Dream and reality.

[Iamit]

From a non dual perspective, the dream of difference/separation is all there is. Try to describe what is not the dream and whatever you describe will still be the dream. What is not the dream does not exist so is beyond description. Only the dream has existance. From a nondual perspective the nature of that existance is very peculier/strange indeed. It is the appearance of existance where there is no existance whatsoever. We are that. Astonishing!

There is a complication to the above however. If the manifestation is infinite then there must be existence that is not the dream otherwise the manifestation would not be infinite.

:)

[Arrowahn]

Thank you :)

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

From a non dual perspective, the dream of difference/separation is all there is. Try to describe what is not the dream and whatever you describe will still be the dream. What is not the dream does not exist so is beyond description. Only the dream has existance. From a nondual perspective the nature of that existance is very peculier/strange indeed. It is the appearance of existance where there is no existance whatsoever. We are that. Astonishing!

Just as dreams do not stray from sleep
and, even as they appear, are by nature empty,
the world of appearances and possibilities, whether of samsara
or nirvana,
likewise does not waver from the scope of natural mind
and has no substance or characteristics.

Quoted (loosely) from Longchen Rabjam, The Precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding, Padma Publishing 1998

Originally Posted by Iamit

There is a complication to the above however. If the manifestation is infinite then there must be existence that is not the dream otherwise the manifestation would not be infinite.

:)

infinite is an imputation like time or duration are imputations. existence too is an imputation. Actually that from which imputations arise is beyond time, does not know time, is atemporal and has never existed as anything since ot does not impute to itself. So both manifestation and infinite exist only through imputation by that which naturally imputes but never has known what it imputes because it is itself empty of imputations.
It can be likened to a mirror: 'imputation' corresponds to 'reflection'. The mirror itself is empty of reflections although its potentiality to reflect is spontaneously present. And the mirror does not know what it reflects.

Annotation:
These have been the verbal expressions of conceptual elaborations compatible with a certain non-ordinary mode of consciousness. Issues that may arise in the ordinary mode of consciousness dissolve in non-ordinary modes of consciousness ... but may be replaced by other issues depending on the mode.
Having said that nothing has been imputed as 'reality'. It has just been said that there a different modes of consciousness and that there is an ordinary common mode and there are non-ordinary uncommon modes. That's all. Just don't seek after truths because what you will find as 'truth' won't remain what it appears to be at first glance.
However there may be non-ordinary uncommon modes of consciousness that have advantages in comparison with the ordinary common mode. That is why many spirtual traditions actually are after special non-ordinary uncommon modes of consciousness. Often however they confuse with 'truth' what is simply another - mostly transient - mode of consciousness.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

Quoted (loosely) from Longchen Rabjam, The Precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding, Padma Publishing 1998


infinite is an imputation like time or duration are imputations. existence too is an imputation. Actually that from which imputations arise is beyond time, does not know time, is atemporal and has never existed as anything since ot does not impute to itself. So both manifestation and infinite exist only through imputation by that which naturally imputes but never has known what it imputes because it is itself empty of imputations.
It can be likened to a mirror: 'imputation' corresponds to 'reflection'. The mirror itself is empty of reflections although its potentiality to reflect is spontaneously present. And the mirror does not know what it reflects.

Annotation:
These have been the verbal expressions of conceptual elaborations compatible with a certain non-ordinary mode of consciousness. Issues that may arise in the ordinary mode of consciousness dissolve in non-ordinary modes of consciousness ... but may be replaced by other issues depending on the mode.
Having said that nothing has been imputed as 'reality'. It has just been said that there a different modes of consciousness and that there is an ordinary common mode and there are non-ordinary uncommon modes. That's all. Just don't seek after truths because what you will find as 'truth' won't remain what it appears to be at first glance.
However there may be non-ordinary uncommon modes of consciousness that have advantages in comparison with the ordinary common mode. That is why many spirtual traditions actually are after special non-ordinary uncommon modes of consciousness. Often however they confuse with 'truth' what is simply another - mostly transient - mode of consciousness.

None of my considerations in this thread are relevant if the manifestation is not infinite. But if it is (and why wouldn't it be if it requires nothing to manifest) then there is a problem with the popular non dual reference that all that manifests is an illusion of difference where there is none.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

None of my considerations in this thread are relevant if the manifestation is not infinite. But if it is (and why wouldn't it be if it requires nothing to manifest) then there is a problem with the popular non dual reference that all that manifests is an illusion of difference where there is none.

you are confusing linguistic categories. That is the issue here.

In the OP you have written:

Originally Posted by Iamit

From a non dual perspective, the dream of difference/separation is all there is.

That linguistc expression refers to (but is not) an individual experience and its not to be confused with rational analytical language because 'dream' is a simile.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Try to describe what is not the dream and whatever you describe will still be the dream.

That is the expression of a rational analytical conclusion from the individual experiential linguistic expression above. It is not an expression from a non dual perspective.

Originally Posted by Iamit

What is not the dream does not exist so is beyond description. Only the dream has existance.

That linguistc expression again refers to (but is not) an individual experience and its not to be confused with rational analytical language because other may e.g. say "Well you have merely posited that 'the dream is all there is' without being able to prove it. It may be that you are dreaming but others are not. So how can you claim that your dream determines what exists or does not exist generally? you can only say what exists for you in your dream."

