What is the food of dogs?!
Yasar
My late Sufi master was 102 years old but spoke like a man in the
twenties. Most of his students were with him for 20 or even 30 years ...
so I was his last student. He did not appoint any of us to be in his
place as a Sufi master. One of the old students who always used to stand
in the middle of the circle and conduct it, claimed that he is the one
to be the new master. But our late master had once testified that "this
world has its firm grip on this guy's heart", and when he was asked why
did he then allow him to be in the middle of the circle he said: "I
didn't allow him .. he did that by his own command and I simply did not
object".
So the group was split. Few of us accepted that guy as the new teacher,
but the rest started a new circle without a master because all of them
are advanced seekers. We all know that non of us is yet initiated to
take the master's place, even his grandson who is very advanced and can
easily claim that.
Many years ago another great Sufi master affirmed to me that I will
acquire a great rank in the path, so I was so happy and anxious, but
instead, I went astray from the path for two or three years:):) All that
time, and while I was indulged in feeding my Nafs and loving my body, I
was wondering in shock: "But what about the things he told me, and all
those predictions?!!"
In a vision last night I saw myself in the circle with the brothers and
without the master. Then I saw the master's spirit from a far holding a
big black dog, then he sent it to become our new master. The dog,
confidently entered the circle, took its place, and started speaking
words of wisdom and knowledge. Then he ordered a strange kind of food
and started eating, encouraging us to eat like it, and saying:
"Eat my brothers .. this is the best food you can have, because the
prophet said: the best food a seeker can eat is the food of dogs".!!!
Now of course there is no hadith of the prophet as such .. it is only in
my vision.
Any comment, anyone?
Yasar
JP George
It seems to me that the dog in your dream is the student who declared his
place in the center, and that you were interpreting your master's teaching
in your dreams and perhaps mixing it with cartoon imagery. (Cats vs. dog,
remember?) I would suggest that you reject both the dog of your dream and
the dog of this world who has claimed his master's place.
Regards,
JP
"Yasar" <dear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3DF4037E...@yahoo.com...
Meryem Brawley
Our Sheykh has told us many times that the dog symbolizes loyalty. A dog is
loyal to the one who feeds him - his master. Depending upon the station of the
master, and his position vis-a-vis Prophet, Salla Allahu Aleyhi ve Selam,
there may indeed be no better food for the dog than what the master gives to
him. Interesting dream. Good luck to you, Yasar, in finding its meaning for
you.
Meryem
Plundered Heart
away" signpost of another?
JP George
news:fbr9vuou1ov3ed9ld...@4ax.com...
> Perhaps one man's loyal, loving dog is the vicious, gnarling, "stay
> away" signpost of another?
That's what makes life interesting sometimes, especially when everyone
remembers to forget who the master is and where they left the dog;-)
-JP
Jim Buck
Dog's Best Friend
By STEPHEN BUDIANSKY http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/opinion/05BUDI.html
LEESBURG, Va. - A couple of years ago I dared to suggest in print that dogs
were fundamentally con artists - adept manipulators who merely pretended to
like us as part of a clever evolutionary scheme of survival. Honestly, I was
joking. Or anyway, mostly joking. But had I paraded around in a T-shirt
emblazoned with the slogan "I love to kick puppies," I could scarcely have
done a more thorough job of infuriating a certain segment of the dog-loving
public. I got a lot of irate mail about dogs' "unconditional love," whatever
that means.
Now it turns out I was right. In fact, according to a number of recently
released scientific studies, dogs are not merely emotional con artists: they
are also intellectual con artists. They've learned not only to fake love;
they've managed to convince us that they are a lot smarter than they really
are. In both cases they play us for the saps we are.
Dogs have evolved gimmicks that are perfectly attuned to turning humankind's
instinctive foibles to their own purposes. In the natural order of things,
any self-respecting prehistoric cave-dweller would have thrown a rock at any
wild animal that showed up to steal some food. But the same wheedling,
appeasing gestures that keep the lower members of a wolf pack from getting
walloped by the alpha wolf - effusive greetings, mournful whining, abject
cringing - turned out to work like a charm on egotistical,
anthropomorphizing human beings. The best wheedlers lived to pass on those
wheedling genes to the next generation, and the rest was dog history.
A new study on dog intelligence, carried out at Harvard, now finds that dogs
also have evolved a particular ability to pick up on human gestures. It is
an ability other species notably lack. When the Harvard researchers tried to
teach chimpanzees that the way to find a hidden snack was to notice which of
two bowls the human experimenter looked at, pointed to, or tapped on, the
chimps seemed mostly mystified. Dogs aced the test. Even puppies that had
had minimal contact with people did well on this test; wolves, however, did
not.
Biologists routinely speak of animals exploiting their ecological niche.
Well, it turns out that we're the ecological niche for dogs, and exploit us
they do. While lions are busy scanning their field of view for prey to
pursue, dogs are watching our hands to see where the food is stashed.
But these recent findings also say something revealing about why we think
dogs are so smart in the first place. Studies of animal intelligence, and
human prejudices about animal intelligence, have long suggested that we take
a remarkably self-centered view of the matter: people tend to think animals
are smart if they respond to things the same way humans do.
Yet comparative psychologists who study animal behavior and intelligence
have shown that disparities in how well a particular species learns or
solves problems often turn out to have more to do with eyesight, motivation
and species-specific ecological adaptations than with underlying
intelligence. Cats, for example, do poorly on many animal I.Q. tests simply
because it's almost impossible to devise a reward that cats care enough
about to work for. Cats could be the original underachievers. Dogs, by
comparison, are the animal equivalent of the teacher's pet: they may not be
any smarter, but they always pay attention in class and are so eager to
please.
We might as well face it that this is all just further proof that dogs play
us like accordions. Every year Americans get a million dog bites and have to
deal with two million tons of canine solid waste; dogs, on the other hand,
get $5 billion worth of dog food, $7 billion worth of vet visits and endless
gushing about how loving, faithful - and smart - they are.
Of course, I should hasten to add, my dog really is smart. She also loves
me.
Stephen Budiansky is author of "The Truth About Dogs" and "The Character of
Cats."
Obo Vajrin
him >>
Friend Yasar, I tend to agree with Meryem as to a dog symbolizes loyalty. And
the need to belong "I want to be part of the pack." But I see this as just the
begining of you investigation. You spoke of a "big black dog", I point out the
obvious, black=wisdom. The dog could be you, is this a test? Are you still
loyal to your master? (He did come to you, perhaps you can "still go to him")
The dog could be (as JP pointed out) the self promoting student. Where it
really gets interesting is if we speculate that the food for a dog (given by
his master) is not necessarily the "best" food when shared with others. So we
have food FOR a dog and food OF (from) a dog. And that may be the meaning of
the false hadith (how comfortable are you with "making up" hadith of the
prophet? I have no problem inventing "hadith" - there are two ends to every
stick)
<<Any comment, anyone?>>
Just these few bones from this old dog, obo Good chewing!!!
Janice
bronze...@lycos.com says...
>Perhaps one man's loyal, loving dog is the vicious, gnarling, "stay
>away" signpost of another?
Dream symbolism *is* pretty personal.
Big black dream dogs are lucky for me; I used to have one as a protective
figure in my dreams (not all my recurrent characters were celebrities, or
even people).
--
COMFORT, n. A state of mind produced by contemplation of a neighbor's
uneasiness.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Plundered Heart
Maybe if you get that other dream book published -- you know the one that
isn't too*smacking lips* dry :)
JP George
humans must have a higher purpose. Is it anthropomorphizing, or is it that
society generally sees the line between human and animal as much higher than
it actually is?
-JP
"Jim Buck" <jf....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:at2tcp$106ir9$1...@ID-75431.news.dfncis.de...
Janice
bronze...@lycos.com says...
>Well this dream stuff is still very much outta my league anyway...
>Maybe if you get that other dream book published -- you know the one that
>isn't too*smacking lips* dry :)
It won't be so horribly dry as the other one, but it won't go into
symbolism either. It will just show how much fun it can be to go lucid
and control your dreams. :)
Plundered Heart
"Janice" <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.185f0a8c4...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> In article <A8aJ9.715$io.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> bronze...@lycos.com says...
> >Well this dream stuff is still very much outta my league anyway...
> >Maybe if you get that other dream book published -- you know the one that
> >isn't too*smacking lips* dry :)
>
> It won't be so horribly dry as the other one, but it won't go into
> symbolism either. It will just show how much fun it can be to go lucid
> and control your dreams. :)
Now that's what I am talkin' about..... I can't wait...:D :D :D
Martin Edwards
>instinctive foibles to their own purposes. In the natural order of things,
>any self-respecting prehistoric cave-dweller would have thrown a rock at any
>wild animal that showed up to steal some food. But the same wheedling,
>appeasing gestures that keep the lower members of a wolf pack from getting
>walloped by the alpha wolf - effusive greetings, mournful whining, abject
>cringing - turned out to work like a charm on egotistical,
>anthropomorphizing human beings. The best wheedlers lived to pass on those
>wheedling genes to the next generation, and the rest was dog history.
The point here is that they are not doing this consciously. It is
natural low-status wolf behaviour. A dog is not not that close to us
in evolutionary terms, and does not have a very big brain. I
believe that, eg, chimps and elephants have something like
consciousness, but we'll never know.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway
when you can take the Red Car for a nickel.
-Eddy Valiant
Obo Vajrin
natural low-status wolf behaviour. A dog is not not that close to us
in evolutionary terms, and does not have a very big brain. >>
There was one species on Terra that lived in very close symbiosis
with the domesticated primates (we humans). This was a variety of domesticated
canines called dogs.
The dogs had learned to achieve a rough simulation of guilt and
remorse and worry and other domesticated primate characteristics.
The domesticated primates had learned how to achieve simulations of
loyalty and dignity and cheerfulness and other canine characteristics.
The primates claimed that they loved the dogs as much as the dogs
loved them. Still, the primates kept the best food for themselves.
The dogs noticed this, you can be sure, but they loved the primates
so much that they forgave them.
- Robert Anton Wilson, Schrodinger's cat.
Plundered Heart
> natural low-status wolf behaviour. A dog is not not that close to us
> in evolutionary terms, and does not have a very big brain. I
> believe that, eg, chimps and elephants have something like
> consciousness, but we'll never know.
Or, at least, till we discover / invent new ways by which to detect, measure
and analyze consciousness empirically :D
I believe (naively) that the humans might actually pull it off.
Yasar
Thanks everyone for sharing your insights. Of course it is just a dream ..
for me not all dreams share the same degree of significance. But the idea
that dreams are part of unveiling / unfoldment / kashf -and as said one part
of 46 parts of prophecy- characterizes the dream world as a kingdom in the
world of TRUTH vs. the world of illusion. The Sufi is a dreamer also in
awakening in that sense, and that the barrier between these two states of
existence for him/her is so thin and transparent.
For a Sufi to be able to enter the realm of true abstracts and pure ideals,
he has first to pass through the realm of symbolism, where the many is
encrypted in the few, and the bags are always packed to travel from
diversity to unity. Mathematical logic could be a great tool for a Sufi in
this process of transcendence, but unfortunately it does not allow the human
will to be absent. The absence of the human individual will is a
pre-condition in this process of transcendence. It is the axis of Sufism or
true submission and thenceforth, true freedom. The world of dreams is the
world of true submission and action at the same time. So it is perfect in
comparison with the world of awakening, where action and submission are in
continuous conflict (one of them always wants to cancel the other) and they
go hand in hand only through Jihad (spiritual strife).
Dreams, like sacred texts, could be subject to different layers of
interpretations, without necessarily having a conflict between one and the
other, or having to negate or cancel one by means of the other, as long as
there exists a solid foundation. In sacred texts, the foundation is within
the text itself and in the prophet who translated that text into action. In
the third chapter of the Qur'an we read:
"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or
fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book:
others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the
part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord".
The foundation in regards to dreams is the ethical code of the dreamer
himself. Therefore the same dream and even the same symbol is interpreted in
different ways from one person to another .. it should be also interpreted
differently for the same person if it occurs in different times or
conditions.
