|
Post by tenka on Nov 2, 2019 15:11:20 GMT -5
Not so. The dreamer is present in the dream. So if the dreamer is present in the dream, is 'seeing' also within the dream? I thought you took the position that seeing is prior to the dream. This is my point .. what is the foundation for the dream world and the dream peeps. You can't have dream peeps thinking they are awake seeing through illusions . Whatever concept that a dream character comes up with will be part of the story .. If one was to say that the world was a true reflection of self being a conscious aware individual then from that position there can be a true perception had .. You can't have a dream peep seeing true .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 2, 2019 15:14:11 GMT -5
I watched a channeled interview with Lao Tzu last night, it wasn't very deep to be honest but one of the questions put to him was about what is real and what isn't real in regards to himself and the world. Am I real? Is the world real? compared to what he replied, something that isn't? .. Of course I am real, of course the world is real, it is as real as the other worlds and dimensions, for they are all equally as real as each other .. (roughly translated). This has been my exact line of thought regarding the dream notion for what is the comparison for life that is not like a dream or not as a dream.There was only a brief mention of illusion in a way of seeing self in a particular way .. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPpmNrGJND4www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMKCFcSCy1YThe comparison is with the world of your imagination; a world of physical substance that moves through time and space and follows natural laws. The whole idea of experience being a dream is being used to counter those beliefs. And your theory derives via the dream peep or from beyond the dream peep?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 2, 2019 17:11:41 GMT -5
So if the dreamer is present in the dream, is 'seeing' also within the dream? I thought you took the position that seeing is prior to the dream. This is my point .. what is the foundation for the dream world and the dream peeps.
You can't have dream peeps thinking they are awake seeing through illusions .Whatever concept that a dream character comes up with will be part of the story ..If one was to say that the world was a true reflection of self being a conscious aware individual then from that position there can be a true perception had .. You can't have a dream peep seeing true . yes. I think it's much cleaner and easier to put knower/known/knowing all on the same 'level', and then if we want to point prior to that with the concept of 'silence' or 'Truth' or whatever, then we can, but then this pointing is happening at the level of knower/known/knowing. Actually, even the pointer is flawed and can only take one 'so far'. At best, it's a bridge, and the 'end point' collapses the duality anyway, so we are left with 'there is only what you are'. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of knower/knowing as prior to (or fundamental to) 'the known', but to then believe that it cannot be known if there are other knowers/knowing is huge contextual confusion. The reason is, that what is prior to 'the known' cannot be individual or contained i.e the knower/knowing would HAVE to be omniscient, and so the question of 'other knowers' should not arise. One should never end at this point - 'I am prior to (and fundamental to) appearances, and I don't know if there are any others that are prior to (and fundamental to) appearances' Basically, I am agreeing with you!
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 2, 2019 21:42:20 GMT -5
In the dream world there is nothing that can see through illusions.
Everything that is of the dream holds no weight. The dream IS, that you believe there is someone that can see the dream for a dream .. This has been one of my main points .. We either stick to the program or all bets are off . It's mighty convenient to bend the rules for oneself when trying to speak of what is true .. If it was open ballgame then all experiential truths would hold weight and be open to debate .. When all is a dream, there is no debate, there are no experiential truths that will ever hold any weight no matter how grand or poetic they may sound . Not so. The dreamer is present in the dream. If there is a dreamer present in the dream state then who is present in the waking state.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 3, 2019 9:25:34 GMT -5
Not so. The dreamer is present in the dream. So if the dreamer is present in the dream, is 'seeing' also within the dream? I thought you took the position that seeing is prior to the dream. There is more present in your nightly dream than just dream characters. Same is true of the waking dream.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 3, 2019 9:36:20 GMT -5
Not so. The dreamer is present in the dream. Butt my point in making was that the dreamer cannot see through anything because the dreamer is part of the dream ..
There is no real point of true perception had or attained that can see-through the dream, seeing it as a dream .. and seeing that there is a comparison of that . That being awareness itself as figs put it .. As said before there has to be a foundation that is true or real to begin with in order to make comparisons .. What we have here is not a foundation that is real or true, all we have is dreamy peeps thinking that they are seeing through the dream, when all we have is a dreamy peep thinking that .. Awareness itself doesn't know anything about the world that is either a dream or not .. So all you have is self of the mind that is either dreamy or not .. You can't have both dreamy and not dreamy in a dream foundation .. What I have called a point of perception is Awareness aware within the dream. 'God has fallen into his own dream' means YOU are the experiencer of your own dream, having fallen into the delusion that you are your own dream character, and there is the possibility that YOU may realize that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 3, 2019 9:55:56 GMT -5
So if the dreamer is present in the dream, is 'seeing' also within the dream? I thought you took the position that seeing is prior to the dream. This is my point .. what is the foundation for the dream world and the dream peeps. You can't have dream peeps thinking they are awake seeing through illusions . Whatever concept that a dream character comes up with will be part of the story .. If one was to say that the world was a true reflection of self being a conscious aware individual then from that position there can be a true perception had .. You can't have a dream peep seeing true . You don't become your dream character. You just experience through that perspective.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 3, 2019 9:59:39 GMT -5
The comparison is with the world of your imagination; a world of physical substance that moves through time and space and follows natural laws. The whole idea of experience being a dream is being used to counter those beliefs. And your theory derives via the dream peep or from beyond the dream peep? Realization is the result of turning attention away from the dream to the one attending.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 3, 2019 10:09:10 GMT -5
This is my point .. what is the foundation for the dream world and the dream peeps.
