Lucid Dreaming Sufis
J. Stull
"The Sufis" with respect to lucid dreaming:
His teaching stressed the importance of this exercise of faculties
which are unknown to most people, and consigned to credulous occultism
by the many. "A person," he said, "must control his thoughts in a
dream. The training of this alertness will produce awareness of the
intermediate dimension. It will produce great benefits for the
individual. Everyone should apply himself to the attainment of this
ability of such great value."
However, outside of that one quote, I've not seen other information
from the sufi perspective regarding lucid dreaming.
Jay and Janice - I was looking through some of the posts here, and
also saw a few at the lucid dreaming group, and I ended up buying the
PDF version of your book this morning. I appreciate your anti-New Age
approach. I think that is why I also like Stephen LaBerge's lucid
dreaming research.
I tend to think of myself more as an animal than a human. I believe
sufi's reserve the term "human" for a very small portion of the human
population.
Part of the sufi philosophy that has interested me a great deal is the
notion of "levels", the practical application of that seems to be the
adage "speak to each according their understanding" which is also
related to "the time, the place and the people". I am particularly
fond of Ken Wilber's model, because he incorporates and integrates the
most levels, and most views at each level, that I have ever seen
presented. I especially enjoy his more recent material where he
incorporates the "Spiral Dynamics" v-meme "colors" of Beck and Cowan.
When lucid dreaming is considered within that framework, it becomes
easier to see how an individual, or society might approach/interpret
it; the purple magical-animistic, the red power gods, the blue mythic
order, the orange scientific achievement and so on around the spiral.
Jay and Janice's work seems to me to be from an "Orange" worldview,
which is my own dominant worldview.
However, it seems to me that lucid dreaming is possible at any level
of development, and is not an indicator of one's developmental level.
On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that a "master" in
any tradition would not be able to easily discern the dream state from
the waking state.
It is that particular application, "differentiating" the dream state
from the waking state that really interests me the most.
And mostly from questioning what it is that gets in the way of me
being able to make this differentiation.
Well, for me the answer seems to become clearer and clearer the more I
learn about the nafs-i-ammara (Commanding Self).
Meditation, specifically mindfulness meditation, where you keep
bringing your attention back to your breath, over and over again,
every time your mind wanders, was really the first time that I began
to see how the Commanding Self takes over again and again. I also
began to understand what the Buddhists mean when they say "You are not
your thoughts". Although really the truth is that under the influence
of my Commanding Self, I pretty much am my thoughts.
But, I have continued to do a daily meditation practice, just
following each breath and observing what grabs my attention. This
practice has helped me to begin taking my "self" as an object of my
awareness (sometimes).
During the day I try to use the Sufi rules as much as I am able to,
but in conjunction with all of these exercises, I am also always
trying to do "reality checks", trying to determine if I am in the
dream state, and hoping that some day this behavior practiced in the
waking state will lead to the same sort of awareness in the dream
state
The lucid dream itself has never been the main objective for me.
Successfully realizing that I am in the dream state is more like a
little bonus prize that the nafs-i-ammara gets to play with. However,
more often than not, it is the nafs-i-Lawwama (Reproachful Self)
reminding me when I wake up from a dream, that my awareness was so
consumed with the Commanding Self's activities that I missed the fact
that I was in the dream state.
Actually, even when I do become aware that I am in the dream state, I
can become so involved in "experimenting" that I forget to keep
"remembering".
My "interest" seems to have become more focused on observing the
awareness that occurs during the transitions between the dream and
waking state, when I realize that I am about to wake up (Although that
can end up being a "false" awakening). Observing the transition from
the waking state into the dream state (Laberge's WILD or some people's
"OBE") is even more interesting, but a much rarer occurrence for me.
That transitional awareness seems to be more "self" transcendent in
that the "self" the "me" is more easily seen as an object of my
awareness than actually being my awareness. It feels like one step
above my usual "commanding self" observing the "commanding self".
I've had more than one dream where I am explaining "lucid dreaming" to
someone, and I ask them "How do you know you aren't dreaming right
now?". Then, some time later when I wake up and recall the dream I
feel pretty silly.
Beyond my own mediocre personal struggle to differentiate the dreaming
and waking states I often think of Tibetan Dream Yoga which speaks of
maintaining awareness through the three states of waking, dreaming and
sleeping. Ken Wilber associates those states with the gross, subtle,
and causal states. Wilber uses the term "pellucid dreaming" to
describe this type of awareness.
It's interesting to map those three states out on an Enneagram, using
the gross, subtle, causal states as the points of the triad and then
considering the inner lines of the 1-4-2-8-5-7 influence as well as
the triad "shock" points (ie the transition between dream and wake
states)
Anyway, I've sort of rambled on and on. I find stalking the
nafs-i-ammara with reality checks a great sport.
Let me stop here with something from the title page of Idries Shah's
"Caravan of Dreams" that is somewhat of a mantra for me:
Here we are, all of us:
In a dream caravan.
A caravan, but a dream-
A dream, but a caravan.
And we know which are the dreams.
Therein lies the hope
Regards,
--Jeff
azo charif
> from the sufi perspective regarding lucid dreaming.
>
storyteller ),when i was child, of a sufi sheikh who was asked by one of his
senior students :''why did you make such and such, who was only here in
our zawiyya for a short period, your deputy instead of I or others who
were here for years .''
the sheikh answered:
-''because this student used to visit me every night to listen to my stories
, to pray and do dhikre with me while you lie deep asleep ''
- '' it cannot be, he sleeps in the same dormatory as us and we never saw
him left it at night'' asked the student
- ''he visits me in his dreams because he has enough awareness to hear my
call in that state and
and to realize that he could also be conscious as well as able to learn in
the dreaming state'' replied the sheikh.............
now anyone tried to meditate or read ,tell or listen to sufi stories in a
lucid dream?????????
regards
azo
J. Stull <jeff_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca3e1487.01110...@posting.google.com...
Janice
says...
> i remember a story told by my late grandfather (who was a traditional
> storyteller ),when i was child, of a sufi sheikh who was asked by one of his
> senior students :''why did you make such and such, who was only here in
> our zawiyya for a short period, your deputy instead of I or others who
> were here for years .''
> the sheikh answered:
> -''because this student used to visit me every night to listen to my stories
> , to pray and do dhikre with me while you lie deep asleep ''
> - '' it cannot be, he sleeps in the same dormatory as us and we never saw
> him left it at night'' asked the student
> - ''he visits me in his dreams because he has enough awareness to hear my
> call in that state and
> and to realize that he could also be conscious as well as able to learn in
> the dreaming state'' replied the sheikh.............
>
> now anyone tried to meditate or read ,tell or listen to sufi stories in a
> lucid dream?????????
> regards
> azo
Reading is often quite difficult in dreams. Printed text has a strange
way of becoming illegible, or changing from one glance to the next, or
just not making any sense. So trying to read Sufi stories in a dream
might not be very productive. Also I find it difficult to remember long
dream conversations in detail after waking up.
On the other hand, I can attest that it is possible to dream of
interactions and conversations with Sufis and other teacher/guide
figures. Whether or not any of the Sufis I have dreamed of have been
real people I can't say (I tend to doubt it), but I have had some
interesting encounters with what I fondly refer to as my "inner Sufis."
:)
--
It will be L7 and I'll never get to heaven
if I fill my head with glue.--Paul McCartney
My homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html
The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html
Janice
jeff_...@hotmail.com says...
> I always see the same Ibn el-Arabi quote of a quote from Idries Shah's
> "The Sufis" with respect to lucid dreaming:
>
> His teaching stressed the importance of this exercise of faculties
> which are unknown to most people, and consigned to credulous occultism
> by the many. "A person," he said, "must control his thoughts in a
> dream. The training of this alertness will produce awareness of the
> intermediate dimension. It will produce great benefits for the
> individual. Everyone should apply himself to the attainment of this
> ability of such great value."
Now that you have the PDF file of Jay's and my book, you might want to
search it for that quote and see the possible interpretation which we
suggest therein.
> However, outside of that one quote, I've not seen other information
> from the sufi perspective regarding lucid dreaming.
>
> Jay and Janice - I was looking through some of the posts here, and
> also saw a few at the lucid dreaming group, and I ended up buying the
> PDF version of your book this morning.
Thanks! Hope you find it a interesting read.
> I appreciate your anti-New Age
> approach.I think that is why I also like Stephen LaBerge's lucid
> dreaming research.
