Search the Community

Are dream contents physical?

Yep. I know what you are talking about. (I sometimes get up to do something and when I start walking I have forgotten what I got up to do. Hehehe.) But seriously, I used to think as you do but because of some documentaries on TV regarding sleep and dreaming I have come to the conclusion that our brain is always active. It never sleeps even when we are sleeping. If it is active then there is thinking going on. All the time. But no, we are not always conscious of this thinking. I have said in the past that I rarely dream. The truth is that my dreams are rarely vivid enough for me to be conscious of them. Yes, right now we are playing with words. Hehehe. I know what you are referring to and I agree with you as to the basics of what you are saying. Now, logical (or illogical) thinking is a different horse. Yes, all that takes place in the conscious mind. Confucius being logical (his logic) and Lao Tzu being intuitional awareness. Now, there's nothing wrong with logical thought. However, illogical thought is not so good. But it is more fun to live intuitively.

I do not rely on beliefs. I have realized and directly seen this to be so (seeing is just seen, hearing is just heard). "Is" does not apply to awareness or subject. I do not mean there is something heard, but it is just the self-evident clarity of appearances that the label "awareness" refer to, like the word "weather", but there is no subjective self or inherency to "awareness". in seeing just the seen, means there is no seer, whereas "seen" too is simply a convention for self-luminous unlocatable d.o. And empty appearance/display like weather. To say "there is just a display" does not imply the display must be inherently there, it could simply a tv show, a dream, etc but that there is no agent seeing the display is true. First we realize "weather" is an empty name, doesn't refer to some permanent independent entity apart from that process of clouds, rain, lightning etc, then the next step we realize clouds, rain, lightning etc is also just as empty and ungraspable as "weather". Step one does not contradict step two, its like 1) there is no weather 2) weather is just a convention for appearances 3) appearances are empty Step 2 does not reify phenomena, step 3 does not reify subject. They are absolutely consistent and complements each other.

I think we are using awareness differently. I think you mean self-awareness. In dreams people are often aware of their dream, but not necessarily self-aware. I don't see a straight line cutting consciousness and awareness. It seems like awareness is more or less a gradient.

They did before the state of Israel was created there are many testimonies to this effect that I have seen on TV documentaries about the history of the Middle East. But I have to say you are right to be cynical. As I say, I like to dream nice dreams.

Ah well, I still like to dream that some people somewhere can have different views and yet co-exist and inspire each other. Maybe not in ancient China, maybe only in the distant future. But I am dreamer.

I had another short, but very vivid dream in which Sudhana and Manjushri appeared and introduced themselves to me. This is becoming very bizarre. I feel as if I'm being coaxed onto a particular path. Not forced or converted, but gently shown a way. A way with no answers, ever. Only more questions.

And what's your basis for this statement when you don't even know the next moment. How do you know anything if your knowing is like a dream. In fact, you can't claim to know anything. It's like, "Uh, I don't know, things just arise like dreams as part of universe." I think that's helpful to a certain degree but should not be seen as true. But it's experienced. And your explanation for this is, "I don't know. It must be magic because it's not really there." You were the one who brought up the point about non-sentient causes and conditions.

