In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 18, 2021 16:27:22 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 18, 2021 16:27:22 GMT

Mar 15, 2021 at 12:22pm Reefs said:
This is a documentary from the mid 90s, but still as relevant as ever. The interesting thing for me was that these scientists and inventors found out what Seth had been teaching all along, that there are no closed systems. And this seems to be the key to everything in physics.

For those who don't have the time to watch this 2h video, I've got the most important parts in writing:

Narrator: “One thing is certain, if we continue on the course of rapidly burning fossil fuels and relying on nuclear fission, the future of our civilization is in grave jeopardy. We're at a critical juncture… our finite reserves of oil and gas will be completely exhausted by the year 2025 at the present [1997] rate of consumption” (** facepalm **)

...

Shiuji Inomata (MIT scientist, psychotronics): “To understand this machine [inomata n-machine] you need a mind change, a paradigm shift in yourself. So far physics, ordinary science considers only the material world. But we should seek another world, the unseen world. And we should recognize that the unseen world and the material world are connected. This energy comes from the other dimension.”

Reefs entitled the thread he posted this in; "The practical Side Of Spirituality." He uses the Seth teachings as a comparison. What he isn't saying, and I wonder if he sees (seems he used to see it) is that the Seth teachings and all ideas about 'other worlds' that unify or connect with the appearing physical world, fall under the umbrella of New Age spirituality....all 'in the dream' stuff and as far removed from Nonduality as Christianity or any other religion is.

If we're talking "Truth," the practical side of spirituality could be summarized as; after SR, life, the dream continues on, chopping wood/carrying water, complete with experiences that may defy in the dream consensus trance belief about what is possible, mystical ideas and experiences should they arise, and none of it is identified with...all of it, clearly seen to be an empty, ephemeral appearance, all arising dependent and non-separately within/to that which abides all ideas, all experience.

Last Edit: Mar 18, 2021 16:31:49 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 18, 2021 16:42:15 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 18, 2021 16:42:15 GMT

Reefs: What others call ether or energy or Qi/Ki (or as ZD suggested, the holy spirit), Seth calls vitality. And what we call the material world, or manifested or physical reality, Seth calls 'solidified vitality'. I think that's a brilliant choice of words by Seth/Jane.

No matter what you call 'it,' it's still 'phenomenal,'....still a 'perceivable.' Which means, as compelling as an experience, knowing, intuition, sense of, this 'vital energy' may be, it's still an in the dream phenomena and NOT Truth.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 18, 2021 16:59:32 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 18, 2021 16:59:32 GMT

amit:If your uderstanding of noduality is All is One, then there are no exceptions to that. In that scenario, ego is simply Oneness egoing, meaning that ego is fully oneness manifest, so cannot possibly be an obstacle to total connection to oneness because it IS oneness.

Nonduality is not equal to a conceptual understanding that it's all One. It's a seeing through of what is not actually so. The terms Oneness/nonduality are mere pointers to non-conceptual seeing/realization.

You are using the pointer "Oneness" there, in a way the exemplifies what it means to conceptualize a pointer. There is no some-thing called "Oneness" that does stuff. In the past others have referred to that as "the Oneness blob."

Oneness is a term to denote the fundamental absence of 'two-ness'....the Truth of singularity...that there is Consciousness and all that arises within/to Consciousness...no separation between them...nothing outside of Consciousness and that which arises within/to that, which can be/is known. So long as we are acknowledging perceivables, "distinction" must also be acknowledged. But distinction is not "fundamental separation."

Yes, in awakening it can be seen that even that which obscures Truth is an arising within Consciousness, not separate from it, God, Godding, and there there was not ever anything that needed to BE 'connected,' as it's all One, but from the position of delusion, where ego is obscuring that Truth, the presence of an imagined SVP does very much color the entirety of experience...it doesn't mean there was ever a true absence of connection, but there was the imagining of parts/things that were existence in their own right and thus, that were actually separate, and that's what suffering is. Imagined separation.

