Dissolving Body Image

Dissolving Body Image

Have we not all had a dream in which we were not aware of having a body, but were only a disembodied point of perception? It has happened, certainly, but I can’t say that I ever caused it by wishing it so during a Lucid Dream.

Would there be any advantages to dropping one’s body image? I think Lucid Dreaming depends so much upon one’s Energy Level, that perhaps it would be a saving economy to dispense with sustaining the illusion of having a body. Yet, perhaps sustaining Body Image is no more wasteful of energy than sustaining any other piece of the Dream Scenery; however, the Astral Projection and Out of Body people suppose it a real coup to be able to shake everything off except for the simplest point of perception, allowing them to go to higher levels. But if it should allow the Astral People to go higher, then shouldn’t it also allow us dreamers to go deeper. The smallest objects can get through the finest filters.

Even if it does not give a particularly significant advantage in boosting dream efficiency, still we can admit that often the Dream Body Image can be troubling. Do we not often find ourselves with distorted faces and repugnant bodies in dreams. Lucidnina remarked on having had a dream with the Pope only to find that her face had been rather unwashed. Being a simple point of perception would eliminate these embarrassments.

But then we would need to wonder about Agency, that is, our ability to carry out actions and communications, if we are not embodied. It’s true that every time I have found myself in a dream as a Point of Perception, it was enough to simply witness events. In this sense, sometimes Knowledge is enough Power. Yet it would be interesting to know whether we could still Act and Communicate even if we were disembodied – to speak to others telepathically and to move objects with a kind of dream psycho-kinesis.

But perhaps we may find that the Body Image is nothing that can be too easily dispensed with, yet we may discover that it can be modified. Anne Catherine Emmerich, Catholicism’s foremost visionary and seer, who many may recognize as having been the source for Mel Gibson’s screen play for the movie “The Passion”, she once had a Vision of the Transfiguration of Christ. The Bible mentions Moses and Elijah showing up to have a brief visit with Christ, but Anne Catherine Emmerich noticed that Malachi also was present. What was distinctive about Malachi was that where Moses and Elijah appeared quite human, though in glorified bodies, Malachi was must less anthropomorphized than the other two, and according to our Seer had the look of being much more like a Pure Spirit.

So, if we cannot rid ourselves of Body Image entirely, perhaps we could work in our dreams for a more spiritual presentation.

My whole life seems to have been a persuit of "the nothingness". a spiritual ascent into ZERO. i think for this reason it would be a whole lot healthier for me to get more visceral and personalised in my dreams.

So, not my cup of tea, I'm dissolved enough in real life thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by voidofform
My whole life seems to have been a persuit of \"the nothingness\". *a spiritual ascent into ZERO. *i think for this reason it would be a whole lot healthier for me to get more visceral and personalised in my dreams.

So, not my cup of tea, *I'm dissolved enough in real life thanks.

---

Wow, that was fast. I wasn't going to bring that up in the original essay, so as not to sound too pendantic, hoping somebody else would elude to the subject. And you did. But your angle was just the opposite of what I anticipated -- you are too detached, too liberated, too enlightened. Oh well, I can answer that one too, I suppose.

The way the athletic coaches insist that muscles must be broke down before they can be built up; the way Military Drill Sergeants insist that personalities must be broke down before they can be built up, I suspect in the same way the psyche could probably benefit from being reduced to nothing -- as you say, to get to something higher and better, go through the Zero Point.

Does this sound familiar, to see in one's dreams a multiplicity of ideal Dream Characters with our own character being somewhat the Sidekick, if at that? Now, in dreams where I started out as a disembodied consciousness -- a sort of 'fly on the wall' -- it often happened that once such an ideal character would appear, I would then inhabit that Body. So we should consider just what that might do to us, that is, for our structural personality. We went asleep as purely ourselves, but, shaking off the body's personal persona, in a dream suddenly saw, heard, willed and acted as an entirely different 'Character'.

