I so agree with this woman, when she says "Past lives and future lives are working together in the now." This is totally happening to me.
Twin Flames and Soul Mates with Kelley Rosano - YouTube
Printable View
I so agree with this woman, when she says "Past lives and future lives are working together in the now." This is totally happening to me.
Twin Flames and Soul Mates with Kelley Rosano - YouTube
Here's the pitfall I see with this: I've been progressing pretty quickly lately, and I could very easily convince myself that I'm ascending if I needed to believe something like that. And I've met a girl lately who is like the perfect match for me. So I could very easily mistake her for my soul mate or twin flame, and then what? Then I get really, really clingy, inflexible and fixated on a very particular future. I mean yeah this girl seems like a great match for me now but things could change, relationships are tough. And if I trap myself into thinking that things definitely are spiritually impressive I impede my growth more than anything. I prefer not to buy into this kind of thing simply because if there are soul-mates/twin flames and there is an ascension, it is unnecessary to believe those things for them to exist, they will exist anyways. And I don't want to mistake fear for faith.
Another thing to believe is fate, once you believe in this which is either a positive or negative outcome all is based on the karma you have with this person in a past life and you both will undergo some learning between each other before you both move on or not, it's all based on learning.
To actually understand this video, you would have to see the others i posted at the religion/spirituality forum about reincarnation and another on past lives, you have to watch all 3 concepts to fully understand why. If you don't believe in past lives and reincarnation, then this is the reason why you don't believe in this because it is part of it.
I did watch your other videos. And I like the possibility, but the evidence was not compelling enough to invest belief. For me to agree something is true, there must be functional purpose in believing it. If there is no functional purpose, then whether or not the concept makes complete sense I'm still not going to believe in it, no matter how logical it sounds. I find the concept possible enough to consider. Reincarnation makes a lot of sense, I won't lie. But people use this belief for the wrong reasons. They use these beliefs to cope with fear of the unknown and of uncertainty. That is why I said I cannot confuse fear for faith, because that is what I typically see people of all religions doing.
Relationships bring with them a lot of fear, and this fear must be faced. It's definitely possible that someone could be my twin flame, but if that's the way it is then I do not need to believe it for it remain true. If I choose to believe it, I may be doing so for the wrong reasons. I may be doing so because I fear the uncertainty of the relationship. I may be clinging to the happy ending. I may be clinging to the hope that we will end up together.
Now I understand if the feelings are so intense that a diagnosis like soul-mate and twin flame might actually help cope with the intensity of emotion, itself. But to be healthy this diagnosis cannot be based from confirmation bias. In other words, if you're hungry for a soul-mate, you're in the worst position to label your connections as such.
I'd hate to come off so cynical, I do like the concept and reincarnation does make sense, but like 5 years ago or so I already had to deal with a false soul-mate, and I'm not going to fall back into that kind of clinging. And I urge everyone else to remain vigilant over their beliefs and expectations, as well.
Once you see this, youtube gives you other recommendations on the side about other similar stories and evidences.
Reincarnation -past life evidence - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...SrzpLoODo&NR=1
I don't need any more evidence. You have to keep something in mind here, I already said the evidence is very compelling. But I cannot invest belief in something as dangerous as a twisted expectation like soul-mates. Do you understand the potential to ruin yourself by investing in this belief? I mean certainly, they may exist. And what a floaty idea that would be, but they will exist whether or not I believe in them and my belief in them can only impede my growth.
To be clear, the only reason I believe in gravity is to stop me from walking off cliffs. I do not invest belief in things because they may or may not be true. I invest belief because they may be useful. If I were to invest in soul-mates, I could project the need for such a thing upon random targets that do not fall into that category and find myself left in despair. I've done it before, the coincidences were irrefutable at the time, she had to be my soul-mate. But she wasn't, and I tormented myself until I could let her go. Keep in mind, when I say the evidence that she was my soul mate was overwhelming I mean it, both mystical synchronicity and emotional intensity. And I spent a year suffering over the inability to let her go. And I'm not doing that again. I do not find it useful anymore. So while soul-mates may exist and I'd love to hammer out more details as far as discrepancies between soul mates and twin flames and karmic relationships and all that, you'll only get an intellectualization of the concept from me. I find it more useful to not believe in soul mates because then the inevitability of our connection can be itself and I don't have to lose sleep over it. Playing with possibility is great, but if ascension, soul mates and reincarnation are true, then they're true whether or not I believe in them. However if they're not true and I choose to believe in them, I stand to lose a piece of my identity if they're not true, which could lead me to defensively protecting their existence like some sort of religious zealot creating an afterlife to escape death. I don't mind thinking about and discussing these concepts, but I choose to manage my expectations.