So for you to suggest that the Truth of Oneness nullifies all need for the seeing through of ego, simply because ego is not separate from that which abides, ignores the importance of experience that is rife with suffering vs. experience that is absent suffering.

Before awakening, appearing distinction is mistaken for fundamental separation. That's the mistake that gets seen through in SR.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 24, 2021 20:15:15 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 24, 2021 20:15:15 GMT

Zendancer: That's a rather weird quote, and it doesn't compute for me. I personally know at least 20 people who have acquired a deep existential understanding, seen through all of the common illusions, and are no longer searching for anything. The only thing that changed for them was what's been pointed to before--a lightness of being, no fear of death, no existential questions, total acceptance of "what is," no attachments to thoughts, and enjoyment of sharing what they've found with others. After the spiritual search comes to an end, which is more like a shift in understanding than a shift in perception, life is much like before but without all of the crazy thought patterns that dominate the lives of most adults.

Funny, I'd say it's the opposite; Not so much a shift in understanding as it is a shift in perception/vantage point. There IS a shift in understanding that happens in that, (mind gets informed) but the conceptual understanding itself is not 'the realization.' The realization happens when the vantage point shifts from the eyes of a character, to seeing the character and his eyes/apparent seeing, as an appearance only arising/within to that which is now seeing it all....and yet is not 'a see-er.'

Imagine not wanting anything, not thinking about oneself, not worrying about anything, not fearing anything, not regretting anything, not psychologically resisting whatever is happening, not comparing oneself with others, not thinking that anything should be different than it is, etc. These words point to what can best be called "a unity-consciousness perspective" that simply doesn't spend much time, if any, reflecting ABOUT life.

True, the 'perspective' itself doesn't spend time reflecting, as reflecting is now seen as an appearance...an experience only....no longer conflated with 'a reflector/thinker.' However, reflecting about life still happens, it's just no longer identified with, no longer mistaken with/for an object 'who' reflects. Just because there is no longer an imagined SVP, does not mean the end of all wanting...thinking....resistance....it's just that the depth of such only goes so deep absent an SVP.

What we actually are is THIS doing whatever THIS does without imagining any kind of separation that is actual. From a unity-consciousness perspective nothing can be said ABOUT THIS that is either true or graspable by the intellect.

Right, which is why I found it so odd when you insisted that via realization, you now knew for absolute certain, that all appearing things were alive and conscious. Things 'being alive and conscious,' is an erroneous idea that intellect has grasped onto, and touts as true.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 25, 2021 16:48:36 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 25, 2021 16:48:36 GMT

The following exchange demonstrates a fallacious idea about what being awake means in terms of behavior;

Zazeniac:Basically, that's my point. To the dream pov character, the world he/she inhabits is real. But to the dreamer who wakes up, even the pov dream charactet is not real. But acting to protect your credit card number indicates you think the card and the world are not a dream. Otherwise, like you say, you wouldn't care. Like when zd started giving away all his possessions.

Zaz here demonstrates the problem with using the concept 'not real' to denote that which is appearance only. Appearances ARE appearing....a dream where a credit card number is hacked isn't a particularly fun one. Post awakening, there is still interest in/caring about the unfolding story...likes and dislikes continue, even though they are now seen to belong to 'no-one/no-thing.'

Seeing that likes and dislikes do not belong to anyone....that they are appearance only, arising in consciousness just as all other appearances are, does not make them go away. What goes away is 'identification with' them...identification with a someone/something that likes and doesn't like stuff. This makes likes/dislikes much less sticky...there's no longer a driving need to try to make life conform with likes. There's an okayness, an easiness with a present appearance of something 'not liked.'

Zd giving away all his possessions wasn't an indicator that he no longer cared...it was actually an indicator that what he cared about had shifted greatly. His interest had shifted from the personal me character to others....he was acting from a position of magnitude and compassion for his fellow man. That IS still caring about the dream.

Reefs: Right. And that's usually where the discussion with Gopal ends. Gopal cannot explain why - despite his realization - he still treats the world as if it were (objectively) real and everyone else as if they were actual perceivers.

