Dreaming

Psychological Problems

Posted by de

When we are caught in psychological problems, such as self-concern, the time factor plays a crucial part in it. ‘Tomorrow’ is obviously imagined. Then, we imagine ourselves (as mind-body appearance) in this fictitious tomorrow. This personal movie about tomorrow (and also yesterday), in most cases, fascinates us. Admittedly, we are the only audience in this personal movie theatre. When we get tired of the drama in it, with us alternating as the hero and the loser, we may yearn to get back to ‘real’ life, devoid of this type of fictitious drama. 
The way back is to realise that it is an internal movie only. When this is seen, then the attention will turn again – via the senses – to what’s happening right now and a natural, wordless appreciation for being alive (right now) will take over again. This seems to be easy to understand but most people cling to their dreamlike identification with the hero and occasional loser. The absence of imagined importance that comes with letting go of the hero/loser deters most people from having a less stressful and more fulfilling life experience.

Dreaming to be the dreamt

Posted by de

In response to a video by Paul Hedderman:

‘The dreaming can’t be perceived; the dreamt is what can be perceived.’ The dreaming is an activity of seeing. That activity is the same as what Paul calls ‘conscious contact.’ Seeing is like the open sky, and conscious contact or dreaming happens when seeing releases the activity of ‘clouding’ – when clouds playfully arise and disappear out of the sky and without affecting its sense of ‘skyness’. There is no question regarding the nondual nature of this.
‘You are not going to meet the dreaming as the dreamt.’ Once identified as a cloud through a particular act of ‘clouding’ the playfulness becomes seemingly serious and the believing in duality is considered accurate, but it isn’t. That activity of believing can’t ‘unbelieve’ itself. Rather, it will fade away altogether by the sky seeing its error in relation to a particular identification with a cloud. That’s why Paul recommends seeing what we (the sky) are not. We are not what the activity of believing tries to manufacture, an independent identity. (from 44:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8S4MoHvfY

A question of morality

Posted by de

In response to a YouTube video by Rupert Spira:

What we have available to verify any statement is consciousness. If we, as consciousness, identify with the belief to be a separate self, then trouble is generated as outlined in the video. If we, as consciousness, do not identify with such a hoax belief, then consciousness is aware of its formless nature, even while engaging in the dreamworlds of form and time. That’s why I can’t verify the statement that ‘infinite consciousness knows (=is aware of) only itself’ – meaning without perceptions. It continues perceiving via the senses and it perceives the flow of thoughts without sacrificing universality. In this case, the hoax of being a separate entity is absent. The dreaming is exposed to be a dreaming only, and its fleeting happenings are perceived with ‘benevolent indifference’ (Francis Lucile). Some call it universal love. Universal love is active in the middle of dreaming. The questioner’s aversion against violence is understandable but it undermines the questioner’s capacity for universal love in the name of morality. Consciousness, identified as the action figure, say the child offender, is driven by a conditioning that would have caused anyone with the same conditioning to be violent as well. Benevolent indifference is much more potent than a judgemental attitude that implies that ‘we are better than others’.