Since I am feeling like I am a dog these days (when that vision occurred), I
have to say that Obo's interpretation is more likely to be *truer* than the
others... not in the sense that I am the new master, or whether there would
be a new master or not, but rather in the sense that my black (deep) doggie
(poor and dependent) state should be my true master but in a positive way,
and not that in which I am in now. I think Meryem's interpretation of the
food of dogs is also more accurate. To put it in other words, I say that the
food of dogs is that which comes without worrying, and without fear of not
having it whether it is the food of the body or the food of the spirit. He
created my body and spirit, and He is the one to provide them sustenance ..
and above all, He is the Living that never dies, the Present who is never
absent.
JP's interpretation is also true. For traditionally the Black Dog is
associated with or a manifestation of Lucifer, and also for the fact that it
had fabricated a false hadith that a prophet never said.
I wonder what Janice opines regarding the subject of dreams-submission-the
absence of the human will in the argument above and the concept / method of
lucid dreaming.
Finally, Luis' insight rules all, for he's a cool dude in a loose mood ;)
Thanks all for your help
Yasar
Janice
>I wonder what Janice opines regarding the subject of dreams-submission-the
>absence of the human will in the argument above and the concept / method of
>lucid dreaming.
Obviously, since lucid dreams are so often (but not always) consciously
controlled by the dreamer there is typically no absence of will in them.
I would venture to say that will is not absent even from all nonlucid
dreams, and that the degree to which nonlucid dreams are non-volitional
varies from person to person. Personally, I control things more heavily
in many nonlucid dreams than I typically do in lucid dreams. I simply
think that I am fantasizing, or making up a story, or even that I am a
magician rather than realizing that I am dreaming. So I would not agree
that dreams are the realm of pure submission. Even when you do "go with
the flow" of a dream it usually seems to be directed by your own
expectations, associations and memories, which isn't submitting to
anything but your own mental habits. :)
Nor do I think that dreams typically contain much that is prophetic,
although it *can* happen. And since we so seldom realize the simple fact
that we are dreaming, but falsely assume that we are awake, dreams are
very much in the realm of illusion. Perhaps, with practice, a seeker
could learn to cut away the layers of illusion in dreams, reducing the
proportion of influencing factors that have to do with mere expectation
and so on and increasing the proportion that is inspired by valuable
insights.
I do agree that not all dreams are as significant as others, that you can
get multiple layers of interpretation out of some of them (though how
much of that meaning was actually built into the dream and how much you
are simply *applying* to the dream is questionable), that dream symbols
are personal not universal, and that their meaning could vary from time
to time even for the same individual. Because symbolism is so elusive,
sometimes a better starting point for approaching dream meaning is to
think about how the dream made you feel, during it and afterwards.
Yasar
Janice wrote:
> In article <3DF5CC51...@yahoo.com>, dear...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >I wonder what Janice opines regarding the subject of dreams-submission-the
> >absence of the human will in the argument above and the concept / method of
> >lucid dreaming.
>
> Obviously, since lucid dreams are so often (but not always) consciously
> controlled by the dreamer there is typically no absence of will in them.
> I would venture to say that will is not absent even from all nonlucid
> dreams, and that the degree to which nonlucid dreams are non-volitional
> varies from person to person. Personally, I control things more heavily
> in many nonlucid dreams than I typically do in lucid dreams. I simply
> think that I am fantasizing, or making up a story, or even that I am a
> magician rather than realizing that I am dreaming. So I would not agree
> that dreams are the realm of pure submission. Even when you do "go with
> the flow" of a dream it usually seems to be directed by your own
> expectations, associations and memories, which isn't submitting to
> anything but your own mental habits. :)
>
Dear Janice,
Maybe I should have clarified that what I meant by "will" here is not related to
our subconscious impulses and associations. What I meant was our conscious
ability to choose and then order our vehicles to act upon our choices. I think
we all have experienced reacting in a certain way, but when we wake up, we know
that our conscious would never allow us to make that reaction in our awakening.
You are connecting "will" here to the subconscious, and this is a postulation
(IMO), for of the main characteristics of the will are responsibility and
conscious judgment, both of which are clearly absent in dreams.
The reason why I have asked for your opinion on this, is because I was wondering
whether it is positive or negative the attempt to control our dreams and force
our wills to manipulate them. Because, as you know, we spend two thirds of our
lives awake, where we are subject to our own choices, and preoccupied with our
(selves), our past and future and the concepts of time and space as we perceive
them. Time, with all its dimensions, and space with all its directions influence
to a great extent our feelings and judgments when we are awake. But in sleep the
event itself is our main focus, and what is done with us is the main plot, not
what we do. That's why great dreams have played a significant role in the
history of mankind. Because they offer some sort of emancipation from time,
space and most importantly our wills and direct choices which might bar us from
receiving external signals and guiding symbols.
Best Regards
Yasar
Obo Vajrin
history of mankind. Because they offer some sort of emancipation from time,
space and most importantly our wills and direct choices which might bar us from
receiving external signals and guiding symbols. >>
Worth saying a second time IMO.
And if I might add, learning how to seperate "signal" from "noise".
Pardon me for saying this, I have no experience (lucid) of this lucid dreaming,
but isn't it a little bit like masturbation compared with sex, a real "joining"
with another - for lack of a better term, your subcounscious /and or WAS -
waves in space? Maybe it's the differance between a "dream" and an
"inspriation." Take care, obo
Janice
>> Obviously, since lucid dreams are so often (but not always) consciously
>> controlled by the dreamer there is typically no absence of will in them.
>> I would venture to say that will is not absent even from all nonlucid
>> dreams, and that the degree to which nonlucid dreams are non-volitional
>> varies from person to person. Personally, I control things more heavily
>> in many nonlucid dreams than I typically do in lucid dreams. I simply
>> think that I am fantasizing, or making up a story, or even that I am a
>> magician rather than realizing that I am dreaming. So I would not agree
>> that dreams are the realm of pure submission. Even when you do "go with
>> the flow" of a dream it usually seems to be directed by your own
>> expectations, associations and memories, which isn't submitting to
>> anything but your own mental habits. :)
>
>Dear Janice,
>
>Maybe I should have clarified that what I meant by "will" here is not related to
>our subconscious impulses and associations. What I meant was our conscious
>ability to choose and then order our vehicles to act upon our choices.
I understand. I am saying that some people, such as myself, do make
conscious choices that influence or control what happens even in many
ordinary dreams where we don't know that we're dreaming (for example if I
imagine in a dream that I am a magician and make something appear that I
want). And that when people are not using their consciousness like this
to affect their dreams, then most of the time only subconscious mental
habits, nothing higher or more profound, are guiding the content.
>I think
>we all have experienced reacting in a certain way, but when we wake up, we know
>that our conscious would never allow us to make that reaction in our awakening.
>You are connecting "will" here to the subconscious, and this is a postulation
>(IMO), for of the main characteristics of the will are responsibility and
>conscious judgment, both of which are clearly absent in dreams.
This seems to be true for some people, but not others. Even when I do
not know that I am dreaming, I often think carefully about what I am
going to say before I say it and make decisions regarding where to go and
what to do. I am not simply reacting without exercising any judgement.
The degree to which conscious attributes are present in nonlucid dreams
seems to vary from person to person, and may be part of the explanation
for why some people find it much easier to become lucid in their dreams
than others--some just naturally have more conscious awareness present in
their dreams than others.
>The reason why I have asked for your opinion on this, is because I was wondering
>whether it is positive or negative the attempt to control our dreams and force
>our wills to manipulate them.
That question is too big for a simple answer. :)
For some people, as I've been explaining, doing so is just a natural
extension of a tendency they already have to be a bit more conscious or
controlling in their dreams than other people are. Some people just
normally have dreams in which they feel like they are creating and
directing visual stories in response to their own thoughts. Now most
people seldom become lucid in their dreams, and even if they do they
might not be good at controlling them, so surely there could be little
harm for them to do so on rare occasions. It is hard therefore to think
of dream control as inherently a bad thing, since in a limited form it
comes so naturally to some and it is just a rare recreation for others.
On the other hand it might indeed be possible for a few people to overdo
it, just as it is possible to overdo being controlling in our waking
lives. Interestingly, the usual pattern seems to be that those few
people who do a whole lot of lucid dream control get tired of it after a
point and stop doing it so much. :)
Then of course there's the question of for what purpose a person controls
his or her lucid dreams. It can be for entertainment, or for self-
indulgence, or it can be to overcome nightmares, or to learn about how
the mind works, or to gain greater personal psychological understanding,
or to try to have mystical experiences, or for any of a number of other
reasons. Some of these might be more positive than others, while others
are neutral.
If you had been lucid in the dog dream, you could have asked the image of
your master his opinion. Or maybe got that dog to talk more so you could
make a more informed assessment of where he was coming from. :)
>Because, as you know, we spend two thirds of our
>lives awake, where we are subject to our own choices, and preoccupied with our
>(selves), our past and future and the concepts of time and space as we perceive
>them. Time, with all its dimensions, and space with all its directions influence
>to a great extent our feelings and judgments when we are awake. But in sleep the
>event itself is our main focus, and what is done with us is the main plot, not
>what we do. That's why great dreams have played a significant role in the
>history of mankind. Because they offer some sort of emancipation from time,
>space and most importantly our wills and direct choices which might bar us from
>receiving external signals and guiding symbols.
Let's look at it another way. Suppose you turn your will in dreams
*towards* receiving external signals and guiding symbols? Then rather
than being a hindrance it might help emancipate you from getting stuck in
the muddle of subconscious mental habits that usually guide dreams. :)
Janice
obov...@aol.com says...
>And if I might add, learning how to seperate "signal" from "noise".
Which is what I meant by, "Perhaps, with practice, a seeker
could learn to cut away the layers of illusion in dreams, reducing the
proportion of influencing factors that have to do with mere expectation
and so on and increasing the proportion that is inspired by valuable
insights."
>Pardon me for saying this, I have no experience (lucid) of this lucid dreaming,
>but isn't it a little bit like masturbation compared with sex, a real "joining"
>with another - for lack of a better term, your subcounscious /and or WAS -
>waves in space?
I don't know--I don't understand the part about waves in space. :) Do
you mean is lucid dreaming like an integration of conscious and
subconscious in the dream creation process?
Obo Vajrin
Waves in Space is my word or symbol for "higher counsciousness" that might be
out there. Even something as abstract as an enery which spawns "real thinking"
when it touches the human mind A contact which gives "us" inspiration.
Perhaps many would say this is really the "subconscious", or maybe the
"supraconscious"
<<is lucid dreaming like an integration of conscious and
subconscious in the dream creation process?>>
This sounds to me like regular dreaming when you are asleep and you remember
your dream afterwards. Then I supose there is being aware of the dream while
it is happening (within "sleep"). And then the next step making
actions/choices within the dream.
one mans integration might be anothers conditioning anothers lucid moment. Is
this fair to say?
Janice
obov...@aol.com says...
><< I don't know--I don't understand the part about waves in space. :) >>
>Waves in Space is my word or symbol for "higher counsciousness" that might be
>out there. Even something as abstract as an enery which spawns "real thinking"
>when it touches the human mind A contact which gives "us" inspiration.
>Perhaps many would say this is really the "subconscious", or maybe the
>"supraconscious"
Supraconscious is better for me. Too many functions which would probably
be better considered separately tend to get lumped together under the
catch-all label of "subconscious."
><<is lucid dreaming like an integration of conscious and
>subconscious in the dream creation process?>>
>
>This sounds to me like regular dreaming when you are asleep and you remember
>your dream afterwards. Then I supose there is being aware of the dream while
>it is happening (within "sleep").
That is lucid dreaming per the most common definition--knowing that
you're dreaming while you're dreaming.
Other people think of lucid dreaming as dreaming with a waking-like level
of mental clarity.