As the farmer in New Hampshire says, "you cannot get there from here". While you still persist in your materially assigned body within your dreams, you will be in something of a concrete and immutable matrix. It is only by going through the 'zero point' of being disembodied that you can finally be able to be free to lam into one of the more Ideal Dream Characters, and then subsequently awake to have pulled some of that nobility into your what had been your own flat existence.

too detached? definitely.
too liberated? maybe/maybe not.
too enlightened? not even close.

i've pulled my personality apart, fed it through the shredder, and tried to recreate myself by making a sculpture from the confetti. but it doesn't work.

enlightenment isn't zeroness or becoming a ghost. enlightenment is simply being without judgement. being part of the world: mind,body and soul.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by voidofform
…. enlightenment isn't zeroness or becoming a ghost. enlightenment is simply being without judgement. being part of the world: mind,body and soul.

---

But isn’t suspending all judgment, and judgment is discernment, a bit like becoming, if not a ghost, then much like a zombie? I do understand what you are saying, and it is a bit Taoist, early Buddhist, and Stoic in the way it perceives Enlightenment. I sees Enlightenment as being the most painless way of perceiving and reacting to reality. Its not really Enlightenment at all, but more like a Liberating way of simply giving up. ‘Surrender’ they call it. Being beaten down is more like it. And that is how much of spiritual discipline used to work. The Zen Masters do not publicize that the most important of their tools was, and still is the Big Bamboo Cane used to beat Zen into their students and young monks. I had a Lady Friend who was always fascinated by Zen, until she actually enrolled in an authentic Class run by traditional Masters. She became disillusioned very quickly when they began to beat her almost without interruption. We made some phone calls and had those silly and violent ‘Masters’ arrested for assault. But, yes, if she had not the Civil Authorities to vindicate her human dignity, then I suppose these Masters would eventually have killed off any last strain of independence or self-will. But is that Enlightenment?

When I think of Enlightenment, I think of a Positive and not a Negative – of the Great Saints of the Zoroastrian, the Indic and the Catholic Civilizations. The Fruit of True Enlightenment is a facility with the Supernatural and the Miraculous. It is not mere surrender to the problems of life and nature, but Transcendence and Mastery over the material.

maybe enlightenment is more related to "loving what is". the whole dissociated thing doesn't have any value i think.

i feel if i could learn to love *everything*, the butterflies, the bombs, the flowers, the psychopaths, the sunsets, rape, war, the stars, the shadows, the colours, sulphur dioxide, *everything*, i would be closer to enlightenment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by voidofform
maybe enlightenment is more related to \"loving what is\". * the whole dissociated thing doesn't have any value i think.

i feel if i could learn to love *everything*, *the butterflies, the bombs, the flowers, the psychopaths, the sunsets, rape, war, the stars, the shadows, the colours, sulphur dioxide, *everything*, i would be closer to enlightenment.

---

You view is a venerable old way of looking at it. the Ancient Sages used to say about the same thing -- about loving everything and everybody -- that is, before they would purchase a secluded hermitage out in the jungle or up on the side of some remote mountain where everything that would be available to be loved would be of their specific and careful choise. So it seems that those who had popularized such philosophy may have been a tad disingenuous about it. As I said, it is an aged philosophy. It has largely been replaced by the higher ethical Mystical Views of Catholicism in the West and Mahayana Buddhism in the East... oh, and Zoroastrianism in the middle who may well have been the originator of the view that a good Mystic did not have to condone Evil for the sake of getting by in the world. Afterall, isn't your indiscriminate Love for Evil, War, Hatred, and Bigotry... just so you can retain your undisturbed peace of mind... isn't that all an effective condoning of everything that is demonic. Certainly every Catholic Saint, Sufi Saint (Zoroastrian), and Mahayana Buddhist Saint who shown with the Bliss and Grace of God, certainly they all proved that one can be Enlightened without surrendering to the very Devil.

We only need to see your view at work. Marcus Aerilius was both Emperor and Rome and a Stoic Philosopher, and the Stoics, like the Taoists and the Hinayana (small wheel) Buddhists largely believed in just what you are saying -- make no judgements and embrace everything. Suspend all guilt and compunction as averse to their most precious of all things -- Peace of Mind. So Marcus Aerilius was a virtual monster on the throne. He thought the Catholic stance on morality was inimical to the amoralism of Pagan Stoicism and so quite lightheartedly engaged in one of the worst major persecutions before God would finally get sick and tired of these stoics and us Supernatural Intervention in order to give the Western World over to a Catholic Emperor.