Why not put the "if" away sometimes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Too many if's in your sentences. But i am not saying you should believe it die-heartedly, but to think about it everytime you lose a relationship and it will make more sense once you think this way.
I like if. My problem is not with the theory, my problem is with the possibility of clinging to floaty concepts and rebelling against reality because one cannot let go of the floaty concepts after they make it part of their identity. I know far too many people who grow too defensive too quickly because their floaty beliefs are challenged.
I thought you liked to rebel against reality, because nothing is what it seems ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
There is a tendency for people to use idealization to escape the fear of, for lack of a better term, a dead or purely material universe. This is what promotes what people often call faith, but is actually fear. My inclination is to face what is, even if I do not know what is. In fact, many so-called skeptics fall into the same zealousy, clinging to the dead universe in order to rid themselves of the disappointment that can so easily follow expectation in something transcendental. These are people who will entertain no possibility outside their model of reality.
My desire is to build no model of reality, for any model of reality is a rebellion against the absurd. And absurdity is the single principle that I do cling to.
There is something I call the gambler's dilemma (though the term may belong to a different concept). Because we cannot understand reality we also cannot perfectly predict results. But we still control our actions, and we can perform actions the same way a gambler places bets on the table. Results are out of reach, and understanding also out of reach. Despite the fact that we have no way of knowing if the information we have is true, we can still make decisions based upon our information, however flawed it may be. I neither believe nor do not believe in soul mates. That is why I have phrased my argument that I am unwilling to invest belief, rather than that I simply do not believe. The concept of soul mates is sound enough when due research has been done, but I do not advise leaping to conclusions regarding individual people, no matter how much evidence you may have. False soul mates are common, where the universe seems to purposefully create the belief that someone is your soul mate. The type of suffering created by this belief can be very conducive to growth, so I can understand why the phenomenon exists. But I've been through it already, and got out of it what I needed to. I'm fine with the concept of soul mates but I have no interest in acting as though an individual person is my soul mate or twin flame simply because it adds no benefit to my actions. It does not change the way I would treat her. It will only create the belief that our relationship is somehow eternal, and I prefer the belief that some people only exist in our lives for a shorter period of time than eternity. If there is someone like that out there, that's fantastic, but I would still appreciate her more if I continue believing that she is just a person I feel extremely connected to. Often times, we imagine spiritual connections with other people to escape loneliness, as well as escape the knowledge that the relationship will eventually end, whether before or after death. More importantly than the end of the relationship, we also enjoy believing that the relationship will not change, and change is something I prefer to accept rather than reject. While it feels nice to believe that two people will always feel the same way for each other, it is naive. It also impedes appreciation. Knowing our life's hallucinations are temporary reminds us how precious the present moment is.
Keyword: PhrasedQuote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
You can imply whatever euphemism you want to, but honestly, a person who is unwilling to analyze something, research something, understand something, whatever kind of mental process they're not prepared to engage in, it's still just the same as not believing in something, to some extent. (Because a person who doesn't believe in something obviously isn't going to invest time into believing it; of course this is disregarding someone who doesn't believe in something but is willing to go through scientific means in understanding it)
Especially since you're using words like “invest,” you set this implication that it's not worth engaging in, and I'm not saying you shouldn't do that, since after all, you have your own perception of reality to deal with. Generally, people who are unwilling to “invest” belief, or allow an open-minded mentality to understand why a certain person or group of people believe in something, usually are just being intolerant.
Putting investment into belief = leading towards believing it and/or considering the options of that belief that seems practical to fit into your schemata of life.
Unwilling to invest into belief = not engaged, not willing, not concerned, not allowing yourself to possibly consider the options and/or leading yourself to believing that. Which is the same as not believing in something based on your action to not engage in it.
