This affirmation seems like it contains some piece of wisdom that I personally value but I don’t think it’s the same one as in Eastern Dream Yoga. Here’s a passage from… - Wikipedia - :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Dream Yoga
According to contemporary Dzogchen teachers Namkhai Norbu, Lopön Tenzin Namdak and Tenzin Wangyal, the perceived reality and the phenomenal world are considered to be ultimately "unreal"—an "illusion" (refer Mahamaya): a dream, a phantasmagoria, a thoughtform. All appearances and phenomena are a dream or thoughtform, inter- and intra- reflecting and refracting jewels and mirrors of possibility and potentiality, "arising in relationships" or "dependent co-arising". These lineages hold it and due to the realisations of the sadhana, that the dream of life and regular nightly dreams are not dissimilar, and that in their quintessential nature are non-dual. The non-essential difference between the general dreaming state and the general waking experience is that the latter is generally more concrete and linked with attachments, saṅkhāra and skandha; whereas, standard non-lucid dreaming is ephemeral and transient, and generally culturally reinforced as baseless and empty. In Dream Yoga, living may become the dream, and the dream may become the living.
…
the dreamer should contemplate how all phenomena both in the dream and in waking life are similar because they change, and that life is illusory in both states because of this constant change. Both the objects in the dream and objects in the world in the Buddhist worldview are therefore empty and have no substantial nature.
I do find value in observing the
changing and
interdependent nature of all - things - … but I don’t like the conclusive insinuation: dreams = not real (because change? Because not independent?) Imagine a world where nothing is changing. Where everything is independent; nothing interacts with each other. Where perhaps perceived realities would still exist such as in our own… somehow (it would actually be impossible under our world’s natural laws)… those perceived realities would be stagnant, stuck in one state, incapable to reach out to each other in anyway. If anything, this exercise emphasizes how
ridiculous it is to invalidate the reality of our world with words such as “changing” and “interdependent”, some of the characteristics that give this world “life” and “value” from our perceived reality point of view.
That’s another reason I am disappointed when people think morality needs objectivity to exist. The whole point is that there are no rules. My morals are not some unchanging independent thing that exists above all else. Maybe today, in front of a dilemma of disclosing personal information to curious relations, I will find value in opening up to others, being honest, brave, and transparent. The next year in a very similar situation, maybe I will feel wiser to be private, prudent, and moderate.
It’s actually the lack of “substance” that makes life fertile, ironically.
So... When I think “I am dreaming” in waking life, I feel a sort of way. I feel like there’s some spiritual wisdom there but I’m not sure what it is. Surely it’s not “nothing is real.” Anyway, as I described, from my point of view
“I am dreaming” could be more pragmatically translated to “there is life” (change, interaction) if those really are the main attributes of dreams.
Another thought I had is that the verb “to dream” is simultaneously
receptive and active because it describes a perceptual experience (similar to I am watching, I am seeing, I am listening) with the added concept that it all comes from within (it is creative). In this sense, the mantra “I am dreaming” could be a reminder of the receptive and creative aspects of our “self.”
Tldr; I don’t find the “this is not real” insinuation in the “I am dreaming” mantra very pragmatic. I am thinking it might also insinuate “there is life” or “I am receptive and creative.” What are your thoughts?
