Consciousness Has Appearance of Substance. CHAOS

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by God-Like

As I have experienced and understood, there can be individuality without being any separation.

That's why I use lucid dreaming as an analogy. Individuality still appears but it's realized as an appearance just like in a lucid dream. Separation is the illusion, the dream.

Perhaps another way to say it is Ego realizes it's an appearance and accepts it with great relief. Surrenders to That. Resistance and any existential fears fade away.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustBe

The waking from the dream of separation back into wholeness, means the complete self is still creating and dreaming through the many arrangements of life, we each participate in. We might be more aware and conscious but still we dream ourselves into creation, just awake and conscious to what we dream..

We could simply swop the word dream to ignorance and bypass the whole dream concept that can at times pave way to a reality not being real. An individual self that isn't real.

I don't know how anyone can dream ourselves into creation? Do you?
Hows that work?


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

That's why I use lucid dreaming as an analogy. Individuality still appears but it's realized as an appearance just like in a lucid dream. Separation is the illusion, the dream.
.

Again, similar to the word usage of dream that is not required, the word appears or appearances are not necessary either.

One could say Individuality is experienced.

Why do you prefer to use such words as 'dream and appearance'? these are words that could portray a totally different reality than using words like I use.

Like said, there is no separation between what you are and what appears as. Individuality isn't estranged from what you are.

Individuality doesn't just appear, it is lived.


x daz x

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Why do you prefer to use such words as 'dream and appearance'?

Because that's the closest I can come to describing a first person experience and keep it as honest as possible within the limitations of intellect and language.

[Maisy]

It's interesting the idea of trying to describe a wordless state with words. Or trying to describe a thoughtless state with thoughts.

If one had such a state, and one asked them to describe it, they may say it is nothing, but then nothing is a something.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Maisy

It's interesting the idea of trying to describe a wordless state with words. Or trying to describe a thoughtless state with thoughts.

If one had such a state, and one asked them to describe it, they may say it is nothing, but then nothing is a something.

Describing a wordless or thoughtless state is not an issue. All analogies have a main underlining meaning or point, that it is making, that can be described by using the common everyday english language or words, so why not use the common english language to desribe what the underlining meaning/point of the anaolgy is, instead of using spiritual speak/language, that can create confusion?

Since spiritual language, speak and jargon,(that ironically uses the english language), forms the spiritual analogy, then the english language can describe the underlining meaning or point of the spiritual analogy.

Somehow, like magic, it is ok to use spiritual language, speak and jargon, but it is not ok to use the common english language.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

so why not use the common English language to describe what the underlining meaning/point of the analogy is, instead of using spiritual speak/language, that can create confusion?

I don't see a meaningful difference between common English and "spiritual speak/language descriptions. Any word based thing, descriptions, metaphors, analogies are mental representations for or of an actual experience. If such things are present, one has their attention on the conceptual, mental word based interpretations which means one is choosing such and not the actual experience.

To have a state of freedom from the conceptual, to experience that state, there can be no attention given to the word based description of such a thing. The state described is one free of mind, free of thought, free of the conceptual. There can never be a method or technique or description present or entertained of such a thing to live it, to experience it. A technique or method present again means the attention is on mind and thought.

In this experience, there is no self put together by thought or mind, no mental images of what we are or what the experience is. Some may use a word like "emptiness" but then this again shows one experiencing or perceiving though a mental image or concept. It is not "something" as the something is a concept and this is life experience free of concepts.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by Maisy

It's interesting the idea of trying to describe a wordless state with words. Or trying to describe a thoughtless state with thoughts.

Don't know if you're familiar with Dr. Bruce Greyson, but he's with UVA DOPS (Division of Perceptual Studies) and he studies NDEs. He puts it something like this: When we ask an experiencer what happened to them, they often start by saying something like "Well, it can't be put into words. There are no words for this.". Then we researchers say great, tell me all about it. LOL!

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Maisy

I don't see a meaningful difference between common English and "spiritual speak/language descriptions. Any word based thing, descriptions, metaphors, analogies are mental representations for or of an actual experience.

Metaphors, analogies and etc, are used for education/learning purposes. Thus, metaphors, analogies and etc are mainly used by and for students (people whom are new to spirituality or religion) whom did not yet, experience the point being made in the metaphor, analogy or etc.

Describing or making a point about something in a metaphore, analogy, or the like, is describing or making a point about something inderectly, and is wide open for interpretations, as opposed to decsribing or making a point about something directly, clearly and to the point.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by God-Like

We could simply swop the word dream to ignorance and bypass the whole dream concept that can at times pave way to a reality not being real. An individual self that isn't real.

I don't know how anyone can dream ourselves into creation? Do you?
Hows that work?


x daz x

What if you’re dreaming and not ignorant to your dream and you in the dream?

In fact my dreamer at times is consciously creating the next day events, even before I’ve met it in its full manifestation of the physical.

We are the dream, dreamer, dreaming ourselves into creation. It’s not about how, it’s just the nature of the self creating itself ongoing…

Depending upon where your creating from, you might perceive your dreamer self as something ‘not identified with’..I identify my dreams as a more consciously aware state of my being.

By real, I’m talking about the life experience ..creating a life.