We think LaBerge straddles a fine line on that score. On the one hand he
speaks out against taking out-of-body experiences literally, for
instance, yet on the other hand he does get rather uncautious in his
thinking about matters such as the potentials of lucid dreaming for do-
it-yourself psychotherapy--what we call the "tag your Id" approach. :)
Anyway, if you read the book you'll see where we agree and disagree with
his ideas.
...
> When lucid dreaming is considered within that framework, it becomes
> easier to see how an individual, or society might approach/interpret
> it; the purple magical-animistic, the red power gods, the blue mythic
> order, the orange scientific achievement and so on around the spiral.
> Jay and Janice's work seems to me to be from an "Orange" worldview,
> which is my own dominant worldview.
>
> However, it seems to me that lucid dreaming is possible at any level
> of development, and is not an indicator of one's developmental level.
I would have to agree with that. Even small children can learn to have
lucid dreams. Lucidity can be used to gain insights about oneself, or to
indulge teenaged fantasies about Britney Spears. :)
> On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that a "master" in
> any tradition would not be able to easily discern the dream state from
> the waking state.
>
> It is that particular application, "differentiating" the dream state
> from the waking state that really interests me the most.
>
> And mostly from questioning what it is that gets in the way of me
> being able to make this differentiation.
Jay was attracted to lucid dreaming in part because it bothered him that
he was duped nightly into mistaking his dreams for reality.
...
> During the day I try to use the Sufi rules as much as I am able to,
> but in conjunction with all of these exercises, I am also always
> trying to do "reality checks", trying to determine if I am in the
> dream state, and hoping that some day this behavior practiced in the
> waking state will lead to the same sort of awareness in the dream
> state
This is a popular approach, but you might want to try giving it a boost
with some additional efforts. If you have good dream recall, I would
suggest reviewing a dream when you wake up and thinking what you might
have done differently in it if you had realized at the time that it was a
dream. This may help prime your mind for increased dream lucidity.
> The lucid dream itself has never been the main objective for me.
> Successfully realizing that I am in the dream state is more like a
> little bonus prize that the nafs-i-ammara gets to play with. However,
> more often than not, it is the nafs-i-Lawwama (Reproachful Self)
> reminding me when I wake up from a dream, that my awareness was so
> consumed with the Commanding Self's activities that I missed the fact
> that I was in the dream state.
>
> Actually, even when I do become aware that I am in the dream state, I
> can become so involved in "experimenting" that I forget to keep
> "remembering".
This can happen.
> My "interest" seems to have become more focused on observing the
> awareness that occurs during the transitions between the dream and
> waking state, when I realize that I am about to wake up (Although that
> can end up being a "false" awakening). Observing the transition from
> the waking state into the dream state (Laberge's WILD or some people's
> "OBE") is even more interesting, but a much rarer occurrence for me.
I have usually found it easiest to induce WILDs when I'm not overly
tired.
> That transitional awareness seems to be more "self" transcendent in
> that the "self" the "me" is more easily seen as an object of my
> awareness than actually being my awareness. It feels like one step
> above my usual "commanding self" observing the "commanding self".
> I've had more than one dream where I am explaining "lucid dreaming" to
> someone, and I ask them "How do you know you aren't dreaming right
> now?". Then, some time later when I wake up and recall the dream I
> feel pretty silly.
Yeah, I've had that kind of thing too. It's even more embarrassing when
a dream character points out to you that you're dreaming. For instance
one time I dreamed about a woman jumping up and down in a subway station
crazily shouting "Reality check! Reality check!" yet I didn't catch on to
the fact that I was dreaming. :)
...
Let me stop here with something from the title page of Idries Shah's
"Caravan of Dreams" that is somewhat of a mantra for me:
Here we are, all of us:
In a dream caravan.
A caravan, but a dream-
A dream, but a caravan.
And we know which are the dreams.
Therein lies the hope
I know it sounds horribly disrespectful but my immediate association to
this was:
We all live in a yellow submarine,
Yellow submarine, yellow submarine.
;-)
Al
"Janice" <not...@not-here.net> wrote
>
> Yeah, I've had that kind of thing too. It's even more embarrassing when
> a dream character points out to you that you're dreaming. For instance
> one time I dreamed about a woman jumping up and down in a subway station
> crazily shouting "Reality check! Reality check!" yet I didn't catch on to
> the fact that I was dreaming. :)
>
> ...
>
Conversely, I have many times tried to explain to dream characters that they
are in my dream but they deny it.
Jim Buck
> I always see the same Ibn el-Arabi quote of a quote from Idries Shah's
> "The Sufis" with respect to lucid dreaming:
>
> His teaching stressed the importance of this exercise of faculties
> which are unknown to most people, and consigned to credulous occultism
> by the many. "A person," he said, "must control his thoughts in a
> dream. The training of this alertness will produce awareness of the
> intermediate dimension. It will produce great benefits for the
> individual. Everyone should apply himself to the attainment of this
> ability of such great value."
Mm...the reason I did not explore lucid dreaming is connected with the
answer Rais Tchaqmaqzade gave to Idries Shah's question:
Question 15: Why are there so few indications of the schools of Ahmad Yasavi
of Turkestan and Ibn El-Arabi of Andalusia?
Answer: Because in the realm of Greater Understanding, the workshop is
dismantled after the work is finished.
Way of The Sufi, p 314, Penguin edition 1968
I seem to recall there is a warning, about the innappropriateness, to the
modern westerner, of El-Arabi's path, in one of the other books too; People
of The Secret maybe?
Regards
Jim Buck
Janice
deja.com says...
>
> "Janice" <not...@not-here.net> wrote
> >
> > Yeah, I've had that kind of thing too. It's even more embarrassing when
> > a dream character points out to you that you're dreaming. For instance
> > one time I dreamed about a woman jumping up and down in a subway station
> > crazily shouting "Reality check! Reality check!" yet I didn't catch on to
> > the fact that I was dreaming. :)
>
> are in my dream but they deny it.
I've had that happen more often than I have had them tell me I was
dreaming. Interestingly, though, their denials on that score happened
mostly when I was first getting heavily into lucid dreaming.
azo charif
> interactions and conversations with Sufis and other teacher/guide
> figures. Whether or not any of the Sufis I have dreamed of have been
> real people I can't say (I tend to doubt it), but I have had some
> interesting encounters with what I fondly refer to as my "inner Sufis."
> :)
usually what i do is to rehearse a story from my momory and then sometimes
the characters come live on the scene but it is very hard to keep acting the
original story......
many thanks again for the precious insights..
regards
azo
Janice <not...@not-here.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.164b72f36...@news.starlinx.com...
Janice
says...
> Janice , you are right with the difficulty of reading sufi stories but
> usually what i do is to rehearse a story from my momory and then sometimes
> the characters come live on the scene but it is very hard to keep acting the
> original story......
> many thanks again for the precious insights..
> regards
> azo
That sounds like fun. It makes sense that the dream would tend to drift
off in its own direction. With more practice maybe you will get better
at controlling it. On the other hand, maybe it is good to let the dream
be creative with the story? That way you see how your mind is reacting
to it.
J. Stull
Thanks for the story. The more I think about it, the more I
appreciate it.
Here is a short passage from the introduction to the Lucid Dreaming
chapter of “Paths Beyond Ego”. The third strategy reminds
me of your story:
Evidently yoga and meditation can induce lucid dreaming, and lucid
dreaming can itself be used as a meditation. Indeed, lucidity seems to
spontaneously motivate dreamers to do just that. Experienced
practitioners report that even the thrill of repetitive wish
fulfillment in dreams eventually fades, leaving dreamers longing for
something more meaningful and profound than playing out another
sensual fantasy. These people rediscover the ancient idea that sensory
pleasures alone can never be enduringly satisfying.
At this point dreamers may begin to seek transpersonal experiences and
to use lucid dreaming as a transpersonal technique. To do this they
employ three strategies. First, they actively seek within the dream
for a spiritual experience, be it a symbol, a teacher, or a deity.
Second, they may adopt a more passive approach, turning control of the
dream over to a "higher power," whether that power is conceived to be
an inner guide, Self, or God.
In the third strategy they begin a meditative-yogic practice while
still in the dream. By far the most sophisticated such practice is the
twelve-hundred-year-old Tibetan Buddhist "dream yoga." According to
the Dalai Lama, Tibetan yogis are taught to develop lucidity, first in
their dreams, and then in their nondream sleep, seeking to remain
continuously aware twenty-four hours a day.
