Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The sustained debate between Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika and lower Buddhist schools over what emptiness actually means drives this 97-minute commentary by Khensur Rinpoche. He works through a sequence of objections: lower schools argue the five senses prove things exist by their own right; Prāsaṇgika replies that sense perception is only conventionally valid, and that Buddha taught inherent existence as a skillful stepping-stone toward deeper understanding. He then develops the magic-illusion analogy at length — distinguishing the magician, early spectators, and latecomers who missed the spell — to show why karma and merit accumulation remain valid even if sentient beings, like illusory appearances, do not truly exist. A student’s question then probes whether emptiness can be proven through logic at all, prompting a reply comparing direct realization to tasting sweetness. The session closes with a digression on three types of dreams and their reliability for prediction. Best suited to practitioners already familiar with Mādhyamika debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 01 Ch9 Wisdom 1994 03 29.mp3
UUID: ae75692d-8cde-4b81-b4a1-a004aada7340
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Śāntideva Ch9 Wisdom (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1994-03-29
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 96.8 minutes
Words: ~5,892
Here, we continue from Śāntideva’s teaching, and the context instruction was on the point where the line says, for the purpose of the research, one engages. In brief, here in the establishment of the topic of emptiness in Buddhist explanation, the perspective about emptiness retained by Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika, the true Prāsaṇgika middle way school. The highest Buddhist school is the supreme view. And there the emptiness is explained to be non inherent existence of the things, of phenomena. Now the other Buddhist tenets who are lower to the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika could not comprehend the meaning of non inherent existence.
In their mental capacity they could not accept or understand that. Instead they think that things do exist by their own right. So they profess a theory of emptiness, which still is the assertion saying things exist by its own characteristics or by its own right. And as a consequence, they put forth certain counter questions to the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika and in return the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika refutes their counter questions and so forth. In this way, counter question and so forth is the nature of the text here so far in the ninth chapter.
First, when emptiness is explained as non inherent existence, there naturally are great deal of arguments put forth by the others, meaning the lower Buddhist tenets. So it is necessary in presenting the instructions here by the author that firstly those arguments need to be refuted to be proven wrong. Only then would the instruction can explain or can go direct into the actual explanation of the emptiness, the non inherent existence, what it is and so forth. Amongst the arguments, let’s look at the argument put forth by the lowest Buddhist tenet, the specific exponents, the Vaibhāṣika. They say your your explanation about emptiness that things do not inherently exist, which is in another word that things do not exist by their own right is unacceptable because things do exist by their own rights.
For example, the five objects of the five senses: form, sight, smell, sound, taste. And these sensations actually do exist because it is something we can directly see, feel, and so forth to be existing by their own right. If these do not exist by their own right, then it would mean that there are not at all these five objects of the senses. In this way, the argument put forth is on that basis, it is not it is not of not true that things do not exist by their own right. Instead, the things exist by their own right.
Then answer to that put forth by Śāntideva is the answer in accordance to the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, the highest middle way school. That answer says the existence apparently being perceived of the five objects by the five senses are only true conventionally that to the only renowned, to the, to, as renowned or as known to the only standard, and therefore as conventionally valid that things exist in that way. But apart from conventional validity, apart from conventional standard, things in actual fact do not exist by their own right. The five objects or the five senses do not exist in the actual state by their own right. Because to the eye, which even if it is inherently even if it is existing by its own right, to it the form or visual things do not exist by their own right.
As well, to the emptiness of inherent existence of the eye, to that as well, form or visual objects do not exist by their own right. And in brief, it is only to the extent of worldly convention that things exist as if by their own right. Well, in accordance to that, then the response by the higher score continues saying, well, if things do exist to the five senses such as the I sense, ear sense, nose sense, tongue sense and the physical sense, if they do exist as per the five senses, which is the valid direct perception of the five senses, then it would mean that even ordinary person perceives the reality of things as they are. Because if the way things exist is existing by their own right or truly existing, then that is what ordinary person as well perceive. Therefore, it would mean that ordinary person or beings as well perceive reality, in which case the consequence result would be that there is no purpose in doing steady reflection, meditation, on emptiness, on non inherent existence of things.
