An Interesting article - any response?

[Madhava Kumar Turumella]

At 08:37 PM 12/4/96 -0700, you wrote:

> In fact, this
>whole thread started with an innocuous query on my part which had
>nothing to do with Advaita at all -- the "challenge," if there was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !!!!!!!(IT IS A BIG WONDER)!!!!!!!
>one, came from Sri Turumella, who came up with a vigorous espousal of
>Advaita in a followup although that was essentially off-topic.  If you
>wish, please look up the "Dreams and reality" thread in the November
>segment of the list archive ( http://www.eskimo.com/~dvaita/list/ ).
>Thus, we, who are not experts, were challenged, rather than we
>challenging others.
>
>Anand Hudli wrote:

Hari Om!!  I was wonderstruck to see that I have challenged you... for the
sake of other members who haven't read your article before, I am posting
your first article on "dreams and reality" and my reply aswell...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ARTICLE BY SRI Sirisha Rao on "Dreams and Reality>>>>>>>>
Greetings.

In Tattvavaada, it is accepted that dreams are real phenomena; the
events and objects one sees in a dream are real as well.  Only thing
is, they are not the *same* realities as one sees in the waking
state.  The example given is of a child who sees a painting or
portrait, and sees, say, an elephant in the painting.  The child
thinks of the painted elephant as a real one, and excitedly points it
out to others, etc.  However, adults viewing the picture do not
consider it a real elephant.  In any event, even adults do not
consider the painted elephant's image, or viewing of the same, to be
illusory; the illusion is in the consideration of the painted elephant
as a real elephant.  So also, all entities of one's dreams have a real
existence, but they are not the same as, or of the same character as,
those that one sees while wakeful.

So far so good.  Now, my question is, how does one explain phenomena
where someone sees a great saint or even the Lord Himself, in one's
dream?  There are said to be such experiences in people; great
devotees report seeing Sri Krishna or some other form of the Lord in
their dreams, and many devotees of Sri Raghavendra Swamy have reported
seeing him in their dreams.  Assuming that these people are all not
liars, they did indeed see whomever they claimed to have, or at least
some did.  Now, does one say that the Krishna seen in the dream is not
the real Krishna, but is some other Krishna?  That would seem to
impute a difference from Himself in the Lord, and thus make Him
possess the quality of "svagata-bheda" that He is said not to
possess.  If one were to say that the dream entity is not Krishna, but
is only a representation of Him like an icon, then there is opposition
to experience, because, for instance, someone like Sri Purandara Dasa
would only say "kaNDe nA govindana" (I saw Govinda) -- he would not
say "kaNDe nA govindana-pratimeyana" (I saw Govinda's image!).  The
experience reported is always of having seen only the person only, and
not an image of the same, and there seems to be no proper cause to
discard this view.  Tattvavaada is strongly against dismissing of
experience without proper grounds.

And then again, if there's a mathematician who can work out math in a
dream, or a musician who can compose in a dream, etc., then it is
evident that what is done in the dream survives exactly into the
waking state (if the mathematician can remember, he can transcribe his
dream work while awake).  Kekule's discovery of the benzene-ring from
a dream experience comes to mind.

Therefore, it would seem to be the case that at least sometimes, the
entity perceived in a dream is exactly the same as that seen while
awake.  Of course, this objection works even more strongly against
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Advaita, which simply dismisses dream-perception as illusory.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Any thoughts welcome.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ARTICLE END>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Accepted, I might not be well versed in Advaita text books.. But, jignasa
is an essential quality to discuss. With that Intention I started all this.

NOW!!! AFTER READING THE LAST LINES OF YOUR ARTICLE I THOUGHT YOU MUST HAVE
MIS-UNDERSTOOD ADVAITA, AND BEING A STRONG ADVAITA FOLLOWER I THOUGHT IT IS
MY BASIC RESPONSIBILITY TO *LEARN* WHETHER THIS THEORY OF YOURS WORKS AGAINST
ADVAITA OR NOT..... HENCE, I HAVE GIVEN MY REPLY.. HERE I GO...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reply from M.K. Turumella "Dreams and reality">>>>>>>>>>>

Hari Om!

I just wanted to discuss about a few points in your article.

(no sir! I am not authoritative but interested enough to discuss with you.
Hope my enthusiasm would suffice to learn something out of this discussion)

(1)
>ofcourse, this objection works even more strongly against advaita, which
>simply dismisses dream-perception as illusory.

Here I go : Dreams are 100% deceptive.  No doubt in that. I am taking
this point from Sri Adisankara's tatvabodha.  "jAgradavasthAyAM
yad drusyaM... tad swapnAvasthaa" what ever you perceive during the waking
state, only comes as a dream.

