In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream

This video exemplifies where Alan Watts falters in terms of transcendence. He hits the nail on the head with his pointers at times here, pointing beyond the dream, but then dives right back into it.

He speaks of all happening as “spontaneous occurrence,” …says, ‘there is no you to bring it about,’ then offers up breathing and then specifically ‘seeing’ as example.... says sight is happening absent the person’s doing, but then says, ‘without a function of rods and cones, there can be no seeing.’


If he’d carried on within the context of transcendence, and looked specifically beyond just the experiencer, to include all experience, he would not have stepped back into positing an appearance in the dream as causal to another appearance within the dream.

What he’s failed to realize is that in actuality, “the process of functioning rods and cones” are not actually causal to seeing…that not only is seeing happening absent a someone who is seeing, it’s also not actually dependent upon a causal bodily function/process.

ZD makes this same mistake. He speaks about processes of blood flow, cells, breathing, etc. within the human body as he points out that bodies function absent conscious thought about those processes, but THEN he uses this to point to the absence of a person/doer. He starts to head beyond the dream but then heads straight back in.

The vantage point from which the personal doer truly gets seen through, also sees through all bodily processes as causal to other appearance.

He says, “what you took to be the thinker of thoughts, is itself, just a thought,” Yes!... but he fails to see that what he is taking to be a causal process to sight is also just a thought. The process of rods & cones as causal to present moment seeing/sight is an ‘in the dream idea’ only and using that idea that point away from the doer indicates a failure to see through the dream-scape in its entirety.

Again, seeing the entirety of perceivables as “appearance only” takes care of this issue.

You've been using this term lately. What does it mean? "Appearance only"?....."Illusion"?? "Symbol"? Please expand.




Arghhh ....you keep reverting to this. You agree there is no 'seer, thinker, speaker, doer,' but then assert there is a Self "That" sees, which is an objectification of "Self." There is no-thing "That" sees, or does, when 'doing/seeing' appear.

(Again, and you are likely getting tired of hearing this: Realizing all phenomena...all perceivables to be "appearance only" takes care of that "objectification." )

Self is not a seer, not a doer, not an object, not a thing. All that shit happens/appears on the screen, absent a someone/something that is doing it.

I know it's mind-boggling and that's why "realization" which is beyond mind is necessary.







Wrong. It's the imagined 'personal self' that intrudes/obscures and that makes for the failure to see what's clear as day, otherwise.







You just invoked "causation" and clearly, DO NOT understand what is meant by "correlation only" when it comes to "Truth-talk."






You are positing dream-content as causal to dream-content. I find this stunning, how you clearly do not grasp the pointer of "one singular-undivided movement....nothing in the dream actually lying causal to any other appearance/experience," but obviously feel confident enough in your grasp of nonduality to speak to folks seeking to be free.

You're offering remedies to dream characters, with dream problems, while firmly entrenched within the dream.





You are like a child who has been told there is no Santa, asserting strongly in word that 'there is no Santa,' but still, sitting up by the X-mas tree, plate of cookies and glass of milk, in hand, looking longingly and with expectation to the fireplace, sure as ever that the shadow shimmering there, is Santa's boot.





The IDEA of "More likely" when it comes to the issue of waking up, is a big red flag.

The absence of an SVP, the end of the delusion of separation must affect bodily cells or it's nothing more than a mind-game?

Deliberate creation, yoga practice, AH teachings, Seth's teachings, all 'in the dream,' self help/new age practice/processes, all fine and dandy if that's where you are, all a means of improving the dream.... And....Nothing at all to sneeze at in the absence of awakening to the dream.

Advaita/Nonduality.....waking up....seeing through the SVP...seeing through ALL separation, seeing all appearance as empty and devoid of Truth....is beyond the dream....beyond all those stories.

You are reifying "bodily cells" to be something more than an empty appearance when you suggest SR as necessarily causal to cells being affected. Reefs of yesteryear would have had a field-day with what you are now saying.

And....The idea that being has a 'fundamental' cellular level that is affected by the seeing through/absence of an SVP, is an utter nonsense that demonstrates once again, the importance of seeing empty appearance for what it is and 'being' for what it is.

SR DOES indeed impact experience, but not in the hard and fast, fixed, predictive ways you are suggesting.

Precisely.

But, indeed, as you allude to, where there is still an SVP being imagined, that Truth has no relevance and does nothing at all in terms of mitigating the suffering of imagined separation. For an SVP, modalities and practices are all he has and you can tell him they're not necessary til you're blue in the face, but that's not going to provide any comfort.

Far better to approach one mired in separation with the idea that he does have some semblance of power/control over his experience and indeed, some modalities/teachers/ are better than others where that's concerned.