You talk about transcendental implications usually leading towards resistance, rebellion, etc. (since their belief in transcendental thoughts do hold an attachment), but at the time time, this statement of yours seems to be an epitome of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Your desire to build no model of reality....although that is a practical way to go about learning and understanding whatever it is you want to engage in, it's still impractical for you to really think that this belief isn't a model of how you already conceptualize reality itself.
It's like you're completely disregarding that the brain can easily create models of realities, people, objects, etc., and can use the totality of the experiences you have and your current schemata to predict based on patterns. Although you are trying to be realistic in your desire, the desire itself cannot be completely devoid of being a model of reality. Which again, if you wanted to really believe that, you'd have to be transcendental or into dualistic thinking.
And based on what you stated, you seem to believe that your clinging to “absurdity,” which I'm sure you know is “nonsense” or “unreasonable,” and trying to associate it with not having the desire to build a model of reality honestly makes you just as much as a transcendentalist instead of a non-dualist (forgive me if non-dualist isn't the word that generally describes how you made that statement), sets the implication that you have an attachment towards it.
Meaning you're bound to create a model of reality based from that rudiment. So you're honestly trying to make sense of a principle that isn't really compatible to your desire to be this type of person who just accepts things for what they are and yet still clings to something and deems it's not a basis for a model of reality.
I honestly do not see coherent thinking in your desire to build no model of reality (when your brain is going to do it either way) is going to be related to your principle of absurdity and your endeavor of not trying to rebel or resist.
Even if you were trying to make it based only on absurdity, which you claim as this sole principle but you're still adding another claim that negates it, it's like
“SDAFGJfkadjaskfjasdkfkk23rf9we2i3kcw”
I agree with this, and one word: self-fulfilling prophecy; their preconceptions that the Universe plays a role with the soul mate combined with their attachments to the concept that consistently makes them feel good and not lonely is going to eventually be set as "real" to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Quote:
Originally Posted by OP
Again, different ambition within that principle (gambler's dilemma/fallacy) simply because it's sustained through the belief that more chances of failures means a higher probability of success (a more generalized example: A person eventually learning how to play music with exceptional skill after experimenting through their failures; the failures themselves can be subjective, whether it's just playing the music faster or reaching a certain note at a certain precision, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by OP
I wouldn't see hallucinations as this reminder of how precious the present moment is, especially if you're obviously talking about the immediate moment. Unless you're talking about anxiety, then yes, I guess it would be a plausible way to realize that anxiety itself is just our allowance of negative thinking to come into our minds.
And that allowance of negative thinking can block us from seeing how precious the moment is when we are speculating worst case scenarios that will mostly likely not happen instead of taking action and knowing things may go one way or the other.
But knowing your life's hallucinations, if you're going that route, then you're implying a person can go back to being reasonable, or has the ability to interchange between rationality and impracticality; that they can get themselves so deep into the delusion and still come back to the foundations they had before “hallucinating” or “going off the deep end.”
Again, it's really hard finding your basis on reality since you seem to interchange with absurdity and practicality, and I find a lot of distortions between that, but hey, it's your reality.
It appears as though I'm utilizing vocabulary which creates, for you, some unintentional connotations. Let me clarify.
When I say life's hallucinations remind us how precious the present moment is, what I mean is that because you die, all life is therefore a hallucination. Because nothing is permanent, everything changes, and there is no thing which has any sort of eternal structural integrity, therefore all of reality is a temporary experience. Life, itself, becomes a dream when considering death, and not just your death but the death of the present circumstance. All the big, bad tribulations at present will mean absolutely nothing in 10 years, and you'll probably wonder why you spent so much time fixated on them instead of enjoying life. That is why I call them hallucinations, because life's circumstances are but passing dreams and nightmares which we will eventually wake from.
When I talk about the absurd, I am talking about absurdism. Absurdism is essentially the encounter between the world and the mind that attempts to make sense out of it. This encounter creates, from time to time, a feeling as though one does not belong. All truisms are reduced to poetry. Even if there is something true out there, it remains out of the mind's grasp. Meaning remains out of the mind's grasp. And that feeling that there is no meaning is the absurd.