Originally Posted by Iamit

From a nondual perspective the nature of that existance is very peculier/strange indeed.

Here you are confusing nondual perspective which refers to individual experience with rational analytical perspective. Why? Because from a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience there isn't any inquiry into the nature of anything.

Originally Posted by Iamit

It is the appearance of existance where there is no existance whatsoever. We are that. Astonishing!

That is an expression of your rational analytical conclusion which is not from a nondual perspective. From a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience there existence does not occur to one, so what would be an appropriate expression from a non-dual perspective referring to (but not being) the experience: 'neither existence nor non-existence' or 'beyond existence and non-existence' or - even more appropriate - the extended Nagarjunian version: Neither existence, nor non-existence, nor both, nor neither.

Originally Posted by Iamit

There is a complication to the above however. If the manifestation is infinite then there must be existence that is not the dream otherwise the manifestation would not be infinite.

This complication arises in your mind only because you are confusing expression from a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience with expressions of rational analytical language.
From a nondual perspective there is neither infinite nor finite, so there is no issue at all: Neither infinite, nor finite, nor both, nor neither.

Individual experience is not accessible to rational analysis although both may be expressed by means of linguistic expressions and although individual experience may result from rational analysis. But the linguistic expressions of both are incompatible because rational analysis of expressions of individual experiences takes as its basis words and meanings arising from those words which however are not the experiences but only expressions of them. Also the kind of linguistic expressions of individual experiences and rational analysis are often very different because rational analysis is not expressed by means of words representing indeterminate similes, metaphors and the like but is expressed by means of words representing determinate objects.


If however someone is subject to innate truth habits then he/she may confuse his/her individual experiences with truths or another person's expression of his/her individual experience with claims of truth which then may entail confusing expressions refering to individual experience with expressions of rational analytical language.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

you are confusing linguistic categories. That is the issue here.

In the OP you have written:

That linguistc expression refers to (but is not) an individual experience and its not to be confused with rational analytical language because 'dream' is a simile.

That is the expression of a rational analytical conclusion from the individual experiential linguistic expression above. It is not an expression from a non dual perspective.

That linguistc expression again refers to (but is not) an individual experience and its not to be confused with rational analytical language because other may e.g. say "Well you have merely posited that 'the dream is all there is' without being able to prove it. It may be that you are dreaming but others are not. So how can you claim that your dream determines what exists or does not exist generally? you can only say what exists for you in your dream."

Here you are confusing nondual perspective which refers to individual experience with rational analytical perspective. Why? Because from a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience there isn't any inquiry into the nature of anything.

That is an expression of your rational analytical conclusion which is not from a nondual perspective. From a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience there existence does not occur to one, so what would be an appropriate expression from a non-dual perspective referring to (but not being) the experience: 'neither existence nor non-existence' or 'beyond existence and non-existence' or - even more appropriate - the extended Nagarjunian version: Neither existence, nor non-existence, nor both, nor neither.



This complication arises in your mind only because you are confusing expression from a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience with expressions of rational analytical language.
From a nondual perspective there is neither infinite nor finite, so there is no issue at all: Neither infinite, nor finite, nor both, nor neither.

Individual experience is not accessible to rational analysis although both may be expressed by means of linguistic expressions and although individual experience may result from rational analysis. But the linguistic expressions of both are incompatible because rational analysis of expressions of individual experiences takes as its basis words and meanings arising from those words which however are not the experiences but only expressions of them. Also the kind of linguistic expressions of individual experiences and rational analysis are often very different because rational analysis is not expressed by means of words representing indeterminate similes, metaphors and the like but is expressed by means of words representing determinate objects.


If however someone is subject to innate truth habits then he/she may confuse his/her individual experiences with truths or another person's expression of his/her individual experience with claims of truth which then may entail confusing expressions refering to individual experience with expressions of rational analytical language.

When I use the term "From a non dual perspective" to describe the manifestation what is meant is that there appears to be difference where there is no difference at all. If you approach the question with that in mind when considering that proposition with the concept of infinity, there must be difference occurring that is not an illusion of difference otherwise the manifestation would not be infinite. If we cannot agree on what words mean then discussion will be very difficult.

[iamthat]

So many words trying to explain that which cannot be explained.

So much unnecessary complication trying to describe that which is very simple.

The intellect loves all these ideas, but the intellect will never know reality.

Peace.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by iamthat

So many words trying to explain that which cannot be explained.

So much unnecessary complication trying to describe that which is very simple.

The intellect loves all these ideas, but the intellect will never know reality.

Peace.

Even if that were so, it is already oneness arising as not knowing. Nothing ever needs to change for the purpose of connection to Oneness.

That is indeed peace.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Even if that were so, it is already oneness arising as not knowing. Nothing ever needs to change for the purpose of connection to Oneness.

That is indeed peace.

if it is peace why don't I feel it as peaceful?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

if it is peace why don't I feel it as peaceful?

Because everyting has not yet been included as Oneness in Action. It is not until that process of including is complete that there is peace. Even while that lack of peace is being felt, there is no disconnection from Oneness,for it must be Onenes arising as that feeling. Include everything and there will be peace.