dreams - thanks and a request

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

I had posted a few weeks back requesting a description of Ramanuja's

stand on waking/dream/deep-sleep. There have been several enlightening

responses to this question. I wish to thank Srimans Mani, Suresh, Hari,

Anbil Ramaswamy, Venkat Nagarajan, Bharat, and Srimans

Vijayaraghavan and Chandrasekharan (for questions).

(Hope I've not missed out anybody.) Some friends also communicated with

me in private. These mails have clarified Ramanuja's position very well.

 

After my initial question, I have spent considerable

time reading the SriBhasya of emberumaanaar and `Fundamentals of

Visistadvaita' by Sri SMS Chary. My opinion (as a novice) is that these

are very good references for those who wish to seriously pursue this

subject. From Sri Venkat Nagarajan's email, it appears as if `Advaita

and Visistadvaita' by Sri SMS Chary is also a good reference.

 

In my opinion the discussion has now reached a point beyond the

ability of the bhakti-list to handle. This does not seem the best

medium to resolve the differences between the metaphysical position of

Ramanuja and one's own personal view on this matter. (I have to accept

on faith several aspects of Ramanuja's position; so Sri Chandrasekharan

is not the only one facing this difficulty.) Also I feel the discussion

is not of general interest any more, and is taking up too much bandwidth.

 

So my request is that the discussion be taken off-line. This is only a

request and these are only my opinions. Nothing more.

 

hari hari

-Kasturi

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Kasturi/ Bhagavatas,

 

I agree that the returns from the discussion on dreams are diminishing.

However, I do not think it is fair to end it abruptly; ie., without explicating

the reason for the diminishing returns and establishing the strength of the

Vis'istAdvaitic stand on the issue. So I will end my postings with this

note.

 

[if you disagree with my reason for writing the post, please ignore what

follows.]

 

 

Dear Sri. Chandrasekaran,

 

Before addressing your comments, I would like to explicate a few

important points. In matters that are not entirely within the realm of the

senses, logic cannot yield conclusive results; that is, it is theoretically

possible for many mutually exclusive theories to coexist. Thus, the

choice of one will ultimately have to be based on belief. However, the

theory chosen should not contain statements that contradict common

experience.

 

If S'Astra has something to say about a matter that is not entirely within

the realm of sense organs, then the statements must be developed,

using logic, to formulate a theory. This is how the Vedanta paradigm

approaches the issue. If one approaches the issue from another

paradigm, or in general, without any paradigm as a basis, then the

conclusions will be different. I like orthodoxy; that is, I prefer to follow a

paradigm in its entirety. A fruitful discussion can take place only if both

parties prescribe to the same paradigm in an orthodox fashion. The

theory of propounded by Vis'istAdvaita interpretation is rational. (An

argument is valid as long as it is impossible for the premises to be true

and the conclusion false.) Given this, it is not clear what your objective

is? As I already stated, it is theoretically possible for many mutually

exclusive theories to coexist; thus, the choice of one will ultimately have

to be based on belief.

 

Addressing your specific comments:

 

Sri. Chandrasekaran Wrote:

 

We show heat to wax; it melts and drops into a warp and a doll is made;

Here in this example I would equate heat => rope-snake; molten wax =>

cognition;doll => fear. Do you agree the sequence?

 

Response:

 

When direct contact takes place between an object and sense organs,

cognition is triggered, cognition in turn produces output in the form of

feeling.

 

So in terms of your metaphor; I would equate object with candle, heat

with sense organs, and melting with effect. This interpretation of the

metaphor differs from yours because it has been interpreted in

accordance with Vis'istAdvaita theory.

 

Given this characterization let us analyze the metaphor. Candle by itself

cannot produce the effect. When candle comes in contact with heat, the

effect is produced. So the cause of the effect is the heated candle,

which is different from plain candle. The heated candle is like the object

of cognition. In other words, an object by itself is not capable of

producing an effect, only an object of cognition can produce an effect.

 

There is no scope for a material cause (in respect to this issue.) If a

material cause is at the root of the effect, it should hold true in all cases.

The following example (already provided in previous post) dismisses the

notion of a material cause.

 

Example:

 

For example, suppose one shuts off all his sense organs; some time

after that, an object is placed before that individual. Can the object act

as a catalyst? No.

 

Sri. Chandrasekaran Wrote:

 

Here is how I would like to re-present the question:" cognition is always

real and experience is always real. no question about these aspects. It is

the objects that are real and unreal. question is if unreal objects can

induce experience at all". Note that cognition is internal and is not part of

the question.

 

 

Response:

 

This has already been addressed. There is no scope for a material

cause. If a material cause is at the root of the effect, it should hold true

in all cases. (Refer to counter example in the response to the previous

statement.)

 

Sri. Chandrasekaran Wrote:

 

Yes, as you said, it's a real object that leads to experience in the case of

 

rope-snake since rope is real. But I think the essence of the argument

may not be

Referring to the object as a mere physical entity.

 

Response:

 

You did not read the response carefully.

 

I said when one is confronted with a rope-snake, either a rope-snake

cognition, which is different from a real snake cognition, arises, or a

rope-snake cognition, which is the same as a real-snake cognition,

arises. In either case, it is a real object that leads to a real effect.

 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the following. In matters that are

not entirely within the realm of the senses, logic cannot yield conclusive

results; that is, it is theoretically possible for many mutually exclusive

theories to coexist. Thus, the choice of one will ultimately have to be

based on belief.

 

Ramanuja dasan,

Venkat

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

Sorry for the overload of posts.

I will take it offline from now.

 

Thanks for bearing with me.

Regards,

chandrasekaran.