Teach me about Vishishtadvaita.

[smaranam]

I think I have my quote now. Please search for:

"The cognitions are real, but the things are not real"

in: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48025.htm

I think this is not Purvapakshi, it is Sri Ramanuja.

My thought is that the problem with making objects real is that the basic VA philosophy of truth being not contrary to perception (clear) maybe violated. .

praNAm

A question for everyone looking at this topic -

If BhagavAn comes and tells the devotee something or instructs them in a dream, similarly if a Guru does the same, would that be unreal? His Darshan, the place, what He conveys, everything?

What about the numerous intuitive dreams that predict future events, give hints, warnings, guidance...

What about examples of KRshNa saying in Madhavendra Puri's dream "I (My vigraha) am stuck here in such and such a place under soil in heat (thanks to Muslim invasions). Remove Me and place Me in a cool location, apply sandalwood"
and the devotee going to that place to find that being exactly the case?

These dreams are mediums of communication.

If objects in dreams got real, then maybe it will become the object of other people's perception - just a thought

I am at home, and I hear the cuckoo sing in the tree by the window. Other people are not at home and they do not see or hear the cuckoo.
Does that make the cuckoo unreal?

** I am not saying dream objects are real as a rule. Most are a kind way to burn insignificant karma (a consequence given - and most nightmares are such consequences). However, we can't apply that in all cases.

Also noticed that some dreams could be a result/outcome of others' conscious thoughts about you or what they think you should be doing, those others who you interact with during the day, not conveyed or spoken aloud by them. This is one-time or accidental chance meetings, not talking about those you regularly interact with.
Somehow you sense and trace the reason behind the dream to be their inner thoughts and attitude even though they hide it. As if their wish to try a hand at influencing is given a chance by paramAtmA even though He directly wants you to do the opposite in real life.
You just KNOW that was what it was. Please don't ask "how do you know"
Ultimately the One behind all this is ParamAtmA.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[jignyAsu]

praNAm

A question for everyone looking at this topic -

If BhagavAn comes and tells the devotee something or instructs them in a dream, similarly if a Guru does the same, would that be unreal? His Darshan, the place, what He conveys, everything?

Namaste Smaranam,

We indeed have instances where Bhagavan appears in dream. Like Bhagavan appeared in the dream of Sri Nathamuni commanding Him to get back to kAttumannAr koil. Or Melkote PerumAL directed Bhagavad Ramanuja in His dreams to find His location. All these and many more instances in the lives of devotees are indeed true and not unreal.

But the question is if one sees a tiger in a nightmare chasing her, is this tiger actually real? As per VA, the experiences are real and dispenses one's karma and infact are granted by God Himself a/c to one's karma. However the object is not real. The above instance where God Himself appears is different, though that's a good point to be brought up.

If the objects are real, then the gain and loss that happens in a dream are also real. If one loses his dear ones in his dream then the loss would become real and fit to be remembered the rest of his life. Devotees would fondly recollect all their lives as to how Bhagavan appeared in their dreams 15 years ago, but would hardly remember a loss of dear ones in their dreams 10 years back. That analogy given by Philosoraptor about dream being similar to watching a movie is apt - from VA POV.

[Sri Vaishnava]

As per VA, the experiences are real and dispenses one's karma and infact are granted by God Himself a/c to one's karma. However the object is not real. The above instance where God Himself appears is different, though that's a good point to be brought up.

If the objects are real, then the gain and loss that happens in a dream are also real. If one loses his dear ones in his dream then the loss would become real and fit to be remembered the rest of his life. Devotees would fondly recollect all their lives as to how Bhagavan appeared in their dreams 15 years ago, but would hardly remember a loss of dear ones in their dreams 10 years back. That analogy given by Philosoraptor about dream being similar to watching a movie is apt - from VA POV.

This is a misunderstanding of VA. As per VA, all objects are real, even those in dreams. If the tiger in the dream was not real, then the experience would not be real. The upanishad too declares that all dreams are real, vide "He is the maker of Dreams" and similar statements in the Br.Up.

The objects in the dreams, however belong to a temporary reality, ie, they are real only as long as the dream lasts. In other words, the dream tiger is not like a real tiger, it is a real "image" created by the mind (scientifically speaking) to enjoy the dream.

[Sri Vaishnava]

If the objects are real, then the gain and loss that happens in a dream are also real. If one loses his dear ones in his dream then the loss would become real and fit to be remembered the rest of his life. Devotees would fondly recollect all their lives as to how Bhagavan appeared in their dreams 15 years ago, but would hardly remember a loss of dear ones in their dreams 10 years back

This argument does not stand. Sri Ramanuja and Sri vedanta Desikan have clearly explained all this. If you have a dream where you see a dear person dying, then you have experienced that grief in your dream. So, it is the real experience of a real object. The fact that you forget it later on does not negate its reality.

