Thread: Dreams of Transcendence

Unfortunately, I haven't had one yet =/

I believe I've had a taste of one before, in which I was in a state of what can only be described as heightened emotion when I traveled into a bright light; however, I think that was just a small fragment of what a full blown transcendental dream is.
I don't completely understand what a transcendental dream truly is, or how to induce it though.

I tried this a few nights ago in a lucid. I'd like to try it again.

Transcend - Dream Journals - Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Unfortunately, I haven't had one yet =/

I believe I've had a taste of one before, in which I was in a state of what can only be described as heightened emotion when I traveled into a bright light; however, I think that was just a small fragment of what a full blown transcendental dream is.
I don't completely understand what a transcendental dream truly is, or how to induce it though.

I think one of the reasons I finally started this thread is because I don't understand what a transcendental dream truly is, if they exist at all, or if they can be properly described if they do (more on that later), and want to learn more from experienced LD'ers. So don't be concerned if you don't know what they are... could be none of us do! However, it sounds to me like you had a fragment of something, and who knows? You might have had a full-blown transcendental experience, but you simply cannot remember it (more on that later, too...I want to see if more people post before I offer "explanations" that might deflect discovery).

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Queen Zukin

I tried this a few nights ago in a lucid. I'd like to try it again.

Transcend - Dream Journals - Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views

Thanks for sharing, Queen Zukin; you definitely had an amazing experience! And for what it's worth, a transcendental by definition cannot be described, so I can understand why you felt like your description didn't do it any justice.

I do have one very odd question, though: as you were flying at warp speed, did it feel like you were flying, or something else?

I'm glad you posted this topic, Sageous. Although epic adventures and dream powers are all good fun, transcendental experiences and pushing the boundaries of my consciousness are really what I'm after in LD's.

Here's a dream I had about a month ago.

I am semi-lucid in a "dreamer's school". There are others at the school that resemble humans, but with blue skin (which I now believe to be Dakinis). The teacher is on old man with leathery, brown skin. He has a strange hat made of brass wires that sits on top of the head and wraps under the chin. He says this hat will teach me Tibetan Dream Yoga and places it on my head. As soon as the hat is put on my head, I slowly begin to rotate around. My head feels heavy and begins to fall backwards. A bright, white light begins emanating from my third eye. The dream surrounding me becomes engulfed by the light. My body begins to dissolve like a wind blowing away a sculpture of dust. I feel my body slowly dissolving. For the remainder of the dream I exist in this pure, white light with no self, no thoughts, no dreamscape. I am just pure consciousness in a white void. I am the white void.

What is amazing about this dream is that I experienced it before knowing anything about Dream Yoga. Soon after this, I read The Tibetan Yogas of Sleep and Dream. The light coming from my third eye, my body dissolving, and existing in pure white light are all practices of Tibetan Dream Yoga. And, although I know that I existed in/as the white void for the remainder of the dream, I can't begin to even describe what it looked or felt like. Other dreams where I was without a body, I usually still have a vague sense of being a ball of energy. This dream was...beyond anything else I've ever experienced.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Thanks for sharing, Queen Zukin; you definitely had an amazing experience! And for what it's worth, a transcendental by definition cannot be described, so I can understand why you felt like your description didn't do it any justice.

I do have one very odd question, though: as you were flying at warp speed, did it feel like you were flying, or something else?

It felt as if I was being flown. As if something had taken a hold of my body/consciousness and was causing me to fly and I didn't have any control over it but yet at the same time I had all control.

FYI, over at dreammoods under the 'mystic dreams' forum, people often post epic or transcendent dreams. I've found some of those to be worthwhile to read. Nobody at that site is interested in lucid dreaming, but some of the dreams are pretty interesting for psychological content. There's a poster called Athanor who is pretty good at commentary, in my opinion. No useful debate there though.

In my observation, as I have suggested elsewhere, most if not all of the idea content in a transcendent dream echos other people's religious ideas and experiences. Its generally not transcendent in the sense of taking us out of our human thought world. As an example to illustrate what I mean, this weekend my sister was telling me about alternative imaginative worlds which closely follow the Theosophical cycles of ages. The telepathetic element of the experience, that she's never read about any of that stuff, does not validate the intuitions as true. But I guess we've got to start with something.

