Why the same dream?

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> Yes, I believe that, with standard "education", we are getting more
> avidya. A child, uncontaminated by this standard "education", sees the
> objects to be the same because she does not know the difference between
> the objects. A realized person sees the objects to be the same because
> he/she, after thorough investigation and contemplation, does not find
> any difference between the objects. It is only we (who are neither
> unaffected by maaya nor have attained jnanam to see the universal
> non-duality) who see the difference between the objects.
>
> > OK, then why are the worlds (the waking dreams) of several small
> > children living near each other remarkably the same? You cannot say
> > ^Óbecause they share the same outside world^Ô: there is no such thing,
> > everythings is in consciousnes, in those children^Òs minds. Why do those
> > infant minds have such similar dreams? No, maaya may be the cause of taking
> > the whole picture for real, but that picture appears in billions of copies.
> > Why are they so very much alike? Minds cannot see outside themselves (there
> > is nothing outside). However all minds have very similar contents. Why?
> >
>

The Garbha Gita gives the lament of the unborn child who anticipates being
born into the world of Maya.  From the moment of birth a Jiva is mired in
Maya so a baby is really no better off than the average ignorant person.
In fact it's in a worse position because he does not have the opportunity
to hear and understand the great vakyas of Shruti.



> I am not convinced of that argument. Miguel accepts the many jeevas
> concept, accepts that the world is just a dream and creation of the
> mind, but does not accept many minds creating many worlds. He sees
> a unified world being created in the dreams of these many minds. In
> my view, there are difficulties with this approach.
>
> Firstly, this discussion and the topic are at the vyavahaarika level
> where the concept that there are many jeevas is acceptable and is valid.
> Many jeevas have many minds. And these many minds create the many worlds
> and hence these worlds are different. I still do not see evidence that all
> these minds create only one world.
>
> Secondly, the concept of a super-mind connecting all the jeevas' minds
> is suggested in the discussion either by Prashant or Miguel. Whose is
> this super-mind ? Is that of Nirguna Brahman ? Nirguna Brahman does not
> have a mind. Mind is the sole property of the jeeva, when the jeeva does
> not see unity with Nirguna Brahman (once the unity with Nirguna Bahman is
> recognized and realized, the mind is destroyed).
>
> Thirdly, this super-mind causing a unified dream world in all, would
> not hold because the question arises: whose is this dream ? Nirguna
> Brahman's ? Certainly not. GauDapAda says in the kArike, about Nirguna
> Brahman
>
> ajam, anidram, asvapnam, anAmakam, arUpakam ...
>
> (birthless, free from sleep and dream, without name and form ...)
>

It is acceptable that the real world is the creation of Saguna Brahman or
Ishwar.  This would be in agreement with the Shruti statements which say
God created the world.  Our dreams are caused by the effect of the world
on our minds.  Of course this is vyavahara.  All such distinctions will
disappear on the achievement of jnana.

> I think we have agreed that the world is a dream (at the paramArtha
> level). The only entity dreaming here is the jeeva and the world is
> only jeeva's dream. Except this dream is taking place in the wake-up
> state. When and if the jeeva goes beyond the wake-up state, then it would
> be realized that the world is only a dream. I still question the
> commonality of this dream and hope that Miguel provides a convincing
> argument for the same.
>

I don't have his original post but the basic argument against idealism
is that if each person is in their own world, why is the world of
experience so similiar from person to person?  One would expect more
variety than there is.

> S. Radhakrishnan [The
principal upanishhads] commenting on the
> MandUkya upanishhad, verse 3, says (and this comment may be appropriate
> here):
>

I'd be careful of Radhakrishnan.  He's another one of those who quotes
Advaita when it suits him and makes up his own junk at other times.  I
don't think Vedanta is nearly as idealistic as he makes out and in fact
the Advaita Acharyas probably tried to tone down that sort of thing in
order not to appear Buddhistic.

> "The waking state is the normal condition of the natural man, who without
> reflection accepts the universe as he finds it. The same physical universe
> bound by uniform laws presents itself to all such men."
>

Well then while he was President, why didn't he will Pakistan to stop
fighting against us?  If he's one of the "such men" there is little
hope for the rest of us is there?

> The world we see is, aside from this universe, what our own mind colours
> it, based on the purity and the discriminatory (between Real and unreal)
> nature of our intellect. And what I am saying is: it is this world that
> is different from jeeva to jeeva.
>

If you believe it is possible to report ones experiences, you should see
a lot more variety than there actually is.  If it isn't than we can never
break out of our little worlds yet we seem to be able to manage this
thread well enough :-)

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>