Consciousness Has Appearance of Substance. CHAOS

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by God-Like

If one want's to suggest that one awakens from the ignorance of separation and associate that to waking from a dream, then I can understand that, but for some the world as a dream reflects a reality where nothing is real, not even individuality and that is where it makes no sense to me.

Yes, it's just an analogy to help describe the indescribable. It's like waking up from the ignorance of separation within the dream while still being in the dream. In that case the dream still appears so it cannot be said to be unreal, however it cannot be said to be real because the waking within the dream reveals it's nature as simply a dream and nothing separate from the dreamer.

It's not unreal as in there's nothing. It's not real as in there's something. There is No-Thing, that's all there is, and it's what we all are. As Vivekananda said "Everything is not. God alone is.".

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

Yes, it's just an analogy to help describe the indescribable. It's like waking up from the ignorance of separation within the dream while still being in the dream. In that case the dream still appears so it cannot be said to be unreal, however it cannot be said to be real because the waking within the dream reveals it's nature as simply a dream and nothing separate from the dreamer.
".

I think in my humble opinion if the dream is only used as an analogy then it can cause a lot of misunderstandings. Why don't peeps just say that one awakens from the ignorance of separation? Comparing the waking state to the dream that one has at night can for some allude to one is forever in a dream world.

In regards to what is real or not one has to realise what is at the heart of what appears and one doesn't. If the realisation points to that there is only what you are then appearances are no different from that which isn't manifest.


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

It's not unreal as in there's nothing. It's not real as in there's something. There is No-Thing, that's all there is, and it's what we all are. As Vivekananda said "Everything is not. God alone is.".

So Vivekananda is God alone? that is neither real or unreal?

What does that make you or I? God alone too?

Where do you see individuality fitting in with all of this?

Of course God is a concept made to describe what all things are.

What we are that is not separate from all things in my knowings does all ow for individuality, individual expression, individual realisations. That's why there is realised and unrealised awareness reflecting upon such individuals.

That's why a peep can proclaim being a separate individual and another not.


x daz x

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by God-Like

So Vivekananda is God alone? that is neither real or unreal?

Yes. Like the wave is Water and only Water through and through.

Originally Posted by God-Like

What does that make you or I? God alone too?

Same as above.

It's not Vivekananda or you or I of individuated ego/personality. That's just a reflection, if you will, and it's that reflection becoming aware it's only a reflection of God, Source, Unity, Nondual Reality, Unified Field however one wishes to label It. It's that realization, much like the dream avatar realizing it and everything else in the dream is just a reflection of the dreamer's mind.

For me personally it was direct experience first and afterward diving deep into Advaita philosophy (Jnana Yoga) that best explained the experience. It's not belief or faith because without the direct experience I would have never believed it, not in a million years, however once 'seeing' it I can't 'unsee' it. How can I deny my own direct experience? It's like "I think, therefore I am" only on a deeper level, deeper than I am. It's the eye realizing it doesn't need to see itself to know its existence. It knows its existence by the very fact it sees.

I've only shared it face-to-face with two people, a close friend and a Buddhist monk. Let's just say the monk was far more understanding than my friend. Ego likes the driver's seat and doesn't like to take the back seat. LOL!

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I think in my humble opinion if the dream is only used as an analogy then it can cause a lot of misunderstandings. Why don't peeps just say that one awakens from the ignorance of separation?

From my perspective a lucid dream is a very good analogous experience to awakening from the ignorance of separation. That is in a mundane dream one is a separate dream avatar and on becoming lucid within a dream one awakens from the ignorance of that separation.

Neither you nor anyone else can look into my direct experience, and for this particular direct experience how else can I describe such an experience aside from using a more common experience as an analogy? For instance if I say "I had an experience of awakening from the ignorance of separation" and someone asks "What was it like" I'd say "It's like becoming lucid in a dream, only while awake". It's using a common point of reference in an attempt to describe something less common.

[Unseeking Seeker]

True, JASG, it cannot be described but only spoken of in metaphors.

However, until the recognition is held steady awareness of what is, is flickering.

I came across these lines on a poster at a friends house:

One is in all
All are in One
The one is all
All is one

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I think in my humble opinion if the dream is only used as an analogy then it can cause a lot of misunderstandings.Why don't peeps just say

Isn’t it just dreams within dreams as a continuum- as life is anyway? We are life creating..

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..

[1Greg2]

You are probably right as you understand it. I used to think along similar lines after I picked up words and concepts. What I'm finding now is that it's getting simpler, that is to say, the words I choose. Appearances come and go, and I believe, for example, Buddha's realization was that he and whatever presented itself to him were one. That is the essence of simplicity, and the simple truth. The truth is simple and obvious.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

It's not Vivekananda or you or I of individuated ego/personality. That's just a reflection, if you will, and it's that reflection becoming aware it's only a reflection of God, Source, Unity, Nondual Reality, Unified Field however one wishes to label It.

Well a reflection is likened to the dream analogy I would say where there is some kind of watering down effect going on.

What you call a reflection I can an individual part of all that is.
It's important to know what constitutes and individual spirit and how that embodies a human form.

It seems that a lot of non dualists don't entertain the realness of individuality because there is this notion of only one God.

A God which in itself can create an infinite amount of perceptions as to what that is or refers to.

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


x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

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

I agree, the individual is not separate from non-duality. Non-duality is not selfish one sided thinking.

Negating or viewing individuality in a negative way, with non-duality philosophy, raises red flags, because individuality is a person's sense of self, whether this person's (thinks) sense of self is separate from non-duality or not. Destroying or negating individuality, destroys and negates the person's sense of self, whether this person's (thinks) sense of self is separate from non-duality or not. Only the paternalist seeks to destroy or negate individuality for the paternalist's own gain and benefit.

There are 2 ways to view spirituality, like there are 2 ways to view politics, morals, and economics, and these 2 viewpoints are individualism and paternalism. I do not doubt at all that a person's spiritual view or stance is the same person's political, moral, and economic view or stance.