I've told you some of my 'transcendent' dreams already, and don't recall which ones I may not have mentioned. With retrospect, a lot of the content was lifted from my own future. For instance, I posted a sort of grid a few months ago that represented the relationship between past lives. Then I saw a fractal image a few weeks ago that captured the same essential pattern but better.

If you want me to retell any dreams or want more details, let me know.

I guess a transcendent dream is any one takes you outside of the limitations of your previous experience. If you've never experienced compassion, then you feel that in a dream, that would be transcendent. Most people qualify that by requiring the transcendent experience to be in a direction that seems 'good', but I guess a person could quibble about that.

A couple of years ago I might have considered dream premonitions to be transcendent, since they're outside of what is scientifically accepted as real. And by demonstrating that there is much more to life than we understand, they suggest the possibility of positive changes which otherwise would appear impossible. Now I don't consider premonitions to be transcendent, since I already possess that hope, and I see no reason to define my world in terms of what a bunch of self-interested pedantic cynics believe. I desire a better moral vision though, something that takes me outside of our world and suggests something radically better that we could aspire to. That is the kind of transcendent experience I would like to have now.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

In my observation, as I have suggested elsewhere, most if not all of the idea content in a transcendent dream echos other people's religious ideas and experiences. Its generally not transcendent in the sense of taking us out of our human thought world. As an example to illustrate what I mean, this weekend my sister was telling me about alternative imaginative worlds which closely follow the Theosophical cycles of ages. The telepathetic element of the experience, that she's never read about any of that stuff, does not validate the intuitions as true. But I guess we've got to start with something.

Instead of echoing, could people simply be attaching the best symbols or metaphors they can think of to explain an experience that defies explanation? Hell, the entire theosophic lexicon, for instance, could well be based on one person's transcendental experience a century ago, and it was the best he could assemble to explain what happened. I wonder if a lot of religious material is invented (or called upon) when someone needs to explain what just happened to her, or to at least attach some palatable definition quickly before the memory fades. Your sister's intuition may simply echo the Theosophy because her experience was similar to the first theosophist's experience.

If you want me to retell any dreams or want more details, let me know.

Sure, post what you think fits here; I may already know you have an excellent handle on this subject, but others may not!

Sageous,

I shouldn't have used the word 'echo' as if implying that other people's previous religious thoughts are more real than my subsequent dream experiences. They're probably on about the same level. And its certainly true that they are related to deeper forms of information that we have trouble doing anything else with. And of course those deeper experiences could be 'true' in some sense. My points were that our interpretations seem to mostly be limited to the same collection of existing interpretations, whether we have read about them or not, and that while the fact that different people have the same experiences may be reflective of a deeper truth, it can as easily be that they've tapped into the same delusion. Examples of this would be experiences that depend on the earth being hollow, or ending on December 21 of this year. Granted that those images may be connected to deeper truths, they are cast into forms that are objectively not true.

More in a few minutes.

Here's a dream I don't recall having mentioned....

I'm a duck, migrating through seasons in a large circular cycle. There are other ducks migrating with me, sharing the same place in the cycle. These ducks were born when I was, but because of a time warp we haven't gone around the circle the same number of times, even though we're together on the same part of it now. So although they are in sync with me, and are kin to me, there is also an unseen difference, and a chasm between us. I ask "why?", and a voice says "to teach you not to hate".

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

I guess a transcendent dream is any one takes you outside of the limitations of your previous experience. If you've never experienced compassion, then you feel that in a dream, that would be transcendent. Most people qualify that by requiring the transcendent experience to be in a direction that seems 'good', but I guess a person could quibble about that.

Would a transcendent dream be one that takes you beyond personal experience, or should it range beyond human experience, period?

Yes, you might dream of an emotion, like compassion, that you never had before, but somebody did -- a metaphor for that emotion is stored in everyone's genetic memory (especially a primal one like compassion), so once you experience it you will find a way to define it, add it to your understanding of reality, or even, perhaps, remember the nature of the emotion/experience.