I personally think that a dream should have both features to qualify as
truly lucid, because it is possible to have either one without the other
with the result not being too special. You can have a vague idea that
you're dreaming without really having much awareness, which is not so
different from ordinary dreaming; or you can have a great deal of mental
clarity in a dream without ever realizing that you're dreaming, in which
case the clarity is pretty much wasted.
>And then the next step making actions/choices within the dream.
That's not really a next step because some people (like me) can do that
even when they do not know that they are dreaming.
Some say that the next step is knowing what things symbolize while you
are dreaming, and interacting with them accordingly. Others say that the
next step is doing away with your dream imagery altogether. There are
different ways to go.
> one mans integration might be anothers conditioning anothers lucid moment. Is
>this fair to say?
Probably so. :)
Thotful560
>Date: 12/9/02 6:40 AM Pacific
>Then I saw the master's spirit from a far holding a
>big black dog, then he sent it to become our new master. The dog,
>confidently entered the circle, took its place, and started speaking
>words of wisdom and knowledge. Then he ordered a strange kind of food
>and started eating, encouraging us to eat like it
AsSalaamuAlaykum Yasar,
What an interesting dream!
Maybe the dog is warning you in a positive way...because dogs in real life are
NOT at all discriminating about what foods they eat.
They will eat garbage, dead meat, blood...ugh.(you name it) They will bury a
dead animal and dig it up after it (sorry guys) rots..and THEN eat it!
So, the seeker actually should be more discriminating than the typical dog...
BUT, when dogs eat they have to bow their heads down...they can't swallow any
other way, at least not that I have seen.
Even if you toss them a treat and they catch it, they have to bend down to
swallow it. (think about it)
Bowing the head is a humble posture.
If *eating* the food of dogs entails the seeker to adopt the posture of
humility, then maybe that's what *eating* like the dog means.
Perhaps a new teacher will come to your group with an attitude of extreme
humility??
Or YOU are the new teacher?
Just my 2 cents,
WaSalaam,
Teresa
Janice
>I think
>we all have experienced reacting in a certain way, but when we wake up, we know
>that our conscious would never allow us to make that reaction in our awakening.
Oh, as to this point--I should mention that sometimes it's just the
reverse: because we mistakenly think we are awake while we're dreaming,
we react exactly as we would if awake, whereas if we realize that we're
only dreaming we'll cut loose and behave in ways that we wouldn't do for
real. For example, in a recent nonlucid dream of mine Jay had invited
two people who caused him a lot of grief in the past to our home and was
being very friendly with them. Because I assumed I was awake, I behaved
as I would do if awake--I deferred to his right to have these guests and
didn't want to make him upset or embarrass him in front of them, so I
suppressed my strong urge to remind him of what these people had done to
him and tell him what a fool he was being. If I had known I was dreaming
I would not have been so inhibited. :)
Yasar
Janice wrote:
Maybe making decisions about where to go and what to do occurs more often in lucid
dreams. But still, even if we want to call that a true conscious will, it is still
not a responsible one, because in all dreams we are being cast suddenly in an
atmosphere where we are not allowed to make a true choice, because the results of our
choices are not guaranteed. Of course we can "want" things in our dreams, but this is
not what I meant by "will" in the full sense. I might want to hug someone in a dream
but suddenly I start stabbing him for a certain hidden and sudden impulse I have.
Maybe if I am more aware in my dream or try to force my true consciousness to control
my actions I might refrain from stabbing him, underestimate that sudden impulse, or
just ignore it. I might have a better feeling if I do so, but is that really
positive? and am I not then depriving myself from the healing, the purging, or even
the prophesying functions the the uncontrolled dream might offer me. ( I am only
speculating).
:) this is true and I would love to have this ability in all dreams .. but I still
think that dreams are perfect the way they are. I have many times tried to steal an
answer or further clarifications from religious figures and dead relatives in lucid
dreams I had, but the reply was mostly reproaching, negligent or marked by silence.
As if they were telling me that visions are part of divine unfoldment and one should
be a submissive recipient in them and observe the Sufi (Adab) courtesy.
>
> >Because, as you know, we spend two thirds of our
> >lives awake, where we are subject to our own choices, and preoccupied with our
> >(selves), our past and future and the concepts of time and space as we perceive
> >them. Time, with all its dimensions, and space with all its directions influence
> >to a great extent our feelings and judgments when we are awake. But in sleep the
> >event itself is our main focus, and what is done with us is the main plot, not
> >what we do. That's why great dreams have played a significant role in the
> >history of mankind. Because they offer some sort of emancipation from time,
> >space and most importantly our wills and direct choices which might bar us from
> >receiving external signals and guiding symbols.
>
> Let's look at it another way. Suppose you turn your will in dreams
> *towards* receiving external signals and guiding symbols? Then rather
> than being a hindrance it might help emancipate you from getting stuck in
> the muddle of subconscious mental habits that usually guide dreams. :)
This is important, and worth studying and trying.
Thank you Janice for a perfect answer. You gave me new dimensions of lucid dreams or
dream manipulation (if it is right to call it so :)
Regards
Yasar
Yasar
Janice wrote:
Haven't you thought of it as a message: that this is what you should do if it
happens in reality .. i.e. loving your enemy:):):)
Yasar
Obo Vajrin wrote:
This "joining", according to my experience, is mostly manifest in "digital", dreams
as opposed to "analogue" ones. When the picture is crystal clear, and the sequence
is uninterrupted by annoying commercials, I know a true "joining" is taking place
in my dream. Another sign of a vision which is an "inspiration" is hearing a fine
never-heared-of-before poem or an eloquent speech which are difficult to produce by
mere subconscious or maybe by the skills of the dreamer himself when he's awake.
Yasar
Yasar
Thotful560 wrote:
> >From: Yasar dear...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 12/9/02 6:40 AM Pacific
>
> >Then I saw the master's spirit from a far holding a
> >big black dog, then he sent it to become our new master. The dog,
> >confidently entered the circle, took its place, and started speaking
> >words of wisdom and knowledge. Then he ordered a strange kind of food
> >and started eating, encouraging us to eat like it
>
> AsSalaamuAlaykum Yasar,
>
Wa alaykumusSalam Teresa,
>
> What an interesting dream!
>
> Maybe the dog is warning you in a positive way...because dogs in real life are
> NOT at all discriminating about what foods they eat.
> They will eat garbage, dead meat, blood...ugh.(you name it) They will bury a
> dead animal and dig it up after it (sorry guys) rots..and THEN eat it!
>
> So, the seeker actually should be more discriminating than the typical dog...
>
> BUT, when dogs eat they have to bow their heads down...they can't swallow any
> other way, at least not that I have seen.
> Even if you toss them a treat and they catch it, they have to bend down to
> swallow it. (think about it)
> Bowing the head is a humble posture.
>
> If *eating* the food of dogs entails the seeker to adopt the posture of
> humility, then maybe that's what *eating* like the dog means.
>
> Perhaps a new teacher will come to your group with an attitude of extreme
> humility??
Very nice Teresa .. I will add your comment to my jewel box.
>
>
> Or YOU are the new teacher?
>
This uppercase YOU is dangerous .. and tickling:) But anyway, I don't fit into
that category.
Regards
Yasar
Martin Edwards
seem to mean anything in particular. I have never had a lucid dream:
as soon as I know i'm dreaming I wake up. Is this the way God
punishes materialists?
Pearlmkelly999
>
This uppercase YOU is dangerous .. and tickling:) But anyway, I don't fit into
that category.
Regards
Yasar >>
False humility is a form of selfishness and laziness which all good teachers
have to overcome. The best teachers i've ever heard of ( or known, in any
field) were/are not gungho, aggressively seeking power or position but were
sort of "morally conscripted" with a touch of true humility which kept them
honest and focused on being good teachers. IMHO, you have many qualities (as
they have affected me in our interactions and as i've observed you dealing with
otheres) which are required for a good teacher. You listen well, respond in
various "voices" and levels of seriousness as appropriate, have a good ability
to cut out a lot of the BS and get to the heart of the matter. Also, for me as
someone who often sees the world in very different terms than you do, you have
the way of forcing (but kindly) me to really take a try at seeing things in a
totally different light, of truly opening to new possibilities, even if i
reject them later, even if i grouse about the attempt. Maybe this group and
you at this stage of your life aren't the right fit, yet, but please do
consider the gift you could give of yourself if you chose to become a true
teacher in some spiritual way.
Pearl
Yasar
Pearlmkelly999 wrote:
Now this I can call dangerous and tickling:)
No seriously .. what you say is really encouraging. It made me feel good just after
reading tonight something which made me feel sad and depressed. I was really not sure
that someone would see those qualities in me. But what I am still not sure about is
whether these qualities are enough for one to declare himself a Sufi teacher or not. In
my way, such declaration could only be done after having a divine permission. Such
permission is manifest through what I can only describe as (a light of certitude in the
heart) by which a Sufi knows for sure that it is okay for him/her to declare such
authority.
Mastership is like the staff that was in Moses' hand. God ordered him :"Throw it, O
Moses!" from your heart, to let him see for sure what is its nature and true reality. So
"He threw it, and behold! It was a snake, active in motion". Only then did God give
Moses the manifest permission, saying: "Seize it, and fear not: We shall return it at
once to its former condition". Now if one declares he is a true spiritual master without
having such a permission, then he is playing with a snake which he mistakes for a staff
.. a poisonous snake of which he will be the first victim.
I quote here an old Sufi saying:
"The last thing of the love of this world thrown out from the hearts of saints is the
love of mastership".
My late Shaykh gave me a limited permission for teaching but not to become a teacher. Of
course, Sufi mastership is only the mastership of one's Nafs. Any kind of another
mastership is an extra gift from God or an extra trial that a Sufi might or might not
have.
But as a response to your kind comment, I will consider what you've suggested, but I
really cannot tell what will be done with me :-o
Good luck in your path
Yasar
Yasar
Martin Edwards wrote:
> I feel really left out. My dreams are boring, depressing and don't
> seem to mean anything in particular. I have never had a lucid dream:
> as soon as I know i'm dreaming I wake up. Is this the way God
> punishes materialists?
I have a cousin who is a materialist in some way, and he suffers from the
same symptoms:) But your case is far more better than his, for he never
saw a single dream in his life. This is what he says, only I think he
sees but has a great ability to forget.
We all see, but we forget. Sleeping is another state of the existence of
the soul .. it looks like our state before we were born and our state
when we die. The transfer from one state to another will cause many
results, and forgetting is one of them. Some idealists or spiritualists
REMEMBER things they knew even before entering this world of matter. Our
souls deny what our minds deny.
Prescription:
Cut the fear of being fooled or becoming a fool.
Best regards
Yasar
Martin Edwards
>the soul .. it looks like our state before we were born and our state
>when we die.
That crap for eternity? Oh wow!
Yasar
Martin Edwards wrote:
> Sleeping is another state of the existence of
> >the soul .. it looks like our state before we were born and our state
> >when we die.
>
> That crap for eternity? Oh wow!
No Martin .. it is not crap. It's just an answer to your question!!!
Yasar
Plundered Heart
Perhaps if the word conciousness were used instead of soul (although
there is a technical difference) it would get digested?
Janice
@btinternet.com says...
>I feel really left out. My dreams are boring, depressing and don't
>seem to mean anything in particular. I have never had a lucid dream:
>as soon as I know i'm dreaming I wake up. Is this the way God
>punishes materialists?
LOL. The most hard-nosed materialist I know has dreamed lucidly in every
dream he can remember, although he does not remember them very often.
Like the few people I've come across who always dream lucidly, he was
surprised to learn that this is not the norm.
My dreams don't usually seem terribly meaningful either, but they are
generally entertaining. A recent study in England showed a correlation
between reading material and dreaming style, so maybe your dreams would
be less boring and depressing if you alter the input you expose yourself
to while awake? ;-D
--
COMFORT, n. A state of mind produced by contemplation of a neighbor's
uneasiness.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
Janice
@btinternet.com says...
>Sleeping is another state of the existence of
>>the soul .. it looks like our state before we were born and our state
>>when we die.