No substance whatsoever. Mind and matter are only conventions like the word 'weather' imputed upon a conglomerate of ungraspable/insubstantial phenomena. Consciousness does not only arise from itself. There is no one consciousness splitting into subjective experience. There are 6 (or 8) consciousness that dependently originates. You are implying there is a One Mind. This is substantial non-duality. Precisely. When you realize emptiness, you realize nothing is shared. You realize there is no mind, and no matter. All are just baseless appearances like a dream. Dogs see black flower. We see red rose. Quantum glasses (if such are invented) lets you see 99.999% void. You think matter is real and there are some characteristics to it, and that these characteristics are shared/universal. But matter is empty of intrinsic characteristics and utterly unestablished. We conventionally label matter as phenomena/appearances having the characteristics of solidity, liquidity, heat and motion (four elements) yet no substance whatsoever can be found. In reality the reason why we experience matter similarly is because humans have 'shared' (rather similar) karma, but this does not apply when we compare ourselves to other kinds of sentient beings. Mind and matter are mere conventions of appearances, ultimately non-arising. Rizenfenix (son who transcribed his father who is an old realized yogi probably a monk) says this best: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search?q=rizenfenix Colors, sounds, smells, flavors, and textures aren’t attributes that are inherent to the objective world, existing independently of our senses. The objects we perceive seem completely ‘external’ to us, but do they have intrinsic characteristics that define their true nature? What is the true nature of the world as it exists independently of ourselves? We have no way of knowing, because our only way of apprehending it is via our own mental process. So, according to Buddhism, a ‘world’ independent of any conceptual designation would make no sense to anyone. To take an example, what is a white object? Is it a wavelength, a ‘color temperature’, and or moving particles? Are those particles energy, mass, or what? None of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of investigating it. Buddhist scriptures tell the story of two blind men who wanted to have explained to them what colors were? One of them was told that white was the color of snow. He took a handful of snow and concluded that white was ‘cold’. The other blind man was told white was the color of swans. He heard a swan flying overhead, and concluded that white went ‘swish swish’... The complete and correct recollection of the story aside, the point being the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we’d all perceive it in the same way. That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena. I think you experienced no-mind but you have not realized anatta. You are implying there is One Mind expressing itself in multiplicity. This is substantial non-dualism. You need to contemplate this: In seeing always only the seen/seeing is the seen In hearing always only the heard/hearing is the heard Then you will break substance-view of consciousness and realize anatta.

It means that I'm trying to get the point across where one can understand that one's personal experiences of consciousness through unconscious (deep sleep) subconscious (dream sleep) and conscious living is already poised for the experience of Buddhahood, it's just flipping the state of non-recognition into recognition. Marigpa into Rigpa. Rigpa is... Dharmakaya Sambogakaya Nirmanakaya All experienced as a unity. I don't much care about the name of the thread, it doesn't effect me either way. No ralis, it confuses you, but not everyone. I'm sorry that it confuses you. Just go sit over there in your supreme non-conceptual state of awareness, you're so formless ralis, so brilliant, you cut through all my fanatical scholarly prose... oh ralis, if only I could touch the level of your awareness. Is that what you want from me ralis? For me to recognize how transcendent of my expressions you are? Should everyone recognize this as well? Is this what this 2+ years, nearly 3 years of shutting down our Buddhist discussion on this board which invites us to be here has been about? Ralis, your recognition of heart-mind is supreme!! It's beyond the scriptures and the discussions from various siddha masters! It's awesome man, I bow to it. It's funny how you think yourself to be beyond the many elaborations as expressed by Norbu. You should read his teachings more, not just public books.

Just flipped open my book, the bookmarked page shows just what I need. "Considering that the attainment of enlightenment is accompanied by the realization of the empty nature of all things, you may wonder why noble beings, having realized that we are not truly existing, would still feel so compassionate towards us. Is it even possible to carry out activities for the benefit of others in such a state of realization? The stage of Nonmeditation is accompanied by the wisdom that perceives the nature of things as it is. Therefore, thre is no longer any fear of samsaric suffering or any confusion in one's own experience. Yet, one still perceives how other beings suffer due to not realizing the natural state of all things. This realization is accopmanied by immense compassion. Imagine two friends: one is asleep and the other awake. The sleeping person has a nightmare in which he is chased by vicious carnivores like tigers, lions and leopards. He is scared for his life, yet these vicious animals do not exist at all. There are no tigers, lions or leopards, but the dreamer believes that they actually do exist. The other person sees that his friend is suffering a horrible nightmare. he knows very well that the house is perfectly safe and there is absolutely no reason to be afraid. Of course he shakes his friend and says, "hey, wake up! You are having a nightmare. You do not have to suffer - wake up!" When his friend wakes up, he discovers that it was only a dream and all his suffering was for naught. In the same way, sentient beings undergo all kinds of worry, pain and suffering believing what they perceive to be real. None of samsara's deluded experiences truly exist in any way whatsoever, and yet we attach a solid reality to them and cause ourselves endless suffering. Even though they have attained true and complete enlightenment, buddhas and realized masters still perceive our suffering and so they teach, write treatises, sing vajra songs and perform countless other activities to benefit others. In the ultimate sense, there is no difference in the identity of any phenomenon - everything is of one taste; but in the relative experience of individual beings there is a great difference. This is why the buddhas employ so many different techniques and methods to guide, inspire and teach others." ~ Thrangu Rinpoche, 'Crystal Clear'

You're basically asking: If wisdom is like an illusion and suffering is like an illusion, why advocate one over another? Because even though this is like a dream, sentient beings suffer due to ignorance (even though suffering is an appearance) and 'we' naturally and compassionately respond to them, even though without even the notion of a self or other.