One may wonder what the attraction of Amoralism is? Well, we only need to look at modern Conservativism. They don't call it Amoralism. They call it FREEDOM now. It comprises the condoning of every form of usury, exploitation and the legalization of corruption and the recasting of bribery as Freedom of Expression, allowing Corporations to openly purchase politicians. We can look at some of Conservativism's big election issues. It might cost money to fund Universal Health Care, and so screw sick people and let them die, and elect Conservatives to protect us from any Call to Charity or Humanity. Then we have the interests of War. The only Industry that is still solidly healthy and secure from imports from the Developing World, is the Weapon's Industry where secrecy requires all major weapon's systems be domestically manufactured. To keep such an industry healthy, the weapons must be expended from time to time. This requires that Enemies be singled out. The process is all quite Amoral... well, except for the moral component. Much Hatred is appealed to as you Amoralists drum up Wars for your convenience. It is called "letting loose the Dogs of War". Presidents who tell lies in order to advance their interests should worry a bit more that people may actually believe them. After the immediate goals of their Wars have been achieved, do we not still retain all of the hangover of residual hatred and ill will? For instance, the American Public has been steadily conditioned to hate Islam -- to equate Islam with a broad and vaguely defined 'Terrorism' which oddly enough is never applied to Israel who in hundreds of instances have targetted for murder civilians who simply oppose the wrongful occupation of Palestine (recently they shot a missile from a helocopter, killing a cluster of people in the street in order to get what they termed a 'Terrorist Leader" -- the young man was only 24 years old. What "Leader" is only 24 years old? ), or at least people in the West are lead to suspect Islam of ingrained malevolence. Now, how will that ever help in the Cause of World Peace and Unity?

And it doesn't help that people who profess a certain air of Spirituality stand by a condone such behavior. Such Valueless Mysticism went obsolete two thousand years ago. I guess you didn't get the memo.

whoever said individual enlightenment was beneficial for society?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by voidofform
whoever said individual enlightenment was beneficial for society?

---

First, is there even such a thing as “individual” enlightenment. Anything that poses the Individual against the Oneness of Everything must by its very separation be far short of any True Enlightenment. And I am supported in this opinion by the most ancient of all Metaphysical Mythologies – the Story of the Lucifer and his Fall from Grace. He departed from Divinity when he became absorbed in his own Individuality. Indeed, that is what was meant by Lucifer having been the Most Splendid of Angels, that is, nothing appears more splendid to the Individual than Himself, that is, unless there finally descends the Grace of Humility when finally the individual can see himself in true context.

Just this last week I had a dream that correlates here. In this dream I was thinking of a Musical Play with the most beautiful and upbeat songs and dances… all quite elaborate and it would be a smash hit. Then, further along in the dream I met with a Theatrical Troupe and, low and behold, they were producing the very Play I had envisioned. Well I went up to the Producer and I told him I simply had to take part in their venture because their Play was rather the same thing as my Play. It sounded so odd, my explanation. But he was quite in accord. I was expecting him to take me into the Theatre where the players were rehearsing, but instead we went into the Jungle and then up The Mountain.

You see, there is No Enlightenment until you Realize you are Part of the Whole, and that strips you of any actual individuality, as you become the quintessential Team Player.

The Book of Lies, chap 83.

The Blind Pig

Many becomes two: two one: one Naught. What
comes to Naught?
What! shall the Adept give up his hermit life, and
go eating and drinking and making merry?
Ay! shall he not do so? he knows that the Many is
Naught; and having Naught, enjoys that Naught
even in the enjoyment of the Many.
For when Naught becomes Absolute Naught, it becomes again the Many.
And this Many and this Naught are identical; they
are not correlatives or phases of some one deeper
Absence-of-Idea; they are not aspects of some
further Light: they are They!
Beware, O my brother, lest this chapter deceive thee!

;)