Discourse on the Sutra of the Father and Son Compendium (156)

Is the bitter gourd eaten in a dream substantially existent?

Original Text: King, it is like a person in a dream, tormented by hunger, who obtains bitter gourds, along with Kusaṭakī seeds and Vījūmūlaka seeds, and proceeds to eat them. His mind then gives rise to resentment and hatred. What do you think? After this person awakens and recalls eating the bitter gourd and so forth in his dream, did that event substantially exist? The King said: No, it did not.

The Buddha said: King, is this person, who clings to what he dreamed as substantially real, a wise person? The King said: No, World-Honored One. Why is this? In the dream, after all, there were no bitter gourds and the like, much less the act of eating them. It should be understood that this person merely vainly exhausted himself, and there was nothing real at all.

Explanation: King, for example, a person in a dream, driven by hunger, obtained bitter gourds and Kusaṭakī seeds, Vījūmūlaka seeds, and other bitter and unpalatable things, and then ate them. After eating, he felt suffering in his mind and became displeased. What do you think? After this person awoke and recalled the event of eating bitter gourds in his dream, was that event substantially existent? King Śuddhodana said: It was not substantially existent.

The Buddha said: King, is this person, who clings to what he dreamed as substantially real, a wise person? King Śuddhodana said: He is not a wise person, World-Honored One. Why is this so? Because in the dream, after all, there was no such thing as bitter gourds, much less the act of eating them. It should be understood that this person only pointlessly taxed his mind; there was nothing real at all.