****
. Personally I’m not to sure about that “first, second,
third thing above, I suspect that lucid dreamers would initially use a
strategy most aligned with their particular worldview (ie the v-memes
I mentioned in my original post; Blue mythic order, orange scientific
Achievement, Green sensitive self etc), and then if they manage to
grow past that worldview, begin using the strategies appropriate to
that new worldview.
Hey, but that sheik’s “hint” is a great answer to
the question “So what do I do once I am lucid?”. Thanks
again Azo.
--Jeff
J. Stull
Thanks for the comments. I’m not real active on various
groups and message boards, but lucid dreaming topics usually always
draw me in. Especially when they are not of the “What is lucid
dreaming genre?”.
I’ve read through most of your book, and find much of the
material familiar, and from a perspective that I largely identify
with. I realize that your interest is with lucid dreaming, and not
Sufism, so I’ll try to keep that in mind. I remain mostly an
anti-spiritual atheistic delinquent, but try not to let my belief
systems impede my attempts to remember Allah with each inbreath, and
each outbreath.
I’ve played with a good many of the techniques for inducing
lucidity (including the NovaDreamer), with varying degrees of success.
But I’ve probably only had a little over 100 (I haven’t
added them up recently) lucid dreams over the past 5 years, and 2001
may end up being my driest year since beginning(maybe a dozen)
My biggest hurdle is dream recall. I tend to build up a sleep debt
during the work week and it becomes easy to blow off jotting down a
few dream notes at 2:00 AM when I know I have to get up in two hours.
And if I don’t write it down, it’s most likely gone
(unlike my wife who seems to remember every dream, but she only has
an occasional lucid dream every month or so).
I’ve kept a little dream recall report card for the past 3
years, where an “A” is a lucid dream, a “C”
means I wrote down 1 dream, a “D” means I recall having
dreams but don’t remember details, and an “F” means
I slept like a log. I haven’t figured out my actual grade point
average, but I’m sure it’s well below a “C-”.
But with a paid off sleep debt, a judicial amount of coffee to keep my
sleep somewhat light, and a strong intent, I can usually squeeze out a
lucid dream.
I’ll always be indebted to Stephen LaBerge for introducing me to
“lucid dreaming” from a non Carlos Castaneda perspective.
My first handful of lucid dreams were before I knew of LaBerge’s
work, and were all achieved with the don Juan’s “Find your
hands in your dreams” dictum. So I am grateful to Castaneda as
well. I still romanticize the concept of an “Impeccable
Warrior”. In fact I suspect my interest in conscious evolution
has it’s roots in my enjoyment of the Castaneda series.
What really “hooked” me with lucid dreaming was after I
got LaBerge’s “Exploring the World of Lucid
Dreaming” and began having a good deal of beginners luck (3-7
LD’s per week). I was just totally fascinated by the fact that
the “model” of reality that my brain created based on
sensorial input during the waking state, was the same mechanism that
presented a “model” of reality without sensorial input
during a dream. What a trick!
But an even more interesting, but much tougher trick to figure out, is
the nature of the “self” that experiences those models,
yet another brain generated illusion.
Being able to lucid dream doesn’t help much with this trick
unless you have developed some additional skills to go along with it.
That’s where the “wisdom” traditions (ie Buddhism,
Sufism) come in.
By the way Janice, I thought that this was somewhat of a weak area in
your otherwise excellent book. I am speculating that this is a weak
area because of a lack of long term experience and practice within a
wisdom tradition (or so it seems to appear). The interpretation range
of a lucid dream experience, from that of a child, to that of a wise
“master” is done from very different worldviews that are
not related to the lucid dreaming skill itself, nor necessarily
comprehendible “across” worldviews.
Ken Wilber has an essay called “The Pre-Tran Fallacy”,
where he complains that very often valid “trans” personal
experiences are reduced to “pre” personal pathologies,
but he also argues that “pre” personal pathologies are
also frequently elevated to “trans” personal experiences.
I think of the latter as the sufi’s “counterfeit
gold”, and there is definitely a shitload of it around.
I’ve always liked Idries Shah’s material because he points
this out in a myriad of ways, but while always trying to remind people
of why the counterfeit gold exists.
Now personally I don’t know how to tell the difference, because
quite frankly, everything seems counterfeit. But that is not a
conclusion for me, just a starting point.
Well, I better stop here. I realize I am drifting away from the lucid
dreaming topic, and I’m a little uncomfortable about leaving the
other comments. I hope they don’t come across too abrasively.
It really was a great joy to read your book, and your lucid dreaming
perspective is my favorite, and the easiest for me to relate to. Good
luck to both you and Jay on your future “lucid dreaming”
projects.
Kind regards,
--Jeff
James Souttar
Jim:
>I seem to recall there is a warning, about the innappropriateness, to the
>modern westerner, of El-Arabi's path, in one of the other books too; People
>of The Secret maybe?
Yes, but elsewhere he says 'Sufis of all orders are steeped in the works of Ibn
Al-Arabi'. And there must be some significance to the fact that Shah devotes a
whole section to Ibn Al-Arabi in both 'The Sufis' and 'The Way of the Sufi'.
Nor do I think he would be quoting the statement about lucid dreaming in 'The
Sufis' if he wasn't specifically endorsing it. I also strongly suspect that
Shah encouraged Stephen La Berge - La Berge's close collaboration with Ornstein
is well known, and the ISHK website and www.lucidity.com are both maintained by
Ethan Spielberg, and hosted on the same server.
You and I both encountered Arabi's work in the company of - let's not put too
fine a point on it - a bunch of idiots. And it's not too hard to see Shah's
caveats relating to exactly their kind of presumptious, overly-intellectual and
dogmatic approach. When he describes the prescription of Ibn Al-Arabi's work as
a 'test' (in 'Knowing How To Know'), I understand exactly what he means about
discovering that one 'cannot make real progress with this writer without
guidance and insight', that 'something else is needed first'. But don't
underestimate the guidance and insight reading Shah's work has given us
(whether we recognize it, or not). Indeed, one could turn it around and say
that if - after studying Shah for decades - one was still in a position of
being able to make 'no progress with this writer', what exactly has one
learned?
With the benefit of some familiarity with Shah's work, I now find myself
reading Ibn Al-Arabi quite differently. In addition, I find that having made
the effort to grasp many of the concepts Henri Bortoft introduces in his
exposition of Goethe's science, what previously appeared to be obscure and
recondite ideas in, say, the Fusus Al-Hikam, become much more immediate and
graspable.
As this relates to lucid dreaming, the whole concept of the 'imaginal' is
particularly relevant. It seems fairly clear to me now that many of Shah's
materials are intended to develop the faculty of Imagination, and cultivate
familiarity with the idea that essential 'patterns' manifest in imaginative
forms - stories, metaphors, dreams etc. I also begin to realize that much of
'learning how to learn' is concerned with enlarging our ability to interpret
experience - to interpret beyond the usual confines of everyday conditioning,
to grasp meanings beyond what one has been trained or brought up to see. This
is precisely the faculty that Ibn Al-Arabi calls 'ta'wil', which is intimately
connected with this subject of dreaming. (Shah quotes 'Arabi, again in 'Knowing
How To Know': 'The mind large enough for Truth / Cannot be narrowed to the
world: do you understand, listener?')
A key characteristic of lucid dreams is the ability to free oneself from the
'automaticity' of dreaming, of conditioned responses to dream events over which
one seems to have no control. In part, this is about becoming 'master of the
option' - of developing the capacity to make choices in the face of the dream.
But one can only really do this if one's framework of interpretation is
enlarged (and deepened, so that one can use it even in a dream state). One
needs, for instance, to be able to see the dream monster as a part of the
totality of oneself, and to find more constructive ways of engaging with it
than running away (or, for that matter, acting violently towards it). From this
point of view, lucidity is not a distinct state, but a continuum - of which
achieving a measure of 'conscious' control and choice in dreams is only the
first stage.
La Berge tells a story in one of his books about a Sufi master, 'Hudayi', who
was supreme practitioner of lucid dreaming - and who performed dreaming
exercises with his students. It seems likely that this 'Hudayi' was Aziz Mahmud
Hudayi - one of the foremost exponents and interpreters of Ibn Al-Arabi's work
in Ottoman Turkey.
