Thread: 'I am' type of collapsable dreamworld - Tibetan book of dead

Welcome. I know exactly what you mean. This is happening because there can be only one.

You are born with a primary awereness loop: it just watches the world from the input of the senses. The end game of a mantra is to establish a secondary loop in the circuitry of the brain. Once you can loop the mantra in the background while doing any task, which you seem to have mastered, you need to train that circuit on your Self. You need to move your sense of Self and watching the world to that new loop and watch your old loop, or Self, instead.

I can sometimes watch myself type and talk and sweep the floors. At such times I am not actually typing or talking or sweeping, but just watching myself do those things. These spurts of lucidity don't last very long, but those that have gone before us have been able to extend these moments longer and longer, until they are "permanently" in that second awreness loop and always watching themselves watch the world. This is what I believe enlightenment to be. But it does not last forever and even the Buddha slept.

You may also want to learn to control your breath (Latin: spiro - inspire / expire). The trick is to breathe so softly that a feather under your nose will not move. The little Aramaic that I know is that with spirit they actually meant breath... holy breath. Then meditate on this:

Originally Posted by Ken Wilber

As you look deeply into your own awareness, and relax the self-contraction, and dissolve into the empty ground of your own primordial experience, the simple feeling of Being - right now, right here - is it not obvious all at once? Were you not present from the start? Did you not have a hand to play in all that was to follow? Did not the dream itself begin when you got bored with being God? Was it not fun to get lost in the productions of your own wondrous imagination, and pretend it all was other? Did you not write this [text], and countless others like it, simply to remind you who you are?

And the reason for all this is to lower entropy or increase order. So all that is left to do as you become more aware is to increase the order of everything around you, and inside you. See others as parts of your Self that are not aware enough of this and are thus suffering. And by simply raising their awareness, and being as aware as you can of them, you can lessen their - and, ultimately, your suffering.

What? I don't get how repeating "I am" in a dream messed you up? I don't really understand what your talking about. I might just be being ignorant as ****, but can someone please elaborate?

Aum is the frequency you're tuning in to with that - it encompasses creation, maintenance, and destruction, all in one sound. When you get to this state once more, try dissolving everything into a clear light and see what happens.

Guys, thanks.

Regarding primary/secondary loop - i really fancy your interpretation. In fact I know very well what you are speaking of IAmCOder, but I used different interpretations for this. With the purpose of helping others google phenomenon, some of other names mention for this are : egolessness, Being (ekhart tolle), dissociation/depersonalisation (psychological term)...

YOu know, I have a friend, he is very respected psychotherapist. He always says : out of two mode of consciousness : controlling (volition) + perceiving [aka active consciousness] and just perceiving [passive] always choose to practice on passive. In that manner what you call secondary loop is very wanted in spiritual sense : metaconsciousnes (consciousness of conscious process itself - highly spiritually repaying practice). Another mode of interpretation would be that subject (I) of the experience, just became object of new metaexperience (I perceive myself doing...).

In fact, it gets easier with exercise. Thank you for reminding me of this. I practiced for few days and it gets much more easy to get there.

And you have point in second paragraph. I can interpret that as some ego-defense > whether denial or repression. Whatever was repressed/denied is about to come back to chase you. SO I have to accept them as part of myself. If I dissociate intentionally, they will come to haunt me

For the second poster (sorry man I forgot the nick - power of "I am" is tremendous. In previous paragraphs you have some arguments for it. One way to look at that is that your psyche is composed of meaning - words being bearers of meaning itself. Change meaning - change yourself. By identifying with only your dreambody - you repress whole dreamworld. Fritz Perls and other Gestalt therapist would say that you cannot repress anything - it will boomerang back. "I am" is totally opposite of accepting - and accepting is only sane thing I know. Much more hardcore philosophers would say that never ever there is "I". I even remember Buddha saying : "why fear death - when there is really no one there to die?"

And for third reply - thanks man. Surely I will try to dissolve everything next time. I supposed that it must go somewhere from there - that's why I posed question in the first place.

Cvelee

I don't understand why one would want to encourage the emphasis of a sort of 'ego-centric' individuality through "I am"....I always thought spiritual practice advocated something quite diametrically opposite.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I don't understand why one would want to encourage the emphasis of a sort of 'ego-centric' individuality through "I am"....I always thought spiritual practice advocated something quite diametrically opposite.

Hmm... you may be thinking of this a bit too linearly. There's more than one definition of "I Am". Perhaps another way of thinking is that there's the ego-centric "I Am", I am a man, I am a cat, I am happy.... Then there's the "I Am" that implies connectivity. "I Am"....


It's like saying "It matters not that I am a man... or that I am happy... Or that I'm a cat. I simply... Am." This implies connection with other beings as you realize that They Are and I Am are the same concept. or at least similar in our perceptions.



As for the poster, I'd like to offer another theory, though I Am Coder's is pretty good. Perhaps your internalization of the secondary meaning of I Am is forcing your subconscious to manifest your intentions? To say that I Am implies that you are one with all. So all tried to become one with you. Like you were incomplete, and you were trying to complete yourself. Did that make sense?