You can't have dream peeps thinking they are awake seeing through illusions .Whatever concept that a dream character comes up with will be part of the story ..If one was to say that the world was a true reflection of self being a conscious aware individual then from that position there can be a true perception had .. You can't have a dream peep seeing true . yes. I think it's much cleaner and easier to put knower/known/knowing all on the same 'level', and then if we want to point prior to that with the concept of 'silence' or 'Truth' or whatever, then we can, but then this pointing is happening at the level of knower/known/knowing. Actually, even the pointer is flawed and can only take one 'so far'. At best, it's a bridge, and the 'end point' collapses the duality anyway, so we are left with 'there is only what you are'. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of knower/knowing as prior to (or fundamental to) 'the known', but to then believe that it cannot be known if there are other knowers/knowing is huge contextual confusion. The reason is, that what is prior to 'the known' cannot be individual or contained i.e the knower/knowing would HAVE to be omniscient, and so the question of 'other knowers' should not arise. One should never end at this point - 'I am prior to (and fundamental to) appearances, and I don't know if there are any others that are prior to (and fundamental to) appearances' Basically, I am agreeing with you! Omniscience is a trap. God doesn't know stuff except through the individuated experience of knowing. Knowing is always limited by the bounding of individuated perspective.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 3, 2019 10:15:36 GMT -5
Not so. The dreamer is present in the dream. If there is a dreamer present in the dream state then who is present in the waking state. Same presence.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2019 10:53:20 GMT -5
So if the dreamer is present in the dream, is 'seeing' also within the dream? I thought you took the position that seeing is prior to the dream. There is more present in your nightly dream than just dream characters. Same is true of the waking dream. Then 'seeing' and 'knowing' etc is in the dream?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2019 10:58:55 GMT -5
yes. I think it's much cleaner and easier to put knower/known/knowing all on the same 'level', and then if we want to point prior to that with the concept of 'silence' or 'Truth' or whatever, then we can, but then this pointing is happening at the level of knower/known/knowing. Actually, even the pointer is flawed and can only take one 'so far'. At best, it's a bridge, and the 'end point' collapses the duality anyway, so we are left with 'there is only what you are'. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of knower/knowing as prior to (or fundamental to) 'the known', but to then believe that it cannot be known if there are other knowers/knowing is huge contextual confusion. The reason is, that what is prior to 'the known' cannot be individual or contained i.e the knower/knowing would HAVE to be omniscient, and so the question of 'other knowers' should not arise. One should never end at this point - 'I am prior to (and fundamental to) appearances, and I don't know if there are any others that are prior to (and fundamental to) appearances' Basically, I am agreeing with you! Omniscience is a trap. God doesn't know stuff except through the individuated experience of knowing. Knowing is always limited by the bounding of individuated perspective. Well, as I said, I prefer the cleaner and easier version myself, though you have certainly spoken of omniscient Consciousness. So then 'knower', 'known' and 'knowing' is all at the same level? Or do you think what is fundamental can also be individual and multiple ? I'm ignoring the 'God' concept there because I don't understand what you think God is. If it's relevant, then you could clarify or expand.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2019 11:11:03 GMT -5
This is my point .. what is the foundation for the dream world and the dream peeps. You can't have dream peeps thinking they are awake seeing through illusions . Whatever concept that a dream character comes up with will be part of the story .. If one was to say that the world was a true reflection of self being a conscious aware individual then from that position there can be a true perception had .. You can't have a dream peep seeing true . You don't become your dream character. You just experience through that perspective. In the context of talking about 'experiencing', either 'experiencers' are part of the dream, or there is just the One fundamental and omniscient Experiencer. Or, do you think there can be individual fundamental experiencers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 12:20:46 GMT -5
And your theory derives via the dream peep or from beyond the dream peep? Realization is the result of turning attention away from the dream to the one attending. A result? Not that I disagree, but you're dangerously close to saying it is "caused. " Actually, you are.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 3, 2019 14:20:38 GMT -5
Butt my point in making was that the dreamer cannot see through anything because the dreamer is part of the dream ..
There is no real point of true perception had or attained that can see-through the dream, seeing it as a dream .. and seeing that there is a comparison of that . That being awareness itself as figs put it .. As said before there has to be a foundation that is true or real to begin with in order to make comparisons .. What we have here is not a foundation that is real or true, all we have is dreamy peeps thinking that they are seeing through the dream, when all we have is a dreamy peep thinking that .. Awareness itself doesn't know anything about the world that is either a dream or not .. So all you have is self of the mind that is either dreamy or not .. You can't have both dreamy and not dreamy in a dream foundation .. What I have called a point of perception is Awareness aware within the dream. 'God has fallen into his own dream' means YOU are the experiencer of your own dream, having fallen into the delusion that you are your own dream character, and there is the possibility that YOU may realize that. Awareness cannot be aware within the dream .. self is aware of the dream or the supposed dream .. You are associating awareness that is something that can see something as being this and that when it cannot . This is why Ramana says that there is only a witness where there is self . There cannot be awareness without self either ..
|
|