>
>That crap for eternity? Oh wow!
All the more reason to change your reading habits while you still have
time! ;-D
--
COMFORT, n. A state of mind produced by contemplation of a neighbor's
uneasiness.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
Janice
>Maybe making decisions about where to go and what to do occurs more often in lucid
>dreams.
And more often in the nonlucid dreams of some people than other people.
>But still, even if we want to call that a true conscious will, it is still
>not a responsible one, because in all dreams we are being cast suddenly in an
>atmosphere where we are not allowed to make a true choice, because the results of our
>choices are not guaranteed.
They are not guaranteed in waking life, either. :) We can go to a store
with the intention of buying something and find out that it is closed,
for example.
You might even say that in a certain sense the will is less limited in
dreams than it is in waking. In a dream I can will things to happen that
cannot happen here, such as will myself to fly, or will a horse to appear
in front of me, or will an object to float across the room to me.
What this all comes down to is that the dream world is simply unstable.
This instability is both a plus and a minus when it comes to working your
will in it. On the one hand, because it is so unstable you can make
changes happen by directing your attention towards what you want to
happen. On the hand, because it is so unstable things may change on
their own as well. Your will is only one of many factors that can affect
it.
>Of course we can "want" things in our dreams, but this is
>not what I meant by "will" in the full sense. I might want to hug someone in a dream
>but suddenly I start stabbing him for a certain hidden and sudden impulse I have.
>Maybe if I am more aware in my dream or try to force my true consciousness to control
>my actions I might refrain from stabbing him, underestimate that sudden impulse, or
>just ignore it. I might have a better feeling if I do so, but is that really
>positive? and am I not then depriving myself from the healing, the purging, or even
>the prophesying functions the the uncontrolled dream might offer me. ( I am only
>speculating).
This is an old argument of psychotherapists who are opposed to lucid
dreaming: that if we know we are dreaming we may suppress impulses that
we may otherwise learn from. The argument has a fatal flaw, however,
which is that the reverse is just as true: if we know we are only
dreaming we may go ahead and act out impulses that we would otherwise
suppress.
> but I still think that dreams are perfect the way they are.
They are fine the way they are; but for some people, what they are just
happens to be lucid much of the time. I started having lucid dreams
spontaneously when I was a small child, and I'm not the only one. For
some people this dreaming style is quite natural.
>I have many times tried to steal an
>answer or further clarifications from religious figures and dead relatives in lucid
>dreams I had, but the reply was mostly reproaching, negligent or marked by silence.
>As if they were telling me that visions are part of divine unfoldment and one should
>be a submissive recipient in them and observe the Sufi (Adab) courtesy.
Perhaps, but on the other hand, assumptions that we hold about dreaming
can affect what happens in our dreams. There is a saying that people in
Freudian therapy will dream Freudian dreams and people in Jungian therapy
will dream Jungian dreams, but it goes much further than that. Any
assumption or expectation about dreaming can influence dream content. As
an extreme example, I once came across a fervent Christian who thought
that all dream characters are demons. He believed that all dreams take
place in the spirit world where these demons live but that usually they
tolerate our presence because we aren't on to them. But because he was
on to them, they would show their true colors and oppose him. His dreams
readily conform to these assumptions, unusual as they are, and in all of
his lucid dreams, he does nothing but fight "demons" and banish them to
the farthest reaches of the universe in the name of Jesus.
So anyway, if you have the idea in the back of your mind that you should
be a passive recipient in dreams, when you try to act against this belief
then your dreams may still potentially react in accordance with the
belief. It can take a lot of effort to overcome limiting assumptions, as
well as limiting expectations that have built up from prior dream
experiences.
On the other hand, I'm in no position to say whether or not the passive
recipient approach might indeed be better for you. :)
>> Let's look at it another way. Suppose you turn your will in dreams
>> *towards* receiving external signals and guiding symbols? Then rather
>> than being a hindrance it might help emancipate you from getting stuck in
>> the muddle of subconscious mental habits that usually guide dreams. :)
>
>This is important, and worth studying and trying.
I personally have not experimented much with that idea, but I have come
across people who have, so I would certainly say it's worth a try.
>Thank you Janice for a perfect answer. You gave me new dimensions of lucid dreams or
>dream manipulation (if it is right to call it so :)
You're welcome. :)
JP George
"JP George" <jpge...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ateqg2$hk0$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Should we ever meet face to face, ask me what happened at 04:07 EST on 19
> Novemeber, 2002...
...but it's not important right now:-)
-Jeff
JP George
"Yasar" <dear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3DFA0B6B...@yahoo.com...
>
> But what I am still not sure about is
> whether these qualities are enough for one to declare himself a Sufi
teacher or not. In
> my way, such declaration could only be done after having a divine
permission. Such
> permission is manifest through what I can only describe as (a light of
certitude in the
> heart) by which a Sufi knows for sure that it is okay for him/her to
declare such
> authority.
Should we ever meet face to face, ask me what happened at 04:07 EST on 19
Novemeber, 2002...
-Jeff
Janice
>
>Janice wrote:
>> Oh, as to this point--I should mention that sometimes it's just the
>> reverse: because we mistakenly think we are awake while we're dreaming,
>> we react exactly as we would if awake, whereas if we realize that we're
>> only dreaming we'll cut loose and behave in ways that we wouldn't do for
>> real. For example, in a recent nonlucid dream of mine Jay had invited
>> two people who caused him a lot of grief in the past to our home and was
>> being very friendly with them. Because I assumed I was awake, I behaved
>> as I would do if awake--I deferred to his right to have these guests and
>> didn't want to make him upset or embarrass him in front of them, so I
>> suppressed my strong urge to remind him of what these people had done to
>> him and tell him what a fool he was being. If I had known I was dreaming
>> I would not have been so inhibited. :)
>
>Haven't you thought of it as a message: that this is what you should do if it
>happens in reality .. i.e. loving your enemy:):):)
It would not be much of a message, since that's exactly how I would
behave if it happened in reality--just play the polite hostess and keep
my misgivings to myself.
At least until after they left ... :-D
Seriously, forgiving people is very important, but sometimes it is
nevertheless wise not to become too intimate with them again. Since one
of the people in question in this dream was Jay's ex-wife, I think anyone
could understand my not being too comfortable with having her in the
house.
Jim Buck
> What this all comes down to is that the dream world is simply unstable.
> This instability is both a plus and a minus when it comes to working your
> will in it. On the one hand, because it is so unstable you can make
> changes happen by directing your attention towards what you want to
> happen. On the hand, because it is so unstable things may change on
> their own as well. Your will is only one of many factors that can affect
> it.
According to some writers, the real dread comes when the "dream world" sheds
its instability. I believe that the technical term for the latter condition
is "stimmung":
http://www.unk.edu/acad/english/faculty/umlands/s/enthusiasm.htm
Regards
Jim Buck
Yasar
Janice wrote:
> In article <3DF866AC...@yahoo.com>, dear...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >Maybe making decisions about where to go and what to do occurs more often in lucid
> >dreams.
>
> And more often in the nonlucid dreams of some people than other people.
>
> >But still, even if we want to call that a true conscious will, it is still
> >not a responsible one, because in all dreams we are being cast suddenly in an
> >atmosphere where we are not allowed to make a true choice, because the results of our
> >choices are not guaranteed.
>
> They are not guaranteed in waking life, either. :) We can go to a store
> with the intention of buying something and find out that it is closed,
> for example.
>
> You might even say that in a certain sense the will is less limited in
> dreams than it is in waking. In a dream I can will things to happen that
> cannot happen here, such as will myself to fly, or will a horse to appear
> in front of me, or will an object to float across the room to me.
I mean by guaranteed her that if I -for example- will to go to the supermarket in waking
life and walk my way to the supermarket, I will not be surprised to find myself in a
cemetery instead:).
Willing to fly without purchasing a ticket could not be described as a conscious will.
Moreover it does not come after an intellectual process which is where responsibility lie.
> What this all comes down to is that the dream world is simply unstable.
> This instability is both a plus and a minus when it comes to working your
> will in it. On the one hand, because it is so unstable you can make
> changes happen by directing your attention towards what you want to
> happen. On the hand, because it is so unstable things may change on
> their own as well. Your will is only one of many factors that can affect
> it.
Yes .. it is unstable because it is not subject to the law of causality as we know it in
real life. The human will is ruled by this law,
and, in some way formed by it.
> >Of course we can "want" things in our dreams, but this is
> >not what I meant by "will" in the full sense. I might want to hug someone in a dream
> >but suddenly I start stabbing him for a certain hidden and sudden impulse I have.
> >Maybe if I am more aware in my dream or try to force my true consciousness to control
> >my actions I might refrain from stabbing him, underestimate that sudden impulse, or
> >just ignore it. I might have a better feeling if I do so, but is that really
> >positive? and am I not then depriving myself from the healing, the purging, or even
> >the prophesying functions the the uncontrolled dream might offer me. ( I am only
> >speculating).
>
> This is an old argument of psychotherapists who are opposed to lucid
> dreaming: that if we know we are dreaming we may suppress impulses that
> we may otherwise learn from. The argument has a fatal flaw, however,
> which is that the reverse is just as true: if we know we are only
> dreaming we may go ahead and act out impulses that we would otherwise
> suppress.
>
> > but I still think that dreams are perfect the way they are.
>
> They are fine the way they are; but for some people, what they are just
> happens to be lucid much of the time. I started having lucid dreams
> spontaneously when I was a small child, and I'm not the only one. For
> some people this dreaming style is quite natural.
What I was saying is that dreams are perfect the way they are, as they occur naturally,
whether lucid or non lucid. My main argument is about forcing our non lucid dreams to
become lucid ones, or to steer the events in our dreams as we do or attempt to do in our
awakening.
> >I have many times tried to steal an
> >answer or further clarifications from religious figures and dead relatives in lucid
> >dreams I had, but the reply was mostly reproaching, negligent or marked by silence.
> >As if they were telling me that visions are part of divine unfoldment and one should
> >be a submissive recipient in them and observe the Sufi (Adab) courtesy.
>
> Perhaps, but on the other hand, assumptions that we hold about dreaming
> can affect what happens in our dreams. There is a saying that people in
> Freudian therapy will dream Freudian dreams and people in Jungian therapy
> will dream Jungian dreams, but it goes much further than that. Any
> assumption or expectation about dreaming can influence dream content. As
> an extreme example, I once came across a fervent Christian who thought
> that all dream characters are demons. He believed that all dreams take
> place in the spirit world where these demons live but that usually they
> tolerate our presence because we aren't on to them. But because he was
> on to them, they would show their true colors and oppose him. His dreams
> readily conform to these assumptions, unusual as they are, and in all of
> his lucid dreams, he does nothing but fight "demons" and banish them to
> the farthest reaches of the universe in the name of Jesus.
Again .. I was not talking about assumptions or doctrines, but rather about how I perceive
the experience of natural dreaming, regardless of the background of the dreamer, be she a
Freudian or Jungian, a christian or a satanist.
> So anyway, if you have the idea in the back of your mind that you should
> be a passive recipient in dreams, when you try to act against this belief
> then your dreams may still potentially react in accordance with the
> belief. It can take a lot of effort to overcome limiting assumptions, as
> well as limiting expectations that have built up from prior dream
> experiences.
I see submissiveness as something natural in dreams. And when I am reminded of that in my
dreams, I am actually reminded to act naturally. But of course I am not trying here
establish a theory about dreams, but only speculating and expressing what I think is more
likely to be true.
Best regards
Yasar
Yasar
> In article <3DF86D5F...@yahoo.com>, dear...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > .. i.e. loving your enemy:):):)
.. i.e. loving Jay's ex-wife:):):)
Yasar
Yasar
Plundered Heart wrote:
I see the technical difference as more important than indigestion .. here.
Yasar
Yasar
JP George wrote:
I will .. but I'll try that before meeting.
Yasar
Janice
She is not my enemy. I have never even met her.