Indeed, "I am" can be construed to show connectivity in some manner; however, 'I' inevitably implies a deep individuality, a self, a separation between subject and object. There is no 'I' in that which encompasses all. Try to communicate a sentence with the use of "I" that does not refer to an individual being.

Irrespective of whether you can probe for some alternative meaning or not, we're essentially referring to the subconscious. Therefore, the most popular connotation or meaning will be most effectual in that respect. Whatever is immediately evoked by the utterances of particular words is what one must pay his attention to.

If you kept uttering 'death, death, death' in your dreams, what do you believe the outcome will be? A vibrant landscape, full of joyous people philosophically pondering over death? I doubt it. Even if you could reason that 'death' means more than it's immediate meaning, that is irrelevant to the subconscious: It is feeling, will, direct thought, over analytical reasoning.

I apologise in advance if I seem a bit 'hostile'. I don't mean to be.

Originally Posted by Darkborne

As for the poster, I'd like to offer another theory, though I Am Coder's is pretty good. Perhaps your internalization of the secondary meaning of I Am is forcing your subconscious to manifest your intentions?

I thought about this. "I" should be relative, subject dependant. Hence, by changing my expectation I could change results. It might be that I didn't try to change expectation (honestly, I don't remember), although if I did, usually in my dreams I do it very skillfuly - results always ensue (speaking of dreampeople - kind of jedi mind tricks).

Originally Posted by Darkborne

To say that I Am implies that you are one with all. So all tried to become one with you. Like you were incomplete, and you were trying to complete yourself. Did that make sense?

This is great. This crossed my mind for a moment, but neither did I catch it, nor verbalised it so good. Thanx. It makes so much sense!!

Regarding the last poster, that default meaning of "I" might be embeded way too deep in subconsciouss (by some evolutionary mechanism like inherited collective subconsciousness) that it is extremely hard to change.

Therefore, really I am not sure what is the truth. I will have to experiment some more to be sure. Last night I have tried, not in sleep but being awake. I found my courage and did it for the first time since 2005, cause I am not afraid of panic attacks anymore (no meta emotions for me. I suppose I saw it all - so no need to worry). And IRL I can say that "I" is probably dependant on what you focus on - if you expect that I is unity with everything (oneness mode) - unity will ensue. If you expect that "I" is something inside your ego concept / ego boundary, disconnection (dissociation, depersonalisation, derealiyation) will ensue.

The fact that I have experienced myriads of panic attacks in that 2005, I can attribute to experience of depersonalisation and derealisation that were totally novel and frightening to me. For a whole year I was researching that phenomenons, whether in psychiatry or painting for example, and when got to know them, and most importantly accept them - they finally dissolved.

Cvelee

Thank You Cvelee

Very brave of you to talk about this. It is the biggest Pandora's box.

Again, Thank "U"

Originally Posted by cvelee

I thought about this. "I" should be relative, subject dependant. Hence, by changing my expectation I could change results. It might be that I didn't try to change expectation (honestly, I don't remember), although if I did, usually in my dreams I do it very skillfuly - results always ensue (speaking of dreampeople - kind of jedi mind tricks).




This is great. This crossed my mind for a moment, but neither did I catch it, nor verbalised it so good. Thanx. It makes so much sense!!

Regarding the last poster, that default meaning of "I" might be embeded way too deep in subconsciouss (by some evolutionary mechanism like inherited collective subconsciousness) that it is extremely hard to change.

Therefore, really I am not sure what is the truth. I will have to experiment some more to be sure. Last night I have tried, not in sleep but being awake. I found my courage and did it for the first time since 2005, cause I am not afraid of panic attacks anymore (no meta emotions for me. I suppose I saw it all - so no need to worry). And IRL I can say that "I" is probably dependant on what you focus on - if you expect that I is unity with everything (oneness mode) - unity will ensue. If you expect that "I" is something inside your ego concept / ego boundary, disconnection (dissociation, depersonalisation, derealiyation) will ensue.

The fact that I have experienced myriads of panic attacks in that 2005, I can attribute to experience of depersonalisation and derealisation that were totally novel and frightening to me. For a whole year I was researching that phenomenons, whether in psychiatry or painting for example, and when got to know them, and most importantly accept them - they finally dissolved.

Cvelee

Oh I see, you do not wish for depersonalisation. Fair enough then.

If you were attempting denationalisation then it'd be far easier not attempting to change the meaning of "I" for the reasons you said. It'd make sense to choose a different reference point that's more conducive or pliable to non-individuality etc.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Oh I see, you do not wish for depersonalisation. Fair enough then.

If you were attempting denationalisation then it'd be far easier not attempting to change the meaning of "I" for the reasons you said. It'd make sense to choose a different reference point that's more conducive or pliable to non-individuality etc.

Well that's not to say your view isn't significant though. It seems to me depersonalization and what the poster is trying to accomplish walk hand in hand with each other: not quite the same concept, but necessary for each other for us to comprehend what we mean.

It makes sense to me that the mantra would do something like that. And I think its a good illustration of why mantras relating to identity or any other spiritual teachings aren't necessarily beneficial just because they've been around for a few thousand years. All the history means is that they've attracted new students faster than they've killed them off.