James
Janice
> >I seem to recall there is a warning, about the innappropriateness, to the
> >modern westerner, of El-Arabi's path, in one of the other books too; People
> >of The Secret maybe?
>
> Yes, but elsewhere he says 'Sufis of all orders are steeped in the works of Ibn
> Al-Arabi'. And there must be some significance to the fact that Shah devotes a
> whole section to Ibn Al-Arabi in both 'The Sufis' and 'The Way of the Sufi'.
> Nor do I think he would be quoting the statement about lucid dreaming in 'The
> Sufis' if he wasn't specifically endorsing it. I also strongly suspect that
> Shah encouraged Stephen La Berge - La Berge's close collaboration with Ornstein
> is well known, and the ISHK website and www.lucidity.com are both maintained by
> Ethan Spielberg, and hosted on the same server.
Further, both www.lucidity.com and www.sufis.org use the same background
graphic. "Ethan Speelberg" is an anagram for "Stephen LaBerge" in case
anyone failed to realize it. :) LaBerge posted under that name at
alt.dreams.lucid many moons ago. You'll also see "SLB" mentioned at the
bottom of the sufis.org pages, which LaBerge sometimes uses to refer to
himself in correspondence.
...
> A key characteristic of lucid dreams is the ability to free oneself from the
> 'automaticity' of dreaming, of conditioned responses to dream events over which
> one seems to have no control. In part, this is about becoming 'master of the
> option' - of developing the capacity to make choices in the face of the dream.
> But one can only really do this if one's framework of interpretation is
> enlarged (and deepened, so that one can use it even in a dream state). One
> needs, for instance, to be able to see the dream monster as a part of the
> totality of oneself, and to find more constructive ways of engaging with it
> than running away (or, for that matter, acting violently towards it).
Some dream enemies respond well to violence. I have known them to become
respectful and friendly in reaction to it. There are many, many other
approaches, though, enough to satisfy most any temperament or philosophy.
> From this
> point of view, lucidity is not a distinct state, but a continuum - of which
> achieving a measure of 'conscious' control and choice in dreams is only the
> first stage.
I agree that lucidity is a continuum, but would point out that control
and lucidity do not always go hand in hand. Some people do better at
controlling their nonlucid dreams than their lucid dreams. Once their
awareness level increases enough for them to realize that they are
dreaming, memories of mundane waking life may surface and conflict with
dream scenarios that had supported the idea of having magical powers.
Janice
> Here is a short passage from the introduction to the Lucid Dreaming
> chapter of “Paths Beyond Ego”. The third strategy reminds
> me of your story:
>
> Evidently yoga and meditation can induce lucid dreaming, and lucid
> dreaming can itself be used as a meditation. Indeed, lucidity seems to
> spontaneously motivate dreamers to do just that. Experienced
> practitioners report that even the thrill of repetitive wish
> fulfillment in dreams eventually fades, leaving dreamers longing for
> something more meaningful and profound than playing out another
> sensual fantasy. These people rediscover the ancient idea that sensory
> pleasures alone can never be enduringly satisfying.
> At this point dreamers may begin to seek transpersonal experiences and
> to use lucid dreaming as a transpersonal technique.
They may. They may also return to real life with renewed zest when lucid
dreaming loses its savor.
Although I disagree with this person's thinking, while we're on the
subject you may find the following essay of interest:
http://kurellian.tripod.com/playg.html
...
Janice
> I’ve read through most of your book, and find much of the
> material familiar, and from a perspective that I largely identify
> with. I realize that your interest is with lucid dreaming, and not
> Sufism, so I’ll try to keep that in mind. I remain mostly an
> anti-spiritual atheistic delinquent, but try not to let my belief
> systems impede my attempts to remember Allah with each inbreath, and
> each outbreath.
:-)
> I’ve played with a good many of the techniques for inducing
> lucidity (including the NovaDreamer), with varying degrees of success.
> But I’ve probably only had a little over 100 (I haven’t
> added them up recently) lucid dreams over the past 5 years, and 2001
> may end up being my driest year since beginning(maybe a dozen)
Did you find the Novadreamer helpful?
> My biggest hurdle is dream recall. I tend to build up a sleep debt
> during the work week and it becomes easy to blow off jotting down a
> few dream notes at 2:00 AM when I know I have to get up in two hours.
> And if I don’t write it down, it’s most likely gone
> (unlike my wife who seems to remember every dream, but she only has
> an occasional lucid dream every month or so).
Does she try to have them, or do they just happen?
...
> I’ll always be indebted to Stephen LaBerge for introducing me to
> “lucid dreaming” from a non Carlos Castaneda perspective.
I will always be indebted to him for publishing a list of names and
addresses of people interested in corresponding about lucid dreams, since
it was through that list that I met some great friends and, indeed, my
husband. (Unfortunately I also met one dangerous nut, but we won't go
into that ... :)
...
> What really “hooked” me with lucid dreaming was after I
> got LaBerge’s “Exploring the World of Lucid
> Dreaming” and began having a good deal of beginners luck (3-7
> LD’s per week). I was just totally fascinated by the fact that
> the “model” of reality that my brain created based on
> sensorial input during the waking state, was the same mechanism that
> presented a “model” of reality without sensorial input
> during a dream. What a trick!
>
> But an even more interesting, but much tougher trick to figure out, is
> the nature of the “self” that experiences those models,
> yet another brain generated illusion.
>
> Being able to lucid dream doesn’t help much with this trick
> unless you have developed some additional skills to go along with it.
> That’s where the “wisdom” traditions (ie Buddhism,
> Sufism) come in.
>
> By the way Janice, I thought that this was somewhat of a weak area in
> your otherwise excellent book. I am speculating that this is a weak
> area because of a lack of long term experience and practice within a
> wisdom tradition (or so it seems to appear). The interpretation range
> of a lucid dream experience, from that of a child, to that of a wise
> “master” is done from very different worldviews that are
> not related to the lucid dreaming skill itself, nor necessarily
> comprehendible “across” worldviews.
It's true that I haven't studied a "wisdom tradition" but let's not
forget that my coauthor (Jay) has. At the time of writing it he was much
more of an enthusiast of Sufi studies than he is today. He would have
liked to have more of that sort of thing in the book, but I overruled him
since I didn't want to turn off the skeptical/scholarly/scientific
audience. Hence we included only a taste that they might find palatable
enough.
> Ken Wilber has an essay called “The Pre-Tran Fallacy”,
> where he complains that very often valid “trans” personal
> experiences are reduced to “pre” personal pathologies,
> but he also argues that “pre” personal pathologies are
> also frequently elevated to “trans” personal experiences.
> I think of the latter as the sufi’s “counterfeit
> gold”, and there is definitely a shitload of it around.
>
> I’ve always liked Idries Shah’s material because he points
> this out in a myriad of ways, but while always trying to remind people
> of why the counterfeit gold exists.
>
> Now personally I don’t know how to tell the difference, because
> quite frankly, everything seems counterfeit. But that is not a
> conclusion for me, just a starting point.
Whether or not it's all counterfeit, the pathological element would seem
to be present regardless, which is a good reason not to embrace
transformative traditions too enthusiastically, particularly without
personal guidance. The shamans, spiritists and mystics I've talked to or
read about usually admit this much.
> Well, I better stop here. I realize I am drifting away from the lucid
> dreaming topic, and I’m a little uncomfortable about leaving the
> other comments. I hope they don’t come across too abrasively.
Not at all!
> It really was a great joy to read your book, and your lucid dreaming
> perspective is my favorite, and the easiest for me to relate to. Good
> luck to both you and Jay on your future “lucid dreaming”
> projects.
Thanks. We do like to be appreciated. :)
Jim Buck
James Souttar wrote:
> You and I both encountered Arabi's work in the company of - let's not put
too
> fine a point on it - a bunch of idiots. And it's not too hard to see
Shah's
> caveats relating to exactly their kind of presumptious,
overly-intellectual and
> dogmatic approach.
You're right! In the same way that the teaching of English Lit, puts many
children off Shakespeare for life, I developed an aversion to Ibn
Al-Arabi's work after having it stuffed down my throat at Swyre Farm.
When he describes the prescription of Ibn Al-Arabi's work as
> a 'test' (in 'Knowing How To Know'), I understand exactly what he means
about
> discovering that one 'cannot make real progress with this writer without
> guidance and insight', that 'something else is needed first'. But don't
> underestimate the guidance and insight reading Shah's work has given us
> (whether we recognize it, or not). Indeed, one could turn it around and
say
> that if - after studying Shah for decades - one was still in a position of
> being able to make 'no progress with this writer', what exactly has one
> learned?