What about the stuff like Queen Zukin's adventure, or Hermine_Hesse's light? Yes, Hermine for instance discovered later that the dream yogis experienced -- and tried to define -- something similar, but even they in all their wisdom tend to say, "You had to be there."

I guess what I'm suggesting here is that LD's might be exposing us to an opportunity to experience "something more," so much so that that "something" is a thing very few, if any, humans have experienced before, something about which no interpretation exists. Of course this leads to an almost impossible situation where you can't retain the experice because there is no existing reference that your mind can "attach" to make it real. And yeah, it might also have a tendency to lead to the invention of religions.

This might explain that consistent "I know there was so much more, but I just can't describe it" theme that underlies memories of these dreams. it also might hint at something else: what if people are having these dreams all the time, and we are simply not equipped to remember them? And what if -- here's the part I like -- what if advanced LD'ing is the first tool of consciousness that might help us "bring back" these experiences?

Perhaps this is why people tend to find these events positive in nature!

Sageous,

Obviously, its difficult to judge when a dream takes us beyond human experience, since we don't know everything about what other people experience. I'm not inclined to disqualify other people's transcendent experiences on the grounds that I've had the same kind of experiences. But I agree that experience that's beyond human experience is what we're after, and that's why we're here.

In his derivation of the London's or Van der Waals force for bulk materials, Casimir added up all the energy from standing light waves that could exist, even though most of them don't. Then he moved the materials an infinitesimal amount and added up all the resonant photons that could exist in that context. Then he approximated the infinite sums with integrals, subtracted them, dividing by the infinitesimal perturbation, did a 'renormalization' to get a finite result, and the result was the force between the two materials. (That's from memory, I don't think the paper exists on the web except behind paywall.) His method sort of reminds me of what you're saying about experience. Its as if we're constantly impinged upon by all information, and somehow who we are filters out a vanishingly small portion of it for our experience. Like I said I'm trying to understand the process better with the aim of getting something that's more strongly outside of existing human experience.

On the other site, someone posted a dream about water being poured on a bear's head. The bear's eyes turn red, and he sees a grey wolf. To my mind, this is much the same as the 'red cloud' metaphor, in a slightly different form. Someone posted a response that the bear is mostly incidental, and to pay attention to the wolf. Applied to my version of it, that would mean to stop trying to understand the nature of intuition and just go directly for the transcendent result. Whether that's good advice or not I don't know.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

On the other site, someone posted a dream about water being poured on a bear's head. The bear's eyes turn red, and he sees a grey wolf. To my mind, this is much the same as the 'red cloud' metaphor, in a slightly different form. Someone posted a response that the bear is mostly incidental, and to pay attention to the wolf. Applied to my version of it, that would mean to stop trying to understand the nature of intuition and just go directly for the transcendent result. Whether that's good advice or not I don't know.

...Probably good advice, I'd say; especially in the context of this thread. Except:

Given that the dream was not lucid, you weren't present to absorb the transcendent result, and are left to interpret the possibly incorrect info your mind provided in the form of memories based upon existing metaphor. So in a sense you might have had a completely transcendental experience, but the best your mind could provide for consideration after waking was the red cloud or a wet bear. It almost implied that for NLD's you might be obliged leaning toward intuition. Who knows? Intuition, dream-wise, might be the result of your dreaming mind's attempt to interpret a transcendent NLD!

Originally Posted by Queen Zukin

It felt as if I was being flown. As if something had taken a hold of my body/consciousness and was causing me to fly and I didn't have any control over it but yet at the same time I had all control.

Fascinating! Thanks!