Why is then, that loss irrelevant in the waking state? Because the object you saw in the dream was not your loved one, but only an image of your loved one created for the sake of experience in the dream. But that image is 100% real as long as it existed and hence, it is not unreal.

Sat KhyAti vAda says that all objects of perception are real and all experiences are real. So, the image of the loved one dying was indeed real and had a temporary existence as long as the dream lasted. The experience of grief in the dream is real.

What is the error then, if all objects seen are real? The error lies in "akhyAti", ie, non-apprehension of the entire properties of the object and only congising partial properties, or to rephrase, the error lies in non-apprehension of the difference between the object in the dream and the object in the waking state. The object in the dream is the image of a loved person that is 100% real and a creation for the dream. The object in the waking state is the loved one himself or herself, that is different from his/her real image which was created in the dream and is also 100% real.

Hope this clarifies. I suggest people read tattva mukta kalApa to understand the VA position. The idea that unreal objects can be perceived and experienced is not VA, but Dvaita.

[jignyAsu]

Namaskaram Sri Vaishnava,

But what does this mean then?

"The two cases are not parallel, we reply. The conscious states experienced in dreams are not unreal; it is only their objects that are false; these objects only, not the conscious states, are sublated by the waking consciousness. Nobody thinks 'the cognitions of which I was conscious in my dream are unreal'; what men actually think is 'the cognitions are real, but the things are not real.' "

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48025.htm

is this a wrong translation or am I misunderstanding something here?

Or is VA saying that the objects in dreams are true in the sense that even though they don't exist they are based on real objects (real tiger) unlike in Advaita where there is no real basis even?

[grames]

Dear Sri Vaishnava.,

Very nice post! Just wanted to correct a sentence at the end of ur message...

"unreal objects are not real and thus no existence ... VA idea is, anything that is perceivable comes in to existence in perception thus, real". So, the last statement is confusing as u said, Unreal objects cannot be perceived! It is other way around as some of our "imagination" or dream objects not/never found in the waking state are also considered "real" as it is perceived but the scope of the existence is limited to imagination duration or in the realm of dream!

VA and also Dvaita is very clear about this and there is no quest or question of searching for the status of "reality" whence you cross the border of any "realm"! in Vedantic System! ( Advaitic interpretations are also admitting this as a fact by the method of four states - with faults). That's exactly what you have explained about "dream of person's death". In the dream state of that 'particular night", the person died and in the waking state, he is still alive. More interesting fact is, the same person in another night dream might be giving you a hug or watching a movie with you. All are "Real" constrained with in their realm and also in their instance!

VA slightly differs when the perception is "Wrong" with in a realm as Snake in the place of Robe... and defines the boundary of reality here that, as long as it was perceived as Snake, it is "real" bounded by the faulty perception for that moment of perception! Dvaita says, this explanation or extra knowledge as not required for proving the reality of the world, and it is sufficient to discard the reality of the wrong perception when the knowledge quest is about the "ultimate" reality with Right perception as the Object of Interest did not change. (All these can happen with in single dimension of Realm thus, proves the theory of Advaita as untenable). Technically, VA gives a lot more explanation and knowledge and Dvaita just simplifies it!

Hare Krshna!

[Sri Vaishnava]

Namaskaram Sri Vaishnava,

But what does this mean then?

"The two cases are not parallel, we reply. The conscious states experienced in dreams are not unreal; it is only their objects that are false; these objects only, not the conscious states, are sublated by the waking consciousness. Nobody thinks 'the cognitions of which I was conscious in my dream are unreal'; what men actually think is 'the cognitions are real, but the things are not real.' "

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48025.htm

The translation is at the least, not accurate to the sanskrit used by the AchAryan. I suggest you check the real sanskrit. While sri bhAshyam uploaded on Sacred Texts is useful for reference, it cannot be considered as perfectly authentic. For instance, I myself know places where AchAryan uses the term "asat" to denote changing svarUpa, but which is often mistranslated as "unreal" or "false" on the internet.

Regarding that sentence, note what the translation says, "the cognitions are real, but the things are not real". This has been mistranslated. "Cognition" means perception. So, it means that the perception is real, so the object perceived is also real. All that the AchAryan is saying is that the object that you THOUGHT you perceived did not exist.

Ie, you thought you saw a tiger, but in reality, that tiger was not there. But the cognition was real because what you saw was a REAL dream image and hence, is not negated.

Note what the translation says, "what men actually think is 'the cognitions are real, but the things are not real.'"

Ie, What I saw (perception) was real, but the tiger did not exist.

If so, what was seen which was real? The text further says in the context of another example,

"The cognition which, owing to some defect in the object, the sense organ, &c., apprehends a rope as a snake is real,"

Ie, there is a REAL apprehension of a rope and non-apprehension of the properties that distinguish it from a snake. Error lies in non-apprehension (akhyAti).