This is what I mean. This 'unfindability' or 'unestablishability' is illusory. Do you see this? Santa can be found as a character in various works of literature and in the shopping centers around the New Year's time. This is because people try to locate Tathagata as if it were an object. What should Tathagata say to such misguided attempts? Tathagata spoke differently to people who were more enlightened than run of the mill idiots. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.04.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.02.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html That recognition is an illusion. All recognitions are illusory. Not true. You can't wake up from the eternal sleep. Your dream has changed, but you're still dreaming friend. All recognitions are somewhat illusory. You've grasped a part truth to be the whole truth. Who are you kidding? You know what I mean. Why weasel in parenthesis? This situation of there being no findable, independent, permanent self is the truth? Or is it an illusion?

Yes, mind too is dependently arisen. There is nothing ultimate, permanent, or independent about mind. "All is mind" simply means all experiences are mental perceptions/experiences, like a dream, you can see, hear, things that seems real (especially in lucid dreams), but it is entirely mind. Waking life is not really different. I don't mean "false concepts and discriminations"... I mean mind, and the nature of mind which is luminous and empty.

And... this does not contradict what I quoted in my blog article. Shurangama Sutra is talking about a beginningless luminous mind. It does not make eternalist assertions* of mind. Shurangama Sutra also argued against the non-Buddhist view that mind is permanent while arisings are impermanent: "(33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views. First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent." ...... Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence." Shurangama Sutra does not deny mind and its luminosity, but denies the permanence and inherent existence of mind. ----------------- * http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Śāntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged. * http://www.dreamyoga.com/tibetan-dream-yoga/the-dalai-lama-on-the-clear-light The fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also called the ‘clear light’ (abhasvara, ‘od gsal) and uncompounded (asamskrta, ‘dus ma byas). In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nying-ma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered ‘permanent’ in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted… ~ HHDL

I agree with everything you've stated. If only I could fully be that all the time, starting right now! I am a work in progress. When I made that statement about a million dollars I was more talking about "The Secret" club. There are good things that this club states, but there is also some delusion in there as well. It's cool that people are getting these ideas of self empowerment, but it's not a complete perspective in my opinion. Of course it, itself is a marketing ploy, and most people wouldn't be ready for more deeply nuanced perspectives. It's all a part of the global process anyway and it's not a bad part of it. I've just met some pretty delusional people toting it's teachings, strengthening their clinging to the illusion of the American Dream. Even though I agree that there is nothing wrong with abundance, internally and externally.

Wake up! time to go. Again, the dream is over, Come! Reality.

That's not what dependent arising means. Dependent arising does not postulate any ultimate limitations, only provisional ones. Literally it means right now, given your circumstances, you cannot shoot a fireball out of your hand. It doesn't mean it can't ever be done. We see this happen in dreams. I've been lucid in many of my dreams. In most lucid dreams I could fly, but not in all! The fact that I've been lucid and yet unable to fly in some dreams shows me something important. Patterns have some weight to them, and sometimes even knowing that all your patterns are a dream is not enough to break them. Why? Because knowing has depth to it. Not all knowing is equally deep, profound and sure. Two people can know the same thing but if one knows that thing in a deeper way, the results will be different for each of the two.

Nothing unusual in the mundane life. Just after I posted this, I meditated on my bed doing the Tara mantra and made up a little meditation on the way, staying so long because it seemed to be going good. Then I somehow found myself in a voidness, and I started flying down. But as I flew I realized that I was going to ejaculate, so I tried to pull out of the state. Alas I spooged in the void, not sure how that works. But I didnt wake to consciousness, but into a dream state, and later finally I emerged back to this apartment. Not really sure, but I hope this is Tara or my higher mind helping a guy out. I was already seemed to be near the end of the "flu", but now feel much better. Draw your own conclusions about semen retention making a guy go nutty in the high summer, about Tara, about it all. Who knows.

