Why the same dream?

Gummuluru Murthy gmurthy at MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA
Mon Nov 24 14:55:27 CST 1997

On Sat, 22 Nov 1997, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

> Gummurulu wrote: ^ÓWe see the same Milky Way [...] because we are
> indoctrinated by the same maaya^Ô.
> [...]
> Dear Gummuluru, you say that ^ÓOnly after our indoctrination by maaya, do we
> see the difference between the snake and the rope and our superposition of
> the snake on the rope^Ô, which does not yet apply with children  : ^ÓThe
> child would be playing with the snake as she would be playing with a rope^Ô.
> But that would imply that maaya is just the result of experience or
> education, and that a person´s first few years or months are free from
> maaya.

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?

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

ajam, anidram, asvapnam, anAmakam, arUpakam ...

(birthless, free from sleep and dream, without name and form ...)

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.

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

"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."

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.

Gummuluru Murthy
... aham-bhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya paramAvadhih ...
                        Shri Shankara in Viveka ChuDAmaNi (verse 424)

The end of the rise of the sense of "I" of the ego is the culmination
of knowledge.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list