As I've mentioned before, to varying degrees all of my dreams are lucid in the sense that I'm actively thinking and consciously present such as to think about the reality behind the images. Very few of my dreams are lucid in the sense that I'm projecting an experience of being in a body, seeing through that body's eyes, and actively manipulating the environment. For me, those kinds of dreams are typically less lucid in a 'transcendent' sense, since I would be putting more effort into the movie aspect of the dream. If the bear's head were one of my dreams, you wouldn't be able to judge the degree of lucidity from the image. I might also have a greater degree of lucid depth while remembering the dream than while having it. For example, an experience I described of looking at an island in a river was more lucid later while thinking about it than while actually doing it, and I got more of the deep content while reviewing the memory. That memory wasn't from a dream, but the same dynamic applies in either case. Probably the most lucid transcendent experience I've had was while awake, a being-conscious(ness)-bliss sort of thing. It lasted about an hour. I didn't do any particular meditation to bring it on, I was thinking in that direction and it happened, as if the experience was created around me from something greater than myself. I haven't had that particular experience since, though it has remained with me in a much weaker form. Also, just like what I've said about out-of-body experiences (I hate acronyms), I've had other analogous experiences that emphasized other areas of awareness.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

As I've mentioned before, to varying degrees all of my dreams are lucid in the sense that I'm actively thinking and consciously present such as to think about the reality behind the images.

Yes, but keep in mind that is a rare condition, and may not speak to common experience -- I believe that most dreamers, when dreaming non-lucidly, are unable to think about the reality behind an image, because their reduced memory "confirms" for them that everything in the dream is real. Most people establish the nature of their dreams after they wake up, and I was using commonality as the norm... there are always exceptions to the rule.

Very few of my dreams are lucid in the sense that I'm projecting an experience of being in a body, seeing through that body's eyes, and actively manipulating the environment. For me, those kinds of dreams are typically less lucid in a 'transcendent' sense, since I would be putting more effort into the movie aspect of the dream.

Curious view of lucidity, I think. I personally never have a dream body during mid-level to full-on LD's; as a matter of fact, if I'm "projecting an experience of being in a body, seeing through that body's eyes," I know I'm not fully aware yet. Lucidity is not about that -- or necessarily even about manipulating the dream environment, especially in the context of this thread. So, I think that the experience you are having (no dream body; putting effort into the movie aspect) is likely more lucid than not, and certainly more conducive to witnessing transcendent moments -- is that what you meant?

If the bear's head were one of my dreams, you wouldn't be able to judge the degree of lucidity from the image. I might also have a greater degree of lucid depth while remembering the dream than while having it. For example, an experience I described of looking at an island in a river was more lucid later while thinking about it than while actually doing it, and I got more of the deep content while reviewing the memory. That memory wasn't from a dream, but the same dynamic applies in either case.

But does it? If you are experiencing an event that has no human reference for understanding, wouldn't the experience itself be much different -- much more pure -- than a later interpretation of it, specifically because you were able, after the fact, to find or invent a metaphor that "explains" what happened, and disregard anything that still doesn't make sense? It may have become more lucid later, but the awareness you attach later runs the risk of affectation -- you might "intuit" things that were not part of the event, simply because they make the event work better for you that way. And how you make that intuition is based not on the "transcendent" moment, but on similar moments experienced by you and anyone else your memory can tap. I think this happens a lot in regular dream recall, by the way.

Probably the most lucid transcendent experience I've had was while awake, a being-conscious(ness)-bliss sort of thing. It lasted about an hour. I didn't do any particular meditation to bring it on, I was thinking in that direction and it happened, as if the experience was created around me from something greater than myself. I haven't had that particular experience since, though it has remained with me in a much weaker form. Also, just like what I've said about out-of-body experiences (I hate acronyms), I've had other analogous experiences that emphasized other areas of awareness.

That is of course a wonderful thing, and sure, transcendental experiences are not confined to dreams. What I am saying here is that the condition of awareness necessary for LD'ing might be just the tool to finally witness and appreciate transcendental events -- any time they occur: that condition of awareness can certainly, ought to, be enjoyed during waking life. It's not the dream that's novel here, it's the state of mind.

^^ And, what I'm suggesting, here on this thread,is that there is a chance that transcendent experiences occur often in dreams, and our LD'ing skills might be the first tools available to properly recognize these events and bring them home to waking life...

Feel free Sageous to have a look at my journal at:
http://www.dreamviews.com/blogs/robstar/

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ And, what I'm suggesting, here on this thread,is that there is a chance that transcendent experiences occur often in dreams, and our LD'ing skills might be the first tools available to properly recognize these events and bring them home to waking life...