Then could a sentient being, a person, be turned into a bug then to a piece of fruit? It seems like you are saying that one's perspective on things could make this possible. What if you wanted to turn that bug into a leaf and some other sentient being wanted to turn it into an elephant...as in overlapping intents. Or does that only happen with your own consensus in your mind? It's difficult to conceive that one's own mind is the sole creator of one's universe including the sentient beings within it and one's immediate environment is simply the habitual patterns of one's subconscious. Of course, as you say, this isn't the "only" way to see and experience, we can choose to be ignorant and construct a reality where there is certainty of an objective environment and so forth. But in terms of what is ultimately possible you seem to be saying that the world is not co-created, but created by the sole intent of the mind that is experiencing it, as if each is his/her individual dream. Haha, indeed, that's difficult to digest.

GIH, a few questions that arose in me reading this...(nothing rhetorical here) How does one view sentient beings he/she meets in this dream? Can they be said to be existent minds or separate entities? Or do they arise from your own mind eminating sentient beings compared to non-sentient things? You mentioned how the mind requires a-priori knowledge to recognize its experience, that it must know the world to experience it. But then when you speak of volition, how could there be pure volition arising apart from contextualized and structured manifestation? Or if the manifestation is simply the intent itself, what basis does it have in making that "choice"? Isn't it always conditioned by a-priori knowledge of the world? As in your example of the leaf turning into a bug, the volitional intent to do so arises because one knows there is a "leaf" and a "bug." Or maybe what you're saying is that when the mind understands its own contextualizations to be not limited by a set of laws, one can sort of play with the relationships established in the a-priori knowledge, which you seem to be saying has unlimited potential beyond the unmanifest into the unknown...

If they had some wild experiences like false awakenings, lucid dreams, seeing visions in meditation that look as real as anything can be real, etc... perhaps they'd question their assumptions. Or perhaps not. More experience is not always the answer to all our problems. It can help if the person is ready to be helped. But there are people who experience amazing things and simply ignore the amazing experiences or file it all away into a safe mental bin called "hallucination" or "dream" and never think of it again. Sometimes what gets a person out of this condition is a logical argument and not more experience. So sometimes more experience can help and sometimes what helps is more rigorous and more uncompromising reasoning. But underneath all that, I believe there has to be a basic willingness to accept at least some change. If someone is not willing to accept any change in the worldview, I believe that someone will not benefit from anything, be it more experience or better logic. And besides, we tend to think that our way of life, the more magical way, is better. At least I certainly think so. But I imagine many people appreciate a non-magical way much more. It's a matter of taste. Do you like strange things happening all the time? Do you like normality and a solid routine? Do you appreciate that when you open the door to your room, your room is still there just as you expect, instead of a magical forest or some other weird dimension? So what I am saying is, I can appreciate other people wanting to live a less magical and more mechanistic kind of life. The only thing is, if I believe someone reasons incorrectly, I have no respect for that. So I am willing to accept people's choices in some ways, but not always their reasons for those choices. I guess I am not 100% accepting. (only 95%?)