What does it mean to 'treat the world as if it were objectively real'? How do you know just from observing the difference between one who is treating the world as objectively real vs. one who has seen the world as an appearance only...absent inherent existence in it's own right? (again, the term 'real' muddles things here).

This tells me you don't understand what it means to see that the world arises/appears within consciousness and is empty.
The experience of a time-line.....of this leading to that, of a 'me character' who engages with other characters who appear to be experiencing, does not go away simply because it's realized to all be but an appearance only, arising presently (or not at all) dependent upon that which abides.

Your observations and misguided conclusions re: someone who is 'treating' others a certain way, indicates that you see a someone who is actually doing stuff, behind appearing behaviors. There ultimately is no such someone...even when those behaviors/actions continue to arise.

Behaviors appear absent a someone/something that is behaving/acting/doing. Seeing through the doer does not mean the end of the appearance of stuff being done....of behaviors/actions.

Last Edit: Mar 25, 2021 16:50:53 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 25, 2021 17:21:11 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 25, 2021 17:21:11 GMT

Reefs: It's actually all rather simple. You just need to ignore your primal instincts on the matter and look at it from a purely intellectual perspective and then make an assessment of your situation from within the limits of that purely intellectual perspective. If you do it correctly, there can only be one, perfectly logical, conclusion. And Gopal has always been (logically) very consistent in his argumentation. So you just need to follow the logic. Gopal's question, if there is an (independent) outer world (and consequently, other independent perceivers), is a perfectly legitimate question from a purely intellectual perspective. Now, I am stressing the purely intellectual perspective part, because that is the 'solution' to the dilemma presented. Because what has to be clear right from the start is that this question can only arise from the personal perspective, the perspective of the relative (self). From the impersonal perspective, the perspective of the Absolute (Self), there is no inner/outer, self/others and so the question would be seen as misconceived and that would be the end of it. No matter what you conclude with a misconceived question, it can at best only be a relative truth, only valid within a certain context, but never the ultimate truth because it's flawed right at the basis. Another thing is that, despite the correct logic conclusion you can reach, you can never be sure if that conclusion is ultimately correct, which is one more reason why it can never pass as the ultimate truth. So, it's fun to explore this question in a philosophical context, but in a spiritual context, it's a dead-end. The problem with this particular dilemma is that you can never convince someone that this is a misconceived question by means of logic. So the only 'solution' to that dilemma has always been (and always will be) an actual realization. That will put everything to rest in an instant.

Holy crap...you are finally admitting it.....you now seem to be in full agreement, after how many years...?...that there is an absence of absolute knowing relative to appearing people and their apparent experiencing!

What happened to your absolute knowing/realization that all things are conscious and experiencing? That is the answer you used to give when the question of appearing people/apparent experiencing on their part came up....that you had a realization that you said, answered the question....that via a CC/Kensho, you now knew for absolute certain that all things are conscious and experiencing.

And, the realization that you speak of there, that puts it all to rest, is the seeing of all appearances as inherently empty of existence...dependent upon that which abides.....and more importantly, that things do not source/give rise to consciousness, but rather, consciousness gives rise to things.

Yes, the question of whether appearing characters in the dream are "actually" conscious and experiencing IS misconceived...but the absence of knowing relative to all appearances, appearing characters and their apparent experiencing, is not misconceived...it's a realization...seeing of what is not so....it's Truth.

The question now that really begs to be answered is if you truly do see the question to be misconceived.....if you don't possess absolute knowing that appearing people are in fact experiencing as they appear to be....why the heck do you keep treating them as if they are?

Last Edit: Mar 25, 2021 17:26:21 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 25, 2021 17:35:36 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 25, 2021 17:35:36 GMT

Zendancer: To even ask the question, "Does an outer world exist?" is an intellectual exercise that ignores the truth underlying all acts of imagination.