"True also is the imagination which, owing to the nearness of a snake, arises in the mind of a man though not actually bitten, viz. that he has been bitten; true also is the representation of the imagined"

The imagination creates an image of the snake in the mind and hence, is real. What does not exist is a real snake, which was never there. Same goes for dream objects.

And finally, take note,

"In the same way the reflection of the face in the water is real, and hence enables us to ascertain details belonging to the real face. All these states of consciousness are real, as we conclude from their having a beginning and actual effects.--Nor would it avail you to object that in the absence of real elephants, and so on, the ideas of them cannot be real. For ideas require only some substrate in general; the mere appearance of a thing is a sufficient substrate, and such an appearance is present in the case in question, owing to a certain defect. The thing we determine to be unreal because it is sublated; the idea is non-sublated, and therefore real."

"states of consciousness" is a rough translation but what it means is that the objects perceived according to the level of perception (ie, seeing only partial attributes of the object) is all real.

Also note, that the last statement "the thing we determine to be unreal" simply means that the elephant was not real. But the idea refers to the perception of something such as an elephant like rock which was real and the non-apprehension of certain distinguishing qualities caused the error.

Or is VA saying that the objects in dreams are true in the sense that even though they don't exist they are based on real objects (real tiger) unlike in Advaita where there is no real basis even?

Why unnecessarily confuse yourself by saying they don't exist when you admit they are true? The dream objects are real and they exist. But they don't exist in the waking state, ie, they have a temporary reality in that they are created during the dream and exist only as long as the dream lasts.

VA is differentiated from Advaita by saying that all objects are real and that perception is not sublated by shAstra. VA is differentiated from Dvaita by saying that all objects perceived are real and nothing unreal is seen.

Like I said, read Tattva Mukta Kalapa and not translations on the net,

[Sri Vaishnava]

VA slightly differs when the perception is "Wrong" with in a realm as Snake in the place of Robe... and defines the boundary of reality here that, as long as it was perceived as Snake, it is "real" bounded by the faulty perception for that moment of perception!

Wrong. We say that the person making the error did the following things:

1) He saw certain real properties of the rope, such as being curved, shaped like a snake, etc.

2) He did not see the properties which distinguished the rope from a snake, such as it is not made of snake skin, it is non-living, etc.

So, the error is due to 2), ie, non-apprehension and does not negate the perception of 1). Because even if the error is realised, if the person sees a rope from afar, he will still see the same thing. But the knowledge of his prior mistake will prevent him from thinking it is a snake.

Dvaita says, this explanation or extra knowledge as not required for proving the reality of the world, and it is sufficient to discard the reality of the wrong perception when the knowledge quest is about the "ultimate" reality with Right perception as the Object of Interest did not change.

Dvaita's asat- anyathA khyAti vAda differs greatly from VA and hence, the two cannot be compared

Technically, VA gives a lot more explanation and knowledge and Dvaita just simplifies it!

Wrong again. It is VA which simply says that whatever is seen is real and error is due to apprehension of some qualities of the perceived object which are real and have similarlity with the object that the person confuses it with, along with a non-apprehension of attributes that distinguish the two objects. Even a second perception only results in cognition of the entire object properly and does negate the properties which were cognised earlier. It is Dvaita that brings in an unreal element and attributes error to unreal snakes and such.

Of course, if you believe Dvaita is correct and VA is wrong, no problems. Just don't misquote VA or state that the two are similar. akhyAti samvalita sat khyAti and asat-anyathA khyAti are vastly different.

When srI rAmAnuja or srI desika say that "the snake did not exist", it does not mean the object of perception. What was perceived were some qualities of rope which had a similarity with snake and hence, the object of perception was real. Error was due to non-apprehension of the rope's other qualities distingusihing it from a snake. So, statements in sri bhashya such as "snake did not exist, etc only affirm that the perceived object was not a snake but something else and 100% real.

This is my last post on the subject. Esoteric topics like these cannot be discussed without studying Tattva Mukta Kalapa, Sruta Prakasika, etc which supplement the Sri Bhashya and certainly not by online translations of Sri Bhashya.

[jignyAsu]

Thanks much for the correction, Sri Vaishnava! The translations out in the internet are indeed not 100% reliable. I will check out the sources you have pointed out to.

[grames]

Very strong statement but i beg to differ.

The erroneous perception comes to light only after the actual object is realized but from the moment of perception until the reality dawns in the perceives mind, it is not alone the attributes etc. but the conclusion driven from the attributes that the object that is getting perceived is Snake is also real but lives only until the swarupa of the object is revealed!

The perception being real is the point and the object's reality has nothing to do with the reality of the perception! This is where VA is elaborating more if you have read my message clearly.

I am not saying both VA and Dvaita are Same!

Hare Krshna!