Very nice. I agree with everything there except the reference to the brain at the end. Now this should be taken further. What this guy calls "infinite" is actually mind. Why? Because finite and infinite are perspectives and not objective reality. There is nothing that's objectively finite nor is there anything that's objectively infinite. When you realize that the entire world is nothing but perspectives, then you realize the mind is the primary reality and not substance or anything else that appears to the mind. Having a perspective, and changing from one perspective to another is what the mind does, voluntarily. The entire analysis this guy performs happens with regard to what is readily apparent. He needs to go further and consider the non-apparent, the so-called "mystical" realm he rejects. For example, when I look in the mirror I recognize the face there as myself. Why? Because I've come to expect myself to look a certain way. This expectation is not something that's readily apparent, but it is there in the mind. I've had a dream when I looked in the mirror and saw nothing. I freaked out. Why? I was expecting to see something. I didn't see what I expected, hence I freaked out. To really sharpen the point, let's consider light. How do I know what light is? I know what light is because I know what darkness is. So for example, if I go into a perfectly dark room, even though there is no contrast that's apparent in the room, just perfect endless darkness, I still recognize it as darkness even in the absence of any contrast as far as the obviously apparent phenomena go. So how do I know it's dark in the dark room? I know it because I also know what light is. So even if there is no contrast for me to go by, I can still compare what I see to everything else that I know. And these things are not merely categories. Like light and dark they are cognitive complements. Cognitive complements are more basic than categories. So in order to see anything in the world I must a-priori know what the world looks like. If I don't know what the world looks like, when I observe the world I don't recognize the world as the world. I will think it's all garbage or even irrelevant background noise. The reason I can recognize the world is because the world exists in my mind as knowledge. I know the world before I see it. If I don't know the world I can't see it, just like if I don't know what my face looks like, I can't see it in the mirror. This is not obvious to everyone. In fact we can examine things further and realize not only does the world exist in mind, but it exists only in my mind, or only in your mind from your perspective. Here I mean it's not just that the mind is what overlays the boundaries over the external-to-the-mind world, but the whole thing, boundaries, and whatever is between them, all of it is in the mind and nowhere else. In the video I get the impression he thinks the mind is merely producing the arbitrary boundaries to overlay on top of the real and external-to-mind world. It's not only the boundaries, it's whatever between them is mind-made too. So a perfect endless smooth stretch of blackness is mind-made because you need to know what light looks like to recognize blackness as blackness. You need a mental context of some sort to have any sort of recognition of any kind, not just the boundaries and contrasts. And to take it even further, this guy should talk about intent. For example, using intent you can transform the leaf on the ground into a bug and have it fly away. That's something this guy doesn't even want to touch with a ten foot pole, because imagine how crazy people will think he is if he says that? But it's true. One huge aspect he doesn't touch on is that all the contents of mind are volitional. They're the way they are in dependence on our volition or intent. How can you walk along the street? When you move your feet you're volitionally changing the relationships in the mind. You're altering meanings in the mind. Of course walking around is a very conditioned, very patterned exhibition of intent, so we don't think of it as magical. An enlightened being can manifest intent in ways that are beyond ordinary habitual patterns and such displays will appear magical and nonsensical to someone who expects familiar patterns. Beyond the manifest being contextualized by known unmanifest, like the manifest perfect darkness appears that way because we know what light is like and this isn't it, so the light is a known which is unmanifest, both light and darkness are contextualized in terms of something else, something hidden. Because all knowns have meaning in terms of unknowns, which are infinite. So when I see the dark room as dark, not only do we have two knowns playing off each other light/dark, but the known light/dark combo is also playing off a total unknown, which for obvious reasons cannot even be named or mentioned since it's unknown. But logically we know known in terms of unknown. We know what it's like to know things because we know what it's like not to. So an unknown is a kind of known too. We know what it's like not to know. At this point we are front and center in the Mystery.

this self is still mere conventions, as the texts have often stated, even enlightenment, nirvana, buddhahood is dream-like and insubstantial and in fact there is no wisdom, no attainment, no buddhahood in the ultimate sense

The essence of what you are saying is twofold: 1. Resolve matters. When you make a serious vow, you are demonstrating (mostly to yourself) the strength, the depth, the sincerity, and the tenacity of your resolve. It is a way for you to convince yourself beyond doubt that you are truly serious, that your resolve is diamond-like. It's also a way to give your dream a more concrete shape. 2. It's the nature of mind to manifest whatever you resolve on. Buddhism is not the only system of thought that teaches this kind of wisdom. Hindus teach the same thing, for example. I am sure others teach a similar set of ideas. Wisdom will never completely disappear. Wisdom can be difficult to recognize, but it's never completely absent. Enjoy the wisdom you find in Buddhism and make the most of it, because Buddhism is not going to last forever. Knowing that this human life does not last forever causes you to appreciate the opportunities in this life. Knowing that Buddhism does not last forever causes you to appreciate the opportunities in Buddhism. It is the nature of all things to change. At some point things change beyond recognition. That's only natural. All things are cyclic. There is nothing to fear and there is nothing to hang on to. Or let me put it this way, if you want to hang on to Buddhism, make all the best that's in it emblazoned on your heart and share without reservation. But be vigilant. Not everything in Buddhism is great. You'll never learn anything of significance if all you do is emulate, copy and follow. Do some of your own thinking and feel free to question everything.