Well, since I've not attempted to 'make progress with this writer' it's
difficult to say what I might have learnt if I had; but if, as you suggest,
Shah was administering this "medication" for years, then perhaps it was not
necessary to the patient's progress (such as it was!) that the "bottle" was
clearly labelled: Ibn Al-Arabi.
> With the benefit of some familiarity with Shah's work, I now find myself
> reading Ibn Al-Arabi quite differently. In addition, I find that having
made
> the effort to grasp many of the concepts Henri Bortoft introduces in his
> exposition of Goethe's science, what previously appeared to be obscure and
> recondite ideas in, say, the Fusus Al-Hikam, become much more immediate
and, graspable.
For me, Bortoft's book clarified the depths of a viewpoint, which I had,
previously, become acquainted with via muddy translations of Derrida, and
Lacan; some bits of the latter writer's theories (the mirror stage; the
Real; the Imaginary) also have interesting resonances with Ibn-Arabi's
writing; but I intend going back to the Fusus--it can hardly be more
recondite than Ecrits!
>
I also begin to realize that much of
> 'learning how to learn' is concerned with enlarging our ability to
interpret
> experience - to interpret beyond the usual confines of everyday
conditioning,
> to grasp meanings beyond what one has been trained or brought up to see.
This
> is precisely the faculty that Ibn Al-Arabi calls 'ta'wil', which is
intimately
> connected with this subject of dreaming.
Hm...actually I do now recall having a sort of lucid dream, in connection
with 'Learning How To Learn': I jumped out of bed, after being "awakened"
by the sound of the postman's feet on the gravel outside; I stepped down
stairs, and into the hall, just in time to see packages, lit up like
rainbows, falling through my letter-box; I picked them off the mat and gazed
in wonderment at the multi-coloured rays emanating from the prosaically,
yellow, jiffy bags. After a moment, or two, I felt a buzzing in my head,
which increased, dramatically--causing me to shut my eyes; I woke up
suddenly in bed--just in time to hear the letter-box clatter; I went
downstairs and there on the mat were two prosaically, yellow jiffy bags,
each containing a book from Octagon: Learning How To Learn, and Sufi
Studies East and West.
It has just occured to me that rainbows are associated with Yusuf, who,
besides having a coat of many colours, is the archetypal interpreter of
dreams.
Question for you, James: If Typhoo put the tea in Britain, who put the suf
in Yusuf?
Regards
Jim Buck
James Souttar
Jim:
> For me, Bortoft's book clarified the depths of a viewpoint, which I had,
> previously, become acquainted with via muddy translations of Derrida, and
> Lacan; some bits of the latter writer's theories (the mirror stage; the
> Real; the Imaginary) also have interesting resonances with Ibn-Arabi's
> writing; but I intend going back to the Fusus--it can hardly be more
> recondite than Ecrits!
FWIW, I found it really interesting revisiting Ibn Al-Arabi after reading
Bortoft - and comparing the experience with my first encounter (now more than
tweny years ago). There are some really valuable concepts that Bortoft
introduces - which are really more experiential than intellectual - that seem
to act as keys to things that seemed impenetrable in Ibn 'Arabi before. Among
them, I'd include the distinction between 'multiplicity in unity' and 'unity in
multiplicity' (which made 'Arabi's discussions of the Names actually quite
straightforward and easy to grasp), knowledge as a higher expression of the
phenomenon and Goethe's idea of the archetype (which opened up the dreaded
ayan-i-thabitah - suddenly they became a dynamic phenomenon like the Urpflanze,
and a long way from the dry abstractions of Beshara study circles). But there's
lots more, too. It makes me realize the glaring indequacies of the intellectual
tools we were expected to use to approach Ibn Al-Arabi all those years ago. But
having read Shah in the meantime makes a huge difference, too - there's no need
to fumble towards an understanding of the Sufis from the basis of a body of
obscure material one is struggling to comprehend.
Anyway, I've not yet found myself becoming a 'person of his time'. I'm sat here
typing comfortable in the knowledge that the camels are all happily hobbled for
the night in their hi-tech stable, and the oil lamps are the latest
environmentally-friendly models... ;-)
> It has just occured to me that rainbows are associated with Yusuf, who,
> besides having a coat of many colours, is the archetypal interpreter of
> dreams.
>
> Question for you, James: If Typhoo put the tea in Britain, who put the suf
> in Yusuf?
Curiously enough, I'd re-read the chapter on Yusuf in the Fusus this very
afternoon.
Whilst it doesn't help me tell you who put the 'suf' in Yusuf (although his
'coat of many colours' is surely the prototype of the patched Khirqa?), it is
all about this matter ot 'interpretation' of dreams. And, indeed, 'Arabi says
some fascinating things there about why everything that appears in this world
or the world of dreams must be of the nature of a symbol - which connects with
Goethe (who wrote in 1818 to Carl Ernst Schubarth that 'everything points to
everything else' and 'everything is a symbol').
James
J. Stull
I'm glad that you did not find my "wisdom tradition" comments
abrasive. I would be interested in reading the material you
overruled Jay on. I know it doesn't take much "line crossing" to
alienate audiences when talking about lucid dreaming.
I'm not familiar with the sufi path from an experiential standpoint,
only from reading authors like Idries Shah (and his brother), Hazrat
Inayat Khan, and Kabir Helminski. Although I am not on a sufi path,
it does seem to have a strong influence, particularly in "The Art of
Being and Becoming". When it comes to lucid dreaming, I have had
much more of an affinity with Buddhism.
I began following a Buddhist path very soon after becoming involved
with lucid dreaming. I was still very much operating in the orange
v-meme scientific worldview, and the Buddhist way kind of lends itself
to that particular mode of thinking. You are offered a set of
instructions for performing an experiment, no "god", no "faith", no
belief systems allowed. You just replicate the experiment and then
either validate (or reject) the results.
You often hear the word "enlightenment" associated with Buddhism, but
my understanding is that the words Buddha, Buddhism, and Buddhist are
all related to "being awake", and the very first experiment you
perform is geared towards showing that in your current mode, you are
not awake and your mind is like that of a monkey.
As someone trying to cultivate lucid dreams, I had become keenly aware
of this situation.
I found that developing present moment awareness using mindfulness
meditation began helping me find lucidity in the waking state
(observing myself dreaming the wake). The feeling is very similar to
that which occurs at that specific moment when you become lucid in a
dream (waking the dream).
For me, lucid dreaming has become a subset of my mindfulness
meditation practice aimed at cultivating present moment awareness.
In an essay called "What is Meditation" Ken Wilber writes:
THERE ARE MANY WAYS to explain meditation, what it is, what it does,
how it works. Meditation, it is said, is a way to evoke the relaxation
response. Meditation, others say, is a way to train and strengthen
awareness; a method for centering and focusing the self; a way to halt
constant verbal thinking and relax the body-mind; a technique for
calming the central nervous system; a way to relieve stress, bolster
self-esteem, reduce anxiety, and alleviate depression.
All of those are true enough; meditation has been clinically
demonstrated to do all of those things. But I would like to emphasize
that meditation itself is, and always has been, a spiritual practice.
******
I always cringe when I read those last three words. That is where my
"accept/reject" mechanism tends to activate.
However, my rational mind looks at all the clinically demonstrated
aspects and says "This sounds good on it's own", sort of like the
benefits of eating smart, and getting daily exercise. To me it sounds
like a "wise" activity. The reasons for not doing it would be very
similar to those reasons for not exercising.
I was lucky to find Jon Kabat-Zinn's "Full Catastrophe Living", and
"Wherever You Go There You Are" which approaches "mindfulness
meditation" in this way, a sort of "medical" approach. I get a lot
less "Dharma and Greg" looks that way.
OK OK … I'll stop… Now about that NovaDreamer…….
I think the NovaDreamer is a great gadget, but certainly no miracle
worker. A donkey wearing a NovaDreamer is still a donkey, as I have
discovered many times with that mask.
How about this donkey story: I was trying to explain lucid dreaming
to someone, specifically explaining how you had to look for cues, but
I was getting very irritated with a person behind this guy turning a
flashlight on and off right in my face, what an asshole!
Variation's of missed "flashing" cues like that dominate my
NovaDreamer experience. That is no fault of the mask, it's REM
detection, and cueing system perform just as advertised.