But haven't you argued for the existence of 'a past/history' that is determinant of what appears NOW? That's what 'an outer world' means.....something/anything that has substance/import/existence beyond what IS appearing immediately, here...now, within THIS red hot moment....the present.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 25, 2021 17:45:08 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 25, 2021 17:45:08 GMT

Zendancer: Apparently Logicman enjoys intellectuallizing. I once had that disease, but one CC pointed the way to freedom

It's an interesting phenomenon. I zoom with several ND groups, and my standard question is, "What are you doing? Are you spending all of your time thinking and imagining or are you spending a certain amount of time shifting attention away from thoughts?" There seems to be a strong correlation between internal silence and the occurrence of realizations, but thinking is incredibly addictive. On one of those meetings a fellow said, "I enjoy thinking about this stuff more than almost anything." I think that's a direct quote. That's okay, but if he keeps indulging in that behavior, it's unlikely that he'll ever have any significant realizations about who he IS or the nature of THIS.

Realization lies beyond thought/thinking, so that's really not so. Just as there is no causal path, there is also no causal 'preventor,' to SR.

For a while recently you were arguing that thought/mind was not the enemy of SR...a convo with Roydop, I think..? Now you seem to be back to vilifying thought.

Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member

Posts: 1,742

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 25, 2021 23:03:41 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by Esponja on Mar 25, 2021 23:03:41 GMT

Mar 25, 2021 17:45:08 GMT Figgles said:

Zendancer: Apparently Logicman enjoys intellectuallizing. I once had that disease, but one CC pointed the way to freedom

It's an interesting phenomenon. I zoom with several ND groups, and my standard question is, "What are you doing? Are you spending all of your time thinking and imagining or are you spending a certain amount of time shifting attention away from thoughts?" There seems to be a strong correlation between internal silence and the occurrence of realizations, but thinking is incredibly addictive. On one of those meetings a fellow said, "I enjoy thinking about this stuff more than almost anything." I think that's a direct quote. That's okay, but if he keeps indulging in that behavior, it's unlikely that he'll ever have any significant realizations about who he IS or the nature of THIS.

Realization lies beyond thought/thinking, so that's really not so. Just as there is no causal path, there is also no causal 'preventor,' to SR.

For a while recently you were arguing that thought/mind was not the enemy of SR...a convo with Roydop, I think..? Now you seem to be back to vilifying thought.

Interesting, John McIntosh.. a fellow Canadian, replied to one of my messages, he messaged me and spoke of a permanently silent mind which I though also odd.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,058

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 26, 2021 1:12:26 GMT Esponja likes this

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 26, 2021 1:12:26 GMT

Mar 25, 2021 23:03:41 GMT Esponja said:

Mar 25, 2021 17:45:08 GMT Figgles said:

Realization lies beyond thought/thinking, so that's really not so. Just as there is no causal path, there is also no causal 'preventor,' to SR.

For a while recently you were arguing that thought/mind was not the enemy of SR...a convo with Roydop, I think..? Now you seem to be back to vilifying thought.

Interesting, John McIntosh.. a fellow Canadian, replied to one of my messages, he messaged me and spoke of a permanently silent mind which I though also odd.

Yeah, that does sound odd... Sounds as though the experience of a quiet mind/relative quietude is being conflated with what is essentially but a pointer.

Thinking/ideation per se does not obscure that which lies fundamental to it....it's identification with concepts, (mistakingly taking what you are to be a something that is conceptual) that obscures.

Seeing the Truth does not mean snuffing out all thoughts/conceptualization....it just means seeing thoughts/concepts for what they are...empty...appearance only...and in that seeing that what you really are, is not an empty appearance...not a concept.

It really does seem as though some have vilified conceptualization/thinking straight across the board simply because the SVP = false thoughts/ideas. That's the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not necessary. Waking up doesn't mean the end of thinking, just the end of taking thoughts to be Truthy.

I see this issue with those who suggest that in seeing the inherent emptiness of the appearance of sentience in others, one will then necessarily no longer continue to engage with the appearance of sentience in others, which is a nonsense. Seeing that all thoughts/ideas/concepts are empty doesn't mean the end of all thinking/conceptualizing, just the end of identification with concepts.