

chandrasekaran.