There is no purpose in doing all the trainings to realize reality because reality already is perceived by ordinary beings. So anyway, that’s the answer put forth. Buddha also in his own words says, I, ear, nose, tongue, body are not valid in reference to object. And that part of his teaching would mean that in realizing emptiness the eye sense is not valid, it is not correct. In realizing emptiness, the ear sense is not correct.
That’s the meaning. But of course, that does not negate the conventional validity of the senses that conventionally senses would still perceive conventional object, but they are not valid in terms of realizing emptiness. Well, the lowest tenet specific exponent and it’s our next higher tenet discourse group, they still put forth the counter response saying, well, the eye senses as well as other senses are, say, no doubt, not valid in realizing emptiness but still they are valid. But they are still valid in realizing the in the case of I, in realizing form existing by its own right. Because even in the world, it is conventionally known that a form exists by its own right.
So that’s the counter response. Now in response, the highest tenet says merely that something is valid by the standard of worldly convention is not good enough as a fact to prove its validity because in that case, let’s say the example in worldly convention, a human body, male or female, is considered beautiful and clean. But that’s not the actual state. Although conventionally, in worldly convention, the body is seen as clean, likable. But then if we are to, in that case, do we have to accept that body is clean?
It is. And the answer is it is not. Therefore, in the same way, to say that because by worldly convention, the form, sound, smell and so forth are existing by its own right or truly existing, that is not the ultimate standard by which to measure or validate something being proven in that way. So that’s the counter answer. In this way, through reasoning, Prāsaṇgika Middle Way School refutes the counter responses and the arguments put forth by the lower tenets.
And now in response, the lower Buddhist tenets put forth to the highest middle way school. But even in the teachings of the Buddha itself, your assertion will be contradicted because Buddha has thought things are impermanent and as well there is implication that Buddha explains inherent existence of things, that Buddha explains things exist by their own right. And now here, contrary to that here, you are saying things do not exist by their own right, that things do not truly exist. So therefore, middle highest middle way school, what you are saying is in contradiction to the actual words of the Buddha. So that’s what the lower schools then bring forth the argument.
The response is that Buddha, by being very skillful in his approach to lead the disciples of various mental faculties, in this case has taught things are existing by their own right, that things inherently exist. It shows the skillfulness of the Buddha because presently if that is taught to the right disciple through that way gradually the disciple could be led to the higher understanding that things do not inherently exist. As interpretive note, inherently existing, existing by its own right, truly existing naturally from there, these all can be seen as synonymous, interchangeable. So it is the very skillfulness of the Buddha who presently teaches inherent existence in order for the disciple later on to come to the understanding that things do not truly exist, that things do not inherently exist. Buddha can be seen as the doctor who prescribes at different stage to the same person different prescriptions.
For example, if the patient personally is with high fever, then the doctor advises not to eat yogurt, not to eat meat, not to eat egg and so forth. And then gives medicine and then later on when the fever is subsided then the wind is abnormally rising then the same physician, the doctor advises you should eat yogurt, you should eat meat, that’s where the latter part was, and you should eat maize, corn. So in this way, are two contradictory prescriptions given to the same patient. So in this way, in response to lower tenets, the highest tenets is in establishing the emptiness, the non inherent existence of things, we can have the validation through reasonings and as well through quotation or citations from the Buddha’s own word. As therefore in this way, through either way, there is no contradiction in saying that things do not exist by their own right, that things do not inherently exist.
And now, at this stage of the arguments and the counterpoints put forth by the lower tenets, the lower tenet continues at this stage by saying, you have earlier mentioned that things do not exist inherently and as evidence you said that things are like illusions and like dreams. Now if that is the case then in essence, you meaning the highest middle school, you are saying that things are like illusions and like dreams. Now if that is the case, then this would mean there’s no benefit, there’s no purpose in trying to achieve Buddhahood, in trying to achieve enlightenment, and also therefore there’s no purpose and benefit in putting effort to accumulate merits and do the host of practices required to attain Buddhahood, practices such as generosity and so forth. So in this way, this is the argument now put forth by the lower tenets. Now in response, the highest tenet says well, it is true that as you are pointing my stand that things or phenomena are not truly existing and they are like illusions, like dreams.
