My Three Dreams

[LastThursday]

I've taken on board 5-Leo-Dmt's teachings (I love him BTW.  But non-sexually I hasten to add).

So. I'm living in a dream. The thoughts that occurred to me, are many-fold.

Firsty: am I living one dream at a time?

Secondly: if no, what is it like to live more than one dream simultaneously?

Thirdly: exactly how many dreams am I living at once?

Fourthly: does one dream influence the other?

These are my basic conclusions:

I live in three dreams.

1. The dream of the ever present NOW. This is the world of of sensation, colours, and lights and sounds and feelings and and and...

2. The dream of the thought. The world of concepts and constructions and rationalization. Monkey Mind. Ego.

3. The dream of night dreams. Spurious situations and weird incoherent happenings whilst I'm in bed.

So what about it?

It seems to me like dream 1 is sort of like Enlightenment, pure, unadulterated; without judgement, bias, etc.

Dream 2, is permanence.  It's what give the world substance, memory, recognition, structure, this sensation begat this other sensation.

Dream 3, is fluid, little thought, very much like dream 1, but less intense, more ephemeral, beautiful, calm, easy.

It appears then that Dream 2 is the bully. It sprays itself over the other dreams and pretends to be King. 'I am dream 2' it declares.

Dream 1 doesn't care, it asserts itself as much as it can and goads Dream2 into its fantasies. And Dream 2 ensures that Dream 1 comes back day after day. OMG, I've had this dream before, it's sooo familiar.

Dream 3 is completely free and cares not about the other two. Except it's too flaky and gives everything up to the other two at a moment's notice.

However. Dream 3 is where it's at.  That's where the peace is at.

Is there a dream 4?

 

 

 

 

[Nahm]

@LastThursday Intersting to read. To me it’s one dream. Honestly, you had me at 5-Leo.

[LastThursday]

Bingo. You are the one dream that rules them all. Those three dreams are bullshit. They vie for your attention, but you are not the dreams. What are you?

[LastThursday]

5-Leo-DMT ahahaha soo sorry ahahhahaha

[deci belle]

hi mr Thursday~

I hope you don't mind a little certainty in my response~ it's so very important to make these observations such as you have and then further go on to consciously clarify their relativity to each other; Bravo!!

I'll be terse-ish…

Forget #4

It is just that you don't have a practical control over #3 that you can accept its flow as is. It is possible to develop a type of "control" over dreaming, but it is connected to non-psychological intent. It is not directly related to the thinking and talking mentality. Dreaming is not the same as ordinary dreams.

#s 2 and 3 are both conscious awareness in terms of the psychologically biased human mentation. To the degree that waking consciousness is refined, its relative sanity shapes the coherence (or not) of ordinary dreams. General practice toward mental hygiene is critical and warrants a constant 24/7 intent in terms of impersonal nonjudgemental subtle observation. Just being present in this regard helps to keep the "riff-raff" at bay, so to speak, and that clarity of mentation has its beneficial influence.

Furthermore, #2 is utterly and literally karmic existence, so I would regard #2 as categorically characteristic of "impermanence", but I understand your terminology because it is literally "what makes the world go round" and is sustaining its seeming solidity. That IS karma; the process that uses primal energy potential to fuel the course of created evolution in lieu of the Absolute. It can also be termed psychological momentum. I don't mean to imply that there is a choice. The Absolute is the same as karma; as such, both are subject to clinging by the human mentality.

Just this is the dreamer and the dreamed.

The aspect of potential looms over this scheme; it is possible to enter into it as a conscious relationship with unrefined potential inherently within, yet simultaneously not subject to, the laws of creation, karmic existence and eternity. That's what the term liberation denotes. It is not that one is liberated from anything. Liberation, in the buddhist sense, is the freedom of enlightening impersonal adaption to conditions by the fact of complete resonance with the uncreated spiritual potential inherent in situations themselves. That it is unrefined potential with which one is working (from within the contextual micro and macrocosmic aspects of karma), means that there is something as yet undisclosed, unconventional and non-psychological at play. Nobody knows, yet it is completely natural in terms of our inconceivable nature as human beings to facilitate impersonal adaption in the course of ordinary situations unbeknownst to anyone.