And you're right in that I do have a model of reality, or an ethos. To clarify, I mean to say that I do not believe my model of reality is true. Innately I am full of beliefs, but logically I understand that none of them are actually true, nor their opposites. It's all just information for me to utilize for making decisions. In my previous post, I explain in detail why it is more serviceable not to believe in soul mates. I do not believe for the sake of grasping truth, I believe for the sake of making better decisions. I am going to appreciate someone more if I believe they are a temporary experience rather than a permanent companion. I am going to anticipate change better if I understand it's inevitable and do not get locked into thinking the love will stay as strong as it was at the beginning without any effort. I get more out of a relationship without adding soul mates into the concoction.
However, that does NOT mean that one should close their mind... to anything. Like I have repeated in this thread, exploring is integral. Just because my information is neither true nor untrue and all the information I ever find on the subject will also be neither true nor untrue (as well as their opposites) doesn't mean I can't gain anything by finding more information. And besides, at least I know the qualifiers of soul mates, twin flames and karmic mates. At least I'm better suited for a proper diagnosis. In fact, people can fall into a false soul mate trap more easily if they choose not to research it, or worse yet if they wait to research it until after they've already fallen head over heels and become victims of confirmation bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Hey Original Poster, thanks for clarifying that. I apologize for my inability to get what you really meant just from the word “absurdity” before. Now that you mention absurdism, which is now a mentality how one sees the universe and their existence in it, that I understand.
It's just that meaning of “absurdity” was just the person themselves being unreasonable and chaotic, and not the concept of the universe being purposeless and chaotic. I mean, I apologize if I was being too serious in how you used those words, but I had a feeling you meant something else, which is exactly what you said. So again, I understand what you mean now.
It ties in with another concept you mentioned pertaining to not rebelling or resisting it (The Universe).
I guess that's a better way of putting it in unique and poetic way of defining our ability of retrospect, or hindsight. But I still think that the hallucination association you're using is a bit too extreme. And I know you know what a hallucination is, but again, it's just an experience pertaining to something that wasn't present; something that wasn't static in your reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Now again, I'm sure with your mentioning of tribulations, we DO take things too seriously in life and should just enjoy it instead, and I agree that your usage of hallucination makes sense for that interpretation. But still, even if the experiences themselves are fleeting dreams, to that person, it was static to them at the time; and I mean static as something they were accustomed to.
They were either not mentally prepared enough to see things from a different point of view, which is essentially why they “suffered” for it and finally utilized hindsight/retrospect to realize,
“Wow, I got so serious over that?”
That's the thing that I feel is superb about hindsight/retrospect, because it's just a way of interchanging intuition and logic to realize that certain things we've done and obsessed over what should be right and wrong was in fact just preconceptions skewed all over the place.
There's always some risk of the information we find to be true, untrue, etc., and that's what concerned me in your principle of “absurdism” now. Now it's clear to me that you have the mentality of someone who is interested in exploring, but wants to analyze things first and utilize what he knows as a whole to make interpretations of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
So really, with the general definition, absurdism also involves that the attempt to understand will ultimately fail, but from what you stated here, your practice of it, or clinging on to it is just everything about it but the "ultimate fail" part because you're still engaged and interested in understanding and gaining from it.
I wouldn't say your interpretations are true nor untrue by the way, if you go about it through scientific means, repeated trials (because again, the exploration obviously means you find something different to experiment with), and even going through peer-review is what's practical.
Even if the repeated trials might equal to "4 x zero power = zero power", the scientific process of understanding them is what I believe leads to patterns that you can add on to your perspective, both good and bad; and even though our time is short here (a fleeting dream), I would presume that people who sustain your perspective as well in the generations to come will realize that the mentality of “absurdism” itself pertaining to their inability to find truth from the Universe (out of the mind's grasp) was just a “hallucination”.
It's easy for people to be absolutely awed and amazed at the wonders of the Universe, and it's no surprise that we think of it as vast, thus potentially being purposeless and chaotic simply because we do not have enough information to catch up with the progress of the Universe's expansion (and probably won't have enough anytime soon if religion keeps degrading our potential to use scientific method before believing in something without a shred of evidence).
And even if we can manipulate 1000s of genes instead of one gene at a time, it still won't be enough, but the thing is, like you said, despite the Universe being chaotic and purposeless (absurdism), the endeavor is AT LEAST worth it for attempting to ease away from that same “hallucination” that the Universe is purposeless and chaotic.