I think, not only in LD. Perhaps in the whole genre. Whether it be in meditation, relaxation, SP, Hypnagogic imagery. Vivid (remembered) dreams and reverie.

Accurate recording of your dreams and experiences would help the person identify anything that might be significant.

Originally Posted by RobStar

I think, not only in LD. Perhaps in the whole genre. Whether it be in meditation, relaxation, SP, Hypnagogic imagery. Vivid (remembered) dreams and reverie.

Perhaps. But I think the only thing you listed that might truly allow transcendent experiences to be seen "first hand" is meditation -- or at least those specific forms of it in which you clear your mind of everything and simply wait, awareness at the ready. Though those vivid dreams might have been transcendent in nature, I think the act of recalling them might convert them into something else. And it's only my opinion, but SP, hypnagogia, and generally relaxations are not conditions where high-end adventures in consciousness occur, they're just symptoms of our conscious efforts to LD -- not a popular opinion here, but it is what I think.

Accurate recording of your dreams and experiences would help the person identify anything that might be significant.

Or not. The trouble with recording your dreams (which is an important thing to do anyway, on its own) is that you are remembering; your mind is relaying what happened to you in the dream, using available metaphor to make the memory "mean something." Normally this is fine, but it becomes a problem with transcendental experiences because the they are beyond anything your (or any human) mind has seen or done before, so there are no valid metaphors or symbols to attach to a memory to properly record it. So, by definition, what you remember might have nothing to do with what really happened. In fact, if something truly significant (and vivid) happened in a non-lucid, you stand an excellent chance of your memory leaving out whole chunks of the dream, and "misinterpreting" those bits that manage to get recorded.

Now to clarify: a dream of transcendence is a dream where your waking consciousness is taken to places that lie beyond current human comprehension.

I hope all that made sense. Let me know if it did not!

Sageous,

For me, as far as I'm aware, the primary differences between being 'asleep' and 'awake' are 1) When I'm asleep, the part of my brain that relays sense information to my picture and sound imagination is not doing that, and 2) In varying degrees, other parts of my brain are also not participating in conscious activities. The first difference is what makes movie-like creative lucid dreaming possible, because my "mind's eye" can then use the whole visual field and much of its associated processing. The second one is what makes me less lucid than I am when I'm awake, though the selectiveness of the impairment can have some utility.

If the goal is to not get distracted by the metaphors, and to pay attention to what transcends that, then having a more powerful mind's eye becomes largely irrelevant. And the other associated mental impairment is helpful only insofar as being less lucid helps direct my attention on the area of interest. But its decidedly unhelpful in the general sense that I'm less lucid. Presumably, you find these factors more helpful than less helpful, or you wouldn't have started the discussion. But by deemphasizing the creative picture/sound aspect of lucid dreaming, you are nevertheless taking away the main area where most people find themselves more capable while asleep. Not that this invalidates your perspective.

A second point, that goes along with the first one, is that having a transcendent experience may be of little value unless you can extract something from it that alters your physical reality. And that's the point of the metaphors, to draw something from it that we can use, which changes our thoughts about things, altering the structure of our minds. Otherwise, as you point out, we could be having these transcendent experiences all day long and not even know it. Actually I'm nearly certain that we are. So it seems like you're trying to make the experience more concrete, so that you can 'retain' something of it, and also less concrete, so that you don't destroy its essence. I'm not saying that's impossible, I'm just pointing out the tension between those two goals. To not lose the essence of the experience by trying to 'remember' it, you have to go there with your mind in the present. And that means doing it while awake, if you're awake at the present moment. To leverage the dream experience while doing that, it seems to me that you are using the 'memory' and 'thought' context that surrounds it to point you in the right direction.