Since she has no qualms at all about having affairs with married men (she
has done so at least twice), I would not think it prudent to invite her
to become close to us. She lives too far away, anyway. :)
Yasar
Janice wrote:
> In article <3DFB7B38...@yahoo.com>, dear...@yahoo.com says...
> >Janice wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3DF86D5F...@yahoo.com>, dear...@yahoo.com says...
> >>
> >> > .. i.e. loving your enemy:):):)
> >
> >.. i.e. loving Jay's ex-wife:):):)
>
> She is not my enemy. I have never even met her.
>
> Since she has no qualms at all about having affairs with married men (she
> has done so at least twice), I would not think it prudent to invite her
> to become close to us. She lives too far away, anyway. :)
What you feel and do regarding her is absolutely right .. IMO. If I were you
I would oppose her visit.
Yasar
Janice
>
>I mean by guaranteed her that if I -for example- will to go to the supermarket in waking
>life and walk my way to the supermarket, I will not be surprised to find myself in a
>cemetery instead:).
True. Waking life is not quite *that* variable. Still, being able to
enact your full intention is not guaranteed. You'll probably get to the
store's location, but there's always a chance that you'll find it closed
or even that it burned down over night, which puts an end to your intent
to shop there.
>Willing to fly without purchasing a ticket could not be described as a conscious will.
>Moreover it does not come after an intellectual process which is where responsibility lie.
But if I think, "Hm, what shall I do in this dream? Hey, flying might be
fun," then jump up in my dream body and fly over the treetops, is that
flying not coming after an intellectual process that takes responsibility
for the dream's content?
>What I was saying is that dreams are perfect the way they are, as they occur naturally,
>whether lucid or non lucid. My main argument is about forcing our non lucid dreams to
>become lucid ones,
How could we force them to become lucid? Do you mean programming
ourselves before falling asleep in an effort to have lucid dreams?
>or to steer the events in our dreams as we do or attempt to do in our awakening.
Even if that sort of dream control comes naturally to a particular
person? :)
>Again .. I was not talking about assumptions or doctrines, but rather about how I perceive
>the experience of natural dreaming, regardless of the background of the dreamer, be she a
>Freudian or Jungian, a christian or a satanist.
And how you perceive what is natural with regard to dreaming could not
possibly be, at least in part, a matter of assumption or doctrine? :)
>I see submissiveness as something natural in dreams. And when I am reminded of that in my
>dreams, I am actually reminded to act naturally. But of course I am not trying here
>establish a theory about dreams, but only speculating and expressing what I think is more
>likely to be true.
Speculating is fun. :)
Janice
>
>Janice wrote:
We do send her a Christmas card as a token of good will. :)
Janice
JayAVo...@netscape.net says...
>Since she has no qualms at all about having affairs with married men (she
>has done so at least twice)
But not while she was married to Jay. I don't want anyone to imagine
that that is what I was thinking about in the dream when I was
considering reminding him of what she had done to him. It was nothing
like that, and in fact she and Jay remained friends after their very
amicable divorce.
--
CONSULT, v. To seek another's disapproval of a course already decided on.
Martin Edwards
No, sorry, I meant my crap dreams.
Martin Edwards
<JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <3dfb4236...@news.btinternet.com>, Martin.Edwards5
>@btinternet.com says...
>>Sleeping is another state of the existence of
>>>the soul .. it looks like our state before we were born and our state
>>>when we die.
>>
>>That crap for eternity? Oh wow!
>
>All the more reason to change your reading habits while you still have
>time! ;-D
>
My dreams don't come from reading: they are just like real life, but
a *****ed up, depressing version of it.
Janice
@btinternet.com says...
>My dreams don't come from reading: they are just like real life, but
>a *****ed up, depressing version of it.
They are ruled by Murphy's Law?
--
CONSULT, v. To seek another's disapproval of a course already decided on.
Janice
JayAVo...@netscape.net says...
>>or to steer the events in our dreams as we do or attempt to do in our awakening.
>
>Even if that sort of dream control comes naturally to a particular
>person?
I had one today that I attempted to steer. I was standing around minding
my own business when a gang of youths approached, looking as if they
intended to harass me. I did not realize that I was dreaming, and my
thinking was very muddled, so in no respect was I lucid. But as often
happens in dreams I felt that I could work magic, so I decided to float
up in the air, hoping this simple display of magical ability would deter
them. It did not, and they started behaving and talking obscenely, so
off I flew, picking up speed to put distance between us and lose them. I
can't help it; influencing my dreams just seems to come naturally to me.
JP George
"Janice" <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.186601973...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
> Speculating is fun. :)
Yes it is. The case of legitimate dream research is one of those unfortunate
areas where current scientific biases really show their weakness. It seems
to me the problem is that the general scope of science is still confined to
a concept of demonstrable proof that began to unravel when the nature of
relativity became known. And, once the behavior of quantum universe was
observed, the whole framework probably should have been rethought.
Unfortunately it hasn't been.
Just as most people still go through life with an essentially Newtonian view
of the physical world (and unfortunately general education in this area
actually seems to be getting worse the world over), most scientists, even in
the most advanced fields, still seem to be laboring to graft their
discoveries into a similar sort of absolutist framework. While they say that
they may understand that space and time are relevant, they still seem to be
working with the idea that some absolute state of consciousness exists. They
don't seem to understand some of the most fundamental implications of the
facts they've established that prove that the state of the observer has a
direct and undeniable role in the results of any and all observations.
Dreams are so interesting because they are clearly a different state of
consciousness that is subject to a different set of rules. To my mind, the
question of where the limits of the "waking" world end, and where the
abilities of the "dreaming" mind begin will never be answered until we
develop a scientific framework that combines both consciousness and physics
into a unified structure.
These ideas shouldn't be limited to speculation because we are all living
with the reality that results from differing states (and levels) of
consciousness everyday. The limits of our ability to resolve this issue here
(or in other similar forums the world over) are not neccessarily the fault
of any of the efforts of the participants, but rather because we do not yet
have a practical common framework for these issues. If you look at the
differences that pop up in such discussions again and again, you can see
this is where the main points of contention lie.
But that doesn't mean we can't still have fun with it all... :-)
Regards,
JP
Janice
jf....@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>According to some writers, the real dread comes when the "dream world" sheds
>its instability.
There is a person at alt.dreams.lucid who says she has had this happen
occasionally. She has recurring dreams in which she finds herself in an
"alternate reality" in which everyone tells her she has been in a coma
for a long time. When she has these dreams all the usual checks for
dream instabilities (print that changes with a second glance etc.) fail.
She thinks of herself as dreaming, because she remembers going to bed,
but she can't seem to control these dreams at all.
>I believe that the technical term for the latter condition
>is "stimmung"
"Tendency"??
Janice
jpge...@mindspring.com says...
>The case of legitimate dream research is one of those unfortunate
>areas where current scientific biases really show their weakness.
I once had a lucid dream in which I heard a professor who was teaching a
class about dreaming announce that the state of dream research is so bad
that it would be up to the students to decide what was worth studying. I
kind of took that to heart. :)
>Dreams are so interesting because they are clearly a different state of
>consciousness that is subject to a different set of rules. To my mind, the
>question of where the limits of the "waking" world end, and where the
>abilities of the "dreaming" mind begin will never be answered until we
>develop a scientific framework that combines both consciousness and physics
>into a unified structure.
Tibetan Buddhist lucid dreamers seem to have claimed that at a certain
point of practice, dream control skills can be brought to bear in the
waking world as well. Personally I think that would be a terrible
responsibility ...
Plundered Heart
What happened at 04:07 EST on 19 Novemeber, 2002?
ps - don't try anything facetious please :D :D
JP George
message to alt.sufi after hitting 'Reply Group' by mistake when I meant to
hit the 'Reply' button!
Sorry, I'm not trying to be facetious or mysterious, the post was just a
foolish mistake. Actually, the event in question was relevant to an
off-group discussion Yasar and I were having, and probably wouldn't be very
appropriate here.
Sorry again,
JP
"Plundered Heart" <bronze...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:bMaL9.958$io.4...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
JP George
just keep coming ;-)
-JP
"JP George" <jpge...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:atjgl0$gv3$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
Steve
Did they have a specific set of those skills in mind? (Reading the
thread seems to suggest a variety)
> Personally I think that would be a terrible
> responsibility ...
>
What would you consider to be, say, the use, abuse or misuse of such
skills, the risk factors or SWOT analysis as it were?
Janice
kok...@wotmania.com says...
>> Tibetan Buddhist lucid dreamers seem to have claimed that at a certain
>> point of practice, dream control skills can be brought to bear in the
>> waking world as well.
>
>Did they have a specific set of those skills in mind? (Reading the
>thread seems to suggest a variety)
It's not clear, as the prose of the Tibetan Buddhist I had in mind is not
itself all that lucid, but this is what he says:
"The fourth and last stage of dream yoga is to 'merge with the unity of
the subtle body/mind.' Here the practitioner is no longer working with
the dream object/appearances. He now works directly through the unity of
the subtle feminine and masculine energies of his dream subject, going
beyond dream appearances. From this state of being ... the practitioner
works directly with his relationship to the waking state reality, also
breaking the ordinary natural laws of the reality of the waking state."
--Tarab Tulku XI: "A Buddhist Perspective on Lucid Dreaming." Lucidity
Letter 8(2), 1989.
This seems to be saying that the adept stops controlling dream imagery
per se and works directly with the underlying energies instead (a la
Castaneda?) and can at that point break the natural laws of waking
reality as well. This is vague, as he does not state which natural laws
he's talking about. But if I'm interpreting him correctly he may mean
doing in waking life what he had earlier in the article been saying that
Tibetan adepts learn to do in their lucid dreams, which included changing
objects and creating them at will, something that Western lucid dreamers
learn to do without a whole lot of rigamarole although these Tibetans
evidently are put through the ringer with preparatory meditations and
initiations first.
>> Personally I think that would be a terrible responsibility ...
>>
>What would you consider to be, say, the use, abuse or misuse of such
>skills, the risk factors or SWOT analysis as it were?
It's possible to control your dreams quite heavily even if you aren't
terribly lucid (and without giving any thought at all to the intricacies
of "subtle structuring energies" that the Tibetan guy was talking about).
Imagine that certain dream control skills really could be put into
practice in the waking world, and this separation of lucidity from
control carried over as well. If a person rather automatically did
magical things without really thinking clearly, here where there are real
people and obvious consequences involved, the results could be
disastrous. I would not like it very well if Jay tried to wake me up one
day and, still sleep-muddled but in full possession of magical powers, I
hurled him against the wall, for example. :)
Martin Edwards
<JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <3dfc4a51...@news.btinternet.com>, Martin.Edwards5
>@btinternet.com says...
>
>>My dreams don't come from reading: they are just like real life, but
>>a *****ed up, depressing version of it.
>
>They are ruled by Murphy's Law?
>
>--
Yeah, right, maybe that's it. Like, I'm an expert on the bus routes
where I live, and I keep dreaming about being lost and not knowing
which bus to catch.
Janice
@btinternet.com says...
>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:25:17 -0500, Janice
><JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <3dfc4a51...@news.btinternet.com>, Martin.Edwards5
>>@btinternet.com says...
>>
>>>My dreams don't come from reading: they are just like real life, but
>>>a *****ed up, depressing version of it.
>>
>>They are ruled by Murphy's Law?
>>
>where I live, and I keep dreaming about being lost and not knowing
>which bus to catch.
Getting lost, and public transit confusion as well, are classic dream
motifs.
How about these:
--you had something a minute ago but now you can't find it anywhere
--you can't find a way out of a building you're in
--you notice one bug, then another, and another, until the place is
crawling with vermin
--you're in school and don't know what class you're supposed to go to
next
--you haven't studied for an exam or prepared for a presentation
--your library books are long overdue
--you find you have a pet you'd forgotten all about and haven't fed it
--your teeth are falling out
--you're wandering about in public improperly dressed
--you need to use a public lavatory but it's too crowded or disgustingly
dirty
--people keep barging in on you when you want to use the lavatory at home
--you can't turn the lights on or off
Steve
I don't know anything about Castaneda, I do know a fair bit about the
subtle movements of Ki. Which within the body-mind would relate to
certain, initially gross, emotional energies but which can be refined
via various methods (which I won't go into) into more subtle
movements.