The world of sensation (#1) seems like that because knowledge is immediate while psychological mechanisms are comparatively slow. I would typify #1 as acknowledgement of the impersonal phenomenal realm. Its immediacy belies the fact that it really is not out there. It is sensed as "impersonal" but not as "other", relative to the personal (ego) identity. "Otherness" relative to the self arises when objects are adhered by discriminatory consciousness, but once ego clings to any one such stimulus, and employs its discriminatory patterns of psychological bias, its projections become self-evident (literally). Any time this happens, #1 turns into #2, and can then fall into further psychological processes such as #3.

What you say in regard to #1 in terms of NOW reflects your innate affinity with the property of your own mind before the first thought. NOW exists in terms of awareness, not phenomena. In other words, NOW is attributable to mind. Mind is not only the present, but presence itself. You could adjust your scheme to categorize #1 as immediate knowledge. It's what you know before the first thought, as knowledge (open awareness) is what immediacy/presence is.

#1 as categorized in the OP, is really the only thing that isn't within the rubric of psychologically aware process (it is its cause), and as such it could occupy the hierarchy as #0 (as the psychological/non-psychological reference). I have to get cute here and suggest that it is literally potential potential at this point because ordinary people don't know the nature of reality and therefore don't have the power to work with potential directly— but it is necessary to make it clear that one's relationship with creation is up to oneself alone. We don't have to go along with the flow of karmic energy.

So the karmic flow (incremental causality as is), is phenomenal experience before the first thought; it is neither real or illusion, in terms of the personality yet. Once mind is involved (with potential), the light of awareness can be followed to its source in each instance (or if buddha-consciousness is stabilized permanently in the individual one can be said to be streaming reality), or it can turn into the gravity of creation/karma (when keyed to objects), according to the habitual psychological patterning of the individual living the dream. Therefore its (reality's) potential energy is a karmically compelling personal liability to the degree the individual personal identity is habituated to its patterns of conditioned compulsions. Being free of compulsion is also indicative of liberation.

The power of the dream is relative to the overarching aplomb of the thinker's thinking thoughts self-referencing the thinker. This is known as self-reification. Self-referrencing mentation is what makes and sustains endless rounds of birth and death; that is, karmic bondage, which is definitely not liberation.❤︎

 

 

ed note: typo, 3rd; add most of 6th; remove redundant "habituated" in penultimate paragraph

Edited March 2, 2018 by deci belle

[LastThursday]

This is terse: Thanks .

Dream #3 followed by dream #1 and then dream #2 will answer tomorrow.

[deci belle]

hello LastThursday~

Unfortunately (and I apologize), my terse devolved into obtuse (as it is wont to do), but there is still the core response I derived from your OP.

So I don't mean to be rude…

In general, although I totally appreciate your thrust at clarification, I cannot leave well enough alone, in terms of the realm pervading the psychological standpoint— as enlightening activity is my main counterpoint to the reason for deriving analytical distintions of awareness in the first place. Especially as we may very well both be working beyond the comfort of a philosophical perspective (I know I am)!!

Please continue, per your OP—and  if you should find anything relevant to respond to in my post, so much the better!

[LastThursday]

@deci belle sorry, I hope no offence was taken by my reply in any way - in fact I hope it's the opposite - I appreciate your response. I can be somewhat blunt or sarcastic, but mean no harm.

8 hours ago, deci belle said:

...as enlightening activity is my main counterpoint to the reason for deriving analytical distintions of awareness in the first place...

I guess it's easy to say "don't use mental models" to achieve enlightenment, but in practice this is a difficult thing to do (for me anyway).  I suppose meditation and other practices are ways around this problem. 

My particular way to go about things is to build up a mental model and then knock it down, by a kind of reductio ad absurdum. I reckon if I do this enough times, something will eventually go pop. So fire away! This is exactly the response I like.

With regards to my three dream model (3DM), I can see both sides. Firstly, it's as ridiculous as saying my body is composed of three things: limbs, torso, head. Well... yes it is, but that's not really my body. My body is a single entity (from a materialist standpoint) and hence can't be divided. So as for 3DM: I pretend there's parts to my awareness (whatever that is) only so that I can eventually discover it's actually indivisible.

So how to prove my model is ridiculous?

Here goes:

There's a kind of 'flow' between the dreams. Dream #2 is clearly influenced by dream #1, thoughts often revolve around what's happening now, I miss the bus, I thing angry thoughts.

Dream #3 also seems to often have elements of dream #1, familiar faces, places and situations and sensations. Dream #3 also often affects dream #2 especially on waking up and may even put you in a bad mood with negative thoughts.

Dream #2 also greatly affects what you experience in dream #1. You decided to take a vacation abroad and hey, everything's different!