Continuing further with an earlier line of thought....When thinking about something, in general we are manipulating a simplified representation of it, with the brain being a sort of a miniature stand-in for our surroundings that we can carry around and do experiments with. I'm thinking that the transcendent experience that we seek is not like this, that its direct. In other words, a transcendent entity thinks about a subject by manipulating it directly, not by manipulating an image of it. The entity also manipulates 'thoughts', because our brains are a part of the reality that it manipulates, but is not limited to that. I think this is why we can be aware of other people's thoughts even though there seems to be no way to reconstruct these from any conventional 'signal'. And it is part of why a 'muse' may prefer to speak in symbolic events and existing thoughts rather than creating new ones. Those are already the muse's thoughts. I don't see how the muse can be decoupled from its mind. So it seems to me that translating the transcendent experience into something physically meaningful is an essential part of what we're after, if not the whole essence of it.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Or not. The trouble with recording your dreams (which is an important thing to do anyway, on its own) is that you are remembering; your mind is relaying what happened to you in the dream, using available metaphor to make the memory "mean something." Normally this is fine, but it becomes a problem with transcendental experiences because the they are beyond anything your (or any human) mind has seen or done before, so there are no valid metaphors or symbols to attach to a memory to properly record it. So, by definition, what you remember might have nothing to do with what really happened. In fact, if something truly significant (and vivid) happened in a non-lucid, you stand an excellent chance of your memory leaving out whole chunks of the dream, and "misinterpreting" those bits that manage to get recorded.

Sageous, I think that I see what you mean. I think the vast majority (if not all?) will face this challenge when transcribing their dreams, ‘experiences’, or whatever.
Especially when we are 'spoon fed' surrealistic imagery, fantasy and effects from the world of films and corporate media, which can make things even more convoluted.
As you say, quite rightly, things could be easily misinterpreted when trying to remember afterwards, even if your approach is sincere. Hence, all the more important to write something down as soon as possible, rather than lose the thought or image which could be further bastardized by our reason or logic over time.

We do however rely on written accounts and the metaphors used in the great books to try to relive what the author is trying to convey to us. However I do accept this is not the same as actually experiencing the event in question. An event, sadly the vast majority of people will never experience in their lifetime.

For example interpretation regarding metaphors:
In Acts 9.etc.When Saul (Paul) is on the road to Damascus. He sees a ‘blinding light’ around him.
How many times do we hear or see the quote “Seeing the light.” So much so that the metaphor seems to carry less weight now than when it was first written.

Another example: ‘Ecstasy’. A description used for heightened states of conscious, euphoria, etc. Saints and visionaries, etc. are generally attributed in being able to reach this state.
However in today’s world if you see the word ‘ecstasy’ (Agreed - Removed from the context of a sentence.) Then one is likely to think of pleasure, generally in a sexual sense, or even MDMA.

Regards.

A couple of more comments, hopefully more constructive than not....

"Current human comprehension" isn't easily known or defined. I guess you knew that. I already comprehend things that the overwhelming majority of people do not comprehend, while at the same time other people comprehend things that I do not. Also, many common experiences are beyond 'current human comprehension' in the sense that they are not scientifically understood. The experience of color is an example.

I think that having an experience that is beyond anything anyone has experienced before is probably an unrealistically ambitious goal. People have been having remarkable mystic experiences for a long time. Plus a significant element of grace is necessary. I do think its realistic to aspire to understand something that nobody has understood before however. Those words aren't quite what I mean, I'll try to illustrate with an example. My awareness of re-existence is undoubtedly quite dim and limited compared to what some other people have been experiencing for millenia. However, since my topological imagination is more sophisticated than that of most mystics, I might experience it in ways that they can not. So potentially I can gain new understanding about our place in the larger scheme of things. As I indicated earlier, applying the experience to form definite thoughts seems to me to be an essential part of the process. And it seems to me that every person is uniquely positioned to do that, in one way or another.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

"Current human comprehension" isn't easily known or defined. I guess you knew that. I already comprehend things that the overwhelming majority of people do not comprehend, while at the same time other people comprehend things that I do not. Also, many common experiences are beyond 'current human comprehension' in the sense that they are not scientifically understood. The experience of color is an example.

I meant human comprehension as a collective statement -- that a transcendent experience exceeds all the metaphor we currently have on hand to associate the event to something we can understand. In other words, there is literally no reference available to explain what happened. This is especially true on a personal level, because it implies that a transcendent dream cannot be remembered, simply because your mind has no metaphor on hand to reference what happened. So, someone has a transcendent dream, or sees God (as Saul did above), and the best that your mind can do to describe it, after the fact, was "bright light." You know something bigger happened, but you simply cannot describe it. And yes, even someone who knows more and comprehends more efficiently than others will wind up in the same position, if he has a transcendent moment. It isn't about a particular human's ability to comprehend, it's about the experience exceeding that ability, regardless. I think that in a nutshell is the definition of transcendence.