But this does not negate the need to become enlightened as well the need to accumulate merits and engage in the practices required to achieve that. Because although things are not truly existing and they are like illusion, but within the basis, on the basis of illusion, there can be nominally the feasibility of accumulating merits, doing practice and achieving Buddhahood. Because as far as you are concerned, meaning the lower tenets, as far as you are concerned, if it is feasible that by doing offerings and practices and accumulating merits and by making our offerings to a truly existing object, truly existing Buddha, that merits can be accumulated, that progress can be made. Here in this case, the same can be applied although things and phenomena are not truly existing like illusion, and Buddha too is like illusion but by making offering and doing practices still on functioning level the whole thing works. So it is a similar case as you are saying.
To lower tenets, the Buddha did say and teach that things exist by their own right. The reason for that is if the Buddha teach that things do not exist by their own right, then the disciples of lower tenets would think that things do not exist at all. And because of that, they will have the misconception, thinking there is no need to accumulate merit, there is no need to do prostrations, there is no need to make the effort to liberate from the cycle, from the saṃsāra. Instead, if the Buddha taught as it did that things exist by their own right, the disciple then thinks that things are there. And on that basis, they get the idea and the working possibility of the whole practices such as prostration, generosity, patience and the other practices in order to liberate from saṃsāra and so forth.
So in this way, one can say that it is only for them to be benefited that the Buddha taught in that way. And it is therefore in teaching to them that things do exist by their own right, that things do exist truly, that given in the context meaning, it really was of a great benefit to those of the lower tenets. Between the two teaching things do not exist truly or teaching things exist truly, it was more beneficial to the lower tenets to be taught that things do exist truly, that things do exist by their own right. Now there is another argument put forth by the lower tenets and that is if as you are saying, meaning the highest tenet, or as you are saying things are like illusion as if in magic, then then sentient beings are like illusions in the magic. Now in the case of illusions in magic, when the power of the spell diminishes, the manifestation through the magic also diminishes and when the power of the spell is gone, the manifestation also is gone.
For example, when the power of the spell is completely diminished, the manifestation of horses and ox on the charmed thing also disappears. Now similarly, if sentient beings saw illusions or like illusions, then when they die they will not be born again because it’s like their spent power to remain manifested has expired. Wouldn’t you accept that? So that’s the question put forth. Now if illusion is to be compared to the context meaning, then because illusion also is subject to expiry then sentient beings also is similarly subject to expiry during death.
Response, the highest Madhyamaka tenet explains, well, the whole circling of a sentient being in the cycle in saṃsāra is due to impure thoughts and karma. It is due to these two that a sentient being is born and is circling in the saṃsāra in the cycle, literally meaning wandering choicelessly. Now, the moment the impure thoughts and karma are not there, the sentient being will cease to be in saṃsāra, in this cyclic existence. The sentient being will cease to be in this state, although the continuity of that consciousness will remain in the form of liberated mind. Therefore, it is exactly similar to the case of illusion produced in magic case.
Because in the same way, as long as there’s the substance and the spell which change the substance, when these two are complete, when these two are gathered, the manifestation of illusion will be there. The moment these two are not present, the substance and the mantra. If these two are not there, illusion will not be there. Therefore, still it does not negate the validity of the manifestation being there in the example when these two are gathered and in the case of the context meaning the validity that sentient being still is there in some sort. It cannot be negated in the similar way. So it is exactly similar case where in the case of sentient being, if the karma and impure thoughts are there, then the existence in the saṃsāra, in the cycle will be there.
The moment the karma and impure thoughts cease to exist or cease to be there, then the existence in the cycle is also ceased. Therefore, it is same. And in the case of example, again, if the substance which is charmed and the mantra which charms the substance, if these two are there, then the illusory manifestation of illusory horses or ox or any spectacle that is produced by the magician will be there. The moment the substance and the mantra are not there, the illusory manifestation also cease to be there. We can then conclude the two are same, that two can still be valid as long as those are gathered up there.
So about the land of survival code? So is it very clear as we go along the question and the answer and the question and answer? No. Thank you. That’s how we do it.
Is it very confusing or messy? So this part was dealing with the rebirthing in the being born again in the Samsāra and it brings to light the validity by relating it with the validity of the manifestation in the produced by the magic. So it is in that way bringing similarity in the two cases. And again, now there’s another argument put forth by the lower By the lower tenets, before we go into that, just let me say interpretive note. These are actually all very interesting as you can relate as representation of possible questions regarding the non inherent existence.