Dreams are nothing but the imaginations of the mind.  That too, they come
quite weird sometimes. Suppose I see a series of objects during the course
of the day and think of them;  I, definitely, am going to see them in
the dream. Like for example I have seen 5 things.

1) an elephant 2) a beautiful lady wearing a beautiful sarry 3) Ants going
into their hole 4) A drunker having a whisky bottle in his hand  5) A very
big palm tree...

Now when I dream, I may see the elephant wearing a beautiful sarry trying to
enter into the ant's hole with a whisky bottle in it's hand while riding on
a big palm tree... Quite illusory.  But, it happens so! Since I have seen
them during my waking state I have dreamt.  Objects, at the first time,
should be perceived in order to dream.  Since, mind has no capacity to
discriminate (the discriminating machine, i.e. intellect, goes to sleep
while we dream) it mixes up the objects and show them during the dream
as an "absurd movie".

After difining that "Objects, that which you see during the waking state,
are the cause for your dreams", I further say that Objects themselves are
illusory.  I quote from BhagawatGeeta :

"avyaktAdeeni bhootAni vyaktamadhyAni bharata
avaykta nidhanAnyEva tatra kA paridEvanA"  B.G 2-28

Meaning : Arjuna, beings are coming from the unmanifest and at death they
return to the unmanifest again.  They are manifest only in the
interim between birth and death.  What occassion, then, for lamentation?

If the object was true (I mean, satyam = trikAlE api tisThati iti sat)
then it should be there for ever.  But, we can clearly see  that the
objects perish in time.  Lord Sri Krishna had moved on this earth.
Now I can't see him in the physical form. Sri Adisankara and other great
masters have lived on this very own earth, I can't see them.  They come
and they go. We come and we go.  Hence, what ever we percieve in the
waking state does not stand for ever.  That is why our waking state
itself is illusory.  That is why in Advaita we call the dreamer as
"tijasa" (sva tEjasA vishvamidaM vibhAti) He illumines the world
with his own light (of limited Knowledge!)....

Hence the object perceived is nothing but an illusion.  Since the object
itself is illusion; that which you see in the dream is also an illusion.
Hence, dreams are nothing but illusion.

> And then again, if there's a mathematician who can work out math in
> a dream, or a musician who can compose in a dream, etc., then it is
> evident that what is done in the dream survives exactly in to the
> waking state <rest cut..>

Very true... But it does not mean that dreams are real! I mean, if suppose
I dreamt that I have won a Hundred thousand dollars lottary, does not mean
that when I wake up I am going to get that money!

My point is - dreams can survive only at the mental level. They can never
get mixed up with material level (i.e. physical level).  And ofcourse,
composing music and all are mind's expert works, hence they can stand
and survive.

3)
> Now, my question is, how does one explain the phenomena where someone
> sees a great sait or even the Lord himself, in one's dream?

Even for the point of seeing something which you haven't seen in this
life, I can think of numerous reasons :

A) You must have seen that person/thing during your previous birth.
And I am sure you must be accepting that re-birth is there.

B) Or you may be thinking of your future or the world something unknown.
Ofcourse mind has a kind of abnormal power where it can travel and see
the objects which we are planing to see!  That is why, sometimes we
wonder struck by some incidents where we see something in dream and
it comes true.  Mind can travel into the past, into the future and
to somewhere in the present.  This power again is because it is linked
by the supra consciousness (As told by Sri Arabindo)...

>tatvavada is strongly against dismissing of experience without proper grounds.

I respect your view. Albeit, I have given my reasons why I should see the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
world
as a dream and dream itself as quite deceptive.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Regards,
Madhav
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>END OF THE REPLY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I never challenge or think that I am capable of challenging someone.  My
interest was to learn.  Now the readers of "YOUR ARTICLE" and "MY REPLY"
should decide who has challenged whom....

I neither did try to drag the discussion out of the subject, you said
your logic works more strong on "Advaita".  Hence, I went ahed on that
point..

DO NOT TRY TO TELL THAT SRI SADANANDAGARU HAS VIOLATED THE RULES OF
ADVAITA-L OR SOMETHING... IF SOMEONE (YOU THINK!) VIOLATED THE RULES
THAT IS *ME*.  HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING.  But, don't try
to drag others names into this.  I have requested Sri Sadananda and
others aswell. Sri Sadananda has posted that article on "ADVAITA LIST"
only because that article is a *direct* question to the Advaitis.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I DON'T THINK HE IS INTERESTED IN YOUR/MY TAPPING AROUND THE BUSH KIND
OF DISCUSSIONS....Hari Om!

Sincere regards,
Madhava
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seer or not I walk alone...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madhava Kumar Turumella
P.O.Box. No : 22525
Sharjah, UAE.
Phone : 00971-6-597451 (Resi)
Fax : 00971-6-597490
E-Mail : madhava at emirates.net.ae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------