>and can at that point break the natural laws of waking
> reality as well. This is vague, as he does not state which natural
laws
> he's talking about. But if I'm interpreting him correctly he may
mean
> doing in waking life what he had earlier in the article been saying
that
> Tibetan adepts learn to do in their lucid dreams, which included
changing
> objects and creating them at will,
Maybe, I'm inclined to a less outrageous breach of the laws of physics
and a more acceptable breach of the laws of karma. So perhaps TB's
learn to work directly with the "objects" which can alter this more
subtle reality.
On the other hand, maybe they can pull a rabbit right out of the hat
:-D.
Breaches of physics I know nothing about and can only leave as an open
question. The other I have some experience with.
I don't know how Jay and yourself have been approaching the dream
world but I can see a hierarchy that would go something like:
Awareness/Naked Consciousness --> Emotions(subtle or gross; gross
emotional responses having more of a mixing of one's personal history
and being unrefined by practice and probably less conscious control)
--> thoughts/images (it seems to me that there is some relation
between thought whilst awake and images whilst asleep. Perhaps not
linear though)
As the God-Emperor Leto once said "emotions are the igniters of
thought". Subtler emotions ignite different thoughts or images.
:-) Well, even without breaching the laws of physics it's possible to
pin someone up against the wall with a sufficiently energised response
in the morning.
Thanks Janice. It's an interesting thread this one.
Jim Buck
> "Tendency"??
I am informed that the German term: 'stimmung' has no satisfactory English
equivalent. (maybe Martin can help us out?).
My sole encounter with the term came from the writings of Professor Louis A.
Sauss; the latter's book 'Madness and Modernism' is a tour-de-force; on
page 47, of that work, Sauss quotes from a young woman's account of the
stimmung:
"For me madness was definitely not a condition of illness; I did not believe
that I was ill. It was rather a country, opposed to Reality, where reigned
an implacable light, blinding, leaving no place for shadow; an immense
space without boundary, limitless, flat; a mineral, lunar country, cold as
the wastes of the North Pole. In this stretching emptiness, all is
unchangeable, immobile, congealed, crystalized. Objects are stage
trappings, placed here and there, geometric cubes without meaning.
People turn weirdly about, they make gestures, movements without sense;
they are phantoms whirling on an infinite plain, crushed by the pitiless
electric light. And I--I am lost in it, isolated, cold, stripped,
purposeless under the light. A wall of brass seperates me from everybody,
everything...This was it; this was madness, the Enlightenment was the
perception of Unreality. Madness was finding oneself permanently in an
all-embracing Unreality. I called it the "Land of Light" because of the
brilliant illumination, dazzling, astral, cold, and the state of extreme
tension in which everything was, including myself."
Personally, I do not like the sound of it !
Regards
Jim Buck
Sauss, L.A (1992) 'Madness and Modernism' pub Basic Books
Janice
>news:MPG.1867e74bc...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> "The fourth and last stage of dream yoga is to 'merge with the unity
>of
>> the subtle body/mind.' Here the practitioner is no longer working
>with
>> the dream object/appearances. He now works directly through the
>unity of
>> the subtle feminine and masculine energies of his dream subject,
>going
>> beyond dream appearances. From this state of being ... the
>practitioner
>> works directly with his relationship to the waking state reality,
>also
>> breaking the ordinary natural laws of the reality of the waking
>state."
>> This seems to be saying that the adept stops controlling dream
>imagery
>> per se and works directly with the underlying energies instead (a la
>> Castaneda?)
>
>I don't know anything about Castaneda, I do know a fair bit about the
>subtle movements of Ki. Which within the body-mind would relate to
>certain, initially gross, emotional energies but which can be refined
>via various methods (which I won't go into) into more subtle
>movements.
This fellow sounds like he's talking about energies which are normally
masked by dream images, though--"energies of the dream subject going
beyond dream appearances." Sometimes I've come across invisible dream
characters whose nature (friendly, hostile etc.) I can nevertheless sense
somehow, sort of like when you pick up "bad vibes" from a person or place
out here, so maybe he's thinking of something along those lines. Hard to
say.
>>and can at that point break the natural laws of waking
>> reality as well. This is vague, as he does not state which natural
>laws
>> he's talking about. But if I'm interpreting him correctly he may
>mean
>> doing in waking life what he had earlier in the article been saying
>that
>> Tibetan adepts learn to do in their lucid dreams, which included
>changing
>> objects and creating them at will,
>
>Maybe, I'm inclined to a less outrageous breach of the laws of physics
>and a more acceptable breach of the laws of karma. So perhaps TB's
>learn to work directly with the "objects" which can alter this more
>subtle reality.
>On the other hand, maybe they can pull a rabbit right out of the hat
>:-D.
For what it's worth, there is an account of creating characters, if not
objects, in waking reality to be found in Alexandra David-Neel's book
_Magic and Mystery in Tibet_, in which she describes how she generated a
"thought-form" of a Buddhist monk that other people supposedly could see
too. As I recall it eventually grew somewhat sinister. :)
>Breaches of physics I know nothing about and can only leave as an open
>question. The other I have some experience with.
How is what you're describing a breach of karmic law?
>I don't know how Jay and yourself have been approaching the dream
>world but I can see a hierarchy that would go something like:
>
>Awareness/Naked Consciousness --> Emotions(subtle or gross; gross
>emotional responses having more of a mixing of one's personal history
>and being unrefined by practice and probably less conscious control)
>--> thoughts/images (it seems to me that there is some relation
>between thought whilst awake and images whilst asleep. Perhaps not
>linear though)
We've isolated all sorts of factors as influencing dream imagery--
thoughts (both from when you were awake and during your dream), emotions
(ditto), expectations, perceptual habits, day residues and other
memories, associations, external sensory perceptions that filter in ...
>> Imagine that certain dream control skills really could be put into
>> practice in the waking world, and this separation of lucidity from
>> control carried over as well. If a person rather automatically did
>> magical things without really thinking clearly, here where there are
>real
>> people and obvious consequences involved, the results could be
>> disastrous. I would not like it very well if Jay tried to wake me
>up one
>> day and, still sleep-muddled but in full possession of magical
>powers, I
>> hurled him against the wall, for example. :)
>
>:-) Well, even without breaching the laws of physics it's possible to
>pin someone up against the wall with a sufficiently energised response
>in the morning.
It would have to involve a breach of physics for me to manage it. Jay's
a good bit bigger and stronger than I am. :D
--
CONSULT, v. To seek another's disapproval of a course already decided on.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
Janice
jf....@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>My sole encounter with the term came from the writings of Professor Louis A.
>Sauss; the latter's book 'Madness and Modernism' is a tour-de-force; on
>page 47, of that work, Sauss quotes from a young woman's account of the
>stimmung:
>
>"For me madness was definitely not a condition of illness; I did not believe
>that I was ill. It was rather a country, opposed to Reality, where reigned
>an implacable light, blinding, leaving no place for shadow; an immense
>space without boundary, limitless, flat; a mineral, lunar country, cold as
>the wastes of the North Pole. In this stretching emptiness, all is
>unchangeable, immobile, congealed, crystalized. Objects are stage
>trappings, placed here and there, geometric cubes without meaning.
>
>People turn weirdly about, they make gestures, movements without sense;
>they are phantoms whirling on an infinite plain, crushed by the pitiless
>electric light. And I--I am lost in it, isolated, cold, stripped,
>purposeless under the light. A wall of brass seperates me from everybody,
>everything...This was it; this was madness, the Enlightenment was the
>perception of Unreality. Madness was finding oneself permanently in an
>all-embracing Unreality. I called it the "Land of Light" because of the
>brilliant illumination, dazzling, astral, cold, and the state of extreme
>tension in which everything was, including myself."
>
>Personally, I do not like the sound of it !
Nope, it does not sound much fun. It doesn't sound much like my own
brush with madness, either. That was more like wandering through an
interminable benighted wood filled with skittering half-imagined evils,
or clawing inch by red inch from the chthonic depths of a malodorous
Lovecraftian pit, or ... oh, who cares. :)
Steve
>
> This fellow sounds like he's talking about energies which are
normally
> masked by dream images, though--"energies of the dream subject going
> beyond dream appearances." Sometimes I've come across invisible
dream
> characters whose nature (friendly, hostile etc.) I can nevertheless
sense
> somehow, sort of like when you pick up "bad vibes" from a person or
place
> out here, so maybe he's thinking of something along those lines.
Hard to
> say.
Very similar to the direction of my own thoughts. Different
terminologies for the same things probably. The TB's can be very
difficult to understand (and I'm not an expert) due to having evolved
what is a fairly advanced and, in it's native form, very precise
language to describe their mysticism.
>
> For what it's worth, there is an account of creating characters, if
not
> objects, in waking reality to be found in Alexandra David-Neel's
book
> _Magic and Mystery in Tibet_, in which she describes how she
generated a
> "thought-form" of a Buddhist monk that other people supposedly could
see
> too. As I recall it eventually grew somewhat sinister. :)
:-) Seeing is believing, of course, sight may be the easiest part of
consensual reality to generate. I imagine it would require a fair
amount of discipline to do so.
I can see some risk factors since it would involve, potentially,
mingling the practitioners consciousness with that of the audience.
Without a high degree of discipline and clarity there might be
mingling of the audiences dream generation factors. At which point
you'd get something that no longer wholly was yours to define, a
shared dream with all the potential for turning into a nightmare.
>
> >Breaches of physics I know nothing about and can only leave as an
open
> >question. The other I have some experience with.
>
> How is what you're describing a breach of karmic law?
It's a breach of conventional karmic law (there are multiple
definitions of karma) in the sense that karma is the effect of
accumulation in the eight consciousnesses(five sense, cognitive,
intellect/mentality and repository) and the subsequent action and
responses due to that accumulation. I'm oversimplifying horrendously
btw.(see below)
It (karma) would bear a favourable relation with the influences you've
listed as being factors in generating dream imagery.
Breaching karmic law would be operating in such a way that the various
factors which affect dreams no longer drove your consciousness hither
and thither whether awake or asleep. Or as the more usual phrasing
round here has it "being in the world but not of it".
>
> We've isolated all sorts of factors as influencing dream imagery--
> thoughts (both from when you were awake and during your dream),
emotions
> (ditto), expectations, perceptual habits, day residues and other
> memories, associations, external sensory perceptions that filter in
...
>
More precise and complete. Have you read the Abhidamma? It's the
psychology third of the Buddhist Tripitaka.
If I recall correctly, it makes similar statements with respect to the
psychology of consciousness.
If you haven't you might find it interesting.
>
> It would have to involve a breach of physics for me to manage it.
Jay's
> a good bit bigger and stronger than I am. :D
Well, having been an angry, young man at various points I can assure
you that all it really takes is focus, the right eyes and the right
tone of voice. No need to expend significant muscular effort. Lots of
bad karma though ;-).
Martin Edwards
<jf....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Janice wrote:
>
> > "Tendency"??
>
>I am informed that the German term: 'stimmung' has no satisfactory English
>equivalent. (maybe Martin can help us out?).
>
Mood or atmosphere.
Martin Edwards
>next
Frequently, even though I left teaching several months ago.
Janice
@btinternet.com says...
>On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:44:12 -0000, "Jim Buck"
><jf....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Janice wrote:
>>
>> > "Tendency"??
>>
>>I am informed that the German term: 'stimmung' has no satisfactory English
>>equivalent. (maybe Martin can help us out?).
>>
>Mood or atmosphere.
Stupid Altavista online translator ... :)
Janice
@btinternet.com says...
>>--you're in school and don't know what class you're supposed to go to
>>next
>
>Frequently, even though I left teaching several months ago.