So it can be like you can put yourself in the lower Buddhist tenets perspective and see the light of the argument brought forth. Now, continuing, another argument is put forth by lower tenets and they say, well if something beings are like illusions, like an illustration of of magic, then there is the implication that virtue and non virtue will be invalid. How that is so is, in the case of illusion, illusion is produced in magic, even if that illusion is struck with weapons, beaten or spoken rudely, there is nothing to be heard. There’s no hurting, there’s no inflection at all. Similarly, then you will have to accept that if sentiments are like illusion, then if you strike weapons or beat them or speak rudely to them, there should not be any non virtue or negativity being accumulated by the one inflicting the pain, the hurt, because the argument is same.
So that is the argument put forth. Reason for laughter was because it seemed quite funny to put forth in that way. Now in response, the highest tenet says, in the case of illusion produced in magic session, when there is either horse or ox or any apparition being produced as a manifestation, well in there there is nothing wrong in striking or hitting or beating and so forth. There is no life in the illusory horse, there is no life in the illusory ox. But it would still be valid how a bad karma is accumulated or that good karma is accumulated, meaning negativity is accumulated, that point still would be valid. For example, although in the case of magic in manifestation, if say, during a magic session, a horse or ox is produced by the magician out of spell charm.
Now, if a person who inflict harm on even to illusory being, if there’s an intention to hurt or kill, and through that intention, if the person hits or strikes it with weapons and so forth to the illusory being, there is negativity of effort — I won’t go into that. There is negativity of effort, but because there is no there is not a being which has life, so there is no negativity of the actual basis because as you would know to interpret in the discussions in karma, there are ways how negativity is accumulated on the basis of intensity of intention basis, the actual effort and the completion at the end. So through four possible ways of negativity either together or through any of the four. So in that case, there is no actual life in the illusory manifestation, but due to intention, there is negativity through our effort, the actual exertion of effort of killing. But there is no negativity on the basis of basis.
Whereas in the case of sentient beings, if one with intention to hurt or inflict harm does something either through weapon or through any means, then there is not only the negativity or bad karma being accumulated through exertion of effort to hurt, but also there is negativity or bad karma being accumulated through the actual basis because in the case of sentient being, it is a case of a living being which has that life. So therefore, the two are different and it is definitely serious and creating of bad karma or negativity is valid in the case of sentient being. And the counter response by the highest tenets continues saying, the very analogy of sentient beings being likened to illusion is from only one perspective, and it should not be compared by all terms and all perspective, because the comparison is because the analogy is only on the basis of the comparison of what appears is not what it is. For example, in the case of illusion in magic session, the manifestation appears to the spectators but are the manifestations actually there to be felt and functioning validly? It’s not.
Therefore, in the case of illusion, it just appears. But as it appears, it is not like that in its actual state. Similarly, sentient beings may appear inherently existing, but in actual ultimate state of where they exist, they are not inherently existing. Only to that extent the comparison must be seen and not in all cases. In the case of sentient beings, there is also that sentient beings have life and because they have life, if one helps them, there will be merits or virtue being accumulated.
If one hurts or harms them, there will be negativities accumulated, bad karma accumulated. Therefore, it is different here in the case of the sentient beings. And the explanation by the highest standard continues saying, whereas in the case of the illusory horse and illusory ox produced through substance charmed with formula or spell, there is only the appearance part of the illusory horse and ox. The way how works is the magician spells charms through spell or formula the substance, whether it is a small stone or a stick of a tree and then that spell is absorbed or charmed onto the substance and then the spell by medium of the substance strikes at the spectator’s eyes through which there is appearance of these illusory horse and ox and whatever the spectacle, the magician, the power of the mantra is supposed to produce. But yet, in that case, the mantra does not have the power to produce a mind and life in the spectacle produced, in the manifestation produced.
So the spell does not have the power to produce mind and life. And in that way, the two cases are different. Now here this whole point brings to the light the point that when something is taken as analogy, the comparison is only on the basis of certain point and it is not to be understood as the the thing being compared. The example and the meaning by which compare is to be likened the two are to be likened through every angle and perspective. That is not so.