I only used the mask regularly for a month or two, and my wife less
than that. She could just not sleep very well with it. She is
already such a light sleeper that it is hard for her to get a good
nights sleep and the mask made that even worse. We both gave up
trying to wear it all night, and would only try after the first 1 or 2
sleep cycles.
Now I only use it every once in a while. I think it helps with my
motivation and intention after an LD "dry spell" more than with the
actual REM detection and cues.
In fact sometimes it becomes a nuisance. There have been several
occasions where I had already become lucid and then became aware of
the mask cuing me, especially if it was a WILD sort of LD where I was
lucid right at the beginning of the REM period.
So, I have a lot of mixed feelings about the mask. I would probably
not recommend it to someone who has not had a lucid dream before, it
could be a waste of money and it's not small change, mine was $180 in
1997. Although I know some who regret buying one, I am glad that I
have it.
My wife (Jane) became interested in lucid dreaming after I admitted
what I was doing. I had had a couple of lucid dreams while we lived
in Germany, but never said anything about it to her, it was just too
weird to tell anyone about really, but I did begin doing some
research. That's when I found the term "lucid dream" and LaBerge's
name. After we moved back to the states, I found a copy of "Exploring
the World of Lucid Dreaming" at the library, and my LDing really took
off.
I eventually got over my embarrassment and told Jane. And, about 5
weeks after that, I got an excited call at work. "I did it! And I
FLEW!!!!"
But the lucid dreaming frenzy kind of died off after a few months of
both of us having lots of them. We got lazy. I think I am a little
more motivated than Jane these days, but still there are times when I
get up in the middle of the night doing the "napping" thing, go back
to bed with "the mask", and that sparks an LD for her, but not me. I
just get the feedback that I was cued 13 times. D'oh!
--Jeff
Janice
>
> I'm glad that you did not find my "wisdom tradition" comments
> abrasive. I would be interested in reading the material you
> overruled Jay on. I know it doesn't take much "line crossing" to
> alienate audiences when talking about lucid dreaming.
I don't think any of it exists anymore. It was in the form of
annotations that Jay made to various old drafts of the manuscript in the
(vain) hopes that I would incorporate them into the next revision. But
perhaps you can get him to elaborate on his thoughts on the matter of
what lucid dreaming suggests to him about the nature of awareness.
...
> I began following a Buddhist path very soon after becoming involved
> with lucid dreaming. I was still very much operating in the orange
> v-meme scientific worldview, and the Buddhist way kind of lends itself
> to that particular mode of thinking. You are offered a set of
> instructions for performing an experiment, no "god", no "faith", no
> belief systems allowed. You just replicate the experiment and then
> either validate (or reject) the results.
Yes, that is probably why Jay found certain Tibetan Buddhist ideas about
lucid dreaming appealing. Never could get into their recommended
induction techniques involving tortured postures, though ... :)
> I found that developing present moment awareness using mindfulness
> meditation began helping me find lucidity in the waking state
> (observing myself dreaming the wake). The feeling is very similar to
> that which occurs at that specific moment when you become lucid in a
> dream (waking the dream).
What is the feeling of becoming lucid in a dream like for you? Some
people experience it as nothing less than a revelation, a "Eureka!" kind
of thing. For me, nowadays, there is typically no such mental drama,
just a barely verbalized quick reassessment of my situation.
> For me, lucid dreaming has become a subset of my mindfulness
> meditation practice aimed at cultivating present moment awareness.
>
> In an essay called "What is Meditation" Ken Wilber writes:
>
> THERE ARE MANY WAYS to explain meditation, what it is, what it does,
> how it works. Meditation, it is said, is a way to evoke the relaxation
> response. Meditation, others say, is a way to train and strengthen
> awareness; a method for centering and focusing the self; a way to halt
> constant verbal thinking and relax the body-mind; a technique for
> calming the central nervous system; a way to relieve stress, bolster
> self-esteem, reduce anxiety, and alleviate depression.
>
> All of those are true enough; meditation has been clinically
> demonstrated to do all of those things. But I would like to emphasize
> that meditation itself is, and always has been, a spiritual practice.
The closest thing I do to meditation in waking life is attempt to detach
from situations (often, but not always, stressful ones) and experience my
awareness as separate from anything I am thinking and feeling--to retreat
into the calm center that I know is always there. Since, like many of
the mystically inclined, Jay thinks of awareness as the true essence of
existence, he thinks of that ability of mine as something of a spiritual
exercise. I wouldn't know. :)
...
> I think the NovaDreamer is a great gadget, but certainly no miracle
> worker. A donkey wearing a NovaDreamer is still a donkey, as I have
> discovered many times with that mask.
>
> How about this donkey story: I was trying to explain lucid dreaming
> to someone, specifically explaining how you had to look for cues, but
> I was getting very irritated with a person behind this guy turning a
> flashlight on and off right in my face, what an asshole!
:-)
> Variation's of missed "flashing" cues like that dominate my
> NovaDreamer experience. That is no fault of the mask, it's REM
> detection, and cueing system perform just as advertised.
I've sometimes considered trying one out, not because I want more lucid
dreams by any means, but because I'm curious as to whether my "OBEs"
would register as taking place in REM or not.
> I only used the mask regularly for a month or two, and my wife less
> than that. She could just not sleep very well with it. She is
> already such a light sleeper that it is hard for her to get a good
> nights sleep and the mask made that even worse. We both gave up
> trying to wear it all night, and would only try after the first 1 or 2
> sleep cycles.
I would very likely have the same problem she did, which is a deterrent.
> Now I only use it every once in a while. I think it helps with my
> motivation and intention after an LD "dry spell" more than with the
> actual REM detection and cues.
>
> In fact sometimes it becomes a nuisance. There have been several
> occasions where I had already become lucid and then became aware of
> the mask cuing me, especially if it was a WILD sort of LD where I was
> lucid right at the beginning of the REM period.
Jay's experience with a prototype of the original DreamLight was that it
tended to wake him up whenever he started dreaming.
...
> My wife (Jane) became interested in lucid dreaming after I admitted
> what I was doing. I had had a couple of lucid dreams while we lived
> in Germany, but never said anything about it to her, it was just too
> weird to tell anyone about really, but I did begin doing some
> research. That's when I found the term "lucid dream" and LaBerge's
> name. After we moved back to the states, I found a copy of "Exploring
> the World of Lucid Dreaming" at the library, and my LDing really took
> off.
>
> I eventually got over my embarrassment and told Jane. And, about 5
> weeks after that, I got an excited call at work. "I did it! And I
> FLEW!!!!"
Fun! :)
Oddly, this most generic of lucid dream activities was one I was not
terribly good at even after several years of having lucid dreams almost
daily. But I did finally get the hang of it.
> But the lucid dreaming frenzy kind of died off after a few months of
> both of us having lots of them. We got lazy. I think I am a little
> more motivated than Jane these days, but still there are times when I
> get up in the middle of the night doing the "napping" thing, go back
> to bed with "the mask", and that sparks an LD for her, but not me. I
> just get the feedback that I was cued 13 times. D'oh!
Oh, well, I guess when that happens it's some consolation that at least
your efforts are helpful to someone else! :)
Jay Vogelsong
> I don't think any of it exists anymore. It was in the form of
> annotations that Jay made to various old drafts of the manuscript in the
> (vain) hopes that I would incorporate them into the next revision. But
> perhaps you can get him to elaborate on his thoughts on the matter of
> what lucid dreaming suggests to him about the nature of awareness.
Here are a few points to consider. Every night, when we sleep and dream,
we forget a great deal about who we typically think we are when we are
awake. We lack lucidity for the most part. This means we can literally
lose our self-concepts or even fabricate new ones in dreams.
Since we can't really lose what we essentially are and still be there,
our self-concepts can only be something we have, not something we are.
The only thing I can think of which I can lose and in the process lose
myself as well is my awareness. Therefore not only is awareness the
essential self, but it is not equivalent to the body either, since the
body can be present but the awareness absent.
It is no wonder then that people have used the altered experiences of the
self during dreams as the basis for any number of wild notions concerning
the nature of the self. At a basic level, however, I can say little more
than the above.
jayen466
>myself as well is my awareness. Therefore not only is awareness the
>essential self, but it is not equivalent to the body either, since the
>body can be present but the awareness absent.
That does not necessarily follow; there is also the possibility of
fragmentation. In other words, in each of these states, we are only
aware of a subset of what we are.