So clearly there's an interplay between the different dreams in all directions. This already smells. It's hard for something to be separate, if it commingles with other things. This is why entanglement in quantum theory actually breaks the materialist paradigm.

QED.

By the way, this is why I often think that expunging thought from enlightenment is like proving the body is indivisible by cutting an arm off. But slowly slowly the impression I'm getting is that enlightenment, is actually inconceivable by my present self.

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by LastThursday

[deci belle]

LastThursday wrote:

Quote

build up a mental model and then knock it down

Exactly!! It is absolutely essential to the process. You have to know what you are knocking down. So it is important to build it as best you can in terms of referencing one's real experience at the expense of the personal identity— so one can learn as much as possible as the parts of the work-in-progress devolve in the face of an ever more revealed mystery of reality. To proceed further we then implement more and more universalistic elements into our constructs until we ultimately arrive at the selfless construct. Taoism calls this the homeland of nothing whatsoever. It is a real experience. When there is nothing left to break down, there has never been the person. This is arrival at the basis and one can go no further in terms of seeing one's absolute nature.

Self-refinement is a long, gradual process. There are no shortcuts. We just work with what we have. Chop wood, carry water. No sweeping gestures. Even in the aftermath of illumination, there is only further gradual practice in terms of integrating or harmonizing enlightenment to conditions. This process is really a matter of integrating enlightenment into our very lives. This is the occupation of enlightening being.

One's own mind right now is enlightenment already, but our weakness in terms of clarifying consciousness is long habituation to intellection and subsequent clinging to the conditioned personal psychological awareness in particular, whose very function is to facilitate ego's processes. This is all very well and good, except ego is the very seat of instability due to the liability it has taken on as the surreptitious  phantom holder of one's identity.

Why is ego axiomatically unstable? It is because there is no construct in terms of reality, but ego needs constructs to have a sense of relativity. The false self cannot exist but for "other". Again, that's a fundamental aspect of its function in terms of creation— it's a good thing, but ego has a problem in that it's not designed to be an absolute. To ego's credit, it can and will die trying— in fact (to quote Don Juan Matus) "ego is such a prick, it would rather kill itself…"

Gautama buddha noted that ultimately, there is no knower and no liver of life. What is it then? It is mind itself. After a long long time of naturally whittling away the most subtle aspects of ignorance, there is a reversal of sorts, and the "true human with no status" resumes its proper place in the general scheme of things relative to the being that is going to die, and ego takes its proper place in service of one's inherent enlightening being.

Actually, just this relationship IS the basis of authentic self-refining practice. As such, it doesn't depend on sudden enlightenment— as well it shouldn't. Why? One's own mind right now is already the basis of enlightenment. Truly, nothing is gained by complete perfect sudden illumination.

As for…

Quote

I guess it's easy to say "don't use mental models" to achieve enlightenment, but in practice this is a difficult thing to do (for me anyway).  I suppose meditation and other practices are ways around this problem. 

For some people meditation is an adequate temporary expedient, I suppose, although I must admit that I have never practiced formal meditation. Nothing beats real experience— there is no substitute. Effective conscious use of mental models for the purposes of clarifying consciousness is dependent on the person. It seems to be a viable method for you thus far, LastThursday~ Bravo!

Quote

the impression I'm getting is that enlightenment, is actually inconceivable by my present self.

Absolutely. It is just due to the fact that awareness is itself spiritual and inconceivable~ it is our very nature. Mind itself is who we are and the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die comes with the territory of dimensional time, space and the utter mystery of creation. I say that the absolute, in strict terms, is no mystery at all— it isn't even nothing.

Realizing that isn't accomplished by the individual— what arrives as illumination is what has no self whatsoever. Just this is awake without beginning. That just means that it is impossible for the self-reflective consciousness to effectively experience one's inconceivable nature. But it is possible, and necessary, for one to recognize and reliably access one's own innate non-psychologically aware nature in real-time as regularly and often as it appears; faintly at first, then progressing "grain by grain" (to use the taoist phrase describing the gradual gathering of the medicines comprising the so-called elixir of immortality) to arrive at full realization of the totality of the being that is going to die.

Sudden illumination is one's innate aware potential seeing one's own innate unborn source for the first time. This potential is awake and uncreated. It is what has always been aglow. The selfless experience of innate affinity in terms of the uncreate is pure knowledge.

 

 

ed note: add "there has never been the person" in 1st; typo 2nd; add last quote and its three paragraphs

Edited March 3, 2018 by deci belle