If that is to be done, then it is extremely difficult to find an example that suits the meaning in all ways and in all fashions. From point, it is then necessary that when an example is given, is on the basis of certain point to be illustrate that the example is taken and the two do not relate to each other in all ways. Now here in the case of the illusion produced as horse, ox or any other spectacles, say elephant, we can say basically it is an example of what appears is not actually found there. And now going deeper into the example, now let’s say when a magic session happens, we can look at it as a classical time where this type of magic did happen, that magician would produce such spectacles through certain charms have learned in their line of knowledge. So in that case, a magic session happens, we can say three types of spectators happen, meaning or we can put it this way, when a magic session happens, we can say this onlookers can be grouped into three types.
First is the magician who himself or herself has produced the illusion in the session. And the second type of onlookers are those who who were present right from the beginning of the session of magic. And then third would be those who have come late. Let’s say if the session started at one o’clock, then the third type of onlookers would be those who arrived at two o’clock. Therefore, they missed the actual session.
In this way, there are these three types. Now, going back to the first, the magician. Now, magician itself has produced the spectacle, the illusion. Now, to the magician, yes, the spectacle, the illusion does appear, whether it is a horse or ox or an elephant or whatever other spectacle. Yet, magician does not have the cleaning and the word actually used is recognition, which is to be meant as the deliberate thinking that it is.
There is no such recognition, recognition in this case in the sense of deliberate thinking. Yet the magician does not have the recognition that it is truly a horse or an ox or an elephant. So in this way we can have the magician’s perspective. Although the spectacle, the illusion appears, there’s no clinging, there’s no deliberate outlook thinking that they exist. Now, with the actual spectators, they have two, meaning they have both kinds.
To them the horse, ox do appear and as well the spectators cling onto the notion that there actually is a horse or an ox. So there are those two present with the spectators, the appearance as well as the vision, the appearance and the clinging both. Now, if the horse and the ox do exist truly from their side, they should appear to those onlookers who came two o’clock an hour late in the magic session. Now to those onlookers, the horse and the ox do not appear. Why they do not appear is because the power of the spell has diminished already and the horse and the ox does not appear anymore.
So that would be the case. Now although this illusion produced by the magician do not exist truly, but yet by the spectator side, it is possible based on the illusion produced that attachment, lust, hatred and so forth can be generated. For example, if the magician produces a very beautiful person, a very attractive person, if the magician produces as an illusion, then from the part of spectators it is possible to feel lustful towards the illusion and in this way it is possible that based on the illusion produced that spectators can have increased lust or anger and so forth generated within their mind. In the case of sentient beings, although they do not although they appear, yet they do not inherently exist. That is the case.
And they appear, they do not truly exist. Yet, we can say it is on the functioning level, it is possible that to such a sentient being one can accumulate in relation to such a sentient being one can accumulate negativity and merits. For example, if one meditates on loving kindness by focusing on such sentient beings, then merits can be produced. One would accumulate virtue, merits and so forth. Similarly, if one harbours enmity and be hateful towards them, then again negativity can be accumulated.
One would create bad karma and so forth. And in this way, although by appearing and not yet truly existing, it is still feasible, it is still valid that accumulation of merits and accumulation of negativity is possible. In the same way, reflection of face in the mirror and television screen TV which we look at are there, the images are there, although they do not truly exist. So the host of similar examples can be looked in the same way although they appear they do not truly exist. Now still the basic point that on a functioning level the things that are feasible must be maintained because by looking at the reflection in the mirror it helps to remove black spot and also to paint white or pink or whatever makeup one wants to do, and it helps to beautify oneself.
So in this way, by looking at the mirror and seeing the reflection which actually although apparent does not exist truly, tends to be helpful. Going back to the point of our practice and daily spiritual life, it is still feasible that by harboring enmity and hatred one would create bad karma, accumulate negativity and by helping and meditating on loving kindness and so forth. One would improve spiritually by accumulating merits. In the same way, television with TV, there are images being appearing on the screen and when people look at it, although the images appearing are not truly there, can still have lust and attachment and so forth when the images are attractive and what’s the word images are attractive and spunky. Was going to use something else, but I can’t remember.
And and if the images depict something one doesn’t like, there will be hatred, anger, and so forth. So we can take television as an example of non inherent existence of things, just like illusion. So we’ll stop here for the evening, and if you have any questions, it would be good. I don’t find the logic in these arguments very convincing. Although I don’t necessarily disagree with the And I wondered why it seems to me that these questions and answers arrive at an intellectual and logical proof of a mere label of what is the direct experience and is itself beyond all logic and labels.