Even if our horizon is limited (the range in which we can percieve), as long as science continues "to be getting there" in understanding and interpreting concepts that don't have a shred of evicence, the speculation of defining the unknown will be less of a suffering and more of a motivation.
I completely agree with most of this, so I'll just avoid being an echo chamber for this. :P But for the part that I don't agree with, I do feel people do research it to some extent, but see, here's the thing:Quote:
In fact, people can fall into a false soul mate trap more easily if they choose not to research it, or worse yet if they wait to research it until after they've already fallen head over heels and become victims of confirmation bias.
They don't want to research it to the extreme before attempting it because then they'll start having expectations that leads towards greater confirmation bias.
(Because if they researched it well enough, they will most likely believe a certain thing has to happen to confirm it being probable (the twin souls in this case)).
There are limits and qualifications that establish what should be an ideal amount of knowledge before engaging into something like twin souls. But honestly, a person is going to want to get the basics of it down first (light research), and then learn from their own eyes and experience instead of potentially relying on psychological predispositions of it.
Now what you said about the person going too far in the deep end to be able to research it properly, it sort of depends if the person can or cannot shift back to the foundations they had before going into that deep end.
An analogy of this is what I used for someone before:
You're a google search engine. (The foundation of what you believe in before you went into the concept of Twin Souls)
You send Google Spiderbots to learn something (twin souls).
You rely that these spider bos (which is you exploring), will come back to the foundation (the base of the search engine) and add on to your totality of what you think Twin Souls, Karmic partners, etc. really is.
Some people aren't able to go back (which is why they're essentially in limbo or "hallucination" because the google spider bot had an error in sending that information back), but it doesn't mean it's impossible for them to come to a revelation that they must go back to that foundation.
:boggle:what a long post lol
I'm sure your post is very well thought out. While I wish you had more concision in your words, I'll be sure to respond to it by the end of the weekend.
The hope for such things as soul mates is a trap. You ARE the love you are looking for. If people are bound by karma, what happens when karma is seen to be an illusion? Rather find the love within yourself. If you see the love in another person, like this girl you like, realize that it isn't her that you like but you recognize your own love reflected from her. By all means share it with her.
If you realize that you are no more real than a dream character, and the girl as well, then you will have knowledge, lucidity and love. If both of you realize that, then you both will be wonderful. There is no soul, just a stream of sensations or dreams which we are dream characters in. Two people can merge mind-streams, in fact whenever two people are interacting that is what is happening.
But the hope that somewhere out there there is a soul mate for you is just bullshit and a way to prolong your suffering and loneliness and not appreciating people for who they are because they don't live up to your ideal of a perfect partner. All the qualities we project onto the perfect partner are all qualities which glorify the ego, making it harder and harder to find peace and bliss in the fact that you are the love that you seek.
A hint of solipsism there, at least in terms of it being seen as using the totality of your love (the love within you) as true, and imposing that love towards others; but even so, I take that back because you stated this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
This is what concerns me because if a person "realizes" they are no more real than a dream character, which by definition is a character in your dream (in your mind), then with your statement in quotes below...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
...since the realization of you being no more real than a dream character, wouldn't that mean that the belief of "you are the love you are looking for" has the possibility of being an illusion (no more real)? If you are bound that this constraint of a person not being more real as a dream character (again, I know you're using comparisons), how can you find yourself (or find "you are the love you are looking for") if:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
-Promoting the idea that "You ARE the love you are looking for" (believing within your mind that endeavor is real)
- But stating a person is no more real than a dream character ( a character in your dreams within your mind; which is also not real in this reality because they're projections in your mind.)
- And now going to ->Projecting your love to that other person and thus having deeper affinity towards that person.
Which is essentially glorifying your ego as well(you're honoring your own projection of love towards that person).
Then you state how a person projects qualities onto their belief of a perfect partner is glorifying the ego, which makes it, as you statedSee where I'm getting at? If a person realizes they aren't more real than a dream character (someone in their mind), wouldn't that augment the difficulty of finding in your own mind, "you are the love that you are looking for"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
Even when you believe "You are the love you are looking for," your mentioning of how the realization that a person is no more real than a dream character, it would make their belief as much as an illusion as the person bound by karma.