Andreas
Jim Buck
>
> Here are a few points to consider. Every night, when we sleep and dream,
> we forget a great deal about who we typically think we are when we are
> awake. We lack lucidity for the most part. This means we can literally
> lose our self-concepts or even fabricate new ones in dreams.
>
Might a useful oppositional term to lucidity be: incoherence? If so, might
not a person who maintains a paranoid delusional system, also be lucid?
And; if that delusional system breaks down at some point, might not the
subsequent loss of lucidity be related to the process of change described in
'The Tale of the Sands'?
Regards
Jim Buck
Jay Vogelsong
> That does not necessarily follow; there is also the possibility of
> fragmentation. In other words, in each of these states, we are only
> aware of a subset of what we are.
It is certainly true that we often have fragmented notions of who we are
when we are dreaming, or even in some waking states including mental
illnesses of various sorts. It is also true that those fragments can
vary without apparent pattern. But this itself also means that no one of
those fragments can be who we are essentially, again on the principle
that we can't lose who we are and still be present.
Did properly I understand what you meant?
Jay Vogelsong
> I'd like to interrogate, a little, this concept "lucidity":
>
> Might a useful oppositional term to lucidity be: incoherence?
I suppose.
> If so, might
> not a person who maintains a paranoid delusional system, also be lucid?
Isn't paranoid delusion incoherent? And if so, wouldn't lucidity mean
flashes of coherence within such paranoid delusion?
> And; if that delusional system breaks down at some point, might not the
> subsequent loss of lucidity be related to the process of change described in
> 'The Tale of the Sands'?
In dreams, we become wrapped up in all sorts of imaginary concerns
because we take what is happening to be real instead of just so
many dreams. We lack lucidity. Similarly in life, because we do not
realize who we are essentially. "The Tale Of The Sands" could certainly
be related to such concepts. We can't maintain who we think we are (the
false concepts), we must trust someone who can show us the way out of our
dilemma (which seems against what we take ourselves to be), and in the
process we learn what we really are.
Our problem is that we, again and again, identify ourselves with outward
circumstances which must always change, thus seeming to negate who we
believe ourselves to be.
jayen466
<nob...@nowhere.org> writes
I think what I was trying to say was that I am operating on the
assumption that any of the states I have experienced up to now,
including the property identifiable with that awareness you referred to
in your earlier post, is only a fragment or facet of what I actually am.
There is also the notion of time, or a time body, that offers a larger
framework for our linear experience of various states and degrees of
awareness or unawareness. While I can't say that I understand these
concepts, I am thinking about them from time to time as another aspect
of what fragmentation might mean, and of how the various pieces of my
experience of life could fit together.
Jim Buck
> Isn't paranoid delusion incoherent? And if so, wouldn't lucidity mean
> flashes of coherence within such paranoid delusion?
In my experience (I work in mental health) coherence is an essential feature
of paranoia; here's a handy example of a lady who believes she has 'the big
picture':
Do you share my view that this woman is batting for the Australian cricket
team?
However, she doesn't, appear to be lacking in lucidity. Her notion that
Prince Charles is the facilitator of an "evil agenda" is supported by a huge
volume of evidence.
What paranoiacs cannot do, with regard to the data they assemble, is adopt
the null-hypothesis; so, I bet that this woman could not go, one week,
without believing that PC is set on world domination. The holes, which I
see, in her evidence simply do not exist for her; the null-hypothesis is
foreclosed.
Such people are trapped inside prisons, not entirely of of their own
building; the only way out would be through: doubt, and incoherence--a move
of position, from the paranoid-schizoid, to the depressive (Klein, 1935;
Shah, 1964; Castaneda, 1971)
> In dreams, we become wrapped up in all sorts of imaginary concerns
> because we take what is happening to be real instead of just so
> many dreams. We lack lucidity. Similarly in life, because we do not
> realize who we are essentially.
Perhaps the null-hypothesis would be the belief that one is "essentially
nothing"; which, I think, is what you were saying in your reply to Andreas:
"It is certainly true that we often have fragmented notions of who we are
when we are dreaming, or even in some waking states including mental
illnesses of various sorts. It is also true that those fragments can
vary without apparent pattern. But this itself also means that no one of
those fragments can be who we are essentially, again on the principle
that we can't lose who we are and still be present." (Vogelsong, 2001)
Regards
Jim Buck
Castaneda, C (1971) A Separate Reality
Klein, M (1935) The Paranoid Schizoid Position
Shah, I (1964) The Sufis
Jay Vogelsong
> I think what I was trying to say was that I am operating on the
> assumption that any of the states I have experienced up to now,
> including the property identifiable with that awareness you referred to
> in your earlier post, is only a fragment or facet of what I actually am.
>
> There is also the notion of time, or a time body, that offers a larger
> framework for our linear experience of various states and degrees of
> awareness or unawareness. While I can't say that I understand these
> concepts, I am thinking about them from time to time as another aspect
> of what fragmentation might mean, and of how the various pieces of my
> experience of life could fit together.
A drop may be a part of a stream over time, but a drop is not itself an
ocean, though it may be made of the same substance.
Jay Vogelsong
> What paranoiacs cannot do, with regard to the data they assemble, is adopt
> the null-hypothesis; so, I bet that this woman could not go, one week,
> without believing that PC is set on world domination. The holes, which I
> see, in her evidence simply do not exist for her; the null-hypothesis is
> foreclosed.
Perhaps you could explain this "null-hypothesis" a bit more clearly. It
sounds like an interesting concept.
> Such people are trapped inside prisons, not entirely of of their own
> building; the only way out would be through: doubt, and incoherence--a move
> of position, from the paranoid-schizoid, to the depressive (Klein, 1935;
> Shah, 1964; Castaneda, 1971)
I am getting a stronger and stronger impression over time that Shah's
writings were all about what one *could* know, which is also a process of
learning what *can't* be known. His weirder stuff could be taken as
intended to instill a healthy sense of doubt about some rather strongly
held, but perhaps limited, notions in our own culture.
> Perhaps the null-hypothesis would be the belief that one is "essentially
> nothing"; which, I think, is what you were saying in your reply to Andreas.
In Islamic terms (or in Shah's terms), our attachment to objects makes us
blind and deaf.
Jim Buck
> Perhaps you could explain this "null-hypothesis" a bit more clearly. It
> sounds like an interesting concept.
It is used by scientists, of all descriptions, when setting up experiments,
to test hypotheses, for statistical significance:
http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html#h0
It can be usefully coopted in daily life; for instance, if I was reading The
Sufis, for the first time, I would adopt a null-hypothesis (H0) along these
lines:
H0: there is no difference between Idries Shah and any other easterner,
peddling mysticism in the west
The alternative hypothesis (H1) might be:
H1: this new teacher is better than the current ones, on average.
The method breaks down here, of course, because there is no known
statistical test to apply. From here on, the tests have to be qualitative
rather than quantitative; these have less rigour, and reliability, than
stats, but have more validity.
My own conclusion, which may differ from yours, or anyone else's, is to
reject H0 in favour of H1.
Actually, looking back, the first time I read The Sufis, I swallowed H1 in
one gulp. It was Shah, himself, who taught me the lineaments of scepticism.
> I am getting a stronger and stronger impression over time that Shah's
> writings were all about what one *could* know, which is also a process of
> learning what *can't* be known. His weirder stuff could be taken as
> intended to instill a healthy sense of doubt about some rather strongly
> held, but perhaps limited, notions in our own culture.
You and I, both appear to be working along similar lines.
> In Islamic terms (or in Shah's terms), our attachment to objects makes us
> blind and deaf.
In Bortoft's terms: our attachment to banal objects makes us blind and deaf
to a deeper significance, in those self-same objects.
Regards
Jim Buck
J. Stull
"retirement in company" (Khalwat dar anjuman) rule.
For the most part I avoid talking about "meditation". I always feel
like I'm getting up on some sort of soapbox. It is something you
either practice or you don't. Just like exercising, or playing a
musical instrument, or learning a language, the real job is practice,
practice, and more practice. And talking "about" practice doesn't cut
it.
So, when it comes to meditation I just offer my "do it for your
health" approach and recommend Jon Kabat-Zinn as the easiest
introduction. He has a great gift for convincing you WHY you should
do it that has nothing at all to do with "spirituality" or "mystical"
things.