Sounds to me then like you're getting the kind of dreams that in my
opinion derive from quite naturally mistaking the dream world for reality
and trying to treat it as such, when it simply isn't. It's an unstable
simulation. You're not really in school, so of course you don't know
where to go next since there's really nowhere to go, and you're not
really in your neighborhood, so the buses won't be predictable and you
could end up on randomized pseudo streets. Your expectations of and
actions taken towards this nutty environment, which are derived from and
thoroughly suitable to waking experience, are out of whack with the
reality of your current situation, so nothing's going to go right. Or
something like that. :)
Janice
says...
>The TB's can be very
>difficult to understand (and I'm not an expert) due to having evolved
>what is a fairly advanced and, in it's native form, very precise
>language to describe their mysticism.
Yes, they seem to have a lot of technical terms.
>:-) Seeing is believing, of course, sight may be the easiest part of
>consensual reality to generate. I imagine it would require a fair
>amount of discipline to do so.
>I can see some risk factors since it would involve, potentially,
>mingling the practitioners consciousness with that of the audience.
You seem to conceptualize this the way I would tend to imagine it, i.e.
as a matter of getting other people to see things. For instance I can
more easily conceive of bilocation as getting people at a distance to
perceive your image by affecting their awareness rather than literally
projecting some "astral" substance to that location.
>Without a high degree of discipline and clarity there might be
>mingling of the audiences dream generation factors. At which point
>you'd get something that no longer wholly was yours to define, a
>shared dream with all the potential for turning into a nightmare.
Not just that, but conceivably the thought-form could stop being driven
by your will and instead become dissociated, driven more by other factors
from within your own mind.
>Breaching karmic law would be operating in such a way that the various
>factors which affect dreams no longer drove your consciousness hither
>and thither whether awake or asleep.
And what would drive it instead?
>> We've isolated all sorts of factors as influencing dream imagery--
>> thoughts (both from when you were awake and during your dream),
>emotions
>> (ditto), expectations, perceptual habits, day residues and other
>> memories, associations, external sensory perceptions that filter in
>...
Also desires, and instincts, and the direction of your attention ...
>More precise and complete. Have you read the Abhidamma? It's the
>psychology third of the Buddhist Tripitaka.
>If I recall correctly, it makes similar statements with respect to the
>psychology of consciousness.
>If you haven't you might find it interesting.
No, I haven't read it. Thanks for the reference.
>Well, having been an angry, young man at various points I can assure
>you that all it really takes is focus, the right eyes and the right
>tone of voice. No need to expend significant muscular effort. Lots of
>bad karma though ;-).
I suppose you're right, but I'm not sure that I could put on a
convincingly formidible front like that when I'm still half asleep. But
my incoherent surliness alone seems to do a fair job of making him leave.
:)
Steve
> In article <atlk0u$au75$1...@ID-162597.news.dfncis.de>,
kok...@wotmania.com
> says...
>
> >The TB's can be very
> >difficult to understand (and I'm not an expert) due to having
evolved
> >what is a fairly advanced and, in it's native form, very precise
> >language to describe their mysticism.
>
> Yes, they seem to have a lot of technical terms.
Evolution in action, they have had a strongly Buddhist culture for a
very long time. The language reflects a specialism in their approach
and understanding. It is perhaps similar to what happens when
mathematicians are left to their own devices. Both could probably be
doing with getting out more often ;-)
>
> >:-) Seeing is believing, of course, sight may be the easiest part
of
> >consensual reality to generate. I imagine it would require a fair
> >amount of discipline to do so.
> >I can see some risk factors since it would involve, potentially,
> >mingling the practitioners consciousness with that of the audience.
>
> You seem to conceptualize this the way I would tend to imagine it,
i.e.
> as a matter of getting other people to see things. For instance I
can
> more easily conceive of bilocation as getting people at a distance
to
> perceive your image by affecting their awareness rather than
literally
> projecting some "astral" substance to that location.
Many a Seeker has tripped over literal feet :-)
Of course, there is the argument that awareness has substance at some
level of development. I suspect the reference to a philosophical Stone
to be somewhat less than accidental.
>
> Not just that, but conceivably the thought-form could stop being
driven
> by your will and instead become dissociated, driven more by other
factors
> from within your own mind.
This is, I assume, one of the reasons why the Tibetan Buddhists
require so much preparatory work. Most of which will involve clearing
out the influence of those other factors.
>
> >Breaching karmic law would be operating in such a way that the
various
> >factors which affect dreams no longer drove your consciousness
hither
> >and thither whether awake or asleep.
>
> And what would drive it instead?
Will alone, well, depends how flowery I want to get. But not the will
of the ordinary self, which is merely the aggregate of the various
accumulations in the eight consciousnesses.
The mind falls, the will drives on.
--Frank Herbert, The Jesus Incident
Perhaps more accurately will modulated by reason (not to be confused
with ratiocination).
> >> We've isolated all sorts of factors as influencing dream
imagery--
> >> thoughts (both from when you were awake and during your dream),
> >emotions
> >> (ditto), expectations, perceptual habits, day residues and other
> >> memories, associations, external sensory perceptions that filter
in
> >...
>
> Also desires, and instincts, and the direction of your attention ...
That's pretty much everything in the Buddhist psychology.
The Abhidamma goes into some depth concerning the relationships
between these various factors.
> >More precise and complete. Have you read the Abhidamma? It's the
> >psychology third of the Buddhist Tripitaka.
> >If I recall correctly, it makes similar statements with respect to
the
> >psychology of consciousness.
> >If you haven't you might find it interesting.
>
> No, I haven't read it. Thanks for the reference.
I found a reasonable link:
http://www.abhidhamma.org/contents.htm
Some good articles.
Whenever I read through the Abhidamma I always end up feeling like
modern psychology is footnotes to Buddha :-)
No offense intended to any psychologists in the audience.
Martin Edwards
<JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <3dff6e47...@news.btinternet.com>, Martin.Edwards5
>@btinternet.com says...
>>>--you're in school and don't know what class you're supposed to go to
>>>next
>>
>>Frequently, even though I left teaching several months ago.
>
>Sounds to me then like you're getting the kind of dreams that in my
>opinion derive from quite naturally mistaking the dream world for reality
>and trying to treat it as such, when it simply isn't. It's an unstable
>simulation.
Just so. I do think it's reality; but, as I say, as soon as I realize
it's a dream, I wake up.
Janice
@btinternet.com says...
>>Sounds to me then like you're getting the kind of dreams that in my
>>opinion derive from quite naturally mistaking the dream world for reality
>>and trying to treat it as such, when it simply isn't. It's an unstable
>>simulation.
>
>Just so. I do think it's reality; but, as I say, as soon as I realize
>it's a dream, I wake up.
Well, that's one way to end the frustration. At least you do catch on.
My mother's dreams typically go on and on perpetuating frustrations and
fears. But now that she's in her eighties she's finally, once in awhile,
figuring out that she's dreaming and waking herself up.
Janice
says...
>> You seem to conceptualize this the way I would tend to imagine it,
>i.e.
>> as a matter of getting other people to see things. For instance I
>can
>> more easily conceive of bilocation as getting people at a distance
>to
>> perceive your image by affecting their awareness rather than
>literally
>> projecting some "astral" substance to that location.
Interestingly, one way to approach dream control is to will the other
characters to perceive the effect you want to achieve while remaining
outside that illusion yourself, for instance willing them not to see you
(or perhaps more accurately, since they don't necessarly have awareness
of their own, willing them to behave as if they really don't see you).
>> And what would drive it instead?
>
>Will alone, well, depends how flowery I want to get. But not the will
>of the ordinary self, which is merely the aggregate of the various
>accumulations in the eight consciousnesses.
>Perhaps more accurately will modulated by reason (not to be confused
>with ratiocination).
OK.
>I found a reasonable link:
>http://www.abhidhamma.org/contents.htm
>
>Some good articles.
Thanks, I've bookmarked it.
Steve
> In article <ato8sc$16hek$1...@ID-162597.news.dfncis.de>,
kok...@wotmania.com
> says...
> >
> >"Janice" <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.18695c6a8...@news.cis.dfn.de...
other
> characters to perceive the effect you want to achieve while
remaining
> outside that illusion yourself, for instance willing them not to see
you
> (or perhaps more accurately, since they don't necessarly have
awareness
> of their own, willing them to behave as if they really don't see
you).
:-)
Reminds me of something.......
Call it Scheherezades Dance. A part of the Bene Gesserit Arcanum which
my beloved Senior Security Mother knows very well.
Veil, Unveil,
Reveal, Reveil,
Reveille.
Thank you, Janice. A most interesting set of fermentive memes for me
to consider.
I look forward to your next book.
Janice
>
>"Janice" <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.186c9c372...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> In article <ato8sc$16hek$1...@ID-162597.news.dfncis.de>,
>kok...@wotmania.com
>Reminds me of something.......
>Call it Scheherezades Dance. A part of the Bene Gesserit Arcanum which
>my beloved Senior Security Mother knows very well.
>
>Veil, Unveil,
>Reveal, Reveil,
>Reveille.
OK, as long as it doesn't move on to Revile. :-D
>Thank you, Janice. A most interesting set of fermentive memes for me
>to consider.
>I look forward to your next book.
Did you read the first one?
Steve
> In article <au0bbi$3fsv6$1...@ID-162597.news.dfncis.de>,
kok...@wotmania.com
> says...
> >
> >"Janice" <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.186c9c372...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> >> In article <ato8sc$16hek$1...@ID-162597.news.dfncis.de>,
> >kok...@wotmania.com
>
> >Reminds me of something.......
> >Call it Scheherezades Dance. A part of the Bene Gesserit Arcanum
which
> >my beloved Senior Security Mother knows very well.
> >
> >Veil, Unveil,
> >Reveal, Reveil,
> >Reveille.
>
> OK, as long as it doesn't move on to Revile. :-D
LOL
Never.
>
> >Thank you, Janice. A most interesting set of fermentive memes for
me
> >to consider.
> >I look forward to your next book.
>
> Did you read the first one?
No, I'd have fewer questions if I had methinks. I'd make an excuse but
I'm trying to cut down ;-)
I've read Jay's talk though.
To be honest, until recently I haven't had many dreams. Well, I
suppose to be more accurate, many dreams I remember.
Ergo, not much interest for me.
Janice
>news:MPG.186d7dce...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> Did you read the first one?
>
>No, I'd have fewer questions if I had methinks. I'd make an excuse but
>I'm trying to cut down ;-)
>I've read Jay's talk though.
>To be honest, until recently I haven't had many dreams. Well, I
>suppose to be more accurate, many dreams I remember.
>Ergo, not much interest for me.
Jay's talk sums up the gist of the book pretty well. The book is kind of
a slog for anyone without much interest in dream theory, although our
point of view is relevant to the psychology of consciousness in general
as well.
Steve
> Jay's talk sums up the gist of the book pretty well.
Thought it might. I read the intro as well. The details can probably
wait a while for me and it sounds like I might have many of them
tucked away in a different form anyways.
>The book is kind of
> a slog for anyone without much interest in dream theory, although
our
> point of view is relevant to the psychology of consciousness in
general
> as well.
Yes, I noticed that about your PoV :-). It's easier for me to agree
with anyway. Did I remember right that the next one will be more like
a fun, practical manual or am I making stuff up?
Janice
says...
>>The book is kind of
>> a slog for anyone without much interest in dream theory, although
>our
>> point of view is relevant to the psychology of consciousness in
>general
>> as well.
>
>Yes, I noticed that about your PoV :-).
Not too surprising since Jay's thinking was influenced by Robert
Ornstein's books.
>It's easier for me to agree
>with anyway. Did I remember right that the next one will be more like
>a fun, practical manual or am I making stuff up?
Yep, that's the idea. Fun rather than scholarly this time. The second
book will be about lucid dream induction and control, built around
material that we excised from the first book for reasons of space.
Probably more on control than induction, since there are already suitable
books that explain how to become lucid in your dreams, just none that
tell you much about what to do once you get there. Just as it helps to
know the customs of a foreign country you plan to visit, it helps to know
a thing or two about how your consciousness interacts with your imagery
if you're planning a lengthy expedition in Dreamland.