If people are attempting "merge" mind-streams, then it's just skewing empathy( the attempt in imagining and understanding being in that person's shoes). So with mind-streams, it's a continuity of the mind, but I don't think (or that if it's probable) people can merge mind-streams in this case, but they can use empathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
There's a difference here; Merging mind-streams implies you find the person who thinks nearly the same as you are (which would be the ideal and "perfect" partner or friend), and having continuity, no flaws in understanding.
But it doesn't seem to be that way since people can't really have continuity with another person consistently (because practical relationships involve knowing how to compromise because of conflicts), so empathy is creating models of similarities (but is limited by that person's own experience) that attempts to establish continuity (mindstreams); and the attempt is likely to fail in understanding.
But mindstream is having no flaws in understanding (and it's unlikely for us to do that consistently) and because of that discontinuity empathy may have, it isn't the same as mindstream.
Wow.
First of all... Love is not an illusion. The ego, the sense of self is. Love is letting go of the sense of self in the heart. The heart is where the roots of the sense of self are. The head is the branches and the sense organs are the leaves or fruits. This is an analogy.
So letting go of the sense of self is love. That is found in your own heart. If you project that onto another you want them to give you their sense of self and you want to give them your sense of self. It is a confusion. The sense of self is an illusion. It can not be given, it can only be dropped, seen through, understood to be false.
The mind stream thing is just like dream sharing. If two people are in each other's awareness their mind streams are merged. When I am paying for groceries my mindstream is merged with the cashier's. They don't merge forever. A mind stream is a technical term for the continuous flow of moments made out of sensations. And finding a person who is as similar to me as possible sounds horrible to me. I like people very different from me. But maybe that is what I am doing wrong. But then again, there is nobody like me.
This letting go of the sense of self in the heart unties the knot and tension and stress of ages, as you finally love yourself as you love others. Tears of joy and laughter and complete non-dual love when you relax your heart and love yourself the way you know you deserve.
What happens next is a non-dual awareness lucidly arises from your heart and shines out your eyes, projecting the whole environment out as your mandala. Well that is what is always happening, just non-lucidly. Then you see that this is a dream and you and your beloved are one heart, one mind, one awareness.
Firstly I never said love was an illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
You used "dream characters" along with the notion of "you are the love that you are looking for." Dream characters is not a useful analogy if you're trying to make that previous notion true.
Ego is consciousness, which equals you
"Ego: A concept used to describe certain mental processes including perception, memory, defenses and sometimes thought of as the rational, cognitive functions of the self."
http://www.nchpeg.org/index.php?opti...126&Itemid=118
Quote:
So letting go of the sense of self is love. That is found in your own heart. If you project that onto another you want them to give you their sense of self and you want to give them your sense of self. It is a confusion. The sense of self is an illusion. It can not be given, it can only be dropped, seen through, understood to be false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
So if you're projecting love (letting go of the sense of self) onto another, then the whole point of finding that "you are the love that you are looking for" is pointless in this case (because you just let go of your ability to sense it). This isn't rocket science. You just stated (the second quote above me), that a person's love would be reflected from her, which is your own projection of your own love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
If a person is trying to find inside their mind that "you are the love that you seek," they are going to have a sense of self, a realization of self. So you said giving them your sense of self is confusion. <--- That's where it's just contradicting. Of course a person can't give all their sense of self, but projecting that new sense of love is still awareness, or "lucidity" of part of your sense of self.
Okay, you're mentioning dream sharing, which is obviously something up for debate. Associating mind stream with dreaming sharing itself (which is only people's presumptions and wanting to believe it's true without a shred of evidence) just makes the whole contradiction I was pointing out in your statement more prevalent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
Again, I'm going to repeat this, if you let go sense of self, which is letting go your perception of finding the "you are the love you are looking for, how are you going to use the newly found love yourself as you love others if you have that sense released/blocked?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
And yet you go back to the contradiction withQuote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneiroaut
You just took dualistic thinking when you mention the phenomena was non-dual awareness (you and your beloved are two people obviously, making oneness from that is dual awarness).
Oneness = exactly the same (if you were still using non-dual thinking). You just said (if you're reading what I just quoted from you) you think that finding people as similar as you would be horrible.
It's obvious no one is going to be exactly like you, no doubt about that, but before you were talking about finding people similar to you as possible.