Oh, and science, in my opinion, doesn't play a part in any of this.

I think that having an experience that is beyond anything anyone has experienced before is probably an unrealistically ambitious goal. People have been having remarkable mystic experiences for a long time. Plus a significant element of grace is necessary.

Ah, but I think I said somewhere above that people have been having transcendental experience for a very long time. I may even have said that we all might be having them in our dreams frequently. If I did not, I should have. It isn't that the events are not happening; it's that we are incapable of remembering them properly, if at all.

Yes, people have been having mystic experiences since the first caveman said "I am." Some of them even had them on purpose. The trouble is, more often than not these mystic experiences get translated into something that the person who had them wants or interprets them to be (Saul saw God, for instance), rather than what they truly were. Hell, you called them mystical experiences yourself, applying an almost religious note to an event that could be little more than seeing a new color, or feeling a new form of energy.

I have a feeling that most religions stem from one person's misinterpretation of a transcendental event -- many of them dreams. That translation comes when the person who had the experience attaches existing metaphor (God, light, love, dead relatives, etc) to describe an event that defies description, even to himself. It was too big a moment for "you had to be there," yet still it needed to be described, understood, but there is no way to remember it... Until, perhaps, now:

I do think its realistic to aspire to understand something that nobody has understood before however. Those words aren't quite what I mean, I'll try to illustrate with an example. My awareness of re-existence is undoubtedly quite dim and limited compared to what some other people have been experiencing for millenia. However, since my topological imagination is more sophisticated than that of most mystics, I might experience it in ways that they can not. So potentially I can gain new understanding about our place in the larger scheme of things. As I indicated earlier, applying the experience to form definite thoughts seems to me to be an essential part of the process. And it seems to me that every person is uniquely positioned to do that, in one way or another.

Seeking and finding experience that lies beyond human comprehension is by no means anything new. Aspiring to understand what was previously unknown is to me a symptom of sentience itself. But aspiring and doing are two very different things. It has certainly happened many times throughout history. I would guess that every human who managed to successfully attach metaphor (or math, as it were) to what they "saw," and therefore further extend the limit of human comprehension, has a name that still rests on the tongues of most of us, even if we don't really know why (i.e. Socrates, Jesus Christ. Buddha, Lao Tsu, Copernicus, Da Vinci, Tesla, Einstein). But these "transcendence translators" were each very likely possessors and purveyors of great and rare genius (grace, as well, I would imagine), and they pop up very very rarely in the general population. I wonder myself if the world has seen any since Einstein, even though there are so many billions of us. It's that rare.

But, as you say, new tools are always emerging, new forms of understanding, and of course freer access to knowledge than ever existed before. In a sense all the enlightenment shared by those few geniuses has become accessible to all. The limit of comprehension is expanded, but it is still there: we still regularly have experiences that defy all comprehension, even at its current advanced stage. And we have no geniuses around, it seems, to push that comprehension envelope further.

But maybe we no longer need genius.

LD'ing, when combined with that innate comprehension we all (potentially) possess, might be just the tool for any idiot to successfully recognize and remember transcendent experiences. Why? In all honesty, I'm not sure. I imagine if I were sure, I would not be posting stuff on websites, having better things to do. At this point I just think so. Perhaps because our minds may be accustomed to transcendental experiences in our dreams, and LD's serve to link our self-awareness with this condition. Perhaps because we might be able to assemble metaphors in our LD's that work in both directions, so that during the transcendental experience we have something to attach to it to make it real to us upon waking without diminishing its truth. Yes, this can also be done in waking-world states of deep meditation or mathematical nirvana -- but they require some genius we idiots do not possess. LD'ing can be mastered by anyone with a sense of self and a great deal of time on their hands.

Again, I don't know. But I do know that dreams of transcendence are more than just curiosities, when considered in the context of lucid dreaming. Which is why, I suppose, I started this thread.