Steve
Just as it helps to know the customs
of a foreign country you plan to visit,
it helps to know a thing or two about
how your consciousness interacts with
your imagery if you're planning a
lengthy expedition in Dreamland.
Steve:
Well, since I seem to be aware I'm dreaming
when I'm dreaming I'll definitely be interested.
Oddly, whenever I try control I seem to wake up. Perhaps trying to
change too much of the
environment at once.
As an aside, there's a slendid book called
Only Forward by MichaelMarshall Smith
which is partly about adventures in Dreamland
(or Jeemland as the protaganist calls it).
Janice
says...
>Well, since I seem to be aware I'm dreaming
>when I'm dreaming I'll definitely be interested.
A natural? Cool. :)
>Oddly, whenever I try control I seem to wake up. Perhaps trying to
>change too much of the environment at once.
Could be. Sometimes dream control can be disruptive. There are subtle
ways of going about it that you might find less disruptive. For example,
if you want to change the scene, rather than willing it to change before
your eyes, try suggesting to yourself that the setting you want will be
there when you go through a certain door.
>As an aside, there's a slendid book called
>Only Forward by MichaelMarshall Smith
>which is partly about adventures in Dreamland
>(or Jeemland as the protaganist calls it).
Sci-fi? Could be fun. :)
Steve
"Janice" <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> >Oddly, whenever I try control I seem to wake up. Perhaps trying to
> >change too much of the environment at once.
>
> Could be. Sometimes dream control can be disruptive. There are
subtle
> ways of going about it that you might find less disruptive.
Well, more subtlety seems to be required. I suspect that not trying to
directly manipulate time would help (certainly seems to have been a
large part of the problem).
I suspect different elements require subtly different control methods.
Still investigating though.
> For example,
> if you want to change the scene, rather than willing it to change
before
> your eyes, try suggesting to yourself that the setting you want will
be
> there when you go through a certain door.
>
OK, I've mainly been changing/working the psychological aspects of the
scene rather than the scene itself. It's a bit like working through
some sort of illogic puzzle. Fun in it's own way.
> >As an aside, there's a slendid book called
> >Only Forward by MichaelMarshall Smith
> >which is partly about adventures in Dreamland
> >(or Jeemland as the protaganist calls it).
>
> Sci-fi? Could be fun. :)
Sort of, kind of an extended dream within a dream within a dream. With
some very unusual cats (of the Snuffy variety). Very odd, hopefully
going to be a film too. It could give The Matrix a run for it's money.
Janice
says...
>
>I suspect that not trying to
>directly manipulate time would help (certainly seems to have been a
>large part of the problem).
What are you attempting to do with the time manipulation? The only thing
I've done that might fit that description would be rewinding and
replaying scenes.
>OK, I've mainly been changing/working the psychological aspects of the
>scene rather than the scene itself. It's a bit like working through
>some sort of illogic puzzle. Fun in it's own way.
Psychological aspects as in what part of your psychological makeup the
scene seems to connect with, or ... ?
Steve
> >I suspect that not trying to
> >directly manipulate time would help (certainly seems to have been a
> >large part of the problem).
>
thing
> I've done that might fit that description would be rewinding and
> replaying scenes.
Yup, well rewinding in order to pass through it in a different way. To
give an example, I had a jump down a waterfall but at the bottom I
couldn't decide whether the water should be shallow or deep.
Obviously, this makes a difference to what happens next :-)
So, rewind to the top of the fall to take the jump again. The rewind
was fine actually but the wake ups happened usually because I tried to
run multiple options at once as far as I can make out.
A bit like life I guess the waveform has to collapse once the cat's
box gets opened.
>
> >OK, I've mainly been changing/working the psychological aspects of
the
> >scene rather than the scene itself. It's a bit like working
through
> >some sort of illogic puzzle. Fun in it's own way.
>
> Psychological aspects as in what part of your psychological makeup
the
> scene seems to connect with, or ... ?
>
Not really, though that must inevitably be part of it. If I think of
it in mathematical terms then there is a path to be worked through
from the PoV within the dream i.e. as a character within the dream I
have volition. Part of that volition involves interacting
constructively with the aspects and characters in the scene(though the
get out of Hell puzzle was a bit of a corker). It's a bit peculiar
because there is the locus of awareness in the dream and then behind
that (to varying degrees, near or far depending on the degree of
lucidity I guess) there is the awareness of the dream generation
itself. Does that make sense?
I confess I'm groping for good words to describe it. It's a situation
which seems, to me, inherently paradoxical since I'm two things which
are one thing at the same time. If you see what I mean :-).
I don't know if it makes a difference but as a rule I have a fair
amount of narrative continuity i.e. the story/scene/puzzle has an
underlying consistency which is reflected in the imagery.
P.S. I'm having to reply to myself because my newserver keeps picking
up a long line that I can't identify whenever I reply direct.
Janice
says...
>Janice wrote:
>
>> What are you attempting to do with the time manipulation? The only
>thing
>> I've done that might fit that description would be rewinding and
>> replaying scenes.
>
>Yup, well rewinding in order to pass through it in a different way.
OK, I've done that, then.
>To
>give an example, I had a jump down a waterfall but at the bottom I
>couldn't decide whether the water should be shallow or deep.
>Obviously, this makes a difference to what happens next :-)
>So, rewind to the top of the fall to take the jump again. The rewind
>was fine actually but the wake ups happened usually because I tried to
>run multiple options at once as far as I can make out.
Too much for your mind to handle all at once I guess. :)
>> Psychological aspects as in what part of your psychological makeup
>the
>> scene seems to connect with, or ... ?
>>
>
>Not really, though that must inevitably be part of it. If I think of
>it in mathematical terms then there is a path to be worked through
>from the PoV within the dream i.e. as a character within the dream I
>have volition. Part of that volition involves interacting
>constructively with the aspects and characters in the scene(though the
>get out of Hell puzzle was a bit of a corker). It's a bit peculiar
>because there is the locus of awareness in the dream and then behind
>that (to varying degrees, near or far depending on the degree of
>lucidity I guess) there is the awareness of the dream generation
>itself. Does that make sense?
I think so.
>I confess I'm groping for good words to describe it. It's a situation
>which seems, to me, inherently paradoxical since I'm two things which
>are one thing at the same time. If you see what I mean :-).
It's interesting that you even make the distinction. So often people
identify fully with their dream persona and think of that as what's doing
the dreaming, which isn't really the case.
>I don't know if it makes a difference but as a rule I have a fair
>amount of narrative continuity i.e. the story/scene/puzzle has an
>underlying consistency which is reflected in the imagery.
That may be unusual. In one study I'm aware of, the researchers found
that they could break dreams into pieces and present these to judges who
did not do well at determining which ones originally went together, the
implication being that dreams don't typically have great narrative
continuity.
>P.S. I'm having to reply to myself because my newserver keeps picking
>up a long line that I can't identify whenever I reply direct.
Don't know what that might be. In the text or in the headers?
--
CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit
without individual responsibility.
Steve
Janice wrote:
> >To
> >give an example, I had a jump down a waterfall but at the
bottom I
> >couldn't decide whether the water should be shallow or
deep.
> >Obviously, this makes a difference to what happens next
:-)
> >So, rewind to the top of the fall to take the jump again.
The rewind
> >was fine actually but the wake ups happened usually
because I tried to
> >run multiple options at once as far as I can make out.
>
> Too much for your mind to handle all at once I guess. :)
Something like that. Indecision seemed to be the problem. I
got to run the two as a test but the second rerun broke the
context. Procrastination is a pain ;-)
> >I confess I'm groping for good words to describe it. It's
a situation
> >which seems, to me, inherently paradoxical since I'm two
things which
> >are one thing at the same time. If you see what I mean
:-).
>
> It's interesting that you even make the distinction. So
often people
> identify fully with their dream persona and think of that
as what's doing
> the dreaming, which isn't really the case.
No, the distinction is there though. One thing that struck
me to ask, from earlier parts of the conversation, was: when
you manipulate the dream scene do you do it from the locus
within the dream or do you step out, manipulate and then
step back in?
>
> >I don't know if it makes a difference but as a rule I
have a fair
> >amount of narrative continuity i.e. the
story/scene/puzzle has an
> >underlying consistency which is reflected in the imagery.
>
> That may be unusual. In one study I'm aware of, the
researchers found
> that they could break dreams into pieces and present these
to judges who
> did not do well at determining which ones originally went
together, the
> implication being that dreams don't typically have great
narrative
> continuity.
Narrative continuity varies but there is always or nearly
always a strong underlying theme or current which directs
the imagery/structure.
I think if you present the image level then that would be
consistent with the research. The underlying current or vibe
would be much harder to represent.
I couldn't do it but I know it's there and I can "see" it in
the dream.
It's at the same level that you use for invisibility and I
think it's what the tibetans are referring to.
> >P.S. I'm having to reply to myself because my newserver
keeps picking
> >up a long line that I can't identify whenever I reply
direct.
>
> Don't know what that might be. In the text or in the
headers?
Headers. It only appears in some cases.
Janice
says...
>
>Janice wrote:
>> Too much for your mind to handle all at once I guess. :)
>
>Something like that. Indecision seemed to be the problem. I
>got to run the two as a test but the second rerun broke the
>context. Procrastination is a pain ;-)
Personally I wouldn't worry about impact. I don't feel it in dreams even
if I hurtle into something at high speed. You could just wonder if your
mind will supply deep water or shallow water and see what happens. :)
>> It's interesting that you even make the distinction. So
>often people
>> identify fully with their dream persona and think of that
>as what's doing
>> the dreaming, which isn't really the case.
>
>No, the distinction is there though. One thing that struck
>me to ask, from earlier parts of the conversation, was: when
>you manipulate the dream scene do you do it from the locus
>within the dream or do you step out, manipulate and then
>step back in?
I might do it wholly from the locus of within the dream (as for example
ending a bad scene by saying to the other characters "Let's take a coffee
break"), or with partial detachment (making something happen without
interacting directly with the imagery nor yet losing it), or actually
lose most of imagery then bring it back again. I used to have a thing
going called "Goddess mode" where I'd do that using somewhat mythopoeic
thought to narrate to myself. :)
>> That may be unusual. In one study I'm aware of, the
>researchers found
>> that they could break dreams into pieces and present these
>to judges who
>> did not do well at determining which ones originally went
>together, the
>> implication being that dreams don't typically have great
>narrative
>> continuity.
>
>Narrative continuity varies but there is always or nearly
>always a strong underlying theme or current which directs
>the imagery/structure.
>I think if you present the image level then that would be
>consistent with the research. The underlying current or vibe
>would be much harder to represent.
>I couldn't do it but I know it's there and I can "see" it in
>the dream.
>It's at the same level that you use for invisibility and I
>think it's what the tibetans are referring to.
OK.
>> >P.S. I'm having to reply to myself because my newserver
>keeps picking
>> >up a long line that I can't identify whenever I reply
>direct.
>>
>> Don't know what that might be. In the text or in the
>headers?
>
>Headers. It only appears in some cases.
Maybe your server doesn't like some of my X-Face (b/w graphic) headers?
Steve
even
> if I hurtle into something at high speed. You could just wonder if
your
> mind will supply deep water or shallow water and see what happens. :)
:-)
>
> I might do it wholly from the locus of within the dream (as for example
> ending a bad scene by saying to the other characters "Let's take a
coffee
> break"), or with partial detachment (making something happen without
> interacting directly with the imagery nor yet losing it), or actually
> lose most of imagery then bring it back again. I used to have a thing
> going called "Goddess mode" where I'd do that using somewhat mythopoeic
> thought to narrate to myself. :)
Cool. Things to try later.
> >>
> >> Don't know what that might be. In the text or in the
> >headers?
> >
> >Headers. It only appears in some cases.
>
> Maybe your server doesn't like some of my X-Face (b/w graphic) headers?
That's probably it.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03