So you can’t actually prove emptiness anyway. Mhmm. Because it’s beyond I mean, we can prove the that label emptiness, which you can’t prove the Now these are the arguments, but the actual reasonings to prove emptiness still has to come afterwards. So at the moment it’s the argument part. So the latter part was, if one thinks the emptiness cannot be proven through reasoning because it is to be experienced directly by mind, well might then the actual reasoning will come much more afterward.
Whether the responses are convincing or not, it would depend whether the responses are good enough to stop the argument because that is the measure of convinceability. If the response can like refute the argument, it is very convincing. You can have an example if overflow water is flooding down, if we can stop the over flooding, then it is a very convincing method, it is a workable method. In the similar way here, as long as the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka counter response helps to refute the misconceptions of lower ones, then it is convincing in its own standard. Sweet, of course, is no doubt to be tasted directly by tongue.
But then, sweet has to be made in the first place. And in the making of the sweet, there’s all factors and conditions, ingredients, so forth necessary. Similarly, no doubt emptiness is subject directly to realization of direct awareness. In that way, it is true, it can be seen as beyond intellect, beyond concept, conceptual understanding. But to come to that point of direct realization, one needs so many factors and conditions such as depending on lama’s instructions and the accumulation of merits and purification of negativities and applying of sharp reasonings, multitudes of sharp reasonings, so one has to prepare and then we’ll come there.
And, there are still more there. And, you don’t come to the realization don’t come to you just by you staying there opening mouth. Yeah. Good. What is Yeah.
Sorry. Good. That’s a good question. Oh, dear. Good to talk.
Yep. Now to start with dreams and images in dreams can first be looked at as having three types: dreams which happen on the first part of the night, which is immediate after going to sleep and the second part which is midnight dreams, and third about dawn time dreams. The first part of the night dreams mostly are dreams of which we had more habit during daytime, something which we have been very intensely associated during the daytime and as an imprint, as a habit pattern, they seem to have effect for our dreams. So they are what we are more used to, more associated during daytime. The midnight and thereabouts dreams are due to firstly, they are mostly due to the disturbances through non human forces, for example, that’s the time.
Mostly the non human invisible ordinary non human beings are going about with their existence, they are more active. And due to that, the dreams that happen are more related with the non human’s activity at that time. Therefore, in terms of prediction and prophecy, these two types of dreams are considered not reliable as they are influenced by current circumstances and environment of the sleep state. And it has been explained the first two parts of the night’s drain are mostly unreliable. Now we have the last part of the night’s dream which is about predawn time dream.
Now that part of the that part of the night’s dream, what can be used for predictions and signals for one’s coming events, work and travels and so forth. Therefore the dreams of that part can be used as analysis, dream analysis, meaning of which the dreams are analyzed to determine certain facts, either prophecy, prediction or facts about present events and so forth. Now there’s also a way where dreams can be accomplished, A phrase meaning that one deliberately goes into sleep wanting to have a prediction of certain events in the dream in that part of the night. Through that way dreams can be like dreams can be pre planned, expected dreams. So it is called dreams can be accomplished and and the dreams of that period can be used in the dream accomplishment.
But we can say the benefit of the predictions achieved and the information achieved through dreams of the last part even are something very minor. And they are helpful only to the extent for these lives, what’s called limited periods and limited events. So they’re not to be taken too seriously. In general, dreams happen during the time when we go to sleep and when the mind is numbed into ghun. So it is in that state the dream somehow with previous habit patterns or imprint of the mind with association with things, places and activities happen to manifest as dream.
And because of that, we can say that dreams are not that to be relied upon and therefore not that to take into consideration. There’s expression which goes, it is not true, like dream. Therefore, dream is taken as an example of lack of truth. Yes, we can say that they are not of any real significance. But as said earlier, there is a type of dream which are accomplished dreams, where a person goes into pre planned sessions through practice sessions, in which the dream is expected to forecast events and so forth.
And in that dream is accomplished. It is a predictable outcome one expects to bring certain information and in that it is extremely reliable, meaning the information is accurate in that type of dream. Apart from that, can be not helpful or significant reality.