Finding oneness with that personal partner when you know you couldn't be exactly the same in mind, awareness, and heart is dualistic awareness, not non-dual awareness.
Non-dual awareness would just be realization of you, and you alone, not with your metaphorical association with someone else.
When you become lucid in a dream, you realize you are not the dream character. Then what are you? The whole dream. That is the love that you are. The totality. I am not saying this to convince or convert, but to explain if you don't understand. I know it gets confusing when words are all we have to communicate with. I am pointing at something that can only be understood with experience, don't try to debate with the finger that is pointing. Look at what is here and now as your direct experiencing. This direct experiencing, prior to intellect and conceptualization, is lucid awareness. In direct experience, prior to thought, confusion doesn't exist other than a sensation. Any word can be argued with and the logic proven empty, as all words and points of view are empty. What I am saying is a direct pointing to this lucid awareness. Rather than debate ideas with a dream character, I can only politely insist that this is a dream. I can only try to be a reality check.
When you're aware that your dreaming, you realize you're shifted in another state of consciousness. If you are the whole dream, that implies you can fathom the processes of how the subconscious can express the dream to near perfection (point being, it's too much for you contain). Having complete control of the dream with lucid dreaming is almost impractical in that sense, because you have to be coginzant of many many many many many many processes that go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
I get your metaphorical notion of embracing the love that you are finally who you are in a lucid dream, it's all you, all within the confines of your mind. But again, we're not talking about that. We're talking about Twin flames and the attempts to associate it with this reality.
Oh no, I understand that you aren't trying to force anything down at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
Lucid awareness = aware awareness, being a bit redundant in the usage there.Quote:
I know it gets confusing when words are all we have to communicate with. I am pointing at something that can only be understood with experience, don't try to debate with the finger that is pointing.
Look at what is here and now as your direct experiencing. This direct experiencing, prior to intellect and conceptualization, is lucid awareness.
Yes, I know what you mean by how things in dreaming can't be explained by words and has to be comprehended through experience. What I'm saying is, your association with dream characters to twin flames/soul mate/, and how you're no more real than them (whether if solely in the dream realm or not), is not adding substance to the whole point of this thread.
We're talking about reality here. Not dreams.
Please wake up.Quote:
I can only politely insist that this is a dream. I can only try to be a reality check.
OK, you are entitled to your opinion. Like I said, I am not trying to convert you. The universe surely is big enough for many opinions.
And like I said, I fully accept that you aren't trying to convert me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
I agree fully. :cheeky:Quote:
The universe surely is big enough for many opinions.
Maybe the confusion is you are thinking I am saying that once you realize you are a dream character then you disappear or something. No, the body is still there, and the awareness is still there, so the heart is still there, but everything is seen to arise out of awareness, like a dream. You know that you are this awareness, not the dream character you thought you were. But the dream character you thought you were is still there and it says "Wow! So this is how it was the whole time!"
This I will not debate, because it is pointless.
But I love a good philosophy debate. This statement in particular can open up a whole can of worms:
But I don't want to hijack the thread.Quote:
We're talking about reality here. Not dreams.
For over a year now, I’ve been periodically visited in my dreams by this man who I’ve never met in real life but every time I see him or sense him I recognize him. It’s both exhilarating and comforting having him near. Sometimes he speaks to me, sometimes he doesn’t. sometimes he appears as a shadowy figure with no discernible features but I recognize him the moment he touches me, say to caress the back of my neck, lift my legs to tuck me into bed etc. My dream body tingles at his touch. The times I have seen him, the main features of his that stick in my mind are his dark, dark eyes and pale skin. Never when he shows up does he do me any harm, in fact he always seems to be trying to help me in some way. Every time I’ve dreamt of him it’s always felt different than regular dreams that are just full of random nonsense. After a while I began to wonder if perhaps he might not be just a figment of my imagination. Then I came across the twin flame theory. Now bear with me, I’m not deluded. I don’t buy into every pseudo-science, paranormal crackpot theory I read, especially not one talking about two souls joining together because I believe we all have our own individuality and it is something we should hang on to. These dreams however are ongoing and always they leave me in a strange state of bliss that I began to wonder: do I possibly have a twin flame? Has he been visiting me?