But, because I find lucid dreaming becoming more of a subset of my
mindfulness meditation practice, and since you are a skilled lucid
dreamer, I thought I would go ahead and add just a few more of my
"thoughts".
"Cultivating present moment awareness through mindfulness meditation"
has a specific meaning much like the term "lucid dreaming". How often
has a person described a "lucid" dream to you, but you know that they
are using "lucid" more like the word "vivid"? I find the same thing
holds true for "mindfulness meditation" and especially "present moment
awareness".
Many people seem to form conclusions about "mindfulness meditation"
without ever doing the experiment for themselves, or giving up halfway
through, or this, or that, or another thing. That doesn't count.
It's like the churchmen refusing to look through Galileo's telescope,
but still making certain "conclusions".
There is an online version of "Mindfulness in Plain English" which is
pretty good, although not as "generic" as the Jon Kabat-Zinn books (It
is openly Buddhist) here:
http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/G/Gunaratana/MindfulnessIPE/
But I'm not interested in any "book reports".
> What is the feeling of becoming lucid in a dream like for you? Some
> people experience it as nothing less than a revelation, a "Eureka!" kind
> of thing. For me, nowadays, there is typically no such mental drama,
> just a barely verbalized quick reassessment of my situation.
That "Eureka!" feeling was definitely there at the beginning, and was
nothing less than a life changing revelation, it was my mid-life
"transformation". I still get a "lucid dream afterglow" the following
day. I still feel excitement when I become lucid because of a dream
situation (mental drama) that jumps out at me, especially after a dry
spell, and I have had a lot of those recently.
But really I think the way that I would describe the feeling at the
moment of becoming lucid in a dream is that I feel as though I have
succeeded (momentarily) in remembering the "one thing" that one must
never forget.
I also have a special curiosity for "meditative lucidness" (surprise,
surprise) while dreaming which I am still not real certain about (Was
I lucid or not?). There seems to be an awareness of being in the
dream state, but not really "lucidity" in the way we oneironauts use
the term because I never "officially" claim "I'm dreaming". I can
often remember having this awareness, but not recall the details of
the dream itself. Actually, I feel as though one reason I am trying
to improve my lucid dreaming skills is so that I can evaluate this
"meditative lucidity" more effectively.
> I've sometimes considered trying one out, not because I want more lucid
> dreams by any means, but because I'm curious as to whether my "OBEs"
> would register as taking place in REM or not.
I've only had three LD's that seemed like OBE's, however all three
happened while wearing the Novadreamer. Each time I had woken up
during a later sleep cycle, pressed the "test" button on the mask and
luckily began falling back asleep without any "verbal chit chat"
screwing things up. Each time I began feeling a strong vibration of
my entire body, and then felt as though I was being sucked right out
of it. And then, there I was floating above the bed looking down at
myself sleeping.
Then within moments, all three times, I became aware of flashing
lights, and I knew it was the mask cueing me. I remember feeling a
bit confused about "where" I was experiencing the flashes since just
moments prior to that I had left my body laying in bed and was now
floating above it.
Anyway, with your LD skills I suspect you could easily determine if
you are in REM with your "OBE's". The mask will cue you every 5
minutes while you are in REM. However:
> Jay's experience with a prototype of the original DreamLight was that it
> tended to wake him up whenever he started dreaming.
This is always a problem. But, you can adjust the sensitivity of both
the REM detection and the cueing intensity, and number of flashes over
a fairly wide range. I tend to sleep very soundly and usually have to
set the cueing intensity on the highest level. However, then the
problem I have is that if I do become lucid, 5 minutes later that
high intensity and 7-8 flashes is way too much. So I've had a lot of
"5 minute" lucid dreams. On the weekends when I don't have a sleep
debt, and do the "napping" thing I set things much lower, and have had
better success.
Bye for now,
--Jeff
J. Stull
It sure is difficult to discuss "self", "awareness", and things of
that sort since the words are so generic, and mean different things
when looked at from different worldviews. Are you at all familiar
with the works of Ken Wilber? I really like his work because it seems
as though he read "The Blind Men and the Elephant" story, then went
around and became familiar with the parts that each blind man claimed
was the whole elephant, and then presented a map of how he thought the
parts might be arranged. He explains "why" he thinks each part
belongs where it does, and he points out the fallacy of various parts'
claim to be the whole, but champions the view that each part is an
integral and valid part of the whole.
In "Integral Psychology" he has nearly two dozen tables where he
"generally" compares stages of various sciences and "traditions" and
the various lines of social, cognitive, ethical, moral, affective and
spiritual development, and how the "self" experiences these lines, as
well as the various "pathologies" associated at various points on
these lines. Wilber often points out that a person can be highly
developed along one line, like cognitive ability, but be less
developed, even pathological in other lines of development. Adolph
Hitler could have been a skilled lucid dreamer.
On the other hand, development along one line can assist with the
development of other lines, and in some cases research has shown that
development of some lines "requires" having reached a certain level
with a different line of development.
For example to reach certain "ethic" levels (compassion for example),
you must have first developed a certain cognitive ability, that of
taking the perspective of another. In a child between 2-4 that
ability has not developed. If you ask a boy "Do you have a sister?"
and he says "yes", then turn around and ask him "Does your sister have
a brother?", he can't really answer the question because he can't yet
cognitively "take the perspective" of his sister.
But once you do have that cognitive ability it does not mean you
achieve the higher "ethical" level. (Hitler could probably answer the
brother/sister question) but you've met a prerequisite, so now the
"potential" exists.
So it is interesting to look at these various lines of development
through pre-personal, personal, and trans-personal "self" worldviews.
From the "pre-self" worldview of a newborn baby and the gradual
development of various cognitive skills like object permanence, then
on towards language, symbol creation, the development of an "ego" and
then on to a "persona" (and "shadows"), then finally the "possibility"
of moving onwards to the more controversial "trans-self" worldviews
of the "wisdom traditions".
I feel as though it is important to have some sort of general
"elephant" map before considering the "self" in relation to lucid
dreams, since "awareness" is experienced very differently depending on
the worldview one's "self" is operating from.
Anyway Jay, I think I understand which parts of the elephant you are
describing. The whole idea of the "self" is a fascinating topic, and
it seems to me the study of "it" is the primary focus of all wisdom
traditions, but of course just studying a "map" won't get you very
far, you need to do the lab work as well. I think lucid dreaming
skills can really come in handy for doing some of the lab work.
However, lucid dreaming is probably more useful with some "self"
worldviews than with others. I have some "reservations" with the way
you and Janice seemed to present the "self" in your book. Which is
why I was curious what sort of material was "overruled". I understood
how "trans-self" material might be a little off-putting to some, but
there is a great deal of modern research on "the evolving self" from
birth up to ….. (well, you pick "where" you think the "self"
stops evolving) that was not considered in your book.
Oh well, I've really drifted all over the place, and "generalized" to
such a degree that I'm not sure how it will "come across", so let me
pause here…
Kind regards,
--Jeff
jayen466
<nob...@nowhere.org> writes
>A drop may be a part of a stream over time, but a drop is not itself an
>ocean, though it may be made of the same substance.
Indeed.
There is a paradox here somewhere.
Kabir is said to have likened his experience of awakening to a drop
entering the ocean. Later on, he asked his son to change the verse - he
said, he was a little muddled and overwhelmed by the experience at
first; in fact, he stated, it was the ocean that had entered the drop.
jayen466
<jf....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>Perhaps the null-hypothesis would be the belief that one is "essentially
>nothing"; which, I think, is what you were saying in your reply to
>Andreas:
>
>"It is certainly true that we often have fragmented notions of who we
>are when we are dreaming, or even in some waking states including mental
>illnesses of various sorts. It is also true that those fragments can
>vary without apparent pattern. But this itself also means that no one
>of those fragments can be who we are essentially, again on the principle
>that we can't lose who we are and still be present." (Vogelsong, 2001)
I find that part of the work seems to consist in becoming aware of
underlying constants present in several of such fragmented states -
'somethings' that have a sense of identity vested in them, and seem to
form the linchpins around which the various and disparate fragments
revolve.
Once these constants come into focus, they dissolve.
michel poisson
> Once these constants come into focus, they dissolve.
The constants appear as rocks in the high tide's waves, as disparate
and constantly reappearing boulders. The discontinuity is one of time
where awareness moves from one focus to another; as Gurdjieff
demonstrated, the problem with observing one's own awareness is
sustaining the observation for any significant lenght